Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

Turkish oud, 1904

Liuteria di insieme - 12-4-2012 at 02:35 PM

Hi, this instrment arrived in my workshop in bad condition and needing a restoration. I'm an italian luthier and I don't know much about ouds so I came asking for informations.
I asked a friend of mine who knows ottoman turk to translate the label:

"In Konia, in the street in front of Türbe, among the jewellers (There's) the oud's shop of Nazan (or Nazar) , 1322"

1322 is 1904 in western date. The instrument has a strange bridge, reversed, with only on ehole for the highest string and two for the bass. Maybe a left-handed model?
I'm interested in opinions and history of this instrument. Thank you all for your time

Stefano Zanderighi

[file]25022[/file] [file]25028[/file] [file]25027[/file] [file]25025[/file] [file]25023[/file] [file]25026[/file] [file]25024[/file]

Greg - 12-4-2012 at 02:46 PM

Hello Stefano,

Welcome to the forums. This instrument will generate a lot of interest and debate. It does not look like any Turkish oud I have seen and I suspect it may be a Syrian oud made by one of the Nahat family of luthiers (Damascus).

If that is the case, then the label may be from a Turkish repairer and may be pasted over the top of the original label.
The layout of the tuning pegs suggests a normal right-handed instrument.

Greg

Brian Prunka - 12-4-2012 at 03:29 PM

You should save those strings so they can be analyzed, they appear to be very old, some may be gut or other material.

Alfaraby - 12-4-2012 at 03:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Greg

It does not look like any Turkish oud I have seen and I suspect it may be a Syrian oud made by one of the Nahat family of luthiers (Damascus).

Some measurements would tell us a bit more about the origins of this oud . So please !

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

Jody Stecher - 12-4-2012 at 05:35 PM

Some oud players, like Bacanos in Turkey, and later, Salman Shakur in Iraq put their single bass course in the position usually reserved for the highest double course. Perhaps this was the case here. Is the single hole large enough for a single bass course to pass through?

Quote: Originally posted by Liuteria di insieme

The instrument has a strange bridge, reversed, with only on ehole for the highest string

Danielo - 12-5-2012 at 12:32 AM

Hi,

this instrument is an historical treasure !

It seems indeed closer in design to a syrian oud rather than a turkish one, but at that time the boundaries between both styles of instruments were not as sharp as today. The rosette looks more like an Ottoman tughra rather than like the calligraphic rosettes found e.g. on Nahats.

For a similar oud in action, take a look at this video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_PfwTIo2Ak&feature=plcp

It is said that "The left oud is build by Shamli Teyfik, a syrian luthier who lived and worked in Istanbul"

Concerning the bridge, as was mentioned in some treads in the forum, it was common to use a single string for the treble when gut string were used, since the they were prone to frequent breakage and it was difficult to keep in tune a pair of thin gut strings.

Please, take pictures of the restoration process and post them on the forum !

Dan

Liuteria di insieme - 12-5-2012 at 02:58 AM

A lot of answers and with a lot of knowledge! The measures of the oud are:

vibrating length: 630 mm
neck length: 200 mm
bowl length: 514 mm
bowl maximum width: 355 mm
bowl depth: 205 mm
nut width: 38 mm
distance from 1st to last string on the bridge: 85 mm

The holes on the bridge are all of the same gauge. The strings in the middle are of plain gut but the trebles are nylon.
The rosette is indeed of worse quality than the rest of the instrument so it's possible that it has been replaced during the ottoman restoration. Around the bridge there are small signs on the soundboard that suggest that it may be not original too.
If I will restore it I will be glad to post some photo here but my customer is not a musician and is not so interested in a complete restoration, this is a shame because the instrument state will inevitably worsen over time. How much could be worth in a playable and restored state this instrument? to lure my client in restoring it....

thank you again

Stefano Zanderighi

Luttgutt - 12-5-2012 at 03:41 AM

This is very interresting for me.

