72 replies to this topic

[Richard Morse]

Thank you for the drawings, Goran. However, the reason I wanted actual scale drawings was to see if your design suggestions would actually work.

You probably understand that I will not waste time in a complete construction drawing as not intending to make a 'product' myself...

I hope that you, Goran, appreciate/realize that I (and other concertina makers) are unwilling to spend massive amounts of effort to see if your ideas are viable. YOU need to put in the effort sufficient to convince us to take appropriate steps.

I see no major difficulties to *make* a similar instrument...but i would not expect it to be a hit from scratch. 10 prototypes or so ahead one knows better...

I regard making prototypes from insufficient design to be a vast waste of resources and time. Concertinas are INCREDIBLY complex. Not until you try making them yourself will you have a reasonable idea of how much knowledge, skill, and time designing a concertina takes.

I'm willing to try sorting out a bit more 'conceptually' what can be done in different ways...are there any specific difficulties?

Both I and Frank have listed many specific difficulties that can only be overcome with scaled drawings rather than conceptual designs. For instance you said:

...you can simply applicate solutions used for bandonions/chemnitzers and alike for the mechanism and on the way modify or improve them

which is not readily applicable for the quality of instruments we want to produce. Bandoneon/chemnizter actions are inherently uneven and not well balanced, have excessive friction and wear, and take up a lot more room that concertina actions do.

Even not considering any of this, there is still the issue of locating all the action parts to be able to work given your conceptual location of the keys and reedblocks. Your conceptions don't address HOW it can be made to work. I can't imagine how. That is why we need scaled drawings.

[Frank Edgley]

My dear Goran. It would seem that when "push comes to shove", your concepts will never become anything other than concepts. Oops, let me correct that. You want a rectangular box, using accordion reeds mounted in oblique banks of reeds, and not necessarily sounding like a concertina. Hmm, it seems as though I've seen instruments like this before. Could it be that you have invented the accordion, or at least the Chemnitzer, or maybe the Bandonian??? Congratulations. Seriously, now, I gave you the opportunity to give credence to your theories with solid, concrete, measurable facts in the way of drawings. If you can't be bothered to do that, how in the world do you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously.
You state:
Goran:"You probably understand that I will not waste time in a complete construction drawing as not intending to make a 'product' myself and being a 'constructor' yourself i guess you share my view that IF you were making something alike you probably use materials you have and just go ahead making parts of it to find out tolerances in practise if you don't know them beforehand."
Response : No, actually, I wouldn't just go ahead "making parts..." Without a good idea they would actually fit, it would not only be a waste of my time, but also my money. This is not "conservatism," but just common sense. For someone so passionate about your theories, you seem reluctant to do anything other than just blow smoke rings. I am disappointed!

[goran rahm]

Rich:"I hope that you, Goran, appreciate/realize that I (and other concertina makers) are unwilling to spend massive amounts of effort to see if your ideas are viable. YOU need to put in the effort sufficient to convince us to take appropriate steps."

Goran:Maybe we ought to sort out what we are actually up to in order to avoid arguing.
1) 'We' (= *You Rich* speaking for "you and other makers"...*I* for myself ....and *others* participating here contributing with their views) could cooperate initiated by various presented suggestions to develop solutions for some kind(s) of reformed instrument(s). Giving ideas away free for the purpose of 'progress' as such. The interest and effort in that case would be expected being shared with all participants in the 'community'

2) 'I' have no personal interest in making a 'reformed' instrument being made and no commercial or enterprise interest in any sort of production , just some curiosity what might come out of it

3) 'Viable ideas' mostly assume some kind of commercial product and someone responsible for the 'enterprise'. I am not going "to spend massive amounts of effort" either ...despite the non-commercial approach...to give potentially commercial value away for nothing....except according to 1) above...

So....what is it?

QUOTE (Goran)
...you can simply applicate solutions used for bandonions/chemnitzers and alike for the mechanism and on the way modify or improve them

Rich:"which is not readily applicable for the quality of instruments we want to produce. Bandoneon/chemnizter actions are inherently uneven and not well balanced, have excessive friction and wear, and take up a lot more room that concertina actions do."

Goran:Motivated objections when looking at old constructions. You certainly know several ways to improve and minimize them yourself

Rich:Even not considering any of this, there is still the issue of locating all the action parts to be able to work given your conceptual location of the keys and reedblocks. Your conceptions don't address HOW it can be made to work. I can't imagine how. That is why we need scaled drawings.

Goran:You are certainly familiar with the mechanism of bandonions/chemnitzers.
Start with a common 30 key Anglo which is the simplest. You can just make a sketch over it using the approximate measures I have suggested and 3 reed blocks each side according to figure R2 and R3. Any major difficulties?

Goran Rahm

[goran rahm]

Frank:"Seriously, now, I gave you the opportunity to give credence to your theories with solid, concrete, measurable facts in the way of drawings. If you can't be bothered to do that, how in the world do you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously."

Goran:See my reply to Rich in latest post.
IF you want a detailed constructional drawing you know just to well what I said.
It can never be 'definite' unless some issues have been practised in real anyway.
We have different approach to the matter meaning that either we 'cooperate' in a free 'brainstorming' discussion or we make a legal business contract.The later is premature and I doubt you are interested and neither am I....so...?

I propose we 'discuss' it in a cooperative way instead. I am confident there are no major obstacles to realize 'and instrument' according to the suggestions. If it will be a 'concertina' or 'konzertina' in your or others view is no concern of mine. Use the available knowledge about existing squeezeboxes that we share for a start.

You are "disappointed" Frank...?!? for what? You have made your own instruments so you know at least what you put into it yourself.What did you expect? Just an excuse to say "I am disappointed" ?

Goran Rahm

[Frank Edgley]

Just as I suspected. Sure, as you say, I would sign a contract with you if you could design a concertina which:
-looked like a concertina*
-sounded like a concertina*
-was the size of the usual (*English-style) concertina (6 - 6 1/4inches)
-was as portable as a concertina*
-had your stated size buttons
-had your design handles
-was as playable as a traditonal concertina
-could live up to your claims

Provided it was:
-a completely new design and not a rip-off of someone else's
-I decided to make it

But you can't. What you have been designing with your non-specific design concepts already exists. Call it what you wish---Bandonian, Chemnitzer, Button accordion.

[goran rahm]

Frank, I really don't understand what your aim is. I never reject a constructive discussion but I have experienced a few times by now that when things become a little bit threatened by conflict you find reasons to back out using predictably not negotiable terms. You know quite well that the requirements you (F)list below according to my(G) own (repeated) statements are not compatible.

Frank (F:):"Just as I suspected. Sure, as you say, I would sign a contract with you if you could design a concertina which:"

F:"-looked like a concertina*"
G:we use different definitions and have different aims

F:"-sounded like a concertina*"
G:the same as before

F:"was the size of the usual (*English-style) concertina (6 - 6 1/4inches)"
G: "too small" according to my judgement and ...*English style concertinas* vary from 2" to 20"...

F:"-was as portable as a concertina*"
G:???? "English style"??? above?

F:"-had your stated size buttons"
G:Accepted , being one of the aims

F:"-had your design handles
G: shown in figures R1-3 and A4-6

F:"-was as playable as a traditonal concertina"
G: a nonsense claim until defining a *traditional concertina* and what on Earth "playable" stands for....!!

F:"-could live up to your claims"
G:well, that of course could be accepted and just what I am willing to achieve by
cooperation. I have never claimed that I have a 'ready for production' detailed construction proposal for a new inastrument. I have made the handles and used them on 'traditional' instruments and that is it!

Frank:"Provided it was:
-a completely new design and not a rip-off of someone else's

Goran:Whatever it is if not existing before is a "new design" and whatever has been made in the concertina segment so far has been a "rip-off" more or less of something else. Same as making a "new automobile"...

Frank:"-I decided to make it"
Goran: Don't see what you mean

Frank:"What you have been designing with your non-specific design concepts already exists. Call it what you wish---Bandonian, Chemnitzer, Button accordion. "

Goran:Meaningless comment, is it not? You do from the start yourself demand that it must be a *concertina* - now it must be a *not-concertina* and a "not-bandonion,..."...still my suggested concept is "non-specific"...how does that all match together????
....while other people regard and call Bandonions/Chemnitzers "Concertinas" and when we earlier had a longish discussion on definition of "Concertina/Konzertina" and you backed out from any conclusions....Shape up Frank and make up your mind what you actually mean with your expressions and what your aim is with the discussion!

