Sign in to follow this  
uguntde

Possibly Viennese violin for identification

Recommended Posts

Can someone help to identify this violin?

 

It has no label, one can see that it has been removed.

Max Möller sold it as a Thir in 1952.

It has later been attributed to the Kloz school.

 

The instrument has a series of features that are not Kloz-like.

This includers the arching, the height of the ribs, the size of the body (it is a full-size violin).

The rounding of the plates towards the ribs was done the Italian way, after assembling the instrument.

 

Here some pictures:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/DSC_0450.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/LGG_1062.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/LGG_1063.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/LGG_1064.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/LGG_1066.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/LGG_1068.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55359857/Thir_Kloz/LGG_1069.jpg

 

Ulrich

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot find any feature, which would exclude Mittenwald, neither the arching, the ribs nor bodysize (????), but some which exclude Vienna.

Typical Mittenwald scroll, arching and varnish.

Possibly Möller thought, he could sell it higher as a Thir, but I would be satisfied with a nice Mittenwald violin in a good condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS. I have never heard of Mr. Teileczek in Klagenfurth. He mentions an ”Unleserlichen Zettel” (illegible label). Is this label still inside the violin, and are you able to take a photograph of it, so that we can see if it is really illegible or not?

There must be another quite different violin that belongs to the Möller reciept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the name Taliczek, but the lines below his name are really illegible, too - the 2nd word starting "Pr....". Probably not a violin maker, but a dealer or musician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool violin. My only complaint would be an overly flamed neck that doesn't seem to fit. I wonder why people do this on an old violin that has a nice plain back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool violin. My only complaint would be an overly flamed neck that doesn't seem to fit. I wonder why people do this on an old violin that has a nice plain back.

 

To match the ribs?

 

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool violin. My only complaint would be an overly flamed neck that doesn't seem to fit. I wonder why people do this on an old violin that has a nice plain back.

 

 

No, I was checking out the one piece top.  :)

 

 

Anyone else note the pin in the pegbox?

 

 

I read the name Taliczek, but the lines below his name are really illegible, too - the 2nd word starting "Pr....". Probably not a violin maker, but a dealer or musician?

 

 

PS. I have never heard of Mr. Teileczek in Klagenfurth. He mentions an ”Unleserlichen Zettel” (illegible label). Is this label still inside the violin, and are you able to take a photograph of it, so that we can see if it is really illegible or not?

There must be another quite different violin that belongs to the Möller reciept

 

Thanks for all the excellent comments on this fiddle. I could not respond earlier as I had to wait 24h. I suppose I will have to post something for a few days to get to 9 posts.

 

The letter is from a Julius Taticzek in Klagenfurt. I was unable to find who he was, probably a relatively unknown expert. I assume that he removed the illigible label (unleserlichen Zettel), but I am not sure. One can see from the color of the wood that there was once a label.

He says it is not from Thir but from Aegidius Kloz II, son of Sebastian Kloz, built around 1770-1780. And below, 'possibly also Georg Kloz'. And he assigns a value of 60-70k Schilling, €4500-5000.

 

I know the lady who bought it from Möller, I am sure the receipt is original to that violin.

 

The closest Kloz I could find is one in the Geigenbaumuseum in Mittenwald.

http://typo.geigenbaumuseum-mittenwald.de/index.php?id=112&type=98

But the edgework and purfling isn't quite the same. Most Georg Kloz I violins have this dark varnish which is also water soluble.

Also, most Kloz violins seem to have a nicely flamed back.

 

I also noticed the one piece front and the pin in the peg box. This peg must habe been replaced at one point, there is a filled hole next to it. This is there to keep the A and D strings away from the G and E string pegs. Strange.  

 

There is more to be repaired than just the fingerboard, the violin is also open, and someone put in some messy glue to fix this. But it is playable and has a very powerful and big tone.

 

A final question: In which range would you value this instrument (auction value).

Is €2000-4000 too much?

 

Thanks to you all, Ulrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prices for Klotz violins are broad, but I think your estimate is pretty close if not a little low.  Assuming there is no back crack and it isn't below about 353 mm. Instruments like this retail close to 20K USD in my neck of the woods, once put into top playing condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems irresistible to call every 18th C. Mittenwald violin “Klotz”, although most of the village made violins, and it could just as well be a Schandl, Sailer, Seitz etc. etc. The grown-up attitude would be to just say “Mittenwald” to it.

Max Möller, who I met personally on several occasions, was a profound violin expert, and certainly NEVER mistook this instrument for a Thir, it would be the proverbial “Chalk & Cheese”. The receipt can only mean that he sold a Thir on another occasion.

A pin between the E and D pegs, to hinder the A string from fouling on the E peg, is not unusual throughout the South German/Austrian area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prices for Klotz violins are broad, but I think your estimate is pretty close if not a little low.  Assuming there is no back crack and it isn't below about 353 mm. Instruments like this retail close to 20K USD in my neck of the woods, once put into top playing condition.

 

Unfortunately it does have the unwanted back crack, nicely repaired, you can see it if you look carefully at the picture in the left bottom third. It is studded inside from the height of the top of the C-bout to the bottom. Repair is obviously  good enough that nobody here spotted it so far.

 

How much do you know off the value for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very neat repair, and the crack isn't on the soundpost - any crack has a consequence for the value, but I don't think this one is a major issue. Maybe 10-15% devaluation ... perhaps others feel differently?

The attribution "Kloz School" or Kloz Family" is so overused by auction houses, very often for instruments having nothing to do with Mittenwald or the Kloz family or even the 18th century. I would expect an estimate of £2-4K on a nice but clunky early 19th century violin from much further north which had a Kloz label (and which no-one at said auction house had the expertise or the energy to actually identify).

This would seem to me to be worth more, late 18th century, genuinely Mittenwald ... there was a nice Karner in the October sales estimated at £4-6K or thereabouts, perhaps that's a fair comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I meant to say back sound post crack, which would probably hurt the value significantly. A well repaired crack somewhere else on the back isn't so bad.

 

As far as calling everything like this a "Klotz" I have found the opposite to be occurring in some auction houses. Many old Mittenwald violins are getting downgraded. I've seen several named "Klotz" violins, often with certs from well respected dealers, that have been downgraded to "Klotz School" or "Mittenwald" or even just "German" . Often they still sell as if the original attribution is correct anyway. And the difference in value between a good generic violin of this type and a similar named maker of this type often isnt much anyway.

 

My current old Mittenwalder, which I purchased as "Mittenwald ~1780", I also sometimes  call a "Klotz violin", even though deep down  I know nobody could really prove who exactly made it. It just has that typical look that has for years been associated with "Klotz". Same with this violin. I can understand why it drives Jacob nuts, but its hard to shake.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.