I have a very similar oud (but with no ornements on the finger board). I got it from a grand grand uncle. And as far as I can calculate, it is been in the family at least since 1920.

p.s. Sorry, can't post pictures now since the oud is in Lebanon, and I am not :-) I'll check if I have a picture on my phone.

My oud is playable, but in a bad condition and needs restauration too.

It has NO lable in it. And I have always wandered if it was Turkish or from Syria!

About the single high string. It was very normal at that time to have a single high string (maybe because it used to brake a lot as mentioned here). "The string og the lazy", my uncle used to say :-)

Hope you can convince the owner to repair it! It is definatly worth it.

And yes, one day I'll get mine repaired.. I need to have a long vacation in Lebanon.

jdowning - 12-5-2012 at 06:07 AM

Very nice oud - should be fully restored!

The bridge is Nahat (or Nahat style) and so is the rosette design (see the example 1910 brothers Nahat (Abdo & Roufan) on Richard Hankey's website).

The images are clear and seem to be 'face on' so I will try to determine the geometry of instrument for comparison with other recent analyses to see if there might be a match with other Nahat profiles or early Syrian ouds.

The single top string is a common feature found on early European lutes. The bass strings 5th and 6th courses seem to be wire wound on silk. As Brian suggests those and the gut strings should be preserved for detailed examination. They will predate 1950 but could be a lot earlier so should be of historical interest nevertheless.

Once again here is an example of a multiple piece sound board with relatively coarse, irregular grain (compared to commercially available 'tone woods'). I cannot tell exactly from the images but there appear to be three panels at least - possibly five?

Apart from peg #11 which is a replacement (violin peg) - the remainder are of a distinct design so might give a further clue as to the original maker of the oud.

Alfaraby - 12-5-2012 at 06:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Liuteria di insieme

vibrating length: 630 mm
neck length: 200 mm
bowl length: 514 mm
bowl maximum width: 355 mm
bowl depth: 205 mm
nut width: 38 mm
distance from 1st to last string on the bridge: 85 mm

These dimensions are the same as tens of Syrian ouds I've seen in person &/or in pictures. The most interesting of all the above is the string length which has 30 mm more than it ought to, since the neck should be 1/3 of the whole scale, as you probably know. I've seen a some Syrian ouds that have 10 mm more ... but not 30 !

The Rosette reminds some Allepo antique ouds'. The figure in the center might resemble a Tughraa, but it's not !
The bridge is Nahat's, but the pickguard is not. It looks like what Aleppo's luthiers once used to prefer.

It worth to emphasize that Aleppo is very near to the Turkish border, so interaction and cooperation between the two sides of the border could have taken place in this case as well. I once held a Manol's 1909 which has been restored by Michel Khawwam of Aleppo (1909-1969) who had replaced the soundboard as been indicated by his handwriting beside the original Manol's label.

WORTH restoration ! Yes indeed !
Value ? It depends on the sound that it would produce after its recovery

Good luck

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

SamirCanada - 12-5-2012 at 08:12 AM

reminds me of this oud
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=6286

Alfaraby - 12-5-2012 at 11:29 AM

Pls. look here:
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=6286&pa...

Thank you

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

jdowning - 12-5-2012 at 12:55 PM

For my information and records Alfaraby is the date on the Baseel Al-Totanjy oud 1889 or 1892?

I have had a quick look at the geometry of the oud subject of this thread Samir, and working from the images posted - can confirm that the geometry is quite different to that of the Al-Totanjy oud which is also quite a bit larger (675 mm string length estimated).
I shall soon post a proposed geometry of the subject 'Turkish' oud for comparison. At first glance the upper sound board profile appears to be based on the familiar Pythagorean 3:4:5 right triangle (like the Nahat and other old Syrian ouds) but with bridge and sound hole centre placed proportionally differently (than the Nahats). It does not seem to match the geometry of a Turkish oud of the Manol style either - although it might represent a Turkish oud of an earlier period than Manol (late 19th C), perhaps.

