A Quartet of Bows

[Guy_Gallo]

All four by different makers. Not all from the same country or period.

[Ed Shillitoe]

Does the third one have a number stamped on the face, under the hair?

[Regis]

Great thread even if it is too difficult for me to get all.

Is the top one viola and not violin?

[Guy_Gallo]

Ed, no, I don't think the third has a stamp on the tip, however a good guess (and there is a relation to what I think you are thinking).

Regis, no the top one is listed as Violin. However, it might seem a little larger due to the vagaries of photography.

What do they have in common? What lineage shared. I thought of naming the thread "Who's your daddy?"

And then, what features are distinctive of this lineage?

[Terry Maurice]

They have a very "English" look to them.

Terry

[Jeffrey Holmes]

Just a thought for those who wish to try and "figure it out". If you look back at the last bow thread, how do these heads vary from that lot? What about the way the shaft enters the head (the camber just in back of the head)? Is that different, or not?

[Raphael]

I'm completely amateur. But i will try..

The first is a D. Peccatte, the second is a E. Pajeot, the third could be a english bow, the last is a N. Maline.

[Regis]

I don't know yet, But, looked-up the N. Maline in Raphael's post. I don't think he made 2 heads the same, at least not in the 4 or 5 violin bows shown at Tarisio.

[Guy_Gallo]

The last is Nicholas Maline (and I think my personal favorite). And the second is Etienne Pajeot.

Some amateur

Can you speak to what led you to these makers? What struck you as distinctive?

What do these four examples have in common? If anything.

As for Maline not making to heads the same (in a sample of four), I think you could easily find four wildly different heads by virtually every maker from 1800-1850.

[Raphael]

I have seen almost all pictures avaiable at Tarisio so the Peccatte and Maline don't make me surprise much. I only make a search again to confirm my memory

The second bow of Pajeot is difficult to find out. I though that both the second and third are english but i didn't find any english bow of Hill& sons or Dodd, Tubbs in Tarisio with this head and it couldn't be a german bow to my eyes. So I tried to think about an old french bow again, because the modern french bow maker (after 1900) have usually only one or few models and i remember many from them. Made a searh again and lucky enough I found Pajeot.

I guess the third is a english bow because i find it's english and because you said that not all 4 bows are from the same country.

[Regis]

Guy & Jeffery,

Here are differences and similarities that I see. "Or", am I missing the forest for the trees! If that is what you mean, then I need to make myself a chart of theses kind of traits for each maker.

Similarities:

Shaft enters head same on 1& 3 (rather high)

The front slope of the heads on 1 & 4 look the same

#'s 2 & 3 have curved bottom plate

#'s 1 & 3 have longer tip (nose for lack of better term)

Differences:

# 3 has a more squared back (of head)

# 4 top ends in sharpest corner (even more that #1)

# 4 back is evenly rounded from top to bottom.

# 4 is very narrow waist

# 3 has wide waist

Does anyone have reference to the names of parts of the bow head? Somebody posted a great chart on bridges last year(I think).

[Jeffrey Holmes]

Hi Regis;

I was referring to slightly more general differences between this group and the "Voirin school" group. One of the more significant differences is the camber of the shaft. The "Voirin" camber begins it's "swoop" directly behind the head, which is most evident in the first two bows in that thread. In this group, the camber tends to enter the head in a slightly "straighter" manner.

In general, I find the shape of the heads in this group is more "Hatchet" in character than those in the last thread as well.

[Guy_Gallo]

The shaft immediately behind the head doesn't narrow.

The "forehead" of the face, instead of curving into an S seems to drop down from the shaft. This is the feature that gives the impression of a hatchet.

In the voirin school there was a symetric relation between this "top of S" and "bottom of S". In this grouping, seems to me, it's almost aggressively at odds (the top and bottom of the S, that is). Especially in 2 and 4, Pajeot and Maline.

[Jeffrey Holmes]

I don't believe the first bow is a D. Peccate, but that's really close... and the differences are minimal at best.

So, we had a couple English guesses at the third bow... and I believe one person thinking it was a Hill (which is REALLY close, but it's not). Anyone want to try getting closer?? What brought about the guess at the Hill? The shape (model), the metal face, or both? What is the model (who's you're daddy)?

Does everyone see the "Roman nose" (the front profile of the head) on #s 2 & 3?

[Guy_Gallo]

Another feature I see in both 1 and 3 is the slight dip in the bottom of the shaft as it approaches the back of the head.

[Regis]

Jeffery,

QUOTE: "Does everyone see the "Roman nose" (the front profile of the head) on #s 2 & 3? "

Yes, if you mean the 'very' slight bulge(for lack of better term) forward on the front as it slopes down.

[Jeffrey Holmes]

That's the feature I was speaking of.

[Raphael]

oh, I didn't check the D. Peccatte. It looks very similar to Peccatte bows I have seen.

Amateur is amateur

[your_piano_stud]

I think 1 is by Malcolm Taylor.

[Guy_Gallo]

Number 1 is Francois Peccatte.

Number 3 is English, is related to Hill. Is not Malcolm Taylor

What I was looking to show is the various ways in which makers took the later Tourte style -- more "masculine," angular, often massive than the Voirin/Simon variation on Early Tourte -- and used it as a model.

Who do you think is the most successful? Or most unified?

[Guy_Gallo]

Here are the frogs

F Pecatte

E Pajeot

W Watson

N Maline

[Ed Shillitoe]

Quote: "What brought about the guess at the Hill? The shape (model), the metal face, or both?"

It was both the profile and the metal face, but in particular the color and texture of the pernambuco is exactly the same as some other bows that I am familiar with. Interestingly, the question of the wood does not seem to have been discussed as a feature of bow identification. Is it important?

Ed

[Regis]

Ed,

I sure agree to adding wood to these identification discussions. Does the grain density and exact plane indicate a particular maker preference or bow characteristics? Did any high quality bow makers stay away from pernambuco?

Off to dig into my books to try to answer some of my own questions.

Regis

[Jeffrey Holmes]

Quote:

---

Interestingly, the question of the wood does not seem to have been discussed as a feature of bow identification. Is it important?

Ed

---

Yes... but a tad difficult to describe and really see clearly in most photos on the "screen".

Regis; Pernambuco was the favored wood (and available; textile industry also used it), but amourette and others are often seen in 19th century work.

[Regis]

Just read where Francois Xavier Tourte was actually the 1st to strongly promote and use pernambuco. Prior to late 18th century ironwood and snakewood(wish I had one that old in my collection). The amourette (snakewood) name caught me a few weeks ago.

But, are there any famous, high quality makers of the 19th or 20th century that do not primarily use pernambuco?