Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

Is this Oud worth repairing?

allthesound - 7-30-2012 at 03:23 PM

Hi , I bought a old Oud this past spring and it needs allot of help i don't play but found it a interesting instrument. I'm just wondering if its a worthy candidate for restoration. I know very little about it other than it was made in Syria around 1922. Any advise is appreciated.
Here are some pics.

fernandraynaud - 7-30-2012 at 03:45 PM

Welcome Althesound! If this baby is what the label says, it would be worth repairing if it were in 100 pieces. It's a bit like finding a Stradivarius. There are people here who will be able to tell how likely it is that it's genuine. Congratulations!

Faladel - 7-30-2012 at 08:06 PM

This oud is Made by Abdo Nahat in 1922 , save it , it is very important.

FastForward - 7-30-2012 at 08:16 PM

Can you post a picture, or pictures of the other side of the soundboard, perhaps with a ruler near by.

That would be greatly appreciated.

Microber - 7-31-2012 at 12:46 AM

Even broken, it is nice !

allthesound - 7-31-2012 at 04:23 AM

Thank you for the reply's . here are a few more shots of the sound board. There are pieces missing as you can see . it would be great if the soundboard can be saved.

Brian Prunka - 7-31-2012 at 09:49 AM

That certainly appears to be authentic, great find. Absolutely worth repairing; it is important that you work with a luthier familiar with Nahat ouds who can restore it to its maximum potential.

Alfaraby - 7-31-2012 at 10:02 AM

As much as photos can tell, this is surely Abdo Nahat & his son Elias from 1922. It's clearly written both on the label & in the rosette. The label is the famous Abdo's, however it's the first time I see one stating Elias's name. We were familiar with Abdo George Nahat or Abdo George Nahat & Sons. It's also worth to remark that Abdo never used any other label than this famous one, after Nahat Bro. partnership was liquidated back in the 1910's. By the way, not a single word in the label about ouds, just a carpentry !
As was stated before discussing the serial number of Abdo:

"the serial numbers stayed consistent and consecutive over the years, whether the rosettes were signed Abdu Only, Abdu & sons then Abdu & Elias.
#2161 in 1924 - #2333 in 1927 - #2395 in 1928 - #2500 in 1929"

This oud's serial number may fit in: 2021 in 1922.
It seems a small oud, not the big mold of Abdo's, aka masculine cut. Though not very accurate measurements but it seems 49/34 cm mold, aka Istanbulic, insinuating it looks like the Turkish ouds.
The rosette seems original & well preserved, indicating it's "Abdo Nahat & His Son Elias" affixed by the Nahat famous assembly. Look at the short brace riding on top of the rose.
The pegbox is a typical Nahat, well preserved in a very good condition, though I can't tell whether some of the pegs might have been replaced through the years.
The pickguard does not look like any Nahat & it seems it has been replaced. On the other hand, the bridge seems very genuine Nahat.
One of the most typical Nahat work in the interior is carving the neckblock. It's marvelous to see this wonderful work. Look at the neckblock exceeding to the bowl ribs. What a great job, uncle Abdo ! Although it's not clear from the photos, the tailblock is carved as well.
The bowl is made of ancient Syrian walnut, though I couldn't figure out what are these marks on top of the ribs.

I'd like to see the rosette in a 90 ْ angel closeup & the tailblock as well, if you please !

Now, who would do the job ?

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

allthesound - 7-31-2012 at 11:32 AM

Many thanks guys for all the great info i had no idea what the label said , this is fascinating info! I have taken a few more shots as requested by Alfaraby . what could i expect to pay for a full restoration just a rough idea to give me a starting point, I understand there are too many variables to know with certainty but im curious if the would the price of restore exceed the value of the instrument?

Brian Prunka - 7-31-2012 at 12:43 PM

If the restoration is able to preserve the soundboard, and otherwise preserve as much of the instrument as possible, then the value would be somewhere between $5000 and $9000 as a rough guess.
Ouds like this are getting rarer and rarer so it can be difficult to predict the price. It is possible that it could sell for even more than that.

The final determination of the value would be dependent on the sound of the instrument.

Regardless, the cost of restoration is unlikely to exceed the value of the restored instrument, as long the restoration is well done (a poor restoration could permanently diminish the value of the instrument).

