• Announcements

    • ghunt

      Whole Site SSL   03/08/17

      Whole site SSL is now turned on and forced for all pages on Maestronet. If you have any problems, please contact the admin team.

Guido

Members
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Guido

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Thanks for Jacob's Polish! I'll definitely make a bottle of that! So far, for me, one step up from the damp cloth were baby wipes, frangnance fee for sensitive skin, followed by Kleenex Aloe Vera facial tissues, which have a hint of an oily substance giving a subtle sheen.
  2. Sorry for my ignorance, but isn't this the shape of triangle of the blocks with longer sides to the upper and lower rips that would typically result from inside mold construction? That's what I imagined when reading Mr Saunders blockology; without having seen examples.
  3. Thanks a lot for the info. And thanks George for referring to your post. I, too, can see lots of similarities, even tough my ffs aren't as long. Interestingly, my next question would have been: What about those f-holes? The upper eye is the smallest I have ever seen. Anything of relevance in that? George, you had the exact same question but didn't get an answer. So maybe we try again...? On "reading" ffs; has anyone got a link to a post that "teaches" f-hole interpretation?
  4. Hello, I've been on this forum for a week and I love the learning. Here is another violin that I would like to understand better. My observations so far: Purfling: commercial Markneukirchen style? Corners: there is not much overhang and it's inconsistent between the corners. I have taken a pic of a (more relevant back) corner thast shows enough overhang to make me think: not built on the back. Scroll: the scroll is fluted all the way into the throat to the bitter end and the back does not have a delta. Not Markneukirchen? Blocks: I can make out 4 corner blocks but wouldn't be able to differentiate between an outside or an inside mold without the top off. Most of my reading the threats so far has been on yet another violin ID that turned out to have come from Saxony, hence my observations above. But where to from here? Keen to learn
  5. I can't believe no-one would have seen any of the at least 8 other violings of this prolific maker Anything else to report on similarities (or not) with Scotish violins around 1900. I wouldn't have a clue.
  6. So, Heinrich Theodor Heberlein Jr it is, which, according to my unreliable google exploits, leaves three possibilies: 1. Heinrich Theodor Heberlein Jr., made instruments between 1863 and 1910, when he died. 2. His workshop continuing in his name (usually labeled "Made in the atelier of...") 3. Heinrich Paul Theodor Heberlein (continuing the "Heinrich Theodor Heberlein Jr" business) from just before WW2 and the resuming in 1954. He died 1975. Could one tell by looking at my violin if it might be 50+ years or 100+ years old? Did the circular brand ever change in appearance or use over the 100+year time span between 1, 2 and 3? And who has an idea how the Herwig label may have gotten into the violin? Seems it would probably support that the violin is in the 100+ years category.
  7. I think we can rule out Markneukirchen, even the bottem end dutzendarbeit violins would be, well,... more consistent. Here are some pictures by the dozen. Again, I thinnk the scroll is not too bad; almost hard to believe that scroll and purfling whould have been done by the same person. Some corners are acceptable, other look like a train wreck gone purfling. The varnish has a yellow undercoat and a red overcoat, the latter seems to be very uneven on the top and altogether missing on the back. Also it looks like the bridge was put on before the varnished was cured. I guess it might have been a long and UV-less winter in Scotland when this fiddle was made. The bridge marks also look to be a bit far forward for my taste. The violin has a remarkably high arching, in particular the back - not sure the pics do it justice. But not of the Stainer type. It's more gradually rising over the length of the body. The back reminded me of a JTL Compagnon from about the same time. The violin has four rather neat and small-ish corner blocks and looking in from the end pin hole I could read DJ written on the soundpost. Istn't that what a proud amateur would do? When you look at the pics don't be afraid to state the obvious - that's what I usually miss :-) I couldn't even pick the model in this case.
  8. There is some good info on Wilhelm Herwig available form the Museum Markneukirchen. He was a musician and wholesaler. He was not a maker but sourced the instruments mostly form individuals who made them at home in a spare room, as was a common practice in Markneukirchen. This is somewhat different from Dilworth where he is also a maker: "HERWIG, Wilhelm Worked 1890-1930 Markneukirchen Germany. Maker and wholesaler of violins and accessories. Business founded 1890." And then there is Corilon, where a Herwig violin was sold with a description: "This antique handcrafted string instrument from the turn of the century c1900 was made by the Markneukirchen luthier Wilhelm Herwig. The violin bears the original label "Wilhelm Herwig in Markneukirchen". The violin is patterend on the model of Stradivari and features a rather slim neck and typical, softly rounded edges made in the Markneukirchen style. The attractive varnish is of a shiny, reddish brown color over golden yellow ground. Herwig added a decent antique finish to his work." Mine is very different from the Corilon example anyways. I don't have "softly rounded edges made in the MArkneukirchen style" and my purfling shows a rather large portion of white with slim blacks. All in all I thought mine was rather un-typical for the time and region. As the circular brand mark did not seem to be connected to the Herwig label I thought, the brand mark was the actual maker? Many thanks, luthier, for identifying the circular brand as "Heinrich Theodor Heberlein Jr". Looking on from this I find 38 auction results at Brompton's for this maker with violins made between 1881 and 1965. Really??? Also, Corilon (again) had one for sale form the early 1960s. I see more similarities with this than with the older ones. Could mine be younger than I thought? Maybe even post WW2? But that would not fit with the Herwig label and the old German letter type. But then again, Herwig's business was still around and was eventually acquired 1972 by MUSIMA. Could they have had a stack of old labels left which they continued to use after WW2? Was I right in my first impression that the violin doesn't look like a Markneukirchen trade fiddle from around 1900 at all? Getting close. Who can solve it?
  9. Hi, I've got this violin (which needs a bit of repair) and was wondering if it is of any interest on this forum in the everlasting Markneukirchen Dutzendarbeit discussions. I'm wondering if this is a "Meisterarbeit" from the caralogues...? I note the very nice wood, and the purfling going off-centre into the corners (I read somewhere that this might be a French design feature). Also, there is a brand mark (could be a TH overlaid and upside down in the pic) - maybe someone has to say something about this? Many thanks.
  10. Hello, first post, beware. I have a violin made by "D. Johnstone". It was his fiddle No.9 made in 1904. I'm not so much after a discussion of the violin, but rather the maker. I don't even know the country. The violin is well made of nice wood, scroll ok, purfling poor, varish a bit odd. I suspect an amateur and maybe no-one has ever heard of him... I got the violin in Australia, but the previous owner didn't know where it came from. Any clues appreciated.