Goran Rahm

[Richard Morse]

I hope that you, Goran, appreciate/realize that I (and other concertina makers) are unwilling to spend massive amounts of effort to see if your ideas are viable. YOU need to put in the effort sufficient to convince us to take appropriate steps.

Maybe we ought to sort out what we are actually up to in order to avoid arguing.
1) 'We' could cooperate initiated by various presented suggestions to develop solutions for some kind(s) of reformed instrument(s). Giving ideas away free for the purpose of 'progress' as such. The interest and effort in that case would be expected being shared with all participants in the 'community'

It sounds like we *are* doing this.

2) 'I' have no personal interest in *making* a 'reformed' instrument  being made and no commercial or enterprise interest in any sort of production , just some curiosity what might come out of it

And I have no personal interest in spending any effort to *make* such a "reformed" instrument.

3) 'Viable ideas' mostly assume some kind of commercial product and someone responsible for the 'enterprise'. I am not going "to spend massive amounts of effort" either... to give potentially commercial value away for nothing...

A one-of-a-kind custom built instrument can still be viable (for that purpose) without needing to be commercially viable. Very little is accomplish with little effort. Creating even a single decent prototype from conceptual ideas takes a massive amount of effort. If you won't apply effort, and I (and other makers?) won't, then nothing will be realized.

...you can simply applicate solutions used for bandonions/chemnitzers and alike for the mechanism and on the way modify or improve them

which is not readily applicable for the quality of instruments we want to produce.

You certainly know several ways to improve and minimize them yourself

That's true, but the improvements would be far from "simple" modifications, and in any case any arrangement of a design (let alone coming up with a new design) takes a lot of effort.

there is still the issue of locating all the action parts to be able to work given your conceptual location of the keys and reedblocks.

Start with a common 30 key Anglo which is the simplest. You can just make a sketch over it using the approximate measures I have suggested and 3 reed blocks each side according to figure R2 and R3. Any major difficulties?

I think that making a "simple" instrument from your conceptual designs is doable providing that someone compensates us for doing it and that we agree to take the job on.

[Richard Morse]

I am confident there are no major obstacles to realize 'and instrument' according to the suggestions.

An incredibly major and unavoidable obstacle is in COMPENSATING (as in paying money to) someone to "realize" the instrument. Why are you confident that this is not an issue?

[goran rahm]

Reply to latest two messages from Rich.

I really try not to look away from any aspects on the issue but certainly not expecting myself to succeed 100%.
Starting from the end: If You Rich or any other maker might consider making ONE prototype for a start you likely face some alternatives:
1) You are motivated (for whatever reason) to spend/waste money and effort for it yourself just to find out maybe if it is *possible* (for mere curiosity) or *useable* (like if using it yourself) or *profitable* (as a commercial product or just as a custom built unique item for any interested user)
2) You are motivated to do it having full costs payed for it like any other singular custom model
3) You are motivated doing it on some kind of shared risk basis
4) ?

That is for *making* it....now for *projecting* it you partly meet the same situation and that is what I hinted at in the previous message.
I suggest we
struggle on for a while on this open basis but I am sure we have to take it part by part and step by step. I AM "confident" like I said but I don't have all solutions (and I have never said so..) and I am not prepared to present a complete detailed scale drawing of a working instrument as Frank is asking for. As a matter of fact it is not possible and frankly.... not to be expected either.

QUOTE (Goran)
2) 'I' have no personal interest in *making* a 'reformed' instrument being made and no commercial or enterprise interest in any sort of production , just some curiosity what might come out of it

Rich:And I have no personal interest in spending any effort to *make* such a "reformed" instrument.

Goran:Well..then we are blocked here aren't we at least for *making* it at present.
Shall we continue for a while on the 'conceptual' basis trying to sort out what the obstacles may be technically first? leaving the ethnical, social and musical aspects aside for a while? Or are they so decisive that the whole idea even technically looses interest? If we are up to 'small talk/social chat' it doesn't matter what the time is wasted for but for my part the time in the forum rather is expected to be 'constructive' for some other reason.

