Nanohedron wrote:
I think I'm getting a better picture, now. So long as the tail block is fastened down, I'm willing to bet you have far less reason to worry about fingerboard stability than I originally wondered. I can't tell because of the angle, but is the lowermost part of the floating bridge unchamfered, and if so, is that conventionally where the bridge proper is supposed to go? Or is "floating bridge" just a figurative term independent of that, where the bridge proper would go on the glued section of the tail block instead?
No chamfering. Yes, the bridge will be glued to the end of the fingerboard --- the "uppermost" block of light coloured wood. A separate decorative plate will be glued to the tail block, the "lower" block of light coloured wood.
Quote:
On to the next question: In pic #2, I spy an undercut in the fingerboard, ending somewhat near the head piece. Any idea what that's about?
A very interesting design indeed! It's very difficult to get a good camera angle down into here.
The fingerboard is not a solid block of wood as you find on most newer dulcimers. It's hollowed out with like a channel beam with carved arcades all along the sides. Looks like a masonry railway bridge. The top of the instrument is not a single piece of wood either. Running parallel to the fingerboard is a 3/4 inch or so gap with occasional spanners bridging across. In form, it's essentially a scheitholt glued into a dulcimer --- box on box --- which I'm guessing was intended to increase the volume.
Quote:
It's an interesting instrument, because even in my woefully superficial familiarity it has features I haven't usually seen or known of: the floating bridge for one; the undercutting of the fingerboard for another; and no iconic strum hollow, but a chamfered stretch on the fingerboard's corners instead. I've found enough visual examples to know that that form is not unknown, but it must also be fairly nonstandard; I don't recall ever having seen it before. It would certainly make for a stronger fingerboard, but I wonder if there are other reasons as well to favor that style of fingerboard.
Right: no strum hollow. However, there are slight chamfers about four inches long where the strumming hollow would be. As I understand it, old dulcimers (and perhaps scheitholts, too) were played with a rapid back-and-forth motion with a plectrum. I don't think they had strum hollows.
The older instruments (scheitholt, etc) didn't have strum hollows, and old dulcimers didn't either, from what I've gathered. What I think this is is a modern recreation based on an extremely early dulcimer, which I've seen described as a "scheitholt mounted on a soundbox". Makes sense given the design. Such instruments have been called "transitional" dulcimers.
Other interesting features are the lack of frets (I've never seen a fretless dulcimer); and a slightly arched back. Though I'm not entirely convinced that was intentional. Also, the friction tuning pegs. Some makers do indeed use this type of tuning peg, but almost everyone uses guitar tuners.