Estimating from the pictures, it looks like the scale is about 60cm, so it is a bit smaller oud (Nahats are often 61-63cm).

FastForward - 7-31-2012 at 08:06 PM

Thanks for all photos.

I think the oud is fixable, though it is not a job for your average luthier. The oud seems to have undergone some repairs by someone in the past (at least the back seems like that).

The back needs some serious intricate work but overall seems fixable.

The person who removed the soundboard did a poor job, he broke the soundboard at the neck block, this can be glued back perhaps without affecting the repair. he also broke the soundboard from side along with some braces.

The most serious issues with the soundboard is that two braces are broken from the side, and one is broken almost all the way. The missing small brace next to the rosette is not a big issue. There is also a missing brace next to the neck block. If you have any of the missing pieces then that would help maintain the authenticity of the instrument.

The peg box is almost fully intact and can be easily reassembled. The neck needs some refinishing and cleaning up of glue prior to gluing the pegbox.

This is a great instrument and good luck getting it back in shape.

Brian: I don't know of any Nahhat ouds whose scale is different from 60.9cm. All of the ones I have seen so far have been 60.9 with a body length of 49cm. the width varied between 34.5 and 36. Perhaps Jameel (Alfaraby) can shed more light on this.

jdowning - 8-1-2012 at 04:25 AM

Although providing some useful detailed information (as intended) it is not possible to determine dimensions or geometry with any degree of precision from the images posted as they suffer from significant optical distortion having been taken with a camera at close range using a wide angle lens setting. For example, the image of the sound board showing the bracing layout appears to have been taken with the camera centred over the area of the bridge but not held perfectly vertical to the sound board surface so that part of the soundboard is seen almost 'face on' (judging from the braces #1 and #2 that appear in head on view but still in perspective view seen from the bass side judging from the floor tile which appears to be wider at the top than at the bottom). On the other hand the upper part of the sound board is seen in perspective view (again judging from the braces that are seen in partial side view). Note also that the ruler appears to be bent (due to barrel distortion of the wide angle lens) which will, of course, adversely affect any measurement of the sound board profile derived from the image as it stands.

So the original string length of the oud might still be 60.9 cm - how does it measure with the sound board temporarily positioned on the bowl?

When taking images of sound boards for the purpose of judging geometry and dimensions they should be taken at a distance with a long focus lens with the sound board surface and camera focal plane in parallel and well centred to eliminate optical distortion as far as possible. As this is an important example of an oud, to ensure essential absolute accuracy for historical record purposes, the sound board should be placed face down on a large sheet of paper and its profile carefully traced with a fine pencil. The dimensions should be accurately recorded with reference to a single fixed datum point (e.g. bottom of the sound board) and marked up on the drawing to full scale.

I would say from the image posted that the tail block - like the neck block - has been carved as there are gouge chisel marks in evidence and the inside face follows the exterior contours of the sound board.

I note also that there are string fragments still attached to the bridge. The vintage of these fragments is likely unknown but they should be carefully preserved and their location on the bridge recorded until they can be subject to future detailed examination.

Microber - 8-1-2012 at 04:41 AM

Could an administrator reduce the pictures for a more confortable reading.
Thanks.

Robert

Brian Prunka - 8-1-2012 at 06:13 AM

Quote: Originally posted by FastForward

Brian: I don't know of any Nahhat ouds whose scale is different from 60.9cm. All of the ones I have seen so far have been 60.9 with a body length of 49cm. the width varied between 34.5 and 36. Perhaps Jameel (Alfaraby) can shed more light on this.

I could be mistaken, but I understood many Nahats to have longer scale lengths, Rabih Abou Khalil has ones that are reportedly 62-63 cm, Najib Shaheen has one that is 62 cm unless I am remembering incorrectly.

FastForward - 8-1-2012 at 07:10 AM

Brian, I haven't seen many Nahhat oud, probably 5 or 6 in person, and probably twice as many online, they were made by different members of the Nahhat, none of them was by Abdo. You could be very correct as well, thats why I am hoping someone else can provide us with more info.

Alfaraby - 8-1-2012 at 08:35 AM

Thanks a lot FastForward for the credit !

