The violin making manual

Measurements of the Antonio Stradivari 'Messiah' 1716 violin, in millimeters

	Back	Belly	Misc
LENGTH taken from the side of the button	356	356
Upper bouts	167.5	167
Middle bouts, taken at the narrowest point	108.3	108.9
Lower bouts	208	207.5
Arching height, across arch, includes averaged edge thickness	15.4	13.8
Stop length	bass 196.5	treble 195
Corner width	upper 6.7-6.9	lower 7.0-7.2
Purfling distance from edge	3.75
Purfling width	white 0.6	black 0.4	total 1.4
Purfling depth back only	bouts 1.1-1.2	corners 0.8-1
Overhang	bouts 2.4-6	corners 1.8-2.3
Button	height 14.5	width 17.1	thickness 3.8
String length	328.5
Neck length	129

Average Measurements of the Violin in millimeters

		1/4	1/2	3/4	7/8	4/4
CORPUS	length	285	320	335	345	355
	width
	upper bout ca.	133	145	156	162	168
	middle bout ca.	91	97	105	109	112
	lower bout ca.	163	182	195	200	206
SCROLL	length ca.	85	94	101	104	108
RIBS	height - uniform	26	28	29	29.5	30
	thickness ca.	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.1
MOLD	thickness					12
LININGS	thickness	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.7	1.8
	width	4	5	5	6	6
BLOCKS size	upper	41/13	44/13	47/14	48/14	50/15
	lower	36/12	39/12	42/13	43/13	45/14
	upper corners	14/7	15/8	15/8	16/9	22/10
	lower corners	16/8	17/9	17/9	18/10	21/11
ARCHING HEIGHT	back ca.	13.2	13.7	14.1	14.3	14.5
	belly ca.	13.7	14.3	14.9	15.2	15.5
BACK average thickness at:	sound post	3.2	3.5	3.9	4.1	4.3
	upper and lower bouts 2	2	2.2	2.3	2.5
	sinking (in general)	1.8	1.8	2	2.1	2.3
	sinking at center bout	2	2	2.2	2.3	2.5
	edges	3.1	3.2	3.4	3.7	3.8
BELLY average thickness at:	sound post	2.5	2.5	2.8	2.9	3
	upper and lower bouts	2.2	2.2	2.4	2.5	2.7
	sinking (in general)	2	2	2.1	2.3	2.4
	sinking at center bout	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.6	2.7
	edges	3.2	3.3	3.5	3.9	4
EDGES	overhang from ribs					2.2
CORNERS	width					7 - 7.5
	thickness, back ca.					4
	thickness, belly ca.					4.2
PURFLING	distance from edge ca.	3	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.5-3.8
	width ca.	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.2
FF-HOLES length	between ends of wings	62	68	71	73	75
	between upper eyes	35	36	38	41	42
	lower eye to edge	10	10	11	11.5	12
MENSUR: 2:3 proportion	belly	159	171	183	189	195
	neck to edge	106	114	122	126	130
	addition for mortise	6
BASSBAR after fitting	length ca.	215	240	255	267	276
	thickness ca.	4	4	4.5	5	5.5
	height at center ca.	8	9	10	11	12
FINGERBOARD	length	215	238	255	262	270
	underside hollowing	60	70	78	90	100
	width at nut	20	21	22	23.5	24
	width at bridge end	35	38	40	42	43
	radius of curve	32	35	38	39.5	41.5
	thickness: end of neck	7	7	8	8.5	9
	thickness:edges	4	4.5	5	5	5.5
	projection (at bridge)	27
	ht over belly at bridge end	16.5	17	19.5	20	21
	string angle at bridge	156°	156°	157°	157°	158°
NUT	thickness	4	4.5	5	5	5.5
SCROLL	width at eyes	42
PEGBOX	width at nut	see fingerboard width
	width at throat	14	15	16.5	18	19.5
	length ca.	60	65	68	72	72-76
	thickness of walls	5.5
PEGS distance	a - g	40	46	50	53	55
	e - d	12	13	14	15	16
	protrusion, pegbox to collar	9	10	10	11	12
NECK, foot	overstand*	5.5	6	6	6.5	6.5
	angle	87°	87°	87°	87°	87°
	thickness including fingerboard	15/17	16/18	17/19	18/20	19/21
BUTTON	width	17	19	20	21	21
	height	10	11	11.5	12	12
SADDLE	length	32	33	34	35	36
STRINGS	spacing at nut	13	13.5	15	16	16.5
	spacing at bridge	26	28	31	33	34
	vibrating length: nut to bridge	267	287	307	317	328
	height over end of fingerboard					steel/gut
	e					2.5/3.0
	g					4/4.5
SOUNDPOST	thickness ca.	4	4.5	5	5.5	6
BRIDGE	width at feet	32	37	38	41	42
	thickness					4.5
	height ca.	30	30	32	32	33

