uguntde

I agree, but I am sure Schmidt has his personal way of categorising one as August Moritz and the other Johann WIlhelm which he should really share. It is completely impossible to assign a name to each style, without a traded written documentation.

Some member of maestronet sent me this letter by HK Schmidt offering that I could post it - he struggled to get it posted. This sheds at least some light on the Knopf family. I sould still be interested in the specific differences in bows by these Knopf family members.

I first questioned that the certificate belongs to the bow, as I think it is unlikely that HK Schmidt is wrong. HK Schmidt is probably the most respected authority on these bows. Even if the pictures on ebay look unconvincing, I would want to know why he thinks it is Knopf. The certificates I saw from him were all for bows which were of excellent quality, as I stated above. He knows why he excludes any liability, even though this may not help him in a court case in Germany because he got paid for certifying the bow. It would be nice if he told us why he classifies this as Knopf, and how he differentiates between Knopf family members. This level of differentiation is very subjective and unlikely to be verified in any way. His son's certificates are much more detailed.

Knopf: No stamp, only HK Schmidt knows which Knopf family member made it, and the metal is not silver but rather and alloy that Schmidt calls Muldenhammer and nobody else knows what the Muldenhammer alloy is. The good ones I have seen (from the 1880s) were all on the lighter side, but have nevertheless strong sticks, with excellent technical properties, as made for Ricochet, which is remarkable for the time when they were made. HK Schmidt attributes some of the good ones to August Moritz, but nobody else knows why (probably somthing very simple). What helped the Knopfs to modern fame is that some family members worked in St Petersburg for Knittel who in turn derives his fame from Heifetz' preference for a Knittel bow. I am sure Martin could tell you more about the way they are built. The underslide is pinned, the eye slightly right of the middle of the frog, the adjuster has one groove at the end, not two like French bows, I have only seen octagonal sticks, the Zwickel (heel plate?) in one piece pinned at the top near the stick. The stick behind the untensioned frog seesm to have exactly the length of the adjuster. All this has often been copied. But then, what we see as original Knopf bows, are of excellent workmanship, no tool marks, everything accurate, beautiful wood. Then there are those with ornamented frogs that you find in the Tarisio/Cozio archive - I have never held one in my hand, but this means nothing. There are also these Tourte copies, no idea how they are identifiable. Filimonov wrote an article about the Knopf family available in the Strad which may give some answers. I am sure he kows a lot more. I would also like to learn more about Knopf bows.

Then it is fraud from the side of the person who writes the certificate. He says of course at the bottom that he rejects any liablity.

Where did you find evidence that AM Knopf died in Russia?

You can use it to treat erectile dysfunction. Nitroglycerine is even better, for both, making a big bang and for vasodilatation.

Do you think faked certificates or certificates not belonging to a particular instrument are an issue? If if you hold the certificate in one hand, how do you know it belongs to the bow in the other hand? I usually look for tiny marks in the wood on the pictures.

This is indeed shocking.

There are currently 4 Knopf family member bows available at Leonhardt in Mittenwald. One is as well made as the other. None has tool marks. One can of course assume that such dealers are careful when they buy in bows, to avoid bad ones.

In MHO this is not mass production. What lets it down is the wrong scroll.

I see tool marks that are not along the grain. Here the tip of a good Knopf family bow (AM if one believes HK Schmidt in the 1880s). These are very nicely made bows, excellent workmanship.

Correct, he used the gold frog for a new stick - I assume the insurance of the owner paid. The maker considered the stick worthless. I can't see the original break, not even with a lense.

Why? E.g. compared to Evah Pirazzi.

No shock here, I took the pictures in a workshop where it was repaired. The signature is Collin-Mezin père and the handwriting of what is written on the wood looks like from the same man, same ink. The number on the label is a differently coloured ink. He must have made many of the same maple tree trunk. Everything in this violin was typical for C-M père. It has a nasty damage to the front and was therefore not worth much. Maybe someone dropped a stand on it. Here the ouside. I have seen much nicer C-Ms.