Michael, I guess I don't see the point of continuing the endclasp that far. I've only built a handful of lutes, but I've handled and repaired several others, and I haven't really seen much of a problem with the belly separating from the bowl along the sides. If hide glue is used it is easily fixed if it happens. Lutes get around the issue of supporting the bowl/belly join by having the ends of the bars actually glued to the bowl. The main area where you would want a wider gluing surface is below the bridge, where all of the tension from the strings is concentrated. And traditionally, with the end clasp and inner lining, that is where you find the widest gluing surface. I would think that you would lose some of the transparency of sound if the rim of your bowl was twice as thick as it normally is.
Tim --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute-builder list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Continuous endclasps? Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:38:11 -0700 I have seen a couple of lute photos where the endclasp continues all the way around and meets the neckblock on both sides. This seems useful (in terms of doubling the width of the gluing surface for the belly) but also anomalous, i.e. I don't recall seeing this on any of the historical lute pictures I have seen. Is there any record of a historical lute with an endclasp that goes all the way around the sides of the lute, or is this a modern invention? Aside from the (what I presume is) inauthenticity, are there any specific reasons to avoid this sort of thing? Trouble doing repairs later, diminished sound output, that sort of thing? - Michael -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