As I have mentioned above, there are two major molds of the Nahat family. I mean the structure not literally. One is the so-called Masculine cut, meaning it's designated for men (52-3/36 cm), while the other is the so called Istanbulic cut, meaning it's more like the Turkish ouds (49/34 cm). The third mold, though less common, is the Feminine cut dedicated for women (47/33 cm +/-). I haven't seen those last ouds in person so the "cm" are only a harsh guess, taking into consideration the second size. We may say they had Large/Medium/Small sizes.
As to the string length, well, they may vary. The LARGE size could be 61.5 cm long scale up to 63 cm & maybe more, while the MEDIUM could be 60-61 cm or even 61.5 cm long. I've seen some with 61.5 full cm, not 60.9 nor 60 cm. The SMALL size isn't available to have measured it, hoping to meet this beloved feminine mold soon.

Waiting to see who would do this hard job !
Good luck

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

jdowning - 8-1-2012 at 12:11 PM

That is interesting information about the molds Alfaraby.
Does this mean that there is a consistent single geometry of only three size variants for the bowl and sound board profiles for all ouds produced by the Nahats during their entire productive period? If so where are the molds - if they do survive - that would allow precise confirmation of the geometry used in their construction?

The size variants would also seem to be current Turkish oud design practice - girl, woman, boy and man sizes - but shorter string lengths.

The large image size is an irritation - as previously mentioned by Microber. I thought that size restrictions relating to posting images on the Forum had solved this problem - obviously not.

Alfaraby - 8-1-2012 at 12:48 PM

Have the molds been found, an active industry of making replicas would have been developed

Even without the original molds, a vivid forgery is taking place in Damascus due to the the increasing demand for Nahat's ouds.
I don't have the skill nor the tools to measure the geometry of an oud, but I still think there were more than 3 geometries for 3 types.
Building an oud is not always consistent by the luthier, since he does not always stick to the mold. He would leave space between the mold & the ribs according to the desired shape he's planning/imagining, a bulge here or there right beyond the neck block, another towards the tail and so forth !
I have seen some Nahat's that don't really mach any mold I could have seen before, though still looks like one.
Some reliable sources in Damascus have been quoted to say: sometimes it would be the wood that compelled a specific outcome, a short or narrow soundboard for instance, a short rib ... etc. Wood wasn't always available in fixed measurements like we have nowadays (55/20 cm X 2 soundboards) & luthiers would make an oud out of what pops up in their workshops and that would be reflected in the final results.
I shall post some photos later on, to show what I really meant. I feel I'm not expressing myself propperly, so the written might sound undue haste ! Excuse me, English is my third language.

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

allthesound - 8-1-2012 at 01:27 PM

Sorry for the huge picture sizes i thought it was odd they displayed as large as they did too. I went ahead and resized them to make reading this thread a little more comfortable.

Brian i had no idea what the value of this could possibly be i must say im surprised at your estimate i would not have guessed that high.

Thanks again everyone for all the great responses so far i have learned alot already
Since posting this i have been doing alot of reading on Oud's their history and construction and listening to players on Youtube.

I am really taken with the sound of these instruments and have really enjoyed what i have heard so far.

I agree it is important to preserve this Oud and to keep it as original as possible. After getting some idea of prices It is most likely going to be beyond my means to send it out and have it done by an expert. So my only option might be to restore it myself. I have alot of research and work ahead of me if i choose to go that route but i do love a good challenge. :airguitar:

jdowning - 8-1-2012 at 03:01 PM

Allthesound - the images are still a bit too large for comfortable viewing of the text - easily corrected by editing the images to a smaller scale although I am surprised that the automatic Forum restrictions on image size have allowed these oversize images in the first place.

If you have no extensive luthier experience do not attempt restoration of this oud. Practice modern museum conservation philosophy - don't touch it or try to make any improvements or repairs that might destroy essential evidence for future researchers into the oud or specifically the Nahat instruments - put it on one side in a safe place as an investment for the future.

Alfaraby - if the molds do not now exist, where is the source that confirms they once did in these three basic sizes? The assertion that the Nahat luthiers used molds is important enough information in itself which suggests that they all worked to a fixed geometry (albeit with a manufacturing tolerance) and so did not work in a free hand fashion without a mold as some oud luthiers do today.
Do we in fact know how the Nahat luthiers operated. Did they employ workers to make the various components and just supervised assembly work - all in the interests of production efficiency and output - or was theirs entirely an exclusive 'hands on' operation covering every aspect of the manufacturing process?
I suspect that one problem in trying to get down to the root of the Nahats oud geometry or geometries is the fear that this information might help positively determine a real Nahat from a fake one - unwelcome news for those owners who having forked out large sums of money in the belief that their oud is a genuine Nahat but which may not be.