Concerning the neck length to string length ratio - measured from the images the fingerboard length (front edge of the nut to neck joint) appears to be about 1/3 the distance from the front edge of the nut to the front edge of the bridge (not the front edge of the bridge tie block). I note also that there appears to be a dark coloured packer piece at the neck joint - suggesting that there may (likely) have been earlier neck resets to adjust string action. There may, therefore, be some consequential reduction in fingerboard length from original due to slight material loss.

However assuming the packer has been adjusted to maintain the original fingerboard length, what is the distance measured from the front edge of the nut to the front edge of the packer (i.e. the edge closest to the bridge - which is the neck joint position)? Is it 200 mm?

The distance from the front edge of the bridge tie block to front edge of the bridge should be around 5 mm for a 'Nahat style' bridge.

Pickgaurd

hamed - 12-5-2012 at 02:34 PM

This is a very interesting topic.

I have a oud that has a very similar pickgaurd to this oud being discussed. It is not as nice, and some sloppy repairs have been made. While the label is missing, i peeked inside a few years ago and noticed the number 1918 written in arabic on the one of the paper strips over the ribs. I have no idea who the maker is, i always thought the oud was turkish but it could be syrian according to this thread. The oud is not in my possession now it belonged to my father and is at my uncle's house in Seattle, but i remember that it was a smaller oud, maybe even a woman's size.
anyway, i had my uncle take these pics yesterday.

[file]25038[/file] [file]25036[/file]

Alfaraby - 12-5-2012 at 03:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

For my information and records Alfaraby is the date on the Baseel Al-Totanjy oud 1889 or 1892?

Sometimes, humans do make mistakes, even your friend Alfaraby
It is 1889 obvious & clear enough, an evidence to human weaknesses

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

jdowning - 12-5-2012 at 05:43 PM

Thanks for the clarification Alfaraby - not so obvious for those of us who do not read Arabic.

Inexplicable error is not a sign of weakness among your friends on this forum!

Faladel - 12-6-2012 at 09:26 AM

Dear Hamed:

This oud is from Georgy Hayek , Aleppo 100%

Quote: Originally posted by hamed

This is a very interesting topic.

I have a oud that has a very similar pickgaurd to this oud being discussed. It is not as nice, and some sloppy repairs have been made. While the label is missing, i peeked inside a few years ago and noticed the number 1918 written in arabic on the one of the paper strips over the ribs. I have no idea who the maker is, i always thought the oud was turkish but it could be syrian according to this thread. The oud is not in my possession now it belonged to my father and is at my uncle's house in Seattle, but i remember that it was a smaller oud, maybe even a woman's size.
anyway, i had my uncle take these pics yesterday.

hamed - 12-6-2012 at 10:52 AM

Thanks Faladel,
I sent you a U2U

jdowning - 12-7-2012 at 01:34 PM

Attached is the promised proposed geometry of the oud - for general information. This has been derived from a half size print of the sound board image previously posted. The image shows some slight optical distortion and the oud profile appears to be somewhat asymmetrical. The proposed geometry attempts to compensate for these irregularities but would have to be verified against a full size tracing of the oud profile.

The geometry is based upon a Pythagorean 3:4:5 right triangle like a number of old ouds (and old European lutes) already studied. The design is created proportionally using only dividers and a straight edge and assuming an arbitrary unit of dimension for scaling.
The sound board width is divided into 16 units.
The upper sound board profile is described by an arc of 20 units with centre at B on the triangle.
The bottom of the bowl F is 8 units from C on the X axis. The front edge of the bridge E is mid way between C and F.
The lower sound board profile is created from three conjunct arcs of radii 6, 20 and 26 units (the latter with centre at A).
The sound hole centre D is the intersection of the Y axis by an arc of radius 6 units with centre at C.
The sound hole diameter is 1/3 the width of the sound board at D.