Rich:A one-of-a-kind custom built instrument can still be viable (for that purpose) without needing to be commercially viable. Very little is accomplish with little effort. Creating even a single decent prototype from conceptual ideas takes a massive amount of effort. If you won't apply effort, and I (and other makers?) won't, then nothing will be realized.

Goran:Absolutely true...being back to my initial comments.*Maybe* some time or by someone the financial basis for "one-of -a kind" trial could be established....

QUOTE (Goran)
You certainly know several ways to improve and minimize them (Chemnitzer like mechanism models) yourself

Rich:That's true, but the improvements would be far from "simple" modifications, and in any case any arrangement of a design (let alone coming up with a new design) takes a lot of effort.

Goran:Certainly...At this moment we only need to identify any absolute or relative obstacles and some alternatives to overcome them.

QUOTE (Rich)
there is still the issue of locating all the action parts to be able to work given your conceptual location of the keys and reedblocks.

QUOTE (Goran)
Start with a common 30 key Anglo which is the simplest. You can just make a sketch over it using the approximate measures I have suggested and 3 reed blocks each side according to figure R2 and R3. Any major difficulties?

Rich:I think that making a "simple" instrument from your conceptual designs is doable providing that someone compensates us for doing it and that we agree to take the job on.

Goran:You find the primary approach acceptable that the suggested drawn concept ought to be (technically) feasible conditionally:
- 30 key Anglo keyboard
- slightly widened button c-c spacing transversely 20mm and longitudinally (between rows) 14mm.... allowing 10mm diam buttons
- 3 reedblocks arranged with 2x6 reeds each
- end measures 170 x 200mm
- using a modified Chemnitzer analogous straight mechanism

??

Goran Rahm

[Richard Morse]

That is for *making* it....now for *projecting* it

By "projecting" do you mean "wondering if it is theoretically feasible"?

I AM "confident" like I said but I don't have all solutions (and I have never said so..) and I am not prepared to present a complete detailed scale drawing of a working instrument as Frank is asking for. As a matter of fact it is not possible and frankly.... not to be expected either.

What are you confident about? Unless your ideas are created, I fail to see how you can be confident that it will work. Effort is *expected* - to create stuff, and scaled drawings are an expected and integral part of creating such a complex thing.

leaving the ethnical, social and musical aspects aside for a while? Or are they so decisive that the whole idea even technically looses interest?

I believe that is precisely the case. There seems to be an overwhelming lack of interest in the type of instrument you are proposing (at least in this forum). Maybe you should take up your cause in a bandoneon/chemnitzer forum?

You find the primary approach acceptable that the suggested drawn concept ought to be (technically) feasible conditionally:
- 30 key Anglo keyboard
- slightly widened button c-c spacing transversely 20mm and longitudinally (between rows) 14mm....  allowing 10mm diam buttons
- 3 reedblocks arranged with 2x6 reeds each
- end measures 170 x 200mm
- using a modified Chemnitzer analogous  straight mechanism

Your instrument would need to be about 20mm wider for reedblocks that are 6 reedplates long (but why do you need 6 long for a 30 button anglo?).

If having a chemnitzer type action that does not fall beneath the button area, the instrument would need to be at least 15mm longer (and considering that the top buttons to be about 10mm from the edge of the instrument).

It would be possible to have a chemitzer-like action BETWEEN and UNDER the buttons which would be quite difficult to do, but that would retain your specified size instrument. Your instrument would have to be corresponding deeper.

[goran rahm]

Rich:By "projecting" do you mean "wondering if it is theoretically feasible"?

Goran:Rather 'making it theoretically feasible'..

Rich:What are you confident about? Unless your ideas are created, I fail to see how you can be confident that it will work. Effort is *expected* - to create stuff, and scaled drawings are an expected and integral part of creating such a complex thing.

Goran:Since similar instruments exist in which necessary solutions are basically practised the challenge to make a hybride or mix is not that frightening...I am 'confident' it can be realized

Rich:I believe that is precisely the case. There seems to be an overwhelming lack of interest in the type of instrument you are proposing (at least in this forum). Maybe you should take up your cause in a bandoneon/chemnitzer forum?

