Blank face

You both are quite right (and VAT is 19%, not 20 as in Austria, I confused this). There are several possibilities to calculate the exact duty, based on deliberate decisions by the authority. But for Martin, you need to pay both VAT and custom for violins being over 150 (175 if antique). The general rule should be the same: Everything above 150 is charged with the 19% VAT and a custom fee for musical instruments. In regards of bows I couldn't find anything in particular though I searched several times before. Personally I got bows always together with violins from non-EU, so I can't tell. But I'm sure that not accessories, but also violins are charged, like other stringed instruments (photos 2 and 3, electric guitar). To make it more complicated we had last year the VAT reduction of 2 percent for several months. There's also a "Pauschale" (meaning general) custom fee for everything below 150 in case that it's not accepted as Antiques of 17,5%, which mustn't be confused with VAT(see photo 1). The bigger problem seems to be that the custom bureaus actually aren't so very sure about what to do and to charge by themselve, and that the processes might last several weeks now due to the sheer number of goods being charged at the same time. The big advantage of the Ebay international shipping program is that all this is cleared automatically, so that the goods are delivered immediately from the airport to the buyer, though it can be sometimes a bit more expensive. Zölle=custom duties Einfuhrumsatzsteuer=VAT

Using this logic one can ascribe everything to anybody, simply based on every bogus labelling.

Factually there is no custom fee for antiques in Germany, but you have to pay anyway the full 20% VAT for every antique being more valuable than 175 Euro. So this can't be reduced. The custom fee for a musical instrument itself, if it wasn't older than 100 years, would be something between 3 and 4 percent, so relative neglectible in comparison. Every time when I'm shipping a violin to a non-EU country being more valuble than 999 Euro (incld. shipping) I need to present it to the Hauptzollamt in Berlin Marzahn, quite a ride of two hours both directions. The only thing these officials are interested in is the date written on a label (if there is any). So if it's Strad labeled you will be always on the right side.

Like I wrote before in my experience and opinion it was very often just the other way round; regarding the OP definitely.

It was mentioned several times before, the CA Hoyer shop (not Otto, they weren't very close related) was more or less the biggest in Markneukirchen during the period, with many makers working or having worked for them, so one can find uncountable trade bows following their model like the OP.

Thanks for the new photos. To say it short, they are interesting, but in general I can't see much difference to the first except in color temperature, lighting and the addition of some more three-dimensional effects. They are unfortunately even more unfocussed than before, so I can make out rather less details. The most important question is still the same: Would it ever have been attributed to Azzola without the existence of the most highly questionable label?

I also would like to get back to topic rather than argue about linguistics. At least the main points are on the table. We seem to agree that a written opinion now would be more informative than any reports about someone has seen it some ages ago and has said something… BTW the violin doesn’t look autodidactic to me, rather overworked.

To think a bit about „retail“ pricing, I guess it‘s different from what you can find as highest price for a particular instrument somewhere in the internet. There are a lot of exorbitant prices for all sort of stuff, which often have more to do with wishful thinking of the seller, sometimes simply with „ripping off“, than pricing being adequate for a serious retail shop. OTOH there might be regions of very high costs for living, far away oversea countries etc., where extraordinary prices can have a legitimate justification. These all can‘t be taken into considerations about a reasonable average retail. So I would agree completely, in this particular case, with the numbers Martin has given as upper range of retail for this type of violin, meant for perfectly well preserved examples in a well set up condition, and not what some internet dealers would like to get for them in some wet dreams.

That’s a nicely decorated „fancy“ trade bow from Markneukirchen, probably available from a catalogue Mail order. The frog is of a better quality than the Abeille wood (Brazilwood, beeswood) stick, like many of this type were. But as was written before, can be good for playing.

No need to explain anything here. Stay curious .

So we can give us all the benefit of (well founded) doubts , and stand curious.

It’s obvious that we all would bow for the (written) opinion of Eric Blot. OTOH I don’t think that I would need to revise anything of what I’ve written here, especially not when all was in regards to the less than perfect photos and also pointing out that I could be wrong from the start. I would be very curious, too, what sort of test was done to the paper of the label? And BTW is there enough paper from the period available from old books or documents which can be and is used for re-Prints, so paper alone can’t give any prove for sure. Just to pick this point alone, even after looking at the print again several times I still can’t imagine that it was made in any other way than I described, seeing all the blurry and saw-toothed lines. Just for the danger to be the fool here, that‘s simply what I‘m seeing.

Lutherie d’Artiste, not Strad. The Op isn’t bad, but the varnish seems to be of the hard and transparent kind over colored layer which is usually seen at rather simple models from the 1920s/30s. Worth thousands and „nothing better for playing“ are the usual exaggerations of those trying to be a bit too kind to new members.

The uneven back joint is evidence of an uneven reglueing, but not of any particular school. Also the model isn’t a copy of anything, neither Stainer nor something else. I’m not sure what you are meaning with pine blocks instead of linings, but some much older schools than this used such blocks. The OP here I would expect to have pine linings; the wonkyness has more to do with the hastyness of the construction on the back, corner blocks were added (or weren’t) later with this method in any case.

I would rather guess that the actual are the original nicks, because they are (roughly) in the mid of the f, while the other, extremely way down, were a kind of failed experiment and therefore filled again later.