Mike's Oud Forums

1925 Abdo Nahat restoration

Jameel - 3-24-2007 at 06:24 PM

I thought you all would enjoy seeing a first-class restoration by a world-class luthier--Michael Cone, classical guitar maker. http://www.coneguitar.com

I was honored by Michael to have collaborated on this project. The oud is owned and enjoyed by Michael.

You can see pics and more info on my website:

http://www.khalafoud.com/repairrestore.htm

I'm hoping soon to have some sound clips of this oud. Especially since Michael used copper-wound nylon and gut plain strings.

Hosam - 3-24-2007 at 06:39 PM

Nice Jameel, What material was used for the finger board?

Jameel - 3-25-2007 at 08:12 AM

Elephant Ivory

Jonathan - 3-25-2007 at 12:03 PM

Beautiful. Just curious why you didn't stay with an ebony fingerboard and beard? Do you think it had initially been ivory?

Hosam - 3-25-2007 at 02:28 PM

Was that ivory color treated? Knowing how it is difficult to get a single piece that size, how many pieces was needed for the finger board?

Jameel - 3-25-2007 at 04:05 PM

Jonathan,

Michael tells me the original (when he got the oud anyway--most likely not "orgininal" original) neck was one piece--no separate fingerboard. He opted for the ivory for durability. Nahats did use ivory though.

Hosam,

It's a one-piece ivory. I don't remember if he treated to make it whiter. Could just be the photo. I have an ivory slab that I intend to use as a fingerboard someday, I'm saving it for something really special. If you would like a source for ivory, email me and we can talk.

mourad_X - 3-26-2007 at 12:25 PM

may he has a big toothbrush with excelent toothpast:D:))

Jameel - 3-27-2007 at 06:04 PM

:D Ha!

I just uploaded some new photos of this oud if anyone is interested.

http://www.khalafoud.com/cone_nahat.htm

palestine48 - 3-27-2007 at 08:26 PM

Thats a bad mama jamma!

samzayed - 3-27-2007 at 09:21 PM

Dude, next time you get your hands on Nahat, I'll drive to Iowa just to play it for 10 min. I never got the opportunity to play a Nahat, but I would love to :))

Jameel - 3-28-2007 at 04:21 AM

Thanks guys, but read closer fellas. Michael did the restoration, I just supplied him with the said parts. I never touched this oud (wish I had). Michael will be recording this oud at some point (with those Aquila gut strings). I'll post something when I have it.

One more important point. The ivory used on this oud (like the Hifnawi I repaired for Mike) comes from pre-ban stock and is completely legal to trade within the US. Also, the ivory was left untreated in order to preserve the opaque quality. Any treatment tends to make it translucent and thus require a backing to make it white again, so Michael left it untreated.

Dr. Oud - 4-11-2007 at 07:31 AM

I am dismayed and unable to understand why someone would change a historically significant instrument for any reason. This oud was a completely intact oud simply made for a working class client or student. Changing the roses, fingerboard, pegs and end cap has dimished it's value and looks offensive to me. I wish people would respect the history of antique ouds and refrain from using them to modify into something other than it's original design. Please don't destroy irreplaceable history, it cannot be replaced.

David Parfitt - 4-11-2007 at 08:12 AM

I'm glad the Doc had the courage to speak out on this. While the craftsmanship is fantastic, I have to say I think that white fingerboard and pegs look hideous - for some reason it reminds me of those white shoes that gangsters used to wear! There's no accounting for taste I suppose, but why not just build a new oud from scratch rather than butchering an antique one?

michoud - 4-11-2007 at 08:32 AM

I think that the old instruments it is necessary to restore but not modify them...:shrug:

Jameel - 4-11-2007 at 02:43 PM

I have my own opinions about Richard's and David's responses, but since this restoration was done by Michael Cone, I'll let him respond. He sent me the following earlier today (since I asked him directly about it--I was curious why he made the choices he did in repairing this oud as well) and said it was alright to post. Hope this clears it up friends. :)

I will make one personal comment. In my correspondence with Michael over the past year or so, I have learned an enormous amount. Michael is a professional luthier with decades of experience. He has also mentored some of the foremost luthiers in N. America. It's an honor to know him. Michael recently mentioned joining this forum, but in light of these responses to my post, I seriously doubt he will be contributing any of his vast knowledge here. Our loss.

_____________

Dear friends of the oud, first of all I did not post these pictures of my 1925 Abdo Nahat oud on this forum. When I finished the project I sent photos to Richard Hankey, Jameel, and John Bilezikjian since they were all involved in the process. Jameel chose to post them on this forum, which was fine with me as he had worked on the shams and I wanted him to have credit for his exemplary work.


I actually found it quite humorous to read what Mr. Hankey has written about the restoration. Although I am a professional luthier with 39 years of experience, I am a specialist in classical guitars not ouds, so when I bought this oud from John Bilezikjian to play, I spoke with John B, Richard Hankey, and Najib Shaheen to learn more about it's history. No one knew much of anything about it. Mr. Hankey had seen this oud once at John B's house and thought it was made in 1920, but unlike what he said in his posting the oud was not in good condition. It developed serious problems with previous repairs that needed to be attended to before it became completely unrepairable and would need a new soundboard, a "repair" that I am totally opposed to in any circumstance as it unalterably changes the character of the instrument however well intentioned. There is simply no way to replace a soundboard and have the same sound as the original. So instead of a "player" I had a repair job.


