Blank face

At least the purfling at the back is painted, not inlaid, therefore it's actually a lower grade. I agree that the condition seems to be fair and if there aren't any other techical problems, like a sunken down neck angle f.e, it's a functional student instrument. Not more, but not less.

Here's one Mittenwald dated 1930 featuring this step, though it's not very pronounced. Sometimes it can be more easily spotted at 19th century violins from there, so it's a tradition in Mittenwald since at least 150 years or longer.

At first I wrote "in question", meaning if it's not completely clear what kind of metal we are looking at - here we seem to have both nickel and silver. As second note, the idea of "all as shiny as possible" is to my knowledge disputed since long, actually the restoration efforts are aiming more towards leaving as much original surface structure as possible, at varnish or metal surfaces. High glossy polishing or overcoating with French polish and the like seems to be somehow very old fashioned and destructive. At least by leaving tarnish I didn't think of letting it be as dark and crusty as possible but just leaving some spots while cleaning other parts carefully and more "conservative".

The blocks look to me like later added to a (probably) built on the back construction, as indicated by the widespread glue residues or the convex surface, and the (quite nice) violin more like from ca. 1860-80 than earlier - from the first impressions by the not perfectly focussed photos. To tell about construction method one always needs to examnine the rib joints, wether mitred or pinched together symmetrically. German making in general used all sort of methods, inside mould especially in the South German regions, while Saxony/Vogtland till the early 20th century built on the back (as we discussed here for many times). The Bausch Dessau label was part of the often mentioned commercially produced sheets for labelling violins, so I would not put too much weight on it.

I didn’t see much violas from the Pistoia region from the 60s/70s but some 80s/90s violas with that kind of “gammy” workmanship (before they became cleaner).

Yes. Why not?

I looked at the eye ring with green tarnish, so the other mounts could be cleaned silver. In question I would prefer to leave black tarnish at the silver to make proof what it is. Of course one can find combinations of nickel and real silver at this bows. Maybe it could be possible to identify the stamp with more in-focus photos?

There are Vogtlandish violins with painted purfling, more as exceptions for cheaper models, while in the Salzkammergut it was the standard.

I see what you’re meaning. I have my thoughts about this, but won’t tell them here without being sure.

The expert for Viennese experts is Jacob Saunders, but I'm noticing that here we are reading the French "violon" instead of the German word "Violine", and that the signature looks like a printed facsimile. Not long ago we saw here a certificate, also allegedly by a deceased Viennese maker, claiming a modern factory cello to be a Rocca (or something else Italian) with lots of suspicious grammar mistakes, wrong wording etc. To me it looks now as if there is somewhere a sort of manufacturing of faked certificates abusing makers from Vienna, and run by persons who don't have German as their first language. There are also more mistakes, the adjective "Feinjährige" should start with a minuscle, and the word "identisch" is uncomplete. It should read usually "(Das Holz von) Zargen und Schnecke (ist) sind ident(isch)" in a normal certificate as I know them. Maybe I would find more, but my time is too limited to examine such ridiculous papers.

This wear is often imitated at antiqued violins, so no flaw at all.

Model and scroll both look a bit odd for Vogtland in my eyes, also the particular golden-orange varnish; otherwise I agree with Jacob that it can be difficult to tell them apart.

Looks like a Markneukirchen area bow roughly 100 years old, pernambuco and nickel mounted.

The scroll seems to be grafted and I think I’m seeing the platform of a former throughneck under the upper block.

That’s usual wear caused by sweat and/or a beard. The purfling area was possibly protected by one of the early very narrow chinrests. If it’s not worn down into the wood you can leave it as is, otherwise a thin layer of protective transparent touch up would be enough.