Goran:Worth a thought but I belive the 'common' interest in the chemnitzer 'community' is about evenly poor for same reasons. Only that the acceptance of four sides is greater and there double reed sets is 'natural'. Also the understanding of a a centrally located handle likely easier since the importancee may be more evident.

QUOTE
You find the primary approach acceptable that the suggested drawn concept ought to be (technically) feasible conditionally:
- 30 key Anglo keyboard
- slightly widened button c-c spacing transversely 20mm and longitudinally (between rows) 14mm.... allowing 10mm diam buttons
- 3 reedblocks arranged with 2x6 reeds each
- end measures 170 x 200mm
- using a modified Chemnitzer analogous straight mechanism

Rich:Your instrument would need to be about 20mm wider for reedblocks that are 6 reedplates long (but why do you need 6 long for a 30 button anglo?).

Goran:6 was a misprint...say 5 and then we have 100mm for the reed blocks... 5-10mm each side tolerance between blocks and bellows... 2x25mm for bellows...alltogether the said 170mm width

Rich:If having a chemnitzer type action that does not fall beneath the button area, the instrument would need to be at least 15mm longer (and considering that the top buttons to be about 10mm from the edge of the instrument).

Goran:You are probably right, I have calculated with about the same but I have some idea by using 2 or even 3 lever axises, one for each row, maybe you could move the blocks a bit further towards the top end and manage the about 200mm.
With the usual chemnitzer arrangement ( blocks beneath the button area) the length could be reduced but that is no aim in itself in my view since about 200mm (or a little more) probably is the balance ideal anyway for holding the instrument.

I am not much for having the blocks and double mechanism (beneath the keyboard of the chemnitzer type though since a different action of the buttons will require the same area. This is a matter of conflict in my view:
1)'We' ( Bristish style concertina people) are used to the 'free' buttons which are running straight guided by the end plate and the hole in the action board.
2)Accordion people are used to buttons fixated to the lever
3)Chemnitzer/Bandonions often are provided with a mix in this respect (how is the Silberhorn arranged BTW?)
There are advantages with at least 1) and 2)...3) I am not so fond of

2) presupposes a stable lever and fairly wide button but here we may use a rather wide button and conditionally stable enough levers are used it is a possibility. You gain: less moving parts, less friction and increased speed possibly....

The free button of 1) travels in a straight line which is advantageous for a thin(small diameter) button....the guiding of the button is necessary with the type of levers in British style instruments but otherwise I actually don't spontaneously see anything really speaking for this solution unless the layout makes it easier to use.

Rich:It would be possible to have a chemitzer-like action BETWEEN and UNDER the buttons which would be quite difficult to do, but that would retain your specified size instrument. Your instrument would have to be corresponding deeper.

Goran:Having it under the buttons like I said is often practised in a double layer set-up and reed sets with their valves directly under the keyboard area. It is
sort of impressing for the lot of material crowded there and making a wide range Duet this way ....demanding at least 5 reed blocks...I fear would require something alike....causing conflicts concerning the button travel... I admit there are some obstacles...
I have mentioned before...it is firstly the Anglo that looks attractive for this type of concept. Basically I am for the idea of single action for English or Duet concertinas which could facilitate solutions for wide range within reasonable measures.

Goran Rahm

[Frank Edgley]

All these discussions are a bit silly. you have all these ideas for "reforming" the concertina. What you are proposing is just so different from what we CHOOSE to play it becomes a different, if related instrument - no longer the instrument we have chosen to play. It's as foolish as saying to a Highland piper that they are playing an inferior instrument than, say, Uillean pipes. After all, the uillean pipes are bellows blown (with no moist breath problems) and have a range of more than nine notes. You can also play them sitting down. And yet, many , many people CHOOSE to play Highland pipes, because when it is all said and done, they LOVE the instrument with all its quirks and shortcomings. Ther have been many improvements to Highland pipes over the recent years, and yet they remain, in appearance and sound exactly the same. Any improvement cannot change the appearance, size, sound, portability etc etc without becoming something that it is not. In fact, by harping on and on about it, and insulting the instrument (and therefore those who CHOOSE to play it), it could be considered RUDE - at the very least insensitive!

