Blank face

Agreed. But there are more boring things to do on a Saturday morning than a fiddle strife.

I think Jacob pointed out quite clearly why it's useless to compare with one singular and particular KuK model out of many different. There were also examples with very squarish shoulders, f.e. here https://www.khm.at/en/give-and-join/adopt-a-masterpiece/find-your-favorite-object/violine/ and others more falling, hooked and rounded ff etc. etc. Actuall nobody will find out anymore if the OP was Moravian, Bohemian, Hungarian, Carpathian or whatever regions produced violins. A good lesson not to mention names as example for certain features, somebody will come along trying to nail you (sigh).

Yup, I didn't get the point of excluding something so categorically based on somehow biased ideas.

They had several models, ff patterns etc, so what's the point? At least the OP is doubtlessly within that range. Another 1760 Leidolff :

Maybe we're looking from different ends of the universe at things, so it might be.

JF Leidolff and OP, to illustrate my point:

I'm sorry, but "Amatisè" would incline for me a bit more balance and elegance. Big points/slender tongues/narrow stems would be features pointing to the Viennese school. But it's more to this than one single observation, also model, arching and scroll.

Nonetheless not a bad fiddle, at least much better preserved than the last.

Someone, perhaps Mr R. Whittaker, applied a rather neatly Mittenwald lion head to an ugly Schönbach with painted on flames and tried to sell it as something about 150 years older than it is, that‘s all. Better pull down your flag.

It's just an idea to make the form more following the function.

Just my impression, too, maybe even a bit earlier. The ff look a bit like Leidolff or Thir and the inner scroll windings are showing remains of a dark varnish. The best and most merciful thing to do would be to cover all and everything with a really dark varnish again now.

Maybe he changed at some point to Mittenwald boxes? Don't misunderstand me, there was nothing wrong during this period to start from bought in parts or white boxes. Many makers did alike, usually all of the German "Großstadtgeigen" were made from this (though many makers stated nonetheless "selfmade in all parts") and hearsay knows that this was done in Italy, too. Actually I have such a Big City violin on my bench, made in Lausanne/Switzerland 1910 with a fantastic oil varnish, spectacular woods and I expect it to sound dreamlike once set up neatly. The pinched rib corners clearly identify it as made from a Schönbach box, and though the maker was born in Breslau he probably changed his name later to Alfredo di Formica. Looks like this http://galerie.geigenbauer.ch/index.php?id=808

Weight and flexibility can be quite different at this bows. I'm assuming that this model was made by different shops, there were so many that it's always nothing more than blind guessing to put a name on it. Here's a Dodd branded example with a slightly different frog, no "little heel". Was rather light weighted, too, when I recall it correctly.

A friend of mine had a very good Robert Forberger from the 1930ies made after a Guarneri dG model in a typical Czech manner, very similar to a Hubicek (just the golden-orange varnish much nicer); the label printed in yellow-orange. Unfortunately this instruments are much more rare in opposite to the "usual" Schönbach Dutzendware bearing one of the family's labels. Probably it was more easy to make a living dealing with these.

What gives you reason to assume this?