Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Blank face

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Blank face

  1. In Mirecourt it was quite common to buy and use names of former shops or makers to brand shop and factory products, beside simply made up names. Some examples are mentioned in the linked Terrier site, or here: https://www.luthiers-mirecourt.com/marques_de_fabriques_.htm. He writes that Couesnon "absorbed" the Leon Bernardel name in 1913, so business propaganda might have transformed this into a claim that he became a director. All sorts of wrong claims about the branding practice can be found in older dictionaries and spread and copied from one to another. To put any weight on this claims is erraneous.
  2. Léon Bernardel wasn’t a maker either, but a trademark of the Coursnon firm: https://www.luthiers-mirecourt.com/couesnon1934.htm You mustn’t believe in all the merchandise gossip which is told about all sorts of tradenames and -marks. Reg. the “Copie de..” adjunct, I’ve seen this only one time in a German violin and in a very different font than at the French. Maybe this was used only by abroad dealers when labeling Markneukirchen products?
  3. Mitred rib joints, cleated bottom seam, one piece belly, scroll with short and narrow throat, a particular brown glossy varnish point to Mirecourt work, probably early factory work before 1900. Cheap and nasty is more a description of the way these were produced, the instrument itself isn’t that ugly in my eyes. I has nicely figured wood, varnish isn’t ugly neither and the general condition ok. Which work would be necessary is not finally to decide by the photos, maybe a neck reset, but in general it should be worth it.
  4. Your link doesn’t work but you are right that Jacob has described this method in some threads. So the answer is (probably) yes.
  5. This is a German fancy tailpiece I have several in my box, but it could have joined the violin for many reasons.
  6. One can theorize, speculate and turn all forwards and backwards again several times and it all won‘t change anything as long as it isn’t confirmed in writing by one of the respected experts. You were offered help, for example by our moderator. Just why you didn’t take it?
  7. Thanks for the new photos! The rib joints now look like made the French way, the scroll is most probably not original but a touched up German.
  8. These names were deliberately made up to be confused with some reknown. OTOH it sheds some light on the reasons why some people still believe in the existence of a Dresden or Leipzig school and the like. If this was the better grade I don’t want to see the lower.
  9. Maybe it’s not original. It looks overcoated and could be overworked to match better the style of the body.
  10. Until it will be relisted. Looks composite, stripped and revarnished, maybe somewhere in the Carpathian region.
  11. The body is Markneukirchen/Schönbach cottage industry from the early 20th century, the scroll probably a crudely made contemporary replacement, label and brand bogus. Sculpture academy of Kitsch, probably PRoC.
  12. Thanks. Yes, it's a 19th century Markneukirchen trade bow with a Vuillaume slide, but not a copy of a Vuillaume bow. Unfortunately the thumb projection of the frog was mutilated. The mortice for the eyelet looks damaged, too, the headplate missing, so all in all it would probably not be worth the costs of a restoration for many.
  13. Maybe some, but with the one I enlarged a bit (below) I would have doubts. As I mentioned, it looks so even in thickness and at the same time so unrelated to the grain that I would assume usually that it was scribed; and a nice "screw driver" mark right across it. OlEnglis like some Duke school and old Saxon can look sometimes similar, as well as copies they made, but the scroll shape points rather clearly to Saxony/Bohemia.
  14. Maybe something like Otto Hoyer“Pariser“, but your bow is far away from that. It appears to be Abeille wood, but there isn’t much more to tell without seeing the whole of it, frog, adjuster and so on. As an hypothesis assume that it’s rather worthless. These Roman numbers you can find both at frog and stick identically are assembly Numbers helping to get the matching parts together in shops.
  15. What we are seeing here has nothing to do with construction techniques (and the sort of pseudo or fake blocks you’re mentioning only as sideaspects btw) but with a failed repair attempt. I won‘t speculate about the origin of the method, but the last time I found a similar log (not patch!) was at a rather nicely Mittenwald I received directly from America, with similar but for good not as dramatic results. At least the neck loosened again taking the button with it.
  16. Good question. Indeed the "crack" in the lower treble bout seems to exist only inside the purfling, therefore it's possibly painted/scribed on only. So the impression of age or revarnishing might be an effect of the light and bad exposure only and it's of the "antique copy" kind.
  17. Markneukirchen region (what includes Schönbach) first half of the 19th century would be my guess.
  18. To me it looks French/Mirecourt made according to an early 19th century model, but rather crudely executed and therefore probably more from the mid 19th. Especially the ff are roughly cut and the scroll could be confused with certain Schönbach scrolls. The construction I would assume is „with preinstalled blocks“ though even the rib joints look pinched together; tips of the linings glued over the blocks is typical French of the period. From a restorer’s point of view a soundpost patch made with a (partial) cast is the best (if not to say only) solution to get it all clean together again in register and into a correct arching shape.
  19. You didn’t get the point. Of course it is a plastic bow with melted in plastic hair. At a time when plastic is going to be replaced with natural materials for the sake of nature because it is deadly for animals in many ways, it sounds (!) sarcastic to call this kind of bow animal „friendly“.
  20. The German words mean, in short terms, after a long unrelated talk about Guarneri and Kubelik (as if the instrument in question would be comparable other than the more or less randomly chosen name at the label) that the actual Roth firm doesn't know how it was made, from which wood, how the workshop looked during the period, how it came to America and what was it's sales price. It's somehow making all requests at the actual firm for informations about old Roth violins appear to be absurd.
  21. I would doubt that disposable plastic bows which can't be rehaired with a 3-year lifetime should be described as "animal friendly".
  22. Quite right, and I didn't mean to stop anybody nor will I stop by myself. Just saw the short discussion above and was guessing that many are probably more concerned about things which aren't supposed to dicuss here than about formerly more important topics. So go on please.
  23. I was very hesitant to write anything like that here, BUT: Another attack like the one on the nuclear plant which happened last night could mean the end of all discussions about violin making, auctions, concerts and everything what's our favourite occupation. In accordance with the United Nations these mad and criminal actions against all human kind (including people in Russia!) need to be stopped immediately and everybody should think what to do about it, Otherwise I can't see much sense in violin talk under such circumstances.
  24. Fiddles are usually not dated by dealer's labels which might have been attached for any accidentally reason at any time. The supplier was a trader in Markneukirchen/Schönbach violins, there were certainly several. An 1860 date would be in my eyes a possible most early date, and won't change much. A through neck puts it at least into a period before 1880, as I assumed.
  • Create New...