I did not mean poor drawings of extant instruments. I am not familer
with many if not most available drawings.
I can say from experience that there is nothing wrong with anything
done "the way Delin did it" to say the least!
Most of us will never reach Delin's level; most of us are geniuses.
Yo'll just have to live with that and the fact that anything supposedly
done "Delin's" way that didn't work was royally f--kedup or simply not
Anybody who has been around here long enuf will know that I do no
condone using the word copy or think that copying is possible at all in
the strictest sense. It goes without saying you cannot work reasonsibly
from anything but your own drawings/sketches/data and cannot possibly
"make a copy" of something you've never seen from anybody else's
drawing, even if it is a good one - and they are rare.
Instruments not worth copying? just a couple of warhorses:
Walther Mine 109
1623 JR Muselaer unless one is prepared to make it as it was at 390
with 14" scale
1640 JR hpschd as it is
Smithsonian Dulcken - not cause of Duclcken but because of what it is
Handel House hpschd
lots of stuff, really
I repeat, I am not talking about drawings.
There there are lots not work building, too, altho the original is good
in its own right. Things like any Taskin really because they are
irrelavant. Or the 1789 Vleeshuis Bull, fantastic hpschd - but what
is it for?
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:28:22 +1100, Doug Brooke wrote:
> Oh my lord, don't get me started about that! Bad, yes.
> I could also gripe about the RKLee Delin clavycytherium with its impossible
> to fathom (less polite people would say unworkable) jack-to-bellcrank
> attachment (what was wrong with the way Delin did it?) and the unplayable
> drawing of the 1640 yale ruckers - the one where the strings cross the
> middle of the jackslots.
> Are you prepared to name the bad ones or at least the second rate ones,
> particularly those available as plans. I for one consider the RK Lee
> Pertici virginal to be an example.