Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

New Padah's Roth


Dani Tsui

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

but the two certificates appear to be signed by the same person, and not a german, judging by how the 1s and 7s are written

I agree completely. The "not a German" part seeems quite understandable. The certificate was printed in English, and I presume that Pahdah's claim that most of the Roth's were made for export to the US is correct. So it would only make sense that the person signing the certificate would be the dealer/importer and an American. And Pahdah told us that the certificate for the 1929 model dated from the '60s.

Unknown to us during the previous discussion, it is clear that Pahdah had both instruments at the same time and could easily compare them. He noted that the 1929 XI-R had a "rich oil varnish" and a "genuine grafted scroll". Which leaves us with two possible scenarios:

1) The XI-R was made in the early '60s and it was normal to use a different finish and a grafted scroll on that model, while the IX-R did not have either of those. Please note, this scenario would also require that the dealer/importer signing the certificate in the early '60s would have participated in putting a false label inside the "1929" violin for this to be the true story.

2) The XI-R was made in 1929 and the "rich oil finish" and "genuine grafted scroll" were not attributes of the different models, but instead attributes of the pre- and post-WWII Roths. Then, as unlikely as Pahdah's scenario of a pre-war Roth being unsold for decades (or something else equially strange) is correct, and the XI-R was actually made in 1929.

Surely there are people on MaestroNet that would know the answers to these questions, without having to ask the current factory owners (who don't seem very interested in helping to settle the debate concerning an eBay listing). In the original thread, surely there were several dealers and/or luthiers with enough knowledge of Roth violins to answer these questions. Perhaps one of them will answer these questions for us and settle the mystery of the 1929 fiddle with some degree of certainty. This would be nice, as there are clearly several contradictory points about this particular instrument. (For example, I thought that some of the photos you linked of the spruce tops showed that the 1929 Roth looked more like the spruce used on the post-war models.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Pahdah told us that the certificate for the 1929 model (sic.) dated from the '60s.

Which leaves us with two possible scenarios:

If you put your thinking hat on, you will come up with a lot more than two possible scenarios.

Yes he found out that the certificate was “from the 60’s”, after I pointed out that the 7 had no german cross on the stem and that the Geigenbauersiedlung was only built in 1949, and should that in fact be the case, did not tell the buyer, who was ridiculously told that the certificate was ”original”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put your thinking hat on, you will come up with a lot more than two possible scenarios.

Yes he found out that the certificate was “from the 60’s”, after I pointed out that the 7 had no german cross on the stem and that the Geigenbauersiedlung was only built in 1949, and should that in fact be the case, did not tell the buyer, who was ridiculously told that the certificate was ”original”

Clearly there are several inconsistencies in the 1929 instrument. Clearly there are more than two possible scenarios. But sticking with ones that are at least relatively likely, what scenario do you think is correct?

The certificate accompanying the 1929 instrument clearly matches the one acompanying the 1962 instrument. I find it hard to believe that Pahdah did not notice that until he read the lengthy thread on this forum. It is quite obvious just with a glance that the two certificates are identical (except for the model and serial numbers), and that furthermore the same person signed both certificates.

And yet the person who signed the certificate (presumably the importer/dealer) wrote in the serial number of the 1929 instrument and also the date of 1929. I find it difficult to believe that the person who signed both certifcates in the early '60s would somehow know that 50 years laater that the older fiddle would be worth much more and therefore participated in some shenanigans to switch the paper label inside the violin. Even if he did suspect that doing so would make it worth more, why would he do it? Do you propose that someone paid him to do it? Or do you propose that both certificates are recent forgeries?

It seems to me that Pahdah's suggestion that the violin remained unsold for many decades to be unusual. That scenario would also have to require that either the violin remained incompletely built until the firm moved to Bubenreuth or that the top was removed after that time so that the brand could be burned inside the instrument. Both of these seem unlikely, but certainly plausible.And if one of these scenarios is what actually happened, wouldn't the certificate indeed be the "original" certificate that was issued to the original purchaser?

Again, it would seem to me that someone familiear with both pre- and post-WWII Roths would be able to solve this mystery very easily. Specifically, were the "rich varnish finish" and "genuine grafted scroll", indicators of pre- versus post-WWII Roth instruments? Or were they merely indicators of the XI-R versus the IX-R, regardless of which Roth factory they were made in?