The bridge front is 1/6 of total length AF - this is a proportion often found in surviving European lutes as is a sound hole diameter of 1/3 sound board width measured at the sound hole centre.

Scaling from the images compared to the measured dimensions provided I calculate that for this size of oud the unit of measure would have been about 22.3 mm. Crosschecking, this value would translate to a sound board width of 357 mm (c.f. 355 mm actual) and bowl length of 513mm (c.f. 514 mm actual) - close enough.
(Interestingly the ancient Persian Royal cubit of linear measure comprising 28 'finger' units is known (from surviving measuring rods) to measure about 638 mm giving a 'finger' unit of 22.78 mm. Originally the 'finger' measurement was the width of an index finger at the middle joint. Mine measures about 23 mm. No doubt the ancient Royal standard was based upon the finger width of the Shah or some other prominent person in society).

This data suggests that the simple elegant proportions of this oud date from an earlier tradition than the geometrically more complex Nahat ouds of similar size - where the now traditional (?) proportions of finger board length as 1/3 string length did not apply (as they did not in medieval times for example).
The modern Turkish oud with standard string length of 585 mm (and fingerboard length of 1/3 string length) is said to have been designed and introduced by Manol in the late 19th C - so may not represent ouds from an earlier period in Turkey that may well have been of a larger size and different geometry?

An interesting example and possibly of some significant importance historically.

jdowning - 12-7-2012 at 05:37 PM

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Ikhwan al-Safa (the brotherhood of purity) as early as the 10th C gave the ideal proportions of an oud to be that the length (of the bowl) should be half as much again as its width (i.e. 1.5X the width)

From the proposed geometry it can be seen that the overall length AF of the sound board profile is 24 units and is equal to the width plus a half width (total 24 units).

The neck length given by the brotherhood is a quarter of the length i.e 6 units. This was sufficient length to accommodate frets as far as the fourth finger (little finger) - equivalent to five equal semitones Western scale.

If a neck length of 6 units is added (in this case from point A in the proposed geometry) the overall length of the oud would be 30 units (with a fingerboard length of 7 units measured from the neck joint). This would be equivalent to a string length of 26 units plus 5 mm (i.e. measured to the bridge tie block). For a unit length of 22.3 mm this would give a string length of 580 mm + 5mm = 585 mm (which happens to be the modern standard string length for a Turkish oud).

The oud in question has a fingerboard length of 9 units (200 mm) giving a string length of 630 mm. So - in this case - did the maker provide extra string length (Arabic oud string length) by the simple expedient of increasing the neck length by two units (45 mm)?

Just a thought.

jdowning - 12-8-2012 at 11:47 AM

There is an alternative interpretation of the Ikhwan al-Safa oud geometry concerning the neck length which is given as "a quarter of the length".
In the previous post it was assumed that "the length" referred to the length of the bowl so the neck becomes a quarter of that equal to 6 units. However if "the length" is taken to mean the total length of the oud then the bowl length of 24 units is 3/4 of the total length and the neck then measures 8 units (from point A). This then equates to a fingerboard length of 9 units (nut to neck joint) resulting in a string length of 28 units to the front edge of the bridge plus another 5 mm to the front of the bridge tie block.
Given a unit measure of 22.3 mm the string length is then 625 + 5 = 630 mm - et voila - the measured string length of the subject oud!
Note that in this geometry the fingerboard length is not 1/3 of the string length but is proportionally shorter.

Some time ago I attempted a geometrical analysis of the lute depicted in the famous 15th C woodcarving of 'Pythagoras' in Ulm Cathedral, Germany (see attached image).
Checking again with the proposed geometry of that lute (image attached for comparison) it can be seen that the geometry is identical to that of the subject oud - except for the lower sound board profile which is a semicircle and a smaller diameter sound hole. Proportionally the Ulm lute would appear to be a smaller instrument.

