Recommended Posts

  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

perhaps you should read again what peter said, pahdah! once again with your misinformation crap, im really getting tired of it

what you stated about the varnish bead around the top to side join is only certain areas "seemed" to have been disturbed, and you presented no photo evidence, you also studied the join under UV light and apperently found no evidence of touch up varnish or im sure you would have told us about. it doesnt take an idiot to know that you cant take a top off without disturbing, quite visibly, the varnish bead ALL the way around not just in certain areas, as i admitted, if someone had set out to fake an undisturbed top join, it could be done, but its VERY unlikely, much more than 50% likely the top has never come off as i stated and you denied

the idea that Mr Roth would take off the top, insert a conradictory non standard Bubenreuth brand, when obviously he must have had an old Markneukirchen brand stamper sitting around, then go to all the trouble of touching up the varnish, to make it look like the top had never come off, to literally make almost all of us think its more likely to be a fake, not less, defies logic, it makes no sense at all, however theres always a very small possibility something nonsensical could happen.

then theres the second option, an american Roth dealer buys a 1955 Roth, removes the label and inserts a reproduction or real 1929 label through the f hole, so the top never has to come off, and the varnish bead over the top to side join is undisturbed, then he fills out real blank Roth certificate with bogus information saying its an XIR model made in 1929, ill leave it to our readers, not mr hound to determine which scenarion seems more likely

the third option is that its a fake Roth, with fake brand, label etc, but lets not even go there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyndon wrote "he (Wilhem Roth) did state is sometimes instruments from the 20s were rebranded in the 50s and 60s" and then you wrote, "the idea that Mr Roth would take off the top, insert a conradictory non standard Bubenreuth brand....defies logic, it makes no sense at all"

You can't even keep your own facts straight.

To quote you further, "pull up your pants, you are embarrassing us" which you wrote to me only two posts before Mr Roth clarified the facts for you. Then you wrote, "Well pahdah, it appears many of us might be wrong about this, as i just got off the phone with Wilhelm Roth, he says he has the serial number in his records and that it does date from the 20s"

Jesse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyndon,

Peter said it "might" work, and it didn't, yet. You said, he said it "should" work, which is quite different. Facts are facts, and accuracy is important.

Roth claimed that wood on XIR violins came from Italy. Maybe that is why the dendro analysis using Czech wood common in 1920s Roths is not conclusive.

Jesse

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you really think peter would not include italian wood in his search, he searches his whole data base, then pinpoints which region is getting the most hits

once again youve quoted me out of context, pahdah, i said;

"the idea that Mr Roth would take off the top, insert a conradictory non standard Bubenreuth brand, when obviously he must have had an old Markneukirchen brand stamper sitting around, then go to all the trouble of touching up the varnish, to make it look like the top had never come off, to literally make almost all of us think its more likely to be a fake, not less likely, defies logic, it makes no sense at all, however theres always a very small possibility something nonsensical could happen.

the part that denies logic, is not taking the top off and inserting the brand, its using the unusual brand, and going to the huge trouble of varnishing the top join to look invisible, if you think thats easy try doing it yourself, i imagine thats about a $1000 job at the shops that do that, using varnish that looks the same under UV, making it not look like a disturbed join thats just had a little varnish over it etc.

i didnt deny that Mr Roth might take off the top and brand an unbranded instrument, he said that sometimes happened, but he didnt say he used a non standard Bubenreuth stamp with a line around it, he didnt say he varnished over the glue join to make it look like he took the top off, as i clearly stated before Mr Roth may have been confused which instrument I was talking about, he was looking at at least two instruments from the same time, one he thought was real, one was definetly fake, he was under the impression he was talking to the person who had submitted the real Roth pictures, but he definetly didnt seem certain, if your instrument was indeed the one he thought was real then you should be getting a positive email soon, assuming you payed for the certificate, etc me personally I wouldnt take appraisals by pictures and serial numbers with 100% certainty, but at least if you can get that youd be in a better position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the top of an instrument be taken on and put back on so to look more or less invisible? Again, of course...its indeed the job of some restorer's. Top shops like Weisshaar, Bein & Fushi and the like are no doubt doing this thing all the time. Was the German workshop factory of E.H. Roth doing this in the 1950's? Well I just don't know but I know what I'm leaning towards.

I must admit I spewed my drink all over my monitor when Violadamore suggested

I'd been thinking that all along, it's good to see a Major Authority say it . Wouldn't that almost go double if you are the original manufacturer with the original varnish and all?

Restoration requires a completely different mind & skill set than new making.

Now I certainly don't know either, but I'd assign an extremely low probability that factory workers in the Roth shop had the required knowledge, skill, and TIME to make a replaced top seam invisible. Because they could have probably completed two new fiddles for the same time it would have taken to finish futzing with a replaced top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this may be of interest : http://www.auctiva.c...,0,0,0&format=0

I'd like to point out that it doesn't prove anything one way or another .... but feel free to jump to conclusions!

This one's a gem : http://www.auctiva.c...,0,0,0&format=0

If anyone wants to consider another scenario for Jesse's violin which might allow everyone to be sort of right, please read Michael Darnton's post again.

martin,are those pictures of the 1963 Roth in the cert? it appears it might have a grafted scroll, like pahdahs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyndon wrote, "do you really think peter would not include italian wood in his search" Peter Ratclif wrote "wood used in M/K in early 20thc is often from czec north-west borders, and I have a fair bit of data for that."

You decide.

Jesse

Perssonaly, I think that peter is a good deal brighter than he might seem

Link to post
Share on other sites

as i told you, every time peter has done a dendro for me he searchs his whole data base for matches, not just the region he thinks it comes from, for instance one of mine we thought was a german testore was like yours, he got few matches, he had an italy 1720, an england such and such etc, peter doesnt just give you the age of the wood, he also tells you which region, all of europe included, he gets the matches from, he can pinpoint markneukirchen very easily, most of the italian forests etc, he may not have said it, but the fact he didnt get clear matches for your wood, make it more likely your wood is newer and not in his data base, or its just a hard piece of wood to read, from your pictures the grain looks very evenly spaced, thats much harder to read, i think

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God, people! It's just a stinking Roth! Obviously a Roth, from whatever year, in apparently good shape, being sold for a reasonable price!

What is the problem? :wacko:

It really does seem like more of a personal vendetta against the seller then any real concern about the violin in question.

Get a grip!

(For what it's worth, I'll take a nice pre-WW2 Juzek over a Roth from the same era any day. ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a funny thread indeed for people like me who knows nothing about violins and violin makers. It gives an idea about what a battle of experts can be.

Having said that, the violin, if its 80 years old, looks in a very good shape. Maybe it's because it was not played that much, and maybe it was not played that much because it was not that good... :blink::)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a question. Is there a logic or system behind the Roth firm's designations of its violins which COULD be stated to clarify things once and for all, if someone in the Roth circle would make the effort? Or was there a curious disorder to their system that would even confuse them?

Right now I have in my hands the nicest Roth I have ever personally seen. But there is no exact match with anything posted by anyone on this thread. The label is similar to the one in post #88, but without the "copie:"; the serial # is E 351, the "E" being very similar to one shown above, but subtly different if one looks closely enough; the date is 1938, the 38 being in pencil; the button stamp more delicate and attractive than the one on padah's example. Assuming all the examples are authentic, then it seems that the Roth factory had more than one stamp for the button; more than one set of stamps for the serial numbers; obviously more than one type of label. And then there seems to be a "mixing and matching" of all of those devices that offers even more confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God, people! It's just a stinking Roth! Obviously a Roth, from whatever year, in apparently good shape, being sold for a reasonable price!

What is the problem? wacko.png

It really does seem like more of a personal vendetta against the seller then any real concern about the violin in question.

Get a grip!

(For what it's worth, I'll take a nice pre-WW2 Juzek over a Roth from the same era any day. wink.png )

Because a Roth from 1929, which appears never to have been opened, with a Bubenreuth stamp, although Bubenreuth didn’t exist until 1949, wouldn’t get through normal due-dilligence, particularly with a boardered stamp inside that I have never personaly seen before (and to which nobody has yet been able or willing to direct me to a similar one).

For those of us who have a violin shop, it is of essential importance to work out which features a genuine Roth can be expected to have. This thread is of academic interest, and not any form of vendetta whatsoever, although some have had a slightly thin skin at times. I am in agreement with you that I don’t really like there instruments much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the redeeming features of roth violins, especially the pre war ones, is that there high end was good, even really good, but their lowest end, cheapest model was no dog either, the same can not be said of a lot of other"factory" workshops, Juzek especially turned out some much cheaper models than Roth. pre war Juzek could mean just about anything, good to bad, pre war Roth really stood for something, even the cheapest pre war models go for $7000 today in good condition. in other words for a production house Roth knew the meaning of quality control, they didnt make models without corner blocks etc, and the idea of using a serial number and a hard to fake brand was simply brilliant, in my opinion, in all these are very good violins within their price range and well worth considering, almost certain to continue appreciating with time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Gerald,

Since Herr Roth is hardly going to want to be contacted by multiple people & tends not to reply anyway (he has, after all, to earn his living, as do we all) I would like to ask you to be so kind and enquire when you have your corrispondance with him – entirely divorced from the instrument in question here, but for the benifit of future reference (for us all!):

Does or did the oval stamp in the centre of the inside back ever have a boarder (line) around it, as in this picture:

http://s1125.beta.ph...hbrand.jpg.html

because all of the ones I have ever seen yet didn’t have such a boarder. (which I realise could be because I have seen to few!)

Thanks!

A very kind colleague (I’m not aware if I’m allowed to mention his name, so I won’t) just sent me a picture of a 1958 Bubenreuth Roth with a very simillar stamp (with boarder). I wonder if that might help date the fiddle, in a rule-of-thumb sort of way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirteen pages of venom, and no one has convinced me of anything regarding the fiddle in question, not that I really care. I am convinced of one thing however; the provenance of any violin will remain in question regardless of who says what.

My $0.02 on Roth instruments; --- my dad rented one for me in 1945 when I was 8 years old, and ended up buying it for me a couple years later. Never paid any attention as to when or where it was made, nor is it important to me. It was a wonderful instrument for a student and was my primary instrument for several years. I still have it, and it has fabulous sound, but I'm told by the experts here that great sound and a dollar will buy me a cup of coffee. Well, -- not at the Paradise Bakery where I buy my morning cups. It's a buck sixty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

read the previous posts ski, its explained at length, pahdah posted additional pictures as well about four pages ago

Lyndon,

Before I read Jeffrey's posts on the thread I cited a few pages back, I would have thought that it would be pretty obvious to tell that a top had been taken off a fiddle, for all the reasons you've noted in posts.

After reading Jeffrey's posts and realizing that the telltale bead of varnish on the top/rib seams can be restored after opening, I'm far from convinced that it's going to be easy to tell whether the fiddle's been opened, especially when the firm doing the opening has the exact matching varnish to do the touch-up.

I'm especially skeptical of judgments, one way or the other, about top having been off or not off being made based on photos, given that touch-up can make such an opening less than obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My email to Jesse was intended as interim information on the data I collected on the violin, not as a report or anything to speculate on.

The initial tests, as mentioned reveal two competing dates, but those are the initial tests, and the reason I wrote the email now is that I am not sure I would be able to complete the testing process within the next few days due to heavy workload.

I had hoped that the data would behave in the same way as that of most Markneukirchen instruments do, or with some other data convincingly. But it didn’t. (It doesn't at this stage mean that it isn't from that area). The wood from most Markneukirchen instruments tends to emanate from the Erzgerbirge mountains, on the north-West borders of Czecoslovakia, and often show strong links between each other. Not obviously the case here. (and yes, the sample data gets tested against the whole of the database, irrespective of supposed origin).

Flyboy, while you are strictly correct about the wording about my email, and a pre 1929 dendro date ( or any prior date) would not “validate” a particular making date, although it would be anomalous on a Roth type instrument of the period to show wood with a terminus post quem date substantially older than the fiddle itself, not impossible, but unusual. The vast majority of Markneukirchen instruments made in the late 19th and early 20th century I have tested have a dendro date generally within 10 to 20 years before the manufacturing date.

So we have two possible dates, one of which would make it possible for the fiddle to be 1929, the other one not, so… at this stage shall we talk about it, and speculate?

Please let's not, as there is absolutely no point whatsoever until tests are completed and if they lead to a conclusive date.

You won’t ever see one of my reports with a “possible date of”, for the wood. It’s either secure, or not published if it isn’t.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirteen pages of venom, and no one has convinced me of anything regarding the fiddle in question, not that I really care. I am convinced of one thing however; the provenance of any violin will remain in question regardless of who says what.

My $0.02 on Roth instruments; --- my dad rented one for me in 1945 when I was 8 years old, and ended up buying it for me a couple years later. Never paid any attention as to when or where it was made, nor is it important to me. It was a wonderful instrument for a student and was my primary instrument for several years. I still have it, and it has fabulous sound, but I'm told by the experts here that great sound and a dollar will buy me a cup of coffee. Well, -- not at the Paradise Bakery where I buy my morning cups. It's a buck sixty.

Next time I visit Phoenix to see relatives, I'll buy you a cup of coffee!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.