I hope that one of the people with a great deal of experience with Roth violins who posted in the previous thread would answer this question for us. That would seem to be the simplest way to solve the mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put your thinking hat on, you will come up with a lot more than two possible scenarios.

And just to add to the mystery of the 1929 Roth, I was comparing the photos with the 1962 for sale now and noticed something that I had missed before. I don't recall anyone else pointing it out either, but the side of the scroll box next to the G string, it appears that at least 3, and I believe all 4, of the peg holes were bushed. Not due to wear, but instead to mis-alignment of the orignially drilled holes. It appear that the holes were filled and then re-drilled.

I once had an Gibson electric guitar from the early '70s (probably their worst period) where the bridge holes were similarly drilled into the body in the wrong position. Subsequently they were filled with dowels and re-drilled. I don't know enough about violin making to know if this is a common error or not. Would it tend to indicate that the original holes were drilled by hand and therefore less accurately? Or would it tend to indicate that they were drilled carelessly in a period when less care was taken during the construction of the violin?

This tends to go along with the crooked "EHR" brand on the button of the 1929 violin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These certificates seem to have been filled out by Scherl and Roth at the point of sale, with the year of manufacture as recorded in EH Roth's own register of instruments. Maybe it's semantics, but the 1929 certificate is strictly speaking an original certificate (incidentally they all seem to give January as a month). I suggested the certificate came from the 1960s and cited a 1963 Roth with a certificate in the same hand as a parallel example. Jesse's latest Roth backs that up ... it also shows that he didn't just "find out" about the certificate after Jacob questioned it.

For those used to the vagaries of EH Roths, particularly American ones, there was nothing confusing about the certificate, which was both wonky and correct!

I am very much of the view that any informal enquiry to EH Roth about the 1929 violin will be met with silence - any formal enquiry will result in a document stating that it's a 1929 X1R. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

We can now look at 3 EH Roths, all with US certificates made out at the point of sale, all in the same hand.

Here's number three .... which doesn't belong to Jesse!

http://www.ebay.co.u...984.m1436.l2649

A further conclusion I would draw from this last one is that Jesse must be very happy when people start casting doubt on his violins ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again!

I am living in a small village near the former iron curtain, and nearly every month there comes someone along from eastern countries and brings beautiful violins, which mostly have beautiful brands from well known makers - sometimes italian, french, german, whatever you like and what is highly appraised. Also they bring beautiful certificates from well known experts with this violins. But if you show this violins to living experts, they identify them as brandnew, brands and certificates faked. What a surprise! But in a land far over the ocean, they love this violins, nobody seems to believe, that such a 'creative' doing is possible in countries, where people, including gifted violin makers, have not more than $ 500 a month. Now there are three EH Roth violins in EBay.com, all with identical looking certificates - a coincidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob, here's my explanation.

Jesse had two (perhaps more) Roths in the house, both with Scherl & Roth certificates made out in the same hand. We can discount the possibility that these certificates were faked since I have shown an unconnected example - besides, they're very common. One of these certificates, dated 1962, was for a 1962 violin which corresponds in all respects to what one would expect from a 1962 violin of that model. It's fair to deduce that this certificate is 100% correct. The 1929 certificate is in the same hand - it's therefore a fair deduction that it was also made out around 1962 (give or take a few years either side) by the bloke at Scherl & Roth who filled out the certificates.

From the most casual examination, Jesse must have been aware from the start that the 1929 certificate had been made out around 1962. Indeed he confirmed this. This also corresponds to what we know of EH Roth violins of the period ie. that Scherl & Roth issued certificates at the first point of sale to the public. The inner brand was good (there are at least 3 EH Roth brands) and the brand on the button was characteristic of Scherl & Roth's "historic" violins offered to American buyers in the late 50s/early 60s.

To me there are only two possible scenarios for the "1929" violin, based on the evidence of the 1962 violin and the 1963 violin.

1) it was made in its entirety around 1960 but sold by EH Roth/Scherl & Roth as a 1929 violin (in which case current records will show that it's a 1929 violin) or

2) some element of this violin dated back to the 1920s - for instance it might have been hanging around for 30 years in the white, then varnished and branded in the 1960s (in which case current records will show that it's a 1929 violin)

I favour the first possibility, but I think everyone who has called Jesse into question has missed the point, which is that the sleight of hand is the work of EH Roth, not Jesse. He offered a plausible scenario which I don't think was quite right, but which is nonetheless acceptable in this instance.

