Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Hempel

Members
  • Posts

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hempel

  1. The EHR serials/grading system commenced only after EHR II joined Simson (late 1925 IIRC). Prior to that EHRII was with Selmer, and (some) EHR instruments were sold by Selmer without labels or markings of any kind. EHR instruments were advertised for sale by other music dealers like Carl Fisher and even Wurlitzer. The marking attributes of the violin violin you posted are entirely consistent with EHR fiddles made before EHR II joined Simson. Label design also changed after EHR II joined Simson. EHR firm historical record has been covered ad nausem on this forum. Separate the speculation (even on this thread) from the historical record and it should be very clear. It gets really tiresome when even people in the trade raise spurious alarms like "no serial number!?" and "made for the European market." Freaking pathetic.
  2. I don't know where you are or which "experts" you consulted. You need to ask yourself if EHRs did indeed sell in the European market, why the label would bear "GERMANY" stamped in English. In the worldwide context, this could only mean the product is aimed at English-speaking countries (UK, US, Canada, Australia, perhaps some countries in Africa.) If as your "expert" contends, your fiddle specifically was aimed for the European market, you should ask your expert to provide some documentary evidence that there were EHR agents and advertising material published in/for the UK. That's how you'd find out that perhaps your "expert" might not be so expert at all. These days cell phone manufacturers make the same model phones but give them different names depending on which carriers sell them. Back in 1925 (and earlier) they used the same concept.
  3. C.G. Glier & Sohn. Markneukirchen firm.
  4. There are published sources (books) that claim Joseph Hamberger took over Georg Leeb's shop after his death. I will point out Georg Leeb was sufficient ill enough to at least attempt to have a "fire sale" of his shop contents, 11 months prior to his death. Published in 4/4/1828 (and a few subsequent) issue of Preßburger Zeitung:
  5. Peter Teufelsdorfer of Pest was involved in a (1823?) dispute with Staufer over the arpeggione. Bit strange that Georg Leeb would insert himself into this dispute, and assert "prior art," saying his father created this over 20 years earlier.
  6. There's some evidence the Preßburger Geigenmacher Georg died in Vienna, age 38 (Wiener Zeitung, 3/7/1829): (entry is 3/3/1829) I've verified though the death register at St. Josef ob der Laimgrube that the Preßburger Geigenmacher Georg Leeb died in Vienna. A bit curious this putative "Viennese" Georg (was son of Andreas Karl or Johann Georg??) wasn't mentioned in the Ö Musiklexikon.
  7. There is Johann Georg Leeb (b. around 1759, cognomen "Georg") and his son Georg (baptismal name, not "Johann Georg") who carried on the Preßburg business after JGL died.
  8. Published in the Preßburger Zeitung 7/7/1823: This published remark would indicate that Johann Georg Leeb had a son Georg (b. 5/5/1791) that carried on the business after his death, and that the younger Georg was still alive in 1823, past the 3/3/1817 date specified by Lütgendorff. Lower right: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9R7W-96MW?i=260&cc=1554443&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AKZT6-V8C There are some indicators that Johann Georg Leeb died shortly before 2/27/1823, published in a passing memorial.
  9. Other German firms had agents in St. Petersburg only buttresses my point. What's so special about UK that EHR apparently had no agents or adverts?
  10. If JGL died on 3rd March 1817 his death is not mentioned in the St. Martin parish death records. (There are other parishes in Pressburg.) I vaguely recall the Viennese Lautenmacher (Guild) Charter limited the time a widow could carry on business. If that's true, I almost have to wonder how Josefa managed to get a twelve-year exemption. Granted Johann Karl no doubt helped her. I think there's not much to dispute for the rest of your summary. The probate records for AKL and his wife Josefa still exist at the Viennese archives.
  11. Plainly stated with zero context. If the advert BF posted appeared in a trade journal geared towards plucked strings, that context would certainly make a difference. And how long did EHR ads run? Ad I posted ran for a SINGLE issue. In Germany you had hyper-inflation right after WWI, a cold which the rest of Europe caught after Germany sneezed. The Germans wanted hard currency, last thing on their minds was selling in Europe, which is why you'd see Engros/Export in virtually all ads, not just Windisch. The Brits also had a European blockade during WWI, so they'd hardly be in a charitable mood towards the "Jerrys" after WWI (or after WWII, for that matter). Name some EHR agents, show some EHR ads in The Strad or any other British magazine and you'd have some EVIDENCE.