[goran rahm]

Frank:"Any improvement cannot change the appearance, size, sound, portability etc etc without becoming something that it is not. In fact, by harping on and on about it, and insulting the instrument (and therefore those who CHOOSE to play it), it could be considered RUDE - at the very least insensitive! "

Goran:From YOUR point of view all you say is the *truth* of course....Nevertheless things do change....*when* they do may be hard to predict...but they do....and thereafter people will say the same as You Frank..or I at that stage maybe:-)...and there will be others "harping on" like I do now....

Now.... I have not been 'harping' that much about complete reforming the concertina(s) but mostly just mentioning that it could be done IF you wish to deal with some of the problems with the traditional design/construction in a more profound manner.

*Modifying* the common instruments which I initially suggested however should be no problem whatsoever for anyone, costs very little for both material and work, and needs not disturb the original shape of any instrument either. In fact it should be completely un-controversial! Still it seemingly upsets some conservative users to the degree that they feel offended themselves and insulted on behalf of their loved possessions. I will not deny that I find that a bit comical....

I am also amused to find that despite the obvious inventiveness and urge for personal integrity among many makers very few boldly grab the challenge of developing something really new but rather stay safe within the tradition and in
worshipping of the predecessors.

We are different Frank...that's all there is to it...

Goran Rahm

[JimLucas]

I have not been 'harping' that much about complete reforming the concertina(s)...

Göran, not everyone shares your opinion. Clearly Frank doesn't, and I don't. Others can speak for themselves... or not, as they choose.

[JimLucas]

I am also amused to find that despite the obvious inventiveness and urge for personal integrity among many makers very few boldly grab the challenge of developing something really new but rather stay safe within the tradition and in worshipping of the predecessors.

Oh, it's quite possible to continue a "tradition" for reasons other than "worshipping of the predecessors", most notably because one thinks it is sound.

But the statement that "very few [concertina makers] boldly grab the challenge of developing something really new" is simply false, except in the sense that there have been very few concertina makers in total throughout history.

Wheatstone was the first, with his "really new" symphonium and concertina. He/they experimented with various "duet" keyboards and sold some, but they never took off.

There was Jones, whose first radical change could be viewed as either applying the German keyboard to the English concertina or applying English technology to the German concertina. He also patented an "improved" anglo keyboard, and I know that some of these were built.

Various other keyboards were built by various manufacturers: the Crane/Triumph, the Maccann/Wheatstone (and later Chidley variation), the Jeffries duet, the 7-wide duet by Wheatstone described on the Maccann site, the Pitt-Taylor and the Linton (I've seen one of each of those last two), various anglo layouts with more than 30 buttons, etc. Some may have been one of a kind, but others were produced in sufficient quantity to represent a reasonable measure of demand.

Lachenal built at least a few Accordeophones. The published Wheatstone ledgers indicate at least one bandonion; it's octagonal, and its size suggests button size and spacing as on other Wheatstone concertinas.

More recently, Dipper has produced the Franglo, and both Dipper and Dickinson have made Hayden duets.

None of these are the particular "improvements" that Göran advocates, but they definitely put the lie to any claim that concertina makers -- including and especially the leading ones -- aren't open to trying radical new designs. And so the question is not whether they are willing to try a new design, but why they have tried some and not others.

Edited by JimLucas, 12 January 2004 - 07:59 AM.

[Richard Morse]

*Modifying* the common instruments which I initially suggested however should be no problem whatsoever for anyone, costs very little for both material and work, and needs not disturb the original shape of any instrument either.

Your claims here do not seem to reflect reality. I consider that your modification suggestions in actuality would be extremely difficult for anyone (and considerably difficult for those with the knowledge/skills/tools/time/inclination), would cost a substantial amount of money to perform, and have a very high chance of disturbing the shape of the instrument.

In fact it should be completely un-controversial!

What is the basis of your claim of "fact"? Without substantiation your "facts" are nothing more than allegations. Your credibility is at stake here (or maybe you were making a joke?).