There may be other scenarios, but my imagination can't stretch any further than those two! In either case, Jesse's "due diligence" is a red herring, since these violins will exist in the EH Roth historical record as a 1929 violin and a 1962 violin ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at Tarisio's auction, they don't assume to get winner bids ( estimate 800 - 1200 ) as high as we are seeing on Ebay ( which is already at 2000 ).

The only difference is that the violins on Ebay have certificates.

Besides Tarisio's reputation, would the lack of a certificate explain such difference on the final selling price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was around 2500 but mainly on the American side, often working as Salesmen and hypnotists .

So hypnotism is the real secret to selling violins... :)

It's a lot people indeed. the firm seems to have taken off very fast if really the Roth were bankrupt just after the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - he had two (perhaps more) Roths in the house, both with Scherl & Roth certificates made out in the same hand. We can

. The inner brand was good (there are at least 3 EH Roth brands)

Regarding this inner brand, is there some relation between a time a violin was branded and the inner brand used? On the 1962 violin the letters of Bubenreuth are all capitals while the letters are lower cases in the 1929 (again, with a border as Jacob noticed). this one also looks newer.

Also what are the "waves" perpendicular to the flame on the inner back of the 1929. Are they medullar rays or the marks from a toothed plane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at Tarisio's auction, they don't assume to get winner bids ( estimate 800 - 1200 ) as high as we are seeing on Ebay ( which is already at 2000 ).

The only difference is that the violins on Ebay have certificates.

Besides Tarisio's reputation, would the lack of a certificate explain such difference on the final selling price?

The certificate is nice to have but the violin can be identified easily without the certificate. The no.52 IR that Tarisio has, is different than the no.62 IXR that is the topic of this thread. The IXR sells new for 50% more than the IR.

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob, here's my explanation.

Jesse had two (perhaps more) Roths in the house, both with Scherl & Roth certificates made out in the same hand. We can discount the possibility that these certificates were faked since I have shown an unconnected example - besides, they're very common. One of these certificates, dated 1962, was for a 1962 violin which corresponds in all respects to what one would expect from a 1962 violin of that model. It's fair to deduce that this certificate is 100% correct. The 1929 certificate is in the same hand - it's therefore a fair deduction that it was also made out around 1962 (give or take a few years either side) by the bloke at Scherl & Roth who filled out the certificates.

From the most casual examination, Jesse must have been aware from the start that the 1929 certificate had been made out around 1962. Indeed he confirmed this. This also corresponds to what we know of EH Roth violins of the period ie. that Scherl & Roth issued certificates at the first point of sale to the public. The inner brand was good (there are at least 3 EH Roth brands) and the brand on the button was characteristic of Scherl & Roth's "historic" violins offered to American buyers in the late 50s/early 60s.

To me there are only two possible scenarios for the "1929" violin, based on the evidence of the 1962 violin and the 1963 violin.

1) it was made in its entirety around 1960 but sold by EH Roth/Scherl & Roth as a 1929 violin (in which case current records will show that it's a 1929 violin) or

2) some element of this violin dated back to the 1920s - for instance it might have been hanging around for 30 years in the white, then varnished and branded in the 1960s (in which case current records will show that it's a 1929 violin)

I favour the first possibility, but I think everyone who has called Jesse into question has missed the point, which is that the sleight of hand is the work of EH Roth, not Jesse. He offered a plausible scenario which I don't think was quite right, but which is nonetheless acceptable in this instance.

There may be other scenarios, but my imagination can't stretch any further than those two! In either case, Jesse's "due diligence" is a red herring, since these violins will exist in the EH Roth historical record as a 1929 violin and a 1962 violin ...

I think Martin's explanations are quite credible. I don't know how the brand got in the violin. I wasn't there.

Maybe it was put in before the top was put on, or maybe the top was taken off either before it was varnished or after it was varnished and then "restored" to new condition.

I do know for certain, that there were quite a few pre-war Roths that were sold for the first time after the war, out of Bubenreuth, with Bubenreuth brands and Bubenreuth certs. The XIR I sold was one of those, not the only one, not an anomaly, but one of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar things. I don't know if they were smuggled out in the middle of the night, during the day, or permitted out, or exported legally or permitted to be taken out illegally, but there were many pre-war violins that made their way from Markneukirchen to Bubenreuth.

