Re: Restoration as compromise

[Matanya Ophee <MOPHEE@orphee.usa.com>]

[Moderator's note:  This message was originally posted on Aug 30. 
Apologies for the delay in forwarding it to the list.]

Hello,

I subscribed to this forum in order to better understand some issues 
I am faced with as a collector.

Background:

I am a guitarist, historian, musicologist, publisher of scholarly 
editions for lute and guitar. Privately, I have a small collection of 
19th century guitars. Very small. One 1821 Gaetano Guadagnini, one 
1861 6-string by Johann Gottfried Scherzer, one 6+4 1862 Scherzer and 
one 1915 7+3 by Eroshkin.

My problem is this: the best in the lot is the 1862 Scherzer. To my 
knowledge, this is the only Scherzer in existence outside a museum. 
As a matter of fact, the only other Scherzers I know about is the one 
in the Kopenhagen Collection and the one in the St. Petersburg 
Museum of Musical Instruments. I have seen both. (Of course, I would 
be interested to hear about other Scherzers I do not know about.)

This guitar is still in playable condition but does require major 
restoration. It has been used by a Russian 7-stringer gypsy player in 
daily performances in bars and restaurants until I acquired it in 
1988.

Before tackling a restoration job I need to understand a few things:

1. How one goes about establishing what the "original" may have been?

The problem is difficult here, because the neck in the Legnani-
Staufer design used by Scherzer is removable. Attached to the 
soundbox with a single screw. When I got the instrument, it has a 
single neck for seven strings. Luckily, my Russian friend had also 
another neck, which he said was the original. This one is a double 
neck, with 6 strings on the main neck, and four additional basses 
over a fretless secondary neck. Now, the instrument is reputed to 
have been made by Scherzer for Nikolai Alexandrov, a famous Russian 
player of the seven-string guitar. Obviously, a 6+4 "original" neck 
would not have been useful to Alexandrov. After his death in 1881, 
the guitar passed over to Vassily Lebedev, who was a famous _six-
stringer_ at the turn of the century. There is a photograph of 
Lebedev with this particular guitar on page 209 of the P. Bone 
dictionary. The question is:

Would it be considered a restoration to the "original" instrument, if 
the restorer kept the 6+4 neck, even though there is ground to 
believe the Russian legend (or fairy-tale) that it was originally 
equipped with a 7+3 neck?

Next question:

The top arch of the body, where the player would rest the right arm, 
is badly worn down to the quick. Even the purfling at that point is 
crushed beyond recognition. The result of many decades of misuse by 
an indigent performer. If one was was to repair the damage, one would 
also need to refinish a large portion of the soundboard in this area. 
Would it be, then, proper to refinish the entire soundboard to match? 
(Assuming one knows what sort of finish to apply!)

One more:

If one is to believe the stories, (and when dealing with Russian 
sources, most often the oral tradition is the only one available,) the 
Lebedev guitar, as obvious from the photograph in Bone's had a strip 
of wood fixed on the soundboard along the first string, on which 
to rest the little finger of the right hand. That strip is now 
missing from my guitar, but close observation clearly indicates that 
such a strip was indeed attached in that location and then, rather 
forcibly I am afraid, was removed. Even if we assume that the strip 
was put there originally by Scherzer, (hardly a reasonable 
assumption, I am sure you will agree) perhaps on the request 
of Alexandrov, would it be proper _not_ to restore that part, since 
it would serve no useful purpose for players in the late 20th 
century? 

My intention is to restore the instrument to full structural and 
aesthetic condition as possible, without introducing any foreign 
elements into it. Although it certainly qualifies as a museum piece, 
I intend to make it available to players for performances and 
recordings of the particular repertoire written for it. (10 string, 
24 frets.) I still have not decided who I shall entrust with this 
restoration, (I am not about to try it myself!) but these are 
questions I need to resolve before discussing the issues with a 
prospective restorer.

Any advice on these issues will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Matanya Ophee