I spent quite a bit of time researching the repairs as I did not want to diminish the historical perspective of the instrument, but instead restore it to it's previous sound quality, playability, and solidity. As I developed a plan I sent Mr. Hankey a color drawing of the oud, including the ivory fingerboard, which has been used on other Nahat ouds. He approved the drawing based on his knowledge, said it looked "very Nahaty", and expressed that he was glad I was undertaking this project.


Every part of the restoration was done with deep respect for the Nahat family, as well as the practicality of modern demands. There were days when I could feel Abdo Nahhat looking over my shoulder, making suggestions. I chose ivory for the fingerboard because it is much more wear resistant than rosewood, ebony, or walnut, not because it looks fancy. The same with the bone pegs. They simply work much better than the ones that were in the oud (not originals according to Mr. Hankey), and in fact they work much better than the pegs in any oud with wooden pegs. Mr. Hankey did send me an original Nahat peg but there have been problems getting them made to my specifications, so when Jameel came along with bone pegs I chose to use them so I could string the oud sooner rather than later. The thing about pegs is they can be changed at any time and when I come up with a more historically correct version I may well, but in the meantime they work splendidly whatever color they are. I apologize if anyone is offended and you're right, Elvis would love them.


Since the shams were in very poor and virtually unrepairable condition, I consulted with Mr. Hankey and he suggested that I replace them with ones that reflected the vintage of this particular Nahat, which is apparently 1925 and not 1920 as was previously assumed. In fact he pointed to examples on his web site which I diligently copied.


Najib Shaeen suggested that I replace the bridge. I was very careful to use precisely the same type of wood, the same density, the same weight, the same acoustic frequency response and the same string height. I wanted to restore the sound of the instrument, not alter it.


I do not agree that this was a student oud. I sent Jameel a photo of the bracing of the soundboard which he posted to this forum and another prominent oud maker said he had only seen this type of asymmetrical bracing on professional ouds. I would agree. The level of craftsmanship, other than previous repairs, is first rate and differs ever so slightly from other posted measurements of Nahat ouds and their bracing. I suspect that this was made for a working musician, plain in design yet beautiful in sound. The attention to the graduation of the soundboard, the placement of the bracing, the execution of the bracing, and the final result all convince me that this was not a student oud. This is why I chose to preserve the sound and longevity of the instrument. If there are objections to the use of ivory over wood, I understand. I used ivory for acoustic and longevity reasons in every instance, not to tart it up. If the objection is over the looks and whether or not Elvis would play it, I expect that he would. C'est la vie.


Best regards,
Michael Cone

Jarvil - 4-11-2007 at 05:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Oud
I am dismayed and unable to understand why someone would change a historically significant instrument for any reason. This oud was a completely intact oud simply made for a working class client or student. Changing the roses, fingerboard, pegs and end cap has dimished it's value and looks offensive to me. I wish people would respect the history of antique ouds and refrain from using them to modify into something other than it's original design. Please don't destroy irreplaceable history, it cannot be replaced.


This is the antithesis of most Middle Eastern thinking. Attribute what you will to the Arab and Arab influenced cultures (Lebanese for instance do not consider themselves Arabs), many great things over the centuries indeed can be said about their accomplishments and qualities, one thing however that is not widely practiced by them is this notion of permanence for the sake of antiquity or preservation. While there is many a Middle Easterner who will gladly expound on their historical achievements the overwhelming attitude is not one of permanence but one of flexibility and a certain lighthearted outlook towards life and indeed even death. This is a superficial description of why, where historically the West has been so excellent at preserving history and it’s accoutrements (qualities to be admired), the Mediterranean and Middle East have failed. It is not however a failure in not being able to achieve something (or preserve it) but simply a lack of desire to accomplish said achievements. This is why in the Oud world there exist far fewer examples of exemplary work than in Western instruments, where a Westerner or Asian (specifically Japanese whose greatest artisans often state they have just begun to learn even when they have achieved a certain perfection) artisan would be unsatisfied with anything less than near perfection a Middle Easterner would be hard pressed to desire, much less attain, this standard (this is not without exceptions obviously, to wit Nahat ouds).

It is simply outside the historical and ethnic mentality of the typical Middle Easterner to follow this thought pattern. In fact, the modification, lack of attachment and somewhat laissez fair attitude towards even antiquated instruments is much more in line with the true spirit of these people who more often live in the “now” and find themselves unencumbered by what is necessary to make far reaching achievements that can and are made by other cultures.

Dr. Oud - 4-12-2007 at 08:23 AM

here's the original - just for a comparison

Mike - 4-12-2007 at 05:27 PM

here is an all original Nahat...

paulO - 4-12-2007 at 06:28 PM

Wow mike...that's beautiful....Cheers..PaulO

Mike - 4-12-2007 at 07:57 PM

hey PaulO,
i know...
i wish it were mine! :shrug: