Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

John Juzek Violin


GoldenPlate

Recommended Posts

It seems that we have found Scotland's answer to Lyndon.

Jealous and mean spirited responses, name calling, verbal equilivents of sticking out your tongue, All from completely clueless bloggers!

If you look closely at Juzek Master Arts, they are virtual copies of E H Roth violins with different varnish.

That is a fact! And none of this has anything at all to do with JTL trade names!

Dear Chow Mein;

I've been a bit unintentionally "outspoken" on the board for suggesting that participants show a bit more restraint when commenting on items for sale... and try to focus on the instrument more than the seller in the discussion. I'd also suggest that the reverse is appropriate. "Clueless blogger" is kind of name calling, don't you think? :) You are also choosing to post under an assumed name (my assumption of course. I apologize if your name actually is Chow Mein & that you were conceived in a Transylvanian Chinese restaurant), and others are using their own identities openly.

Anyway, back to your comment concerning Roth and Juzek. Yes, I've noticed similarities between some of the Juzeks and Roth instruments... most noticeable in the lower end Roth and upper end Juzek categories. I've never had the desire to delve into records or investigate further... but honestly, I actually had the reverse impression than what you stated. I suspected that Roth was being supplied with some lower end fiddles by the same shop(s) that were suppling upper end instruments to Juzek. Love to know more than a "feeling" on this, though it won't shake my world. It would satisfy my curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...I and other violin dealers and enthusiasts feel that the Juzek Master Art violins quite possibly were made by the E H Roth firm in Markneukirchen Germany, and varnished in Czechlovakia or maybe even in the USA by Metropolitan Music.

This Master Art is clearly a very nice original example in near mint condition from around 1920 and it sold for a very nice wholesale price!

The average retail shop price for this violin would be $7000 to $7500.

Dreck, I mean Drac, Although the quality of materials and workmanship is sometimes comparable, it has never struck me that Juzek Master Arts were made by the Roth shop. And I think that the best Roths are quite a bit better than the best Master Arts. I entirely agree with your assessment of the Juzek being discussed here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to your comment concerning Roth and Juzek. Yes, I've noticed similarities between some of the Juzeks and Roth instruments... most noticeable in the lower end Roth and upper end Juzek categories.

Sorry about the "clueless blogger " comment. "Uninformed", bloggers would have been more respectful and appropriate.

"Clueless" does have a name calling element to it and I apologize.

Thank you for weighing in on the similarities between E H Roth and Juzek Master Arts.

At the end of the day, It isn't a very significant topic in the world of great violins as they are both commercial shop violins.

Although each are at the upper end of commercial violin ranges.

They can be a nice alternitave to handmade master violins that cost well outside of many people's budgets.

I know personally a Russian violinist that played on a Juzek Master Art violin for several years after coming to America as an exile from Russia for religious reasons.

He was not allowed to take more than the clothes on his back with him from Russia and a Juzek Master Art violin was the best that he could afford.

He eventually got a modern Italian violin and it became his primary instrument, but he has fond memories of the Juzek Master Art that got him his first Symphonic Violinist chair in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about the "clueless blogger " comment. "Uninformed", bloggers would have been more respectful and appropriate.

Unimformed is equaly insulting, coming from someone who is either ignorant or a liar.

E. H. Roth was a good Markneukirchen workshop, which moved to Bubenreuth after the war and the Jusek labeled ones were Schönbach cottage industry in various grades. In the concrete example, from the american side, it couldn't possibly be pre- 1920 and from the "Czech" side (althought the Schönbach workers were all Sudetendeutsch, not Czech) they couldn't possibly be pre-1919.

Here a fine example from 1894; that is the biggest insult really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't mind being disrespected by someone calling himself Dracula Chow Mein - I plan to add "clueless blogger" to my maestronet handle!

Martin becomes Dracula Deep-Fried-Mars-Bar,

Addie becomes Dracula Bratwürst,

Jacob S. becomes Dracula's Castle in Austria. That one has potential.

But in the end, it all sounds a bit too fad-ish, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow...

-----------------------

For Low-Post-Number Syndrome, a bit of quiet reading is recommended. Sour grapes should be composted. wink.gif

Dr. Addie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You already heard what he has to say - it's all in the listing!

Well, apparently another little tempest is brewing here. I'm glad I czech(sic)back here every few weeks.

If the people who comment would please read the description carefully a number of things would become obvious that seem to be the subject of the consternation in this discussion. In the listing I never refer to the date the violin was made other than to mention 20th century. In the item specifics I wrote "c.1910" I wish I had written c. 1920 and said it was 90 years old; it would have been more accurate. 1910 is about the most common date on Juzek violin labels. I do think that c. 1910 would reasonably include 1920, but c. 1920 would certainly have been better. I do not know what date it was made but if my reference to the date is off by 10 years, how damning is that? If I were to forge a label for a Juzek Master Art violin, as Lyndon suggests, and use my handy felt tip marker to date the label, would I put on a date that I knew to be impossible? Or would I put a date on that I knew was plausible with a fountain pen or pencil? Anyone familiar with Juzek Master Art violins know that they are very often pre-dated on the labels.

I think that a good, hi-def, well-calibrated monitor is needed to accurately gage the authenticity of a label and of a neck graft as well as other important details. Anyone using the old CRTs needs to recognize that they do not show detail as well as newer monitors.

When I peruse the eBay listings in the violin category I find dozens of listings where the sellers claim the age of an instrument is hundreds of years older than it is. There are outrageous claims of authenticity and provenance that has no basis in fact. Often the sellers are well aware their attributions are inaccurate. Conversely, this is a genuine John Juzek Master Art violin, labeled when it was new around 1920, with the authentic Juzek label. It is in mint condition and entirely original. It sold for less than half of its common retail price.

Are there not more tasty fish to fry on the "auction scroll"?

The violin has had no repairs unless you consider regluing an open seam, changing the strings, fitting a bridge or soundpost a repair. The crown, graft and ebony inlay at the tail were all made when the violin was new. John Juzek was a real person, made many, many violins, and employed dozens, if not hundreds of workers. This information is easy to come by. Just call up Metropolitan Music and speak with one of the Juzek brothers. They are John's grandsons. I have spoken to them at a Tarisio preview in Boston several years ago and they were very happy to speak about their grandfather and confirm the information above. They still have many of his personal molds and tools.

The vast majority of Juzek violins were made in a workshop environment where many hands contributed to the final product in a production environment. In that way, most Juzek violins are similar to Fords. Anyone will refer to a Ford car and so can one refer to a Juzek violin. I doubt anyone assumes that a Ford car was made by Henry Ford himself without help. A similar concept applies to a Juzek violin.

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With obvious disagreement and differing levels of cluelessness, even among the experts here, what should we expect of eBay sellers? I'm sure Jesse has learned much in his years of involvement selling instruments on eBay, but can he be expected to be as knowledgeable as the expert contributors to this thread? Even some of them admit to having learned about John Juzek FROM this thread.

The vast majority of eBay bidders/buyers don't have a clue, nor probably, do they much care about such things. Is it still the responsibility of the seller to educate them? Even the major auction houses, when offering instruments bearing some of the many trade names listed in Martin's post, do not alert potential bidders that they are, or may be, trade names, rather than real makers. Being in the business of selling, they merely say the instrument is "labeled such and such" and let the buyer beware.

Why jump on one of the better eBay sellers, claiming his listings to be somehow misleading or fraudulent? I believe Jesse was entirely honest and sincere with his listing, and that the violin sold for a reasonable price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny looking writing on the label.

Generally speaking, one didn't find a single-stroke 1 in German-speaking areas until the effects of US cultural imperialism began to bite, ca 1960. Usually they looked more like 7s (2 strokes), which is why German-speakers crossbar their real 7s.

I can't imagine why those numerals are so awkwardly written, or what the scribble after "copy of" is meant to mean -- Guarneri? By the look of it, it was either written recently with a nylon tip, as Lyndon suggests, or, if it was really done ca 90 years ago, whoever did it used a "bank pen" nib and high-carbon india ink with some varnish in. That's a lot of care to take for such an ugly result.

Perhaps the label was filled up here in the States, as Martin suggested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Mr. Hound has such a good reputation in the ebay community, every word he claimed in his violin listings should be and is reasonable for everyone to examine in the highest standard. In this case, obviously, there's a clear dispute whether this violin was made by John Juzek or not

With obvious disagreement and differing levels of cluelessness, even among the experts here, what should we expect of eBay sellers? I'm sure Jesse has learned much in his years of involvement selling instruments on eBay, but can he be expected to be as knowledgeable as the expert contributors to this thread? Even some of them admit to having learned about John Juzek FROM this thread.

The vast majority of eBay bidders/buyers don't have a clue, nor probably, do they much care about such things. Is it still the responsibility of the seller to educate them? Even the major auction houses, when offering instruments bearing some of the many trade names listed in Martin's post, do not alert potential bidders that they are, or may be, trade names, rather than real makers. Being in the business of selling, they merely say the instrument is "labeled such and such" and let the buyer beware.

Why jump on one of the better eBay sellers, claiming his listings to be somehow misleading or fraudulent? I believe Jesse was entirely honest and sincere with his listing, and that the violin sold for a reasonable price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't one here who would suffer from learning a few factual details if they were really interested. If I were interested, I'd start by contacting the Juzek's in Vermont, then contacting the Roths, then following the leads gained to figure out where these, and similar fiddles, originated and how they "got" their labels. In doing this, a few other mysteries might be solved (other workshop instrument origins) and a few fairy tales and fables might even get "busted".

Frankly, everything else (accusation/defense) is just noise.

Sorry for being blunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...there's a clear dispute whether this violin was made by John Juzek or not

There is? Who is claiming that it was made by Juzek? Everyone seems to agree that it wasn't. Pahadah never claimed that it was in the Ebay description, and in the subsequent discussion he said: "I doubt anyone assumes that a Ford car was made by Henry Ford himself without help. A similar concept applies to a Juzek violin."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah caspace IMO this is not about whether 2900 is a reasonable price to pay for a master art, it is, but whether this is even a juzek violin, as jefferey pointed out this looks similar to a much cheaper "barnabetti" and the writing on the label is very suspect especially the 1894 part and the felt tip pen, once again even if the label is fake, that doesnt mean pahdah is the faker, he may have been conned as well, but believe me pahdah knows that czech didnt exist till 1919, so his description is dishonest at least.

dracula, or count as you like, i assume you are an associate of mr hound, so we must take your comments lightly, obviously mr hound doesnt have a leg to stand on here, he screwed up but as usual he admits no wrongs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah caspace IMO this is not about whether 2900 is a reasonable price to pay for a master art, it is, but whether this is even a juzek violin, as jefferey pointed out this looks similar to a much cheaper "barnabetti" and the writing on the label is very suspect especially the 1894 part and the felt tip pen, once again even if the label is fake, that doesnt mean pahdah is the faker, he may have been conned as well, but believe me pahdah knows that czech didnt exist till 1919, so his description is dishonest at least.

dracula, or count as you like, i assume you are an associate of mr hound, so we must take your comments lightly, obviously mr hound doesnt have a leg to stand on here, he screwed up but as usual he admits no wrongs

Mr. Lyndon...........Mr Holmes stated nothing at all as to the Juzek Master Art looking like a Barnabetti violin.

It seems that you have a reading comprehension issue.

Everyone that knows anything about violins agrees here that the label is genuine and the violin is exactly as it is listed, A John Juzek Master art .

Although as with EH Roth violins, W E Hill bows, Collin-Mezin violins, Ford Motorcars, most Tiffany jewlery, etc, It was not made by the person whose name is on the company masthead.

As to your other accusation, I am not an associate of Mr Hound, but I would certainly rather be associated with him than you, with all due respect.

Mr Hound seems rather reasonable and stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Collin-Mezin not "Collin-Mezan"...

At least spelled it correctly...

Mr. Lyndon...........Mr Holmes stated nothing at all as to the Juzek Master Art looking like a Barnabetti violin.

It seems that you have a reading comprehension issue.

Everyone that knows anything about violins agrees here that the label is genuine and the violin is exactly as it is listed, A John Juzek Master art .

Although as with EH Roth violins, W E Hill bows, Collin-Mezan violins, Ford Motorcars, most Tiffany jewlery, etc, It was not made by the person whose name is on the company masthead.

As to your other accusation, I am not an associate of Mr Hound, but I would certainly rather be associated with him than you, with all due respect.

Mr Hound seems rather reasonable and stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually don't pay much attention to these, but when I clicked on the link, I noticed the violin had a white shield below the button. Looks like the same, or a very similar, shield that was used on the "Andreas Morelli" imports in the '20s. Wonder if it originates from the same supplier.

sorry chow, mr holmes was refering to andreas morelli, not barnabetti, my bad, again a trade violin that can be had for a few hundred dollars on ebay.

other than yourself, brad and pahdah, i havent seen any experts here say they thought the label is real, perhaps you, oh count, are the one that needs to go back and do some reading, so far none of our experts have backed you up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This violin is again being described as being in mint condition.

No it isn't, unless the meaning of 'mint' has changed while I wasn't looking.

Andrew

in all fairness to mr hound, rudall, generally i think, mint can refer more to lack of cracks and structural issues, than to amount of wear, a lot of violins are considered mint but still have lots of wear to the varnish, whats at issue here is pahdah ludicrous description of the violin looking brand new, which it doesnt, it shows a lot of wear, presumably a mix of antiqueing and real usage,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen the photo of the endbutton, "mint" is a bit of a stretch, IMHO.

Re: color labels and authenticity, a modern color label would almost certainly be a 4-color (process) print. An original label, c. 100 yrs, would have been printed, in this case, in red, and black ink. A magnifier will show it to be one or the other. A modern print will show overlaying dots of cyan, yellow, magenta, and black.

post-35343-0-90177300-1327104839_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...