My belief is that the Nahats and other oud makers of recent history - like the European lute makers before them - created their geometries based upon traditional proven successful proportions (sometimes regarded as sacred geometry) handed down through generations. I would be very surprised if the work of the successful master luthiers was ever in any way random - all constrained within an acceptable degree of tolerance and asymmetry.
The tragedy of the oud is that nothing survives prior to the 19th C - or if it does remains hidden and inaccessible - making research into even relatively recent oud history problematic. So every bit of evidence about the early surviving instruments should be recorded and preserved.

Brian Prunka - 8-1-2012 at 04:03 PM

I have been told by sources that the Nahats did in fact hire out some of the work in creating the rosettes and ornamental pieces for their ouds. I do not know if this information is accurate, and have no way of confirming or disproving this.

allthesound - 8-1-2012 at 06:01 PM

Thank you jdowning for your advise and concerns I do really appreciate them. I agree that if there is historical significance to something it should be approached and handled with the proper sensibilities knowledge and skill.
I would not qualify myself as a luthier with extensive experience i have only been at it for a couple years. I have done quite a few repairs and part fabrications on acoustic & electric guitars.
I just in the past year started building my own hand made guitars something i hope to do alot more of soon. Rest assured i'm not going go charging at it with a bottle of Titebond in one hand and a Dremel in the other. My journey begins new.

I have been reading some old threads here and i have to say I am really impressed with the level of knowledge and the commitment to and passion of the oud here on this forum. I hope you guys don't mind if i try to soak up as much as i can.

There are indeed some early looking string fragments an inch or so long on the bridge i would be happy to send them to you if they would be of use for your research.

Best regards, Steve

chaldo - 8-1-2012 at 07:32 PM

Hi Steve, thank so much for the images and for your interest in saving this oud from 1-garbage, 2-botched repair 3-fireplace winter heating, etc...

If I can ask for a favor in my name and for all Mike`s Oud forum members interested in Nahat oud research.. can you please measure the distance between every brace just like shown in the photo I am attaching. Also some info on the braces, their height and thickness.

Actually I would also call on John to please provide some sort of questionnaire database entry to enter distances, thicknesses and so on.. to make it easy for people to research and for people willing to donate the details of their nahat ouds.

James, this would definitely help answer some questions asked in this thread: Analysis of Nahhat Bracing... and other threads.

thank you again

Danielo - 8-2-2012 at 12:39 AM

Hi John,

the bowl measurements of my Hanna, made in 1921, match exactly those of Alami's George Hanna, built some 30 years later. It's obvious then that George was using the molds left by his father. Btw the dimensions of this oud do not seem to fit exactly within the 3 categories mentioned by Alfaraby - it is roughly of the 'medium' type but unusually deep (21.2 cm).

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Alfaraby - if the molds do not now exist, where is the source that confirms they once did in these three basic sizes? The assertion that the Nahat luthiers used molds is important enough information in itself which suggests that they all worked to a fixed geometry (albeit with a manufacturing tolerance) and so did not work in a free hand fashion without a mold as some oud luthiers do today.

Steve, congratulations for your discovery and thanks a lot for providing this information the forum

Where are you located ? I think it would worth showing the instrument to an experienced luthier for advice.

Dan

Alfaraby - 8-2-2012 at 01:58 AM

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

1) If the molds do not now exist, where is the source that confirms they once did in these three basic sizes?

2) Do we in fact know how the Nahat luthiers operated ? Did they employ workers to make the various components and just supervised assembly work, or was theirs entirely an exclusive 'hands on' operation covering every aspect of the manufacturing process?

3) My belief is that the Nahats and other oud makers of recent history created their geometries based upon traditional proven successful proportions (sometimes regarded as sacred geometry) handed down through generations.

1) Nahat ouds are the evidence "they once did in these three basic sizes". I have two of these, hoping to find the small size, aka "Khanum", meaning lady.