  12. That EHR advertisement you posted was (mostly for) plucked string instruments [(D'Orso) "Zupfinstrumente"]. EHR plucked string instruments were aimed at a different (European) market than their bowed stringed instruments. A bit ironic in the Otto Windisch advert, in the low right corner, they state "Engros % Export" (wholesale export). You should be able to identify any agents EHR had in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. It's not as if (to use an example) the GEWA lorry drives up to a dealer and that's the end of GEWA's marketing efforts. They've got to drive end consumer demand as well as the sales channel (dealers). In the US their agent was Simson,and later EHR II himself. EHR marketing was shockingly absent, you'd hardly be able to find it if you tried. You only need to look at the trade magazines, especially the German ones c. 1920, to understand EHR faced fierce competition. Ads from competitors were fierce. The single instance EHR advert I mentioned before was specifically for violins (bowed strings), with a testimonial letter written by Ysaye, translated into German. EHR only ran that advert in only one issue because he wanted his own editorial published. Complaining about corrupt violin tone competition judges who awarded him a silver medal, despite the fact the judges had no opportunity at all to play his instruments, since they were locked in a display case.
  13. Update: I was able to decipher Andreas Karl Leeb's father's profession. "Tafeldecker" according to various German dictionaries, is a servant who is mainly tasked with tablesetting. I suppose the nearest English equivalent is footman.
  14. EHRs (at least the ones so-labeled or branded) weren't ever sold new in Europe. (They might have been given away to artists in exchange for endorsements.) They were soley aimed for the North American (US and Canada) market. So I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Ysaye endorsed EHR violins (meaning EHR adverts quoted him) but keep in mind this was due to his stint as director of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. I've only been able to find one single instance where EHR advertised in Europe (Germany) prior to WWII. Incidentally US interned and then deported Austrian conductor Ernst Kunwald (due to anti-German/Central Powers sentiment) and had to import a Belgian to essentially "reform" Cincinnati. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/03/11/anti-german-hysteria-city-during-wwi/98895422/
  15. Lütgendoff asserts there are two Johann Georg Leebs who were instrument makers. There is only one if you take both of his entries into account, considering the evidence from primary sources. Johann Georg Leeb (age 20) married Maria Anna Haymerl on October 10, 1779 at St. Martin's Catheral in Pressburg. His occupation "Lautenmacher" was recorded, but unfortunately his parents weren't. This would make JGL's birth c. 1759. This marriage date coincides to when Lütgendorff states JGL "(I)" received his citizenship rights in Pressburg. About 1/3 down the right page (free acct to view): https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GRQ1-R1M?i=438&wc=9P3P-N3V%3A107654301%2C107722701%2C123570801%2C124034601&cc=1554443 Note that one of the witnesses to this wedding is a "typographus" named Joseph Renner. Probably the bloke who made JGL's labels. JGL would go on to have several children starting in 1780. Andreas Karl Leeb was married only six or so years later in Vienna, to Josefa Handelsberger in January 1785, at age 29. This means AKL is actually slightly older than JGL. According to this marriage entry Andreas Karl's parents names were Johann and Maria Anna (née Sommer). His father's profession was "tafeldecker," a footman (closest English analog that occurred to me). recorded, but I'm having difficulty deciphering it. Third entry: https://data.matricula-online.eu/en/oesterreich/wien/01-am-hof/02-01/?pg=33 Unfortunately the church registers in Pressburg and Tyrnau are not well indexed, which makes finding both their parents difficult. (We aren't even certain which parish in Tyrnau to start.) Here is an advert placed by Andreas Karl Leeb in the November 8, 1786 issue of Wiener Zeitung. He specifies that he has Stainer and Leidolff instruments at his workshop located at "hohen Brücke im Baaderischen Haus."
  16. Post a decent picture of the label so I can be sure we have the correct Wenzl. No Wenzl "K" in the Schönbach archives.
  17. 1925 Also see here: http://forum.museum-markneukirchen.de/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=122&hilit=Franz+Otto&f=13&t=122&hilit=Franz+Otto Your fiddle was most likely made/sold after Schuster & Lederer took over.
