Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

tradfiddle

Members
  • Posts

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tradfiddle

  1. I'm afraid a number of us probably circled this one - I know I did as soon as the catalogue came out - so it may well go over estimate. My experience with making ironwood bows (in its varieties), or with old French ones, has been uneven. Sometimes outstanding results, other times disappointing. I will definitely be trying this one out!
  2. Wonderful and fascinating programme with interviews I have never seen before. The sequence in Mirecourt is beautiful - I have never bent a bow over a bowl full of charcoal, but its an idea... Thanks for posting!
  3. There are many grafts that are just the volute alone, or sometimes the volute and the back of the peg box. These can be done quite elegantly and almost invisibly. If you think about it, after a few peg re-bushings and some cracks it can become more desirable to have functioning pegbox walls - so you just preserve the volute.
  4. It depends which one you mean. The Ebay case is missing key bits, is relatively common, and is worth very little. If the Georgian case on the stand has not been attached to the stand, and it has its original interior components, it could be worth around £800-1200.
  5. The one on Ebay is not a Hill case, but a fairly standard mid to late 19th century British case. I was picking these up a decade or two ago at £100 a piece (or less). I have several well preserved ones of this type (including a late 19th c. Hill version of higher spec). The price asked is very, very steep even by today's prices, esp. given the internal condition and missing latches. It would be expensive at $200! The one on live auctioneers is a Georgian British (or Colonial-era American?) case - hopefully not now wedded to that awful stand...
  6. I've never had a problem with my past house prices being on the internet (despite having a tendency to restore and sell-on period properties). The added value has always spoken for itself and the current market does much of the setting of the price. My main concern is the historical aspect of charting information on instruments and makers. And yes, I was one of those people viewing every London sale over the years, catalogue in hand. I have high stacks in my study and boxes full of them in my loft, all annotated (and still used)...
  7. And yet Ingles & Hayday and Tarisio do not follow this practice of private/confidential results... Deleting results makes it more difficult for non-dealers to follow the market. Those who care - such as ourselves - will have all the results anyway. It is important to distinguish between public auctions, private auctions and private sales. It is a bit of a nonsense to give people the opportunity to see the result, but then not only delete the price, but the item along with it. Such things were not possible in the era of the printed catalogue! Its a bit like rubbing people out of photographs - but in the name of capitalism rather than for Big Brother. Note that my major problem is not some people choosing to hide prices - but the complete effacement that something has come to market. Do any of your clients ask you to not show their purchase (even without price) on your website?
  8. Shelbow - No, its not automatic as many of their lots remain completely viewable and are archived. They have special arrangements with some bidders to immediately list there lots as 'sold' rather than showing the achieved price. I suppose they might also have special arrangements with some sellers. Or as Martin Swan says, you might have accidentally ticked a box when paying.
  9. The auction takes place in a public forum, anyone who wishes to can watch it and observe the prices paid. But we must all shut up afterwards? For whose benefit? Do we owe someone that silence? To be clear: two lots were entirely deleted, not just the prices achieved. Because they are at the bottom of the list there is not even a gap to show that something was once there.
  10. Yes, £576k immediately deleted from the auction listing (along with the ex-Alard Vuillaume) and into internet oblivion a few minutes after they closed - as if lots 237 and 238 had never existed. Bromptons is not that big on transparency...
  11. Blank face - your comment well illustrates why I need to finally buy my own copy of the Grünke volumes, rather than snooping around those of friends. I shall buy myself one for Christmas! That said, there is a long trail of sources as one goes back in time (not the most reliable I know) that posit some original bowmaking by Weichold. Henley (I know, I know...) says that Weichold studied with Pfretzschner and implies that he was more reputed as a bow maker than a violin maker (perhaps for obvious reasons as he was drawing on some exceptional talent). Jalovec (I know, I know...) also has him as a 'quite good' bow maker. Anyway, as a result most dealers still have him as a 'real maker'. The Hills, I admit, would have been a much better analogy than Bausch! Thanks for the tip re. August Rau who I see was making from the 1880s-1890s, and associated with the Weichold brand, so entirely possible!
  12. Peter Oxley did a great article in The Strad many years ago about post-Tourte bow making traditions that clearly shows a good range of different models. It was in the June 1999 issue. If you can find a copy its a very handy first step to learning the vocabulary.
  13. Here is my 'R Weichold Dresden' violin bow c.1890-1900
  14. No, my bow is not by Voirin, but rather modelled on Voirin's style. In other words there are distinctive bow 'models' created by various makers: 'Tourte model', 'Tubbs model', 'Voirin model' etc which are fairly quickly recognisable. HR Pfretzschner, for example, tended to model his bows on those of FN Voirin or James Tubbs. For information, my R Weichold Dresden violin bow has the name stamp in the pre-1902 fashion, without any additional stamp.
  15. Well, at least according to Tarisio Richard Weichold existed as a real bow maker - and more importantly there are also a few pages about him (and bows stamped Weichold) in the Gruenke book. Its a bit like the Bausch narrative, in that he made his own bows at the outset, but that those stamped R Weichold Dresden were then effectively sold out of his shop and made by other makers such as the Nürnberger family. I have a c1900 R Weichold Dresden stamped violin bow which is a quite elegant Voirin model.
  16. Blank Face - fair enough, we've both fallen into this trap... The problem is, we can't rely on the scroll being original, the varnish has been changed, the ff's have potentially been fiddled with, and we don't have the instrument in our hands to get a good feel of the arching and sight of the interior. So we have been chasing a few breadcrumbs in a very wide wood! Time to draw a line under this one I think.
  17. And locating pins added too I imagine. It would be useful to know the back length. The spacing of the ff's on the submitted example is also on the tighter side. Which puts me in mind of some late 18th/early 19th Moravian instruments. That does not get changed! Also compare the shape of the upper bout against the Thir and Leidolff illustrated on this thread. The submitted example appears more rectangular/ less rounded? I copy the photos below so that they are closer to one another. That said, and as previously affirmed, I entirely agree this is from the lands of the venerable K&K.
  18. Just observing the hooked ff stems (that is to say, the shape of the ends of the stems) which are a consistent feature across the three we have just illustrated - not in the instrument submitted for evaluation. Hooked versus squared. I have no biases (?) against any of these categories - I love Leidolff and Thir violins! Better to light a candle...
  19. Here is a 1779 Mathias Thir (from Hopfner) with Stainerish ff's.
  20. Your illustration appears to support the observation I make above.
  21. Blank face I'm just talking about the formal category - not their balance or elegance. With Thir and Leidolff (who have ff's both in the broader Stainer and Amati categories) stems tend to hook a bit at the ends. The model and the arching do not look like Thir or Leidolff to me.
  22. Not much like any Leidolff or Thir soundholes that I have seen (and I have handled a fair few over the years, see also Hopfner's Geissenhof book which has some nice Thir's illustrated). Amatise yes, but other than that... K&K but more towards the Moravian side?
  23. Those are not typical 18th century English ff holes. I am inclined to Jacob's view.
  24. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this make ivory-faced bows made after 1975 effectively unsaleable? Won't this remove the entire output of many outstanding modern bow makers who used ivory head plates from the market - unless they are systematically re-faced? This being the case, I'm surprised that there is not more widespread, visible concern about this Act's implications.
×
×
  • Create New...