Violette dulcimer (was: Spousal protection order)

[kwl]

I didn't say this in my previous post, but I agree with the others who call this an American mountain dulcimer.

Ken
"The dulcimer sings a sweet song"

[tentmaker]

It looks like the "sheitholt on a soundbox" pictured in Ralph Lee Smith's "Applachian Dulcimer Traditions" fig. 2-4 page 38 and similar to the one owned by Josie Wiseman fig.2-3, page 37. I refer to these instruments as transitions/missing links between the sheitholt and the mountain dulcimer when I discuss the dulcimer evolution.

I already have a spousal restraining order so I was outbid but glad to see it has a good home.

[strumelia]

And of course when you put the frets in the middle of the instrument's soundboard, you have to raise them up if you are going to play with a noter. When the frets run along the edge of the instrument near the player, it can be played either with fingers or with a noter. Frets can be in the middle of a soundboard, inserted right into the soundboard, and still be played with fingers fretting it. But once you move the frets over to the middle of the soundboard, you really can no longer play it with a noter unless you raise the frets up at least 1/2" from the soundboard surface. I suspect this is the main reason for raised fingerboards on American mtn dulcimers.

[pristine2]

This screams "American" to me.

If the raised central fretboard member makes it a mountain dulcimer by definition, then it's a mountain dulcimer. I've come across fin-de-siecle European instruments that also have raised fretboards, but not so high and not dead center like this. So it must be safe to say that it *is* a mountain dulcimer, unlike my initial response to Lisa' question.

Also, the seller calls it a dulcimer. I wonder whether the family has *always* called it a dulcimer --- they might know.

Still, something seems not quite ... nah, I'll hold that thought until I actually see the thing.

Lisa: My reference to 1832 wasn't to imply that this was that old. 1880 sounds about right. I was addressing the issue of "ancestry", which is burdened with that weird debate over whether instruments evolve in a linear, evolutionary sense or not ...

[strumelia]

Still, something seems not quite ... nah, I'll hold that thought until I actually see the thing.
Lisa: My reference to 1832 wasn't to imply that this was that old. 1880 sounds about right. I was addressing the issue of "ancestry", which is burdened with that weird debate over whether instruments evolve in a linear, evolutionary sense or not ...

Yes, I do know you weren't referring to this instrument in terms of 1832.
The picture is so fuzzy...odd too that they didn't show more pictures too.
I'm wondering if someone built a wider soundbox with S-holes and added it underneath a pre-existing rectangular bottomless scheitholt, and then built a case to fit the wider instrument. That fretboard seems awfully wide, hollow, and thin to be 'just a fretboard'.... seems to have had a hole worn right through it due to pick wear.

[pristine2]

The instrument has arrived in Tulsa, where Bill Howard was kind enough to write up an initial description.

"It appears to pretty solid for its age. Some joints loose at places,
a very small insignificant crack, seems to have been painted a brown color.

Hard to give much description at this point. Raining today, so it
will probably be tomorrow before I can get any photographs.

It is a 5-string, and looks like two could be fretted. Has 15 frets, each 1/2" long. Has 5 round feet on the bottom.

Instrument is 31 1/2" long
5 1/2" at wide end
3 " at narrow end.
3 3/4" overall height,
Top is 1/8 thick
Hollow fretboard is 1 3/4" tall (1 7/8" wide)

The nut and bridge are of a thin metal (brass?) There is a porcelain button on the heel end (part of it broken off) that may have been used as a strap button.

A variety of nails, screws, and an eye hook serve as the anchor pins for the strings.

It apparently was played...a lot...there is a hole worn on top of fretboard in the strum area (1/2" x 3/16").

Three strings are intact...appear to have been on the instrument when it was painted, as they have brown paint on the short section between the bridge and the pin anchor. I will try to gently tune the one string over
the frets tonight, to see if I can get a reading on the sound and intonation.

I won't do anything to it, other than dusting it off and photographing it. Once I get sunshine, I'll try to get you an abundance of photos. so you can "see" it."

[strumelia]

Wow- a 'hollow fretboard' that is 1 3/4" tall and almost 2" wide...? Sounds like a small scheitholt all by itself. Again, it makes me wonder if someone built the wider dulcimer sound box and attached it to an older pre-existing bottomless narrow scheitholt ...and then painted everything brown so they would match.

[pristine2]

Bill was kind enough to take some rush photos of the instrument, as yet untouched. I'm particularly pleased with the feet. Looks like it will clean up nicely and be very playable:

http://tinyurl.com/46fndd2

[Randy Adams]

That's about the coolest dulcimer I ever saw Richard. They don't make 'em like that anymore! I bet it sounds great.

[strumelia]

Bill was kind enough to take some rush photos of the instrument, as yet untouched. I'm particularly pleased with the feet. Looks like it will clean up nicely and be very playable:
http://tinyurl.com/46fndd2

Cool instrument! Now I'm thinking 1910-1930.
Are you going to remove that icky brown paint?
Yes, should be playable after some first aid.

[kwl]

And I'm going to agree with Lisa. While it could be late 19th century, I am leaning toward an early 20th century date because of the ornamentation of the instrument. At first I thought it might be a "scheitholt on a box," but the peg head and tail block seen to be integral to the whole instrument. As Bill works with it, I wonder if he will find any information within the box to indicate a date.

It's a nice find Richard.

Ken
"The dulcimer sings a sweet song."

[pristine2]

It does evoke a certain fin-de-siecle or even art deco feel, and that alone makes it worth considering the instrument is later than advanced by the seller. The shape of the feet remind me of embellished zithers sold in the 1890s and 1900s, and those curves are downright "Metropolis" (1927).

But at this point I still have to lend credence to the seller's statement of provenance, which dates it to the 19th century based on oral family history. His letter states that the instrument was made by the great-great uncle of his grandmother, who was an adult when she received the instrument upon his death in the 1920s, and who told him it was made decades before then. How much weight to attribute to such histories is always a difficult call.

One way to help determine the age is by the zither pins (in which I have an admittedly bizarre expertise). If they are smithy made, the instrument is very likely to be 19th century. By the 1890s, factory-made pins were commonly available and smithy pins were not. The photos aren't yet clear enough to make a determination, but once I get a good look I should be able to tell what they are.

Another determining factor could be the ribbed sides. If it turns out the texturing is pre-fabricated, that would date the instrument to the 1920s or later. From the photos, though, I'd say they seem to have been created by hand. A closer look is in order.

I'm likely to engage Ron Cook (the fellow who restored my 1840s scheitholt) for assessment and, if appropriate, restoration. Ron is a diligent researcher and is likely to produce convincing conclusions. But at this point I think we're a long way off from definitively dating the instrument, or ascribing to it any particularly significance in the evolution of the dulcimer.