2) Ikhwan Nahat (Nahat Bro.) partnership was first established back in 1880 as a carpentry shop specializing in oriental furniture, not ouds. As been mentioned before, the very same abel of Abdo Nahat, starting in 1910, never mentioned a single word about making ouds ! It pointed out they make "oriental articles" مصنوعات شرقية. That all. Now, did they have employees in their workshop ? Well, I think they did. At least Hanna & Antoine used to work in the Nahat Bro. workshop until its liquidation & probably some other workers & black labor !

3) I agree. One of my friends, who is a mathematician, tried to learn whether the bowl of his Nahat was built according to a foretold geometric formula or just a random bowl ! He turned to his professor, who examined the bowl thoroughly & found it was built according to a well known "formula of growing ellipses".
Well, I'm not a mthematician myself, so I couldn't argue this finding. Maybe others can.

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

jdowning - 8-2-2012 at 05:27 AM

Thanks for adjusting the image size Steve - that's great. Keep us posted if you decide to undertake the restoration yourself. Thanks for your kind offer to send the string fragments for examination. I shall send you a U2U with contact information. Please record the position of each fragment on the bridge before removing it.

Brian - the master lute makers of the 16th C also appear to have contracted out work to specialist suppliers (according to surviving workshop inventories) - including sound boards with the rosettes already "cut in". Lute making then was big business!

chaldo - I shall be undertaking a 'blow by blow' account of a geometrical analysis of a 1921 Nahat oud based upon coordinate measurements recently provided by FastForward - see 'Analysis of Nahhat Bracing' topic. So this should give some idea of how to measure an oud and analyse the data collected, what to look out for, and tools required etc. I could then complete that project with a list of measurements to be recorded. This will apply to sound board and bracing geometries.
Bowl profiles and geometries are more difficult to measure as they may not be of semicircular cross section or conform to the sound board longitudinal profile as is often assumed. Accurate measurement of a bowl profile requires employment of a special apparatus (although easily constructed).

Alfaraby - I have done quite a bit of work recently in attempting to establish if there is a common geometrical design basis used by the old lute makers and oud makers. This is an ongoing 'work in hand' project. Some of this work has already been reported on this Forum as well as being published in the FoMRHI Quarterly.
As a result, I do not believe that the old luthiers went to the trouble of creating elliptical profiles for their sound boards (even if they had the mathematical knowledge to know how to do it) when it is possible to produce an almost exact elliptical curve by simply joining together arcs of a circle with differing radii traced with a pair of dividers. Albrecht Dürer made this clear in his books on geometry for the craftsman and artist way back in the 16th C.
I do not know what is meant by a "formula of growing ellipses" either but it sounds like some kind of modified ellipse - but even more complicated than a 'simple' elliptical curve no doubt?

allthesound - 8-2-2012 at 05:30 AM

[/ rquote]

Steve, congratulations for your discovery and thanks a lot for providing this information the forum

Where are you located ? I think it would worth showing the instrument to an experienced luthier for advice.

Dan[/ rquote]

Thank you Dan , I live in Connecticut . I have a acquaintance locally that received his training and accreditation of furniture conservation at both the Smithsonian Institution & Metropolitan Museum of Art. I'm sure he could offer some helpful advise. As well i have a few friends that are very experienced luthiers that could help as well.

I also spoke yesterday with a very gracious man in NYC Najib Shaheem who kindly offered to take a look at it and lend some advise as well.

allthesound - 8-2-2012 at 12:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by chaldo

Hi Steve, thank so much for the images and for your interest in saving this oud from 1-garbage, 2-botched repair 3-fireplace winter heating, etc...

If I can ask for a favor in my name and for all Mike`s Oud forum members interested in Nahat oud research.. can you please measure the distance between every brace just like shown in the photo I am attaching. Also some info on the braces, their height and thickness.

Actually I would also call on John to please provide some sort of questionnaire database entry to enter distances, thicknesses and so on.. to make it easy for people to research and for people willing to donate the details of their nahat ouds.

James, this would definitely help answer some questions asked in this thread: Analysis of Nahhat Bracing... and other threads.

thank you again

I would be happy to take as many measurements as possible and share them here. I will post as them soon.

Danielo - 8-2-2012 at 01:21 PM

Don't worry then, your oud will be in good hands

Here is Najib playing another Nahat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EoR3Q7p_Ek

Quote: Originally posted by allthesound

I also spoke yesterday with a very gracious man in NYC Najib Shaheem who kindly offered to take a look at it and lend some advise as well.