For every modification you have suggested, please estimate the amount of time it would take a skilled workman to perform. To begin with, considering your modifications restricted to keeping the "orginal instrument shape", please provide cost estimates for modifying an existing instrurment for:

1. Larger buttons
2. Retrofit handles
3. New case to accommodate insturment with larger handles

Anthing else (large button spacing, changing the action to bandoneon type, altering the reeds to be in banks, etc.) would mean serious modifications to the size of the instrument. As this thread has mainly been about creating a new squeezebox instrument pursuant to your ideas, I'm assuming that your claim that it would be easy and wouldn't cost much also applys to creating NEW instruments as you've said that your are "confident there are no major obstacles to realize" creating your hybrid instrument. Please provide an estimate that your hybrid concertina would cost to design and create:

3. The "Goran" 30 button hybrid concertina as you've described in your first few messages in this thread with cost estimates broken down for:

3a. Action design
3b. Reedbank design
3c. Bellows design (inlcuding custom bellows jig)
3d. Carcass design (including fretwork)
3e. Handle design
3f. Integration of the above and other associated parts
3g. Creation of several prototypes
3h. Creation of the final product.

[Richard Morse]

I am also amused to find that despite the obvious inventiveness and urge for personal integrity among many makers very few boldly grab the challenge of developing something really new...

"Boldly grabbing the challenge" requires the will (as in the desire to do it) and the way (as in the time it would take and money it would cost to do it). Even you, Goran, are unwilling to provide the way (scaled drawings and money to enable the creation of your designs). How can you expect us to do more?

... but rather stay safe within the tradition and in worshipping of the predecessors.

While I admire and respect vintage concertina makers, my concertinas DO vary considerably from traditional design/construction (as do most of the other current makers). Your insinuation that makers demur to take on a "challenge" due to safety in tradition is myopic and disingenuous of you.

There are many reasons why makers choose not to develop your ideas.

[goran rahm]

QUOTE (Goran)
*Modifying* the common instruments which I initially suggested however should be no problem whatsoever for anyone, costs very little for both material and work, and needs not disturb the original shape of any instrument either.

QUOTE (Goran)
In fact it should be completely un-controversial!

Rich:"What is the basis of your claim of "fact"? Without substantiation your "facts" are nothing more than allegations. Your credibility is at stake here (or maybe you were making a joke?)."

Goran:Joking...a little...teasing...a little...but actually Rich I mean that apart from the slight indignation anyone can feel when the perfection of ones car, bike, boat, nation, language, ..whatever...is questioned...there should be no agitation caused by some suggested modifications of the concertina(s)

Rich:"For every modification you have suggested, please estimate the amount of time it would take a skilled workman to perform. To begin with, considering your modifications restricted to keeping the "orginal instrument shape", please provide cost estimates for modifying an existing instrurment for:

1. Larger buttons
Goran (6mm ones):Production :Cost $5-10 Time 4-5h Assembly:2-3h

2. Retrofit handles
Goran (own design): Production: Cost $5 Time 2-4h Assembly: 1/2 h

3. New case to accommodate insturment with larger handles
Goran: usually none, I have adapted the handles mostly for the original cases, but if making a special new hard case: Cost $10-15 Time 5-6h
Why? There are perfect hard cases to get for $20...

Rich:"Anthing else (large button spacing, changing the action to bandoneon type, altering the reeds to be in banks, etc.) would mean serious modifications to the size of the instrument. As this thread has mainly been about creating a new squeezebox instrument pursuant to your ideas, I'm assuming that your claim that it would be easy and wouldn't cost much also applys to creating NEW instruments as you've said that your are "confident there are no major obstacles to realize" creating your hybrid instrument."

Goran:Not correct...I referred lately to "modifying" the original instruments.

Rich:"Please provide an estimate that your hybrid concertina would cost to design and create:

Goran: You know quite well that this is not meaningful to specify and I have never intimated either that it would be cheap or done over night...:-)
"No major obstacles" referring to technical difficulties.....

Making a singular (probably not very sucessful) prototype is entirely depending on whether you have 'some' or 'no' ready made parts to use. A well furnished maker (like yourself maybe) with useable spare material around probably could put one together in 2-3 weeks after some planning work of a week. If making it all up from start you likely would need a couple of weeks more....make it two months and corresponding costs.
To make a ready 'product' for marketing? Likely would take at least 3 more 'prototypes'....6-12months?.. for one person...you know what YOU cost...:-)

Goran Rahm