I presented all the information I have about this violin in the listing. I pointed out all the stuff that pointed to Bubenreuth as well as stuff that pointed to Markenukirchen. The brand on the button and internally, as well as the ORIGINAL (not a copy or a fake) certificate that came with the violin when it was first sold to the original purchaser. If anyone is unsure about this, read the listing. I do not speculate but relate exactly what is there. What I say in the listing are facts.

Had I tossed out the cert and neglected to photograph the brand inside the violin, but only the label, had I never mentioned the City of Bubenreuth, then that would have been fraud, actionable in a court of law and, in my opinion reprehensible. Typically sellers who would do such a thing do not offer a return policy.

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These certificates came from EH Roth in Cleveland Ohio - they were included with the violins. At this time (1960s) I believe EH Roth violins were distributed in the States by Scherl & Roth and largely marketed through Scherl & Roth catalogues, but I may be confusing things - I don't think it's important to clarify in exactly which office these certificates were filled out, though personally I'd be very interested to know. They came with the violins and were made out centrally at the point of distribution.

Why do people wish to ignore the wealth of good information that has already been put forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These certificates came from EH Roth in Cleveland Ohio - they were included with the violins. At this time (1960s) I believe EH Roth violins were distributed in the States by Scherl & Roth and largely marketed through Scherl & Roth catalogues, but I may be confusing things - I don't think it's important to clarify in exactly which office these certificates were filled out, though personally I'd be very interested to know. They came with the violins and were made out centrally at the point of distribution.

Why do people wish to ignore the wealth of good information that has already been put forward?

Nobody is ignoring it. But a violin is not Schrodinger's cat, it can't be simultaneously 1929 and 1960 because of some possible irregularity. Even composite violins have definite dates.

The bottom line your theory is still baseless speculation. Your scenario is even more farfetched than pahdah_hound's pre/post war story that was woven out of whole cloth.

Has it ever occurred to you that all certificates are "January" because someone came across a legitimate one, then practiced that handwriting on some "appropriated" blank certs? Yes, that's speculation too.

All these scenarios are possible. Absent evidence supporting any such theories, the least complicated ones outweigh the more farfetched ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Martin's explanations are quite credible. I don't know how the brand got in the violin. I wasn't there.

Maybe it was put in before the top was put on, or maybe the top was taken off either before it was varnished or after it was varnished and then "restored" to new condition.

I do know for certain, that there were quite a few pre-war Roths that were sold for the first time after the war, out of Bubenreuth, with Bubenreuth brands and Bubenreuth certs. The XIR I sold was one of those, not the only one, not an anomaly, but one of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar things. I don't know if they were smuggled out in the middle of the night, during the day, or permitted out, or exported legally or permitted to be taken out illegally, but there were many pre-war violins that made their way from Markneukirchen to Bubenreuth.

I presented all the information I have about this violin in the listing. I pointed out all the stuff that pointed to Bubenreuth as well as stuff that pointed to Markenukirchen. The brand on the button and internally, as well as the ORIGINAL (not a copy or a fake) certificate that came with the violin when it was first sold to the original purchaser. If anyone is unsure about this, read the listing. I do not speculate but relate exactly what is there. What I say in the listing are facts.

Had I tossed out the cert and neglected to photograph the brand inside the violin, but only the label, had I never mentioned the City of Bubenreuth, then that would have been fraud, actionable in a court of law and, in my opinion reprehensible. Typically sellers who would do such a thing do not offer a return policy.

Jesse

I've already explained to you the description of your "Roth 1929" as listed on Ebay was misrepresentation. Especially since you admitted to speculating without any shred of evidence. Language like "I think" and "in my opinion" isn't going to shield you from successful lawsuits.

Pahdah_hound writes in his description:

The Roth brand appearing on the button of the violin was not used until the firm relocated from Markneukirchen to Bubenroth/Ehrlangen after the war.

Is that a fact?

You really want to pay customers to take away your violins, don't you?

Here's a handy-dandy Pahdah_hound-speak decoder ring:

"I think"/"I believe"/"In my opinion"==Unmitigated BS, tall tales, doesn't know wtf he is talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...