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

I have to scale the templates to factor 1,0665068. - 2022-09-21 14:45:55

Hi, I am a school orchestra teacher who has to learn how to cut bridges (long story, but basically our repair person in the district does not do strings and we can't outsource due to budget restrictions, so I have to do this work myself). Are the measurements for fractional violas the same as the violins? For example, an 11" viola would be the same as a 1/4 violin, and so on? Are there specific measurements for a 15" viola? My largest students will only be on a 15", so I don't have to worry about the bigger ones at this point. Also, on International Violin Co, the bridge files they have say measurements different than what my luthier showed me. His are the Hosco brand, and say E = 0.20", A = 0.26", D = .032", and G = .040. The ones on IVCo say .4mm, .6mm, .8mm, etc. Are these the same? - 2021-10-02 20:55:42

Hi, i print the planes in 107 scale. - 2021-06-03 17:30:46

Hello, svg plans are not 1:1. You should scale down apr. 80%. - 2021-04-06 12:02:47

Hello, you need to print out the template in the Templates section. The measurement of 112mm is for a general violin not necessarily the one in the plans here. You should always print out from Inkscape for the correct aspect ratio. - 2020-06-09 09:19:31

hello, i'm reaally struggiling with measurements. I printed it out and it was 350mm top to bottom but the bout widths don't seem to add up. Am i measuring the bouts wrong asumming it's width. For example, it says that middle bouts should be 112mm so half 56mm. Whereas I've got 63/126mm, Since hieght is right I would have thought width would be correct. Should I go into inkscape and mannually adjust hieight and width to get correct measurements? Locking template and stretching it to 350mm does not have correct coresponding widths. - 2020-06-07 13:34:46

Chapter Eight, Stradivari's Method of Construction Part Two Maggini unquestionably glued in his bars, and Gasparo in some cases, we believe, did the same. The earliest bass-bar seen by ourselves is one which we took from a violin made in 1621 by Antonius and Hieronymus Amati; and a glance at its proportions, which together with those of others we now give, is not without interest. To facilitate comparison, we also give the average dimensions of a modern bass-bar:- It will be noted that, with the exception of the year 1716, Stradivari adhered practically to one size of bar, that size showing a slight increase on the two bars of N. Amati, but not on that of A. and H. Amati; while those of Alessandro Gagliano of 1720, and of Carlo Bergonzi Of 174-, as compared with Stradivari's, demonstrate the fact that bars of increased length and height were inserted at an early period. The later members of the Gagliano family adjusted at times bars of similar proportions to those of today, and even stronger ones, as can be seen by the instances given. In fixing the dimensions of his bars, Stradivari was evidently guided by past usage rather than by fresh experiments: in fact, the conditions which later on necessitated the substitution of a stronger bar did not then exist, consequently no change was called for. The standard of pitch was lower, hence the pressure of the bridge on the belly, which the bar helps to support, was less; and, further, more powerful tone production was only beginning to develop towards the end of the eighteenth century. (The improved bow must have had a considerable influence on the production of greater power of tone. Tourte was born in 1747, died in 1835.) We may consequently assume that players were perfectly content with the results attained by the smaller bar. The proportions of the present bass-bar were more or less adopted about the beginning of the last century. Let us now turn to the exterior work of Stradivari's instruments, commencing with the outline, which illustrates in a marked degree that refreshing originality ever present with the master, and never entirely absent from the work of the many other Italian makers who flourished both before and after this epoch: even the Milanese cheapjacks (We here refer to such makers as Grancino, the several members of the Testore family, and their followers) possessed it, although obviously inspired by Cremonese work. The recognition of this fact causes us to seek for an explanation to some extent in their system of construction, as it cannot for one moment be presumed that the greater number of Italian workmen were other than men of ordinary stamp, in no way possessed of the great powers of Stradivari. Yet their instruments, however faulty they may have been in other respects, have invariably a certain originality of design, which is in many cases remarkable: outline, soundholes, model, form of head-in fact, every part shows it. In the case of Stradivari, we know that he was a fine draftsman and an adept at designing, and he turned his capabilities to account when sketching out a fresh outline. His practice was to draw the outer curves minus the edge all round-i.e. the curves are those of the sides. The sides once constructed, he placed them alternately on the slabs prepared for the back and belly, and traced round them with an open compass in order to obtain the margin of edge required. Examine and compare the outlines of some of the principal followers of Amati and Stradivari, such as Andreas Guarnerius, Petrus Guarnerius of Mantua, his nephew of Venice, Joseph Guarnerius filius Andreae, the Rugeri family, Cappa, Carlo Bergonzi, Lorenzo and Joannes Baptista Guadagnini, and you will find that each one struck out a form differing from that of his neighbour, although they were all indebted to the same source for the foundation of their ideas. Take Petrus Guarnerius of Mantua and Joseph Guarnerius, both sons as well as pupils of Andrea. Once set free from their father's workshop, each struck out in his own direction, and produced works which are stamped with originality-those of Petrus remarkably so. Even Carlo Bergonzi was not content with the unsurpassable designs of Stradivari, and seems to have taken the earliest opportunity of asserting his freedom. In fact, from the pioneer Brescians to the latest of the Cremonese, originality of form was ever one of the prominent inerits of the many and various makers. Were it not known that Stradivari made use of moulds for the building up of the sides, we would have suggested that he, after first settling upon his design for the outline, and tracing it-probably from a cartridge pattern-on the slabs of maple and pine prepared for back and belly, roughly cut it out by a bow-saw; that then, after shaping the model, finally trueing up the curves of the outline and hollowing out the back to its correct thickness, he proceeded to glue on the six shaped blocks exactly in their respective places, and, when these were dry, bent the sides to them, thus dispensing altogether with a mould. This system, though obviously presenting greater difficulties, especially in the way of keeping the sides true, was that in use with all the old English makers (to whom we think moulds were unknown); and it certainly has the advantage of allowing unlimited freedom to continually alter the outline, a facility which is restricted by the use of a mould-i.e. if the same mould is utilised unaltered-as it cannot be too clearly understood that the outline has to follow the exact contour of the mould, and vice versa. That Stradivari did use moulds is proved by their existence in the hands of the descendants of Count Cozio, who purchased them direct from Paolo Stradivari, his son. Hence the question arises, how did he succeed in effecting, year after year, the continual and ever-vaying modifications of the curves of outline? It is evident that he drew a fresh design, and made a new mould for each decided change of form, whether of larger or smaller dimensions; but at the same time we think he probably had some simple plan which, by a slight alteration, permitted him to make use of the old mould while retaining a free hand to alter in a greater or lesser degree the curves, more especially those of the bouts and corners. Examination of the moulds possessed by the Marchese Dalla Valle (there are nineteen, three of which are for tenors) furnishes us with no certain clue to any such method. All are of the most primitive type of interior moulds, made from planks about half an inch in thickness, similar to many actually in use at the various workshops in Mirecourt: several seem to have been frequently used, others but seldom. It may be that Stradivari continually re-shaped the existing moulds, and added to them thin strips of wood or canvas when necessary to suit the altered outline, eventually destroying them when too much patched. Failing some such plan, we can only conclude that he made new moulds for every change of form, however small that change may have been. We may now turn to the purfling, which is connected with the outline. That this is so will be understood when it is borne in mind that it follows the contour of the instrument at an equal distance from the outer edge, and the perfection of its sweep depends in considerable measure on the accurate cutting of all the curves of the outline of the back and belly. It serves to throw into relief the elegance and truth or otherwise of the form; and Stradivari, by varying the thickness of its substance, its distance from the outer edge, and the different treatment of the mitres at the corners, caused it to materially contribute towards effecting those various changes in the character of the edge and fluting which we all so much admire. His means and method of cutting the groove for the purfling were, as far as we can judge, those of to-day, and how admirably Stradivari handled the knife is shown by the accuracy of the cutting of these grooves. But the time of insertion is different, as the more general practice among modern makers is to insert the purfling immediately after the outline is cut and the model roughly shaped, whereas Stradivari and his brother makers did so only when the body of the instrument was glued together and so far finished. Recognition of this point is not without importance, as it left the maker a free hand to correct and alter the curves, should any inequality of the margin of the edge round the sides have required it; and Stradivari undoubtedly did so, as it is very rare to find the curves of the back and belly of any of his instruments in exact agreement: in some, indeed, a considerable difference exists. This method of purfling was that of all the old English makers, and we believe of the various foreign ones also. It unquestionably has advantages; but one serious drawback to it is that it presents an obstacle to obtaining absolute accuracy of the thicknesses, as it necessitates finishing the model and fluting of the edge after the thicknesses have been adjusted. We are of opinion that this fact accounts in some measure for the inaccuracy and inequalities of the thicknesses of many of the old Italian instruments. Go to Chapter Eight, Part Three Back to Chapter Eight, Part One STRADIVARI HOME Internet Edition ©2001 Marshall C. St. John Free Service of Cello Heaven - 2020-05-09 02:55:26