  18. The information in Lütgendorff supplemental volume is incorrect. The patrilineal descendency tree is as follows: Johann Fuchs (Geigenmacher b. 6/8/1829 m. 6/20/1852)->Wenzl (Holzhändler b. 2/26/1867, m. 4/14/1891)->Wenzl (Holzhändler, b. 8/19/1901, m. 6/7/1924) Since Drescher (Lüt 3) is confused on the specific Wenzl I'd thread carefully on which Wenzl is meant by "Son of Johann F. Worked in Eltersdorf near Erlangen after the war and was respected for his repairs and making." The last Wenzl (b. 1901) did run a shop and had journeymen who previously worked in EH Roth shop. From a trade directory published in 1925:
  19. My notes have links to original archival material, so what? Here are a brief sampling of "my notes" regarding Homolka: (Eduard Emanuel's Homolka's baptismal entry, last entry on page:) http://katalog.ahmp.cz/pragapublica/permalink?xid=D227E4A1D3DA4E84B1E32061236FCA0F&scan=267#scan267 (Eduard, son of Eduard Emanuel H.'s baptismal entry, last entry on page:) http://katalog.ahmp.cz/pragapublica/permalink?xid=A11B00A0A9114DD591DC4236B29E8B83&scan=586#scan586 The collection of documents on this thread provide a good sampling of handwriting from the relevant period (including E.E. Homolka's own handwriting and autograph on his own stationary in the very first post), and anyone who'd mistake the three "Homolka" labels presented on the other thread, which barely rises to a cartoonish level as authentic, should not be taken seriously. That includes Jalovec specimen #192! If you can't understand why those labels on that other thread are spurious then you can only blame your own failed observational powers. (Hint: stroke width varies due to directionality because of the period writing implement used.) We can rubbish your pretentious claims to "objectivity" and "misplaced confidence" too.
  20. Similarly, for E. E. Homolka's father, Ferdinand August Vincenz, who lived in Staré Město in Prague before relocating to its second district, Nové Město. E. E.'s mother's maiden (Germanized) name was Marie Kobertsch. The conscription records show that F.A. Homolka and his wife moved to Vinohrady in 1887, and later in 1905 Eduard Emanual's family joined them at the same residence. Date, cadastral parcel, current derived (approximate) address 1858, 105, Opletalova 27 5/12/1865, 139, Senovážné nám. 980 4/22/1866, 104, Opletalova 27 2/24/1871, 457, Náměstí Republiky 1 1/4/1873, 231, Na Poříčí 1757 6/20/1878, 454, Na Poříčí 1071
  21. A recent thread on false E.E. Homolka labels has prompted me to review my notes. Below is the conscription (residence) record for E. E. Homolka. It shows where the Homolka family resided at various times in Vinohrady. Date, Cadastral parcel, present address (derived*) 11/10/1889, 379, Bělehradská 120 5/20/1891, 565, Slezská 2033/11 11/27/1897, 140, Americká 227 11/15/1904, 482, Not found 12/30/1905, 699, Francouzská 17 *derived addresses are found using: https://www.geoportalpraha.cz/cs/mapy/mapa-online and google maps. The cadastral map below shows that the Homolka family never lived further than 3 blocks from the Saint Ludmila Church while in Vinohrady. The conscription record shows E.E. Homolka's wife was Marie Lomberska, and they had two children named Eduard and Emma. The younger Eduard was also trained as a violin maker, but was tragically killed in WWI.
  22. What makes you think the Jalovec label #192 specimen is any more reliable reference than the photo of the label you posted earlier? What objective evidence do you have that Jalovec label #192 is authentic? Had you bothered to spend time in the Czech archives and tried to verify Jalovec's biographical entries, you would have realized Jalovec's compendium on Czech makers is rife with errors. And that's objective fact. And plenty of objective evidence has been presented on this thread, you're simply ignoring them.
  23. Hempel

    Modern Italian?

    Paul de Wit's "Zeitschrift für Instrumentenbau" is quite a remarkable resource on mass production from 1880-1940 for German-speaking countries (but not exclusively those). I find information there to be much more complete than any book. There's even a series in there on Prague makers written by Homolka which was almost certainly the source for Lütgendorff. Even Wikipedia is effusive in its praise for ZfI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitschrift_für_Instrumentenbau
  24. The OP's label is as fake as a US$3 bill and can be spotted a mile away. Relying on random photos off the internet as reference material is a fool's game. The label you posted is fake too, although the faker did a better job on that one. "Vinia(e)" and "Vinea(e)" are alternate spellings and mean "vineyard" in Latin. And Homolka wouldn't have got his Latin conjugation wrong. The name of the fiddle maker in question is "Edvard Emanuel Homolka" so you better have a good explanation why he signed your label "Eman. E. Homolka," switching the ordering. If you spend time in the archives (including indisputably authentic handwriting from EE. Homolka) you can quickly glean what authentic handwriting of the period should look like, including writing implements used. Neither the OP or your label fit in that category.
×
×
  • Create New...