This is interesting in further suggesting not only that the subject oud has a geometry of ancient origins but also that the European lute of the 15th C (and later developed in Germany a major lute making centre) came to Europe not from Spain in the West as is popularly believed but via the Ottoman Empire in the East.

Note that although historically the Ottoman Turks were at war with Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and had invaded Hungary and Austria (in 1526 and 1529), they were sympathetic to and supported the Lutheran church in Europe. Ulm Cathedral is an important Lutheran church.
Furthermore despite these hostilities, European traders were granted free access by the Turks to trade within the Ottoman Empire (an arrangement that was not reciprocated by the Europeans).

[file]25065[/file] [file]25067[/file] [file]25069[/file] [file]25071[/file]

Liuteria di insieme - 12-10-2012 at 08:40 AM

really interesting debate going on, I'm following it close. The label is indeed not original, small signs of a previous label can be seen, but unfortunatly it has been scraped off. About the neck, yes 200 mm is the lenght from the nut to the joint mesured on the fingerboard. The neck maybe has been resetted. I can not judge looking at it, if is true is a good work. For sure the soundboard has been opened on the bottom (there are clear signs).
Is a shame but the owner of the instrument is not interested in a complete restoration, we replaced the violin pegs with new pegs in the original style and not much more. He is going to give the instrument as a present as it is and we hope to persuade the new owner to restore it because is really a piece of history and after restoration possibly a beatiful musical instrument.
I will keep you posted about a possible restoration.

Stefano Zanderighi

jdowning - 12-10-2012 at 01:22 PM

On the positive side, leaving the instrument untouched (except for replacing the violin pegs) will ensure that the instrument in its current condition will be preserved. This may be important for future researchers (if the oud is historically significant - as pretty well any old oud of the early 20th C or earlier may be) as there is always a danger that restoration work - no matter how skilfully undertaken - might destroy earlier evidence of construction techniques or original design. For this reason museum philosophy these days generally favours conservation (i.e. leave well alone) rather than restoration.
Hopefully the new owner will at least preserve the oud for posterity regardless of monetary 'value' as - tragically - so few old ouds have survived.

reminore - 12-10-2012 at 06:42 PM

hi stefano,

is there any chance of a second photograph, taken to show the text more on the left side of the label? i'd like to check the translation a bit more closely...it is rare to see a turkish label from another place other than istanbul, and especially konya! thanks, costa

Luttgutt - 12-11-2012 at 02:57 AM

Hi Stefano and everyone!

When I mesured the string length on your pics, I found out that the string length must be 600 mm and NOT 630 mm as you write!!

In that case, that would be a normal syrian length..

What am I missing?? :shrug:

Liuteria di insieme - 12-11-2012 at 08:44 AM

Hi,
@Luttgutt the string lenght is as posted, I double checked on the photod and everything works, can you tell me wich dimension doesn't work for you?

@reminore here is another shot taken on the left, I hope is good enough

[file]25095[/file]

Luttgutt - 12-11-2012 at 09:27 AM

Hi again Stefano and thanks for your reply!

It is just that I mesured the string length on picture number 2 from left, and it mesured exactly 3 times more then the fingerbord.

But the picture might be taken at a slight angle that makes that difference, I can't tell...

Well the oud is in your hands.. and it is only you that can mesure it directly:-)

so the mistary continues...

jdowning - 12-11-2012 at 11:50 AM

Measuring directly from image #2, using draughtsman dividers, the front edge of the nut to the neck joint distance is not 1/3 string length - 3X the fingerboard length is not even the distance from the front edge of the nut to the front edge of the bridge let alone to the front edge of the bridge tie block.
This agrees more or less with Stefano's exact full size measurements if some slight allowance is made for underestimating the lengths due to optical distortions inherent in the image - not only the perspective distortion but also barrel distortion.

Also there may, of course, be some potential loss of accuracy when working with a reduced scale, lower resolution image.