Alfaraby - 8-2-2012 at 10:04 PM

John dear ! I was talking about the bowl !
I use to read every post of yours, so I've stated I can count on you. I still do.
Sorry for asking, but where is this oud located ? This might help choosing the right person to take this job, a very hard work of restoration.
Some who may: John Vergara, NYC, Najib Shaheen, NYC, Viken Najarian, LA, Mathias Wagner, Wolfgang Fruh, Europe, Nazih Ghadban, Fady Matta, Lebanon, Isa Awad, Damscus, Kamil Mowais, Nazareth, Yaron Naor, TA . Who else ? Any suggestions?
It would be very interesting to film the most important minutes of the work. We might learn a lot from watching.

Good luck

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

fernandraynaud - 8-3-2012 at 04:00 AM

Let me say the unspeakable: that Nahat Najib is playing sounds nice, but I don't hear anything magical. What am I missing?

Brian Prunka - 8-3-2012 at 05:59 AM

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Let me say the unspeakable: that Nahat Najib is playing sounds nice, but I don't hear anything magical. What am I missing?

That one can't hear the difference between a good oud and a great one from a iphone video on youtube?

Alfaraby - 8-3-2012 at 08:57 AM

Nothing at all Fernand ! You're right !
Here is the real thing :
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=p78NIcSohYc
Enjoy

jdowning - 8-3-2012 at 02:58 PM

Another interesting feature of some Nahat ouds is the use of multiple piece sound boards - seen in this oud and the image posted above of the oud restored by Michael Cone - with up to 6 individual pieces making up a sound board. Not only that but the wood grain is often irregular, wide spaced and sometimes wildly erratic - nothing like the perfectly fine straight grained stuff sold in the luthier trade today as costly first grade 'tonewood' (for wild crooked grain see the example of an oud by Abdo George Nahhat, 1906 posted on Richard Hankey's website (third image from the left - http://www.droud.com).

Some discussion on this can be found on this forum on the 'Multiple piece soundboard' topic

excentrik - 9-12-2012 at 03:14 PM

I know for a fact that Nazih Ghadban is an authority on Nahats... Email him the pics- He's an awesome person to deal with...

-Tarik

bulerias1981 - 9-14-2012 at 11:48 AM

I am in NY. I'd like to take on a project like this and bring this oud to its fullest/original potential. Where do you reside, allthesound?

Dr. Oud - 10-5-2012 at 07:58 AM

What you have is a rare and valuable antique. I urge you to take it to a person with proven experience restoring these instruments, particularly Nahhat ouds. I would expect the restoration to cost at least $2,000, but the oud will be worth several times as much if it is faithfully restored to its original design. If you cannot afford this cost, please consider selling it rather than trying to restore it yourself as your first oud project. You need many years of experience to develop the skills and knowledge necessary. Without these abilities and background, you run the risk of ruining the oud, and it may not be recoverable.
I have spent over 40 years studying the construction of ouds, and many of those years pursuing the "secrets" of the Nahhat family of oud makers. I have successfully restored 12 Nahhat ouds and have made much of the information available in my book on Oud Construction, which is based on a 1910 Hanna Nahhat. There still remains the issue of technique and skill to properly restore a valuable antique like this. There are a few qualified individuals who can do this work. Just be sure they don't suggest replacing any parts, if so, cancel the job immediately and find some one else who will restore it faithfully using all of the existing parts. The face is missing some sections, but it's better to patch pieces in than replace the entire face. The sound producing area of the face is intact and must be restored to achieve the original characteristic Nahhat sound. If the face is replaced it will diminish the value a great deal, maybe by half.
Please don't attempt this by yourself, it is not a simple or easy project, as the risk is losing another valuable and irreplaceable historically significant instrument. Many of these ouds have been ruined by technicians qualified on other instruments like guitars, violins, even Turkish ouds, etc, but without the specific knowledge and experience with Nahhat ouds, the outcome is not a restoration, but rather a hybrid that may not work and may not be recoverable.

Brian Prunka - 10-5-2012 at 08:17 AM

Allthesound, should take John V. up on his offer if he's still paying attention. This oud is a piece of history that needs to be carefully restored.

jiggo - 10-5-2012 at 02:27 PM

There is some history in that oud!

Dr. Oud - 10-6-2012 at 04:27 AM

http://www.droud.com/Nahhat.html