Blank face

A throughneck had no separate upper block but an elongation glued into the body with the ribs mortised into the sides of the heel. Thanks for the new photos, they confirm that the neck is beech. But I wondered about the back plate, which has flames like maple but also long flecks diagonal to the grain.

Neck and scroll are beech in my eyes, but I’m wondering about the strange figure at the bottom. Or is it an effect of the varnish only? The missing word for the neck construction is throughneck.

Just because it's about a mysterious inscription in an unknown instrument, ending somehow with -owsski or similar and I don't have any other idea. If it is disturbing you I won't mention it again. Maybe you're not far off saying that the writing doesn't look like the typical 19th/early 20th century German Kurrent writing. It is IMO not even clear if this is a name of a person, an institution or something else, and I'm doubting that the last three numbers are meaning a year but rather an inventory number or even a house number. To get an idea at what we are looking here it would be necessary to see more from the violin, like it was said before.

The name of the Russian city was Sanct Petersburg since 1712 (after the Holy Peter, not the Tsar), so Oltersburg appears more right. Or Iltersburg?

Salustrowski? Grand-grandfather of Salustri?

If we are splitting hairs, there are flat pegbox rears without arches at the upper end, what was done f.e. by Testore and others, and the Saxon/Bohemian/Salzkammergut way. Can't tell anything about Flemish celli, but I read that none of the documents is telling expressively that the scroll of the cello (which is one of the three in the archive, and another described as „scroll later“!) is definitely original. Just saying.

There's exactly one b/w photo, accendentally by the same certifier with this feature, second is the actual auctioned, and about ten instruments without. Another cello with flat rear pegbox, but without the double arches upwards, and a rather massive pegbox and scroll like the other instruments, not as slender and S-shaped.

Unfortunate to talk about an actual auction, but we wrote some words about old certificates. I won't say that I have much knowledge about Flemish instruments but there's also another instrument by the maker in the auction (with an actual certification) and everybody can compare if the scrolls are similar.

Yes, a Mittenwald roughly mid 19th century.

It was a bit more, after very intensive cleaning the ground was protected with thin transparent touchup varnish (removable with alcohol) and the thicker regions sanded with different grades of wet sanding paper (even starting with 180 at some points). The thicker pimples were scraped with a thin sharp blade. A bit time consuming but not difficult. When the darkened layer was removed it turned red again with a usual oil polish.

Even at an inexpensive violin nobody wants to open the case and think „Oh shit“. I would also think that much more than the exact diameter a good fit is essential. A 6.3 post doesn’t help much if there’s only 3 mm of it in touch with the plate.

5.9 mm seems to be not too far off. At least if one makes it slightly oval to fit through the hole at the nicks it can get even more mass. I would doubt that it makes a lot of difference here. If it doesn't work well, at least you would have checked out the right length for a thicker one.

From the rests at the scrol and ribs it had most probably the thick reddish varnish, which darkens and crackles and is often confused with "burned, kept too hot" etc. Instead of restore it to he former color many like too remove it (sigh!) as it was recommended here: It's not difficult to bring it back to a nicer state, but the sad outcome we can see at the OP. For comparison before/after:

Of course the bow looks very similar to the example in Deutsche Bogenmacher (much more than Duane's. Could it be possible that frog and adjuster aren't original?), except that the pearl slide is different, described as usually made of white mop, and the tip of the head seems to be shortened. The last could be restored by a bowmaker. If the stamp is reading similar to Schäffner's it's most probably made by him. The pearl slide could date it more in the early 20th century.

We might agree on that we completely disagree here. This is in my eyes and experience a very clear case.

Yes, they are with this method. Other similar like building on the back with preinstalled blocks or ribs set into grooves can result in a different appearance. There are also tests if one can pick up the violin with two fingers at the rib corner or sqeeze them easily there, but I would be carefull with such tests at antique violins.

From Deutsche Bogenmacher:

The photo detail posted by GeorgeH (below) shows clearly a seam in the middle of the rib joint, and that the rib end is flush with the bottom plate. The belly corner has a later wooden elongation. The same is visible at the upper bass side corner, while the lower corner ribs are cut back and blackened, probably later as an "improvement" like Jacob wrote. So there's not much doubt about the construction method, what makes any question about the form of the blocks etc.superfluous. It's a true observation that jointed Markneukirchen violin backs from the period of mass production are usually very symmetrical, while Mirecourt made can have the center seam rather off. But I would be very reluctant to use this as an identification point in regards of much earlier periods, as long as one doesn't have more prove about the tools the makers used 220 years ago than oral tell tales. At least most of the Saxon instruments from this period have one piece backs anyway.

Thanks for this view! I think the only conclusion we can draw here is that, judged by the birghter color, the blocks and probably linings, too, are later additions.

I didn't say that the pegbox rear was the only evidence for a Saxon (or Westbohemian) origin, and listed some more features. But one can say that it is a very strong one, especialyy as I don't know about any proven old Polish instrument has this feature. A typical and most probably real Groblic is this :http://www.violini-cracovia.com/en/466/violin-marcin-groblicz-circa-1609/ Just that they might have used the flat pegbox rear with archings the instrument in question should have more in common with old polish violins, model, ff etc, what the OP has not. which has an ornamented, but very different pegbox. Maybe they are a lot of "ascribed to" Groblic , Dankwarts or others, being in fact just from the regions I named before, similar like inked purfled Salzkammerguts are often certified as Testore or other Milanese. At least I'm still waiting to see any violin from France, Netherlands or Reg. broad cornerblocks: It is very clear at a built on the back construction, which this definitely is, that corner blocks are not an essential part of the construction but are always added later. Sometimes by the original maker after the construction of the rib garland and before closing the box, often by some much later repairer or improver. Therefore it's quite possible to see any randomly added form of these blocks, small, wide, longer in the upper or lower bouts (though the symmetrical form might be the most frequently). A cornerblockology should always start with the form of the rib joints before drawing further conclusions. Of course early French making did use bob and throughneck, and maybe some of the provincial makers could be similar in some aspects to Saxony (surely not Renaudin or others from the Vieux Paris school). But taking everything together, including the particular shape of the scroll and pegbox, it appears very unlikely that this is what we are looking at.

Sorry, but if you don’t read my posts completely it is a hopeless argument.

None of them, nor Dutch, Flemish, Spanish, English etc. has the flat area with two arches on top. This is exclusively found in the region between Saxony, West Bohemia (Kastl for example) and Salzkammergut. That’s one of the the most easily to identify features. The proportions of volute and pegbox from the Renaudin, as well as the geometry of the volute are a very different thing. The ff with rolled on long wings and large lower holes look also quite typical, as well as the varnish, woods and construction method. No idea why it shouldn‘t be the most obvious, stretching all evidence as wide as possible?

As I said, most likely they are from scraping off resin residue.

Definitely not with this scroll.

It doesn't look like wear to me, but as if somebody tried to remove resin residues with an inedaquate tool. Happens very often, unfortunately. This flat lower rear pegbox area with two arches at the top is a very common feature seen at 18th/early 19th century Salzkammergut and Saxon instruments. I guess we had discussed it very often in the past, it has nothing to do (or at least very remotely only) with the "shield" at much later trade instruments.