Ron1

Does your luthier employ an assistant?

Based on location, the squiggly lines seem to me, to be an unsuccessful attempt at antiqueing.

Just couldn't resist, Michael. I only meant to point out the "traditional methods" aspect. BTW, the luthier I research used "copy carvers" around the turn of the century (ca1900)

(...returns to his CNC carving apparatus.)

How about an explosive device concealed within the case, rigged so that when the case is opened without using the correct code/combination, BLOOEY! (sp)

The indented parts of the stamped letters have a much too "clean" appearance, with no indication of any accumulation of grime. Also, the stamping seems to have raised the wood at the edges of letters in places. I would think these raised areas would have long since worn down; or more likely, would have been addressed during the making.

I've probably posted these before, but Knute Reindahl's carved heads are exceptional-

Often these carved heads are of known persons, such as Beethoven (which may be the case with your head), or other known composers, violinists, etc. Occasionally, they are of animal heads, and sometimes of mythical creatures. Less often, the carving is the likeness of an owner. I am aware of one that was commissioned by a (rather homely) young girl, with her own likeness carved on the head, to be given as a gift to a young violinist who she had a crush on. I guess the bottom line is, there are no set rules regarding this.

Amen

There's a special tool for that- it's called a "cat's paw".

It seems strange to me that there seems to be no color differences in the wood that is exposed by missing portions of the label(s).

First, we must know how we are defining "greatest". Number of instruments made? Avg. (or high) selling price: a. Total during makers' lifetime? b. Per instrument during makers' lifetime? c. "x" number of years after his/her death? Significant players that have possessed/played makers' instruments- Number? Names? Some combination of the above, and/or some other criteria???

David Bromberg gave a presentation on Chicago and Midwest luthiers at the American Violin, at the Library of Congress a number of years ago. As I recall, he practically pleaded, several times over, for anyone who knew of a Hornsteiner instrument, to please contact him. His presentation really emphasized the virtues and importance of John Hornsteiner, who was clearly the focus of his presentation. However, Bromberg stated that only one of his instruments was known to exist. I believe it is the one illustrated in his article in Strad magazine, mentioned previously in this thread. Perhaps, by now, another of his instruments has been located..

Then it definitely sounds like the top was replaced..

I've run across a couple of similar discrepencies. One possibilities I've considered, is that the instrument languished in the maker's shop, without being sold for a period of time (8 years). Not wanting an interested buyer to know that fact, the luthier either "up-dated" the label, or inserted a new label with a then-current date.

I think a bunch of penguins is called a "waddle".

Yes, and making the case for reviving a non-copyist and more integrated approach to their design and making. In large part, responders completely missed the point of this thoughtful and important topic (while slavishly measuring in micro-milimeters in order to duplicate a Strad pattern). Thank goodness those old masters didn't copy each other to death- it's the very reason that we (not me, the experts) can identify who made the various instruments. I fear that 250 years from now, a David Burgess violin (for instance) may be identified as "21st century American". Or am I completely mistaken? Do modern makers consistantly incorporate personal variations or improvements, or work in a unique style or method that could identify their work?

That's differnt!

Well, ahem, that is, I, er...

I suppose the valuation was based, in part, on 1938 values.

Wow! I was sure fooled by the pic! My reason for asking, is that the American maker I research (1857-1936) made quite a few instruments with a 2-piece laminated neck. Otherwise, not something that is often seen.

Martin- The Stirrat appears to have a 2-piece laminated neck. Is that a recognized feature for that maker, or is it uncommon?

Being made up of eight, or so, separate and un-matched glued-up strips, also adds to the "mix".

I thought the OP was asking what machines have been used in the past- as opposed to those that are now used, ie. CNC. Some early powered "copy-carvers" were in use in the late 1800's. There was one developed in England, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans also made one. I am aware of at least one luthier using a copy carver, ca. 1900 or earlier, to rough-out scrolls, and at least experimenting with it for roughing-out plates.

I provide a Certificate of Registration and/or a Certificate of Authenticity upon locating/learning of an instrument not previously included in my registry. The Certificate of Authenticity requires my personal examination and photographing of the instrument. They are certainly not as meaningful as when by the maker, but still, in my opinion, much appreciated by the owners, and likely have some degree of favorable impact on future sales of the instruments. Example: