Re: Restoration as compromise

[Dana S Emery <emery@onyx.si.edu>]

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

However one can, using a variety of internal evidence, archival
information, anecdotal information, comparison to similar specimens.  Lots
of testing of substances used to finish and glue may indicate
characteristic substances used.  When destructive analysis is permited,
chemical analysis of wood samples may indicate characteristic logging
techniques or chemical treatments with acoustical significance (thought by
some to have been characteristic of the cremona school, see Science 84).
In all too many cases it probably just boils down to an educated guess.

>My intention is to restore the instrument to full structural and
>aesthetic condition as possible, without introducing any foreign
>elements into it.

You have already indicated indecision as to what the original condition
was, it seems to me that you should not proceed on the original without a
definate goal.  Any action you cause to be taken is likely to obscure the
obviously interesting history of this instrument; witness the remnant of
that strip on the the soundboard, this would probably disapear if the
instrument were refinished (quel horeur).

Instead why not keep the original and sponsor replicas, perhaps one for
each of the different neckings given by your information.  Who knows, you
may be needing a tax write-off for that museum-piece some day :-).

--
Dana S. Emery
Smithsonian Institution
Laboratory of Molecular Systematics
MRC-534, MSC A2000
Washington DC 20560

(301) 238-3444     (voice)
(301) 238-3059     (fax)
emery@onyx.si.edu  (internet)