Blank face

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Blank face

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    cottage in the urban wilderness

Recent Profile Visitors

9924 profile views
  1. I can't stand to read again and again that a violin is called a "copy" of something just because it has a randomly glued in label. That's the biggest BS of all.
  2. Looks like a Markneukirchen stick with a German frog from something else, an adjuster with a later added pin and a completely wrong stamp.
  3. The rib joints confirm that it is of the “built on the back with the ribs let into a groove/channel “ type. It reminds me of the Chappuy branded violins from Mirecourt and could be from the last quarter of the 18th century. Interesting that it was also made with a through neck, which was most probably set higher at the heel. Could we see a photo of that region (neck heel at the outside), too?
  4. Yes, there’s clearly a channel for the ribs visible at the end of the bottom corners. Looking at the scroll I would assume French, or by a maker being trained in the French school. Maybe the neck heel was set higher to get the high overstand?
  5. Thanks for the photos, now it looks much more interesting than I was assuming. More questions: Is the scroll fluted to the absolute end at the front, and is there a groove for the ribs at the bottom? Could you take flush straight side views of the scroll, bird views of the rib corners/rib joints and the inside bottom?
  6. It’s quite right that we can’t identify neither a particular feature nor a whole violin by a single feature, therefore other posters were pointed to this often before. It’s not very convincing nor polite to tell something like “I didn’t ask for an identification, just for one feature”, exactly this was discussed some days ago, too. What we can see at the photos are the odd repair and an altered throughneck with a shape (high overstand) which would be very unusual for a pre mid 19th century date, to say it more conservative. It would be very unusual (though not completely impossible) to find such a neck construction outside the Saxon/West Bohemian region. If you’re doubting this, it’s impossible to check it without seeing more and detailed photos. Inscriptions inside violins aren’t unusual at all, too, especially such ascribing the instrument to much older origins than they really are, and the writers also often are showing high skills to imitate ancient styles of lettering to make them more believable. So it is impossible to hear more opinions about the instrument (to the risk you won’t like them) without showing more pictures or you keep it safe and uncommented.
  7. Looks like a very common through neck from Saxony, the high overstand pointing to mid 19th century or later. The nails are most probably an amateurish repair.
  8. Danke! Enjoy your Liegestützen! And back to topic, with these crappy photos and spurious labels (produced by the same hand?) I’m getting a strong Reghin fake feeling and would rather prefer a HD Schutzmarke (Heinz Dölling). With this you’d probably know what it is.
  9. This was the introduction; is it reasonable to show and ask for the two scrolls only thereafter? (You know it isn’t; it’s a stretch to claim that you asked for the scrolls only, this won’t make no sense in the context). No bad intentions, but as a teacher you also know that you earned your press ups; no further excuses, please.
  10. The question was unreasonable, and you are supposed to know why. A question like “Do this scrolls look French” could make sense in a quiz when you know the answer before, but not in regards to help with a purchase. There’s just no answer which could help your student, he/she needs a clear identification and informations about condition, value etc. Even if a scroll is identified this won’t help to tell anything about the rest of the instrument. A long time member like you should know this, that’s what makes it so frustrating. Btw, even the new photos appear (at least at my phone screen) so blurred and unfocused that they aren’t very helpful, too.
  11. I don’t know what is giving you this odd idea but accept the apology. There are more than a few Saxony makers in the 19th century and earlier using oil varnish BTW. Exactly.
  12. Being far away to second guess about Jacob‘s intentions it’s the usual beginners mistake to isolate a particular feature as an indicator for the whole without seeing the rest. The first looks of course similar to what happens to be associated with French style in the head of most people, and that is exactly what‘s used by uncountable numbers of copyists/fakers. Could be also anything from Markneukirchen/Bohemia/Hungary or elsewhere. Who told you about the nonsense that „Germans didn’t use hand applied oil varnish“, and how can you judge that it‘s exactly this by a photo?
  13. Reminds me a bit of Otto Seifert From Lübben/Spreewald, but could be something else from roughly this period (early 20th) and origin (usually called Großstadtgeige).
  14. Probably this is a hint how the recording was processed. Adding a hi-filter at 8 000 cuts off most what’s harsh or shriek, and there was surely something more manipulated (what’s usual). Maybe this is what Martin was pointing out?
  15. The varnish is featuring the same way to chip off at the underside of the volute like in the bridge area, that makes me assume the scroll is probably original (otherwise there’s nothing going on with the varnish, especially no darkening). OTOH a scroll with the fluting stopped at 6 o’clock doesn’t fit well to the inside mould making of Austria/Mittenwald/S-Bohemia, an overlapping rib joint not with Saxony/Schönbach. Therefore the next thing I would look for are French features within the construction, for example lining tips glued over the corner blocks or if this blocks are longer in the C bouts.