Restoration as compromise

[Scott Odell <MAH0C01@sivm.si.edu>]

I am delighted to see  fundamental issues being aired in the
thread, "Restoration as Compromise".

     On 29 Aug 1994 Geo Kloppel said:
>The introductory post from violinmaker David Van Zandt has
> prompted some thoughts:

> The violin is perhaps the extreme example of how far
> traditional restoration technology can be taken: new blocks,
> new necks (of different length, no less!), new bassbars, new
> linings, new patches... 
> Violin bows, on the other hand, are necessarily held to a
> different standard. Many of the commonest types of cracks
> simply can't be satisfactorily repaired, because at some
> future time the area must be heated to perform routine
> straightening or camber adjustments. Grafts which expose new
> wood anywhere in the bow are also regarded more negatively,
> so that hand wear cannot be repaired without detriment to the
> perceived originality...

>  It seems that the sense of what sorts of compromise to the
> originality of the object are acceptable may be  determined as
> much by considerations of practical utility peculiar to the
> instrument as by direct concern for its preservation. I don't
> suppose anyone is surprised by this, but I'm wondering if
> others on the list could provide examples from other groups
> of musical instruments, or wish to say more about this. 

This thread is developing in a *most* interesting direction and I
hope list members from all disciplines will jump in and provide
some examples from their own experience.  Further, in order to
provide some focus to a potentially unruly and fuzzy-edged topic,
I recommend as *required :-) reading*, the "Recommendations for
Conservation of  Musical Instruments", CIMCIM Publication No. 1,
International Council of Museums, Paris, 1993. For those out
there who don't already have it on their shelves, I am told by
Cary Karp that an effort will be made to post it in some form
accessible to all, by email.

Scott Odell <mah0c01@sivm.si.edu>