Separated at Birth?

[Guy_Gallo]

Would you say these are similar enough to warrant attribution to the same hand? Same school? Same epoch? Country?

Or just an eerie coincidence....

[nertz]

Seeing so little in isolation makes it very hard to say, but the small run of inlay that I can see suggests quite a different c bout shape, especially the way it is running into the bottom corner (and also the material for the inlay appears to be pretty different in size and the way it is set).

I’d say it’s just as likely that the f hole of one heavily influenced the other ……………or they are both copies of a third maker………..but seeing so little it’s rather hard to tell.

[Andres Sender]

I'm no expert, particularly with regard to WHAT makes identification possible when so many people are striving for a similar look, and when one maker can vary his execution so much, but I see more differences than similarities of the sort that strike me as meaningful. I'd say whatever else is true, they're certainly not identical twins. :-)

There's a significant difference of concept in how the 'tail' of the eyes is shaped; the main body between the eyes is thicker on the left; the nicks are different shapes. Purfling size and distance from edge are different, etc.

[nertz]

I guess what I was trying to say in a rather rambling way is that to me the only relationship I see is that both makers probably liked the same sort of f hole shape……………….but I’m also no expert and maybe someone with more knowledge will step in and say something interesting.

[T_Rocca]

to me they look very different

[nertz]

I think the basic shape of the F hole is rather similar, especially the treble one.

[T_Rocca]

its carved by bvery differnt hands. the left one seems to be very concerned about outlook and craftmanship.

the right one is very nicely done. a bolder hand but very stylish. However the right one seems to do a better job in purfling.

[rudall]

Anyone who has access to Photoshop can use it to examine pictures like this to see differences. You just use different layers, make the images the same size, position one on top of another and adjust the opacity. I can post a sample image of these two f holes to show the effect if anyone is interested.

[Guy_Gallo]

The problem with the overlap-in-photoshop is: I didn't take both sets of photographs (even the bass and treble of the instrument I did take were taken at different times), so there are slight variations of angle that would introduce some difference or exaggerate a difference. Still, I might try what you suggest and see what it looks like.

I'm not suggesting that this feature alone is going to authenticate anything. I was just very struck my some of the similarities in flow, thickness of wing. (and then I guess I got carried away with Photoshop...)

[rudall]

I wasn't suggesting the opacity technique specifically in this case - more as a general tool for anyone who might be interested and didn't know about it.

[Guy_Gallo]

So here's a challenge.

Can anyone find another two instruments by the same maker, prior to photography (say pre-1840) in which the f-holes match up better than my example.

[Guy_Gallo]

That overlay/opacity trick is neat.

Here's an image of the base side f-holes, right side made opaque, placed over left, lined up at the nicks.

[MANFIO]

Hi! We don't need a photo to do that. We can leave a thin paper over the f and rub our fingers over it, it will leave what italians call an "impronta" of the f hole. Or you can have the original or a copy of it in your workshop to inspire your work.

I agree with nertz. The edgework and purfling are different. The way the nicks were cut are different too.

[Guy_Gallo]

Good point about the use of a paper tracing/template. I guess the question remains, unless you were deliberately setting out to duplicate an instrument (your own or another's) would you resort to that. And even with a template, doesn't the simple differences in wood and mood and what you had for breakfast make for minor differences in the carving?

I am not disagreeing about the purfling or the edgeword. They are different. Perhaps different enough to indicate two different makers. But the differences between the f-holes seem relatively minor to me. The kinds of differences that could be accounted for by inconsequential variables.

The elements that I have not found in other makers that make these two f-holes unique: wide wings *without* fluting (gdg might have similar shapes, but they are usually fluted), the extreme points at both upper and lower wings.

About the nicks -- you feel they were cut differently, meaning what shows here indicate different tools? Or just a different idea of nick?

[Guy_Gallo]

Guess who:

The difference between the two fiddles is nine years.

And another:

Difference 5 years.

Not sure what it proves, but it was fun putting together.

[MANFIO]

Yes, we carve differently according to the day, but the style and conception in general remains the same. It would be interesting seeing the scroll as well other photos of the instrument.

[Guy_Gallo]

But isn't that all I'm saying? That the style and conception of these two f-holes are the same? Does the fact that the nicks on one are a bit larger/broader than the nicks on the other negate the other similarities?

[Guy_Gallo]

Quote:

---

I think the basic shape of the F hole is rather similar, especially the treble one.

---

I meant to point this out. On the Base f-hole comparision, the violin on the right... see that little whit dot on the lower wing tip closest to the edge? That's actually the tip of the wing. The tip was damaged at some point, so a little chunk of the surface is missing -- which can give the impression that the base is narrower than the treble wing. It isn't.

[MANFIO]

Going back to the first question, I believe that the differences in execution are striking and that the violins were made by different hadns.

The violin of the left looks more classy. Do you have an atribution of the instruments?

[Jacob]

I really don't see those f-holes as having been carved by the same person. The similarities only highlight the differences in style. For instance, why fluting on the one and not on the other? Looking at the wing shapes can make one disregard other things. The "stems" of the two are radically different - to put it crudely, the stem of one reminds me of Stradivari, the other of del Gesu.

[Guy_Gallo]

I will post more information on the violins in question after a few more people way in.

Looking at the color photo of the left violin, it doesn't seem to have fluting. Perhaps the holes themselves are a bit more oval, giving the root a bit more umph.

I never said there were no differences.

But then there are differences clearly visible in my other overlay examples. Is no one going to comment on them? The first is Strad. The second GDG. Yes, there's a stylistic harmony (particularly in the Strad example), but there are differences as well. And note that I deliberately choose examples from the same period. One could easily find more divergent examples for both makers.

[Jacob]

Yes, I only tried to say that to me the similarities are perhaps more obvious, but also more superficial, than the differences. The fluting is one of the less subtle differences. The shape of the stem, and the nicks as Manfio pointed out, are somewhat more subtle. The shape of the lower eyes and their distances from the edge are very significant. Taking these three elements as points of comparison clearly demonstrates the kinship of the Stradivari and del Gesu overlay examples you supplied, despite the superficial differences between the overlay examples caused by what I would call "minor" differences in size, shapes of the wings etc.

I do agree that the similarities are striking, to the extent that one gets to wonder "why" and "how", but the same maker? - I seriously doubt it.

There is an illustration in the Hill book on the Guarneri family which shows an early del Gesu F-hole very obviously inspired by Stradivari. It was and remains a rewarding exercise to me to separate the Stradivari and del Gesu elements in that f-hole from each other.

[MANFIO]

In Biddulph's book on Del Gesú there is an article by Roger Hargrave. Hargrave superposes two f holes from a Strad and a DG and proves that they have exactly the same design.

[MANFIO]

By the way, Cozio di Salabue described del Gesú as "un imitatore di Stradivari", that is, he tried to emulate Stradivari, he deviated from that just in the last years of his life.

[Mauricio]

I also don't see too many similarities between the two ffs, other than the overall shape. My guess is if they are by the same person, the right one is either a very early example of this maker or it's the total opposite, cut when he was old. Agreeing with Manfio, to me, the left ffs are more attractive.