Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Questions for Mr. Saunders...and for all others interested, of course


romberg flat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pegs were standard issue on a lot of Prokop violins, but I'd guess they're not the original pegs.

The general impression is more like Schhhh than anything else - ribs look like they were glued together without mitres, and the tradey varnish and antiqueing seem very Germanic. The button also points to Saxony or somewhere east of it.

I like it, but then I really like small violas and this is a really small viola!

Better Markneukirchen from late 1800s I think.

I could not understand what is wrong with ribs mitres, can you please explain in detail?

As for the pegs, I'm almost sure that they are ebony.

I enclose a picture of fittings which probably belonged to the viola (chinrest looks interesting, and mute as well, isn’t it?).

Viola had bakelite tailpiece with well-preserved gut loop, but it was removed (my fault), together with "romberg flat" (not mine fault).

 

I should be very much interested to know how “romberg flat” in past was common on violas, especially on such a small ones. I suppose it was very convenient, because it makes it easier to play on the C string, which favors your assumption that OP was a student viola.

 

And not forget to mention, thank you very much for your interest.

 

post-60277-0-50016300-1391114136_thumb.jpgpost-60277-0-03611500-1391114151_thumb.jpgpost-60277-0-85320600-1391114163_thumb.jpgpost-60277-0-45624200-1391114177_thumb.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With the small viola big Viola issue:

It is just my general observation, but one sees very large violas (ie. 42/43cm and more LOB) up until the mid 18th C., regardless if they are Brecian, Austrian, Bavarian or whatever (red herring alert!). Interestingly, on the rare occasions when the original undisturbed neck is still preserved, one can very often observe that they were scarely longer that violin necks. This leads me to the assumption, that the Viola was played mostly in the first position and was used more as an instrument to fill in the middle area of the Harmony, than as a Virtuoso instrument. From mid-18th C. on, the literature demanded more of the Violist (Haydn string 4tettes for instance), and from this point on, no musician wanted a very big viola anymore, and the violin makers, being a pragmatic hand-to-mouth lot, thus didn’t make any. The whole of the 19th. C there were next to no big violas made (he said, bracing himself for all the exceptions!) In England, it was Tertis who sparked of the “big viola” craze, long after the OP viola was made.

“Hector Berlioz (1803-1869) in particular is quoted as saying:

Here it must be said that most of the violas at present in our French orchestras have not the necessary dimensions. They have neither size, nor as natural consequence the tone power, of a real violas; they are mostly violins strung with viola strings. These Musical Directors should absolutely forbid the use of these bastard instruments, whose tone deprives one of the most interesting parts in an orchestra of its proper colour, robbing it of all its power, especially in the lower registers.”  

(“Treatise on Instrumentation”, cit. from “The History and problems of viola size”, by J.J. SChwandt)

 

So we can talk about almost one hundred years of domination small violas in orchestras, approximately from 1750 to 1850. This means that Haydn (as you mention), Mozart and even Beethoven were in their time performed on small violas!

Very interesting, maybe this could be the next step in a contemporary interpretation of the music on period instruments, which BTW I particularly love. Beethoven's 9th with small viola in the orchestra - it would be so interesting.

Anyway, this shows that the OP is probably a student instrument, as has been suggested.

 

In the meantime, I was trying to educate myself about the differences between Mittenwald and Saxony violins studying this http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/326351-dilemma-verleger-mittenwald-or-dutzendarbeit/?p=547842&fromsearch=1#entry547842, but I could not get further than the differences between beers (I love the thin glass cup, very cold).  :) 

 

Once again thank you for your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a particular interest in small violas, and recently acquired a lovely old English instrument from the early 1800s with its original neck and fingerboard. It's currently with David Rattray getting a "period" set-up, but he was quite negative about the chances of getting it into an HIP (Historically Informed Performance) context, since they all want big violas.

And yet you're absolutely right, at least from 1750-1850 in most of Europe, it would seem that violas were usually between 38 and 39cm. An orchestra performing Beethoven in authentic style should have a viola section stuffed with such instruments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Hector Berlioz (1803-1869) in particular is quoted as saying:

Here it must be said that most of the violas at present in our French orchestras have not the necessary dimensions. They have neither size, nor as natural consequence the tone power, of a real violas; they are mostly violins strung with viola strings. These Musical Directors should absolutely forbid the use of these bastard instruments, whose tone deprives one of the most interesting parts in an orchestra of its proper colour, robbing it of all its power, especially in the lower registers.”  

(“Treatise on Instrumentation”, cit. from “The History and problems of viola size”, by J.J. SChwandt)

 

So we can talk about almost one hundred years of domination small violas in orchestras, approximately from 1750 to 1850. This means that Haydn (as you mention), Mozart and even Beethoven were in their time performed on small violas!

Very interesting, maybe this could be the next step in a contemporary interpretation of the music on period instruments, which BTW I particularly love. Beethoven's 9th with small viola in the orchestra - it would be so interesting.

Anyway, this shows that the OP is probably a student instrument, as has been suggested.

 

In the meantime, I was trying to educate myself about the differences between Mittenwald and Saxony violins studying this http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/326351-dilemma-verleger-mittenwald-or-dutzendarbeit/?p=547842&fromsearch=1#entry547842, but I could not get further than the differences between beers (I love the thin glass cup, very cold).  :) 

 

Once again thank you for your opinion.

The Berlioz quote is very interesting, but, as often, it is only the opinion of one person. Quite how many of his contempoaries thought him a compleate nutcase isn’t reliably known (unless you have another pertinent quote ready). On the other hand, the viola size demanded (ie. bought) by the pleno titulo public can be read fairly exactly from the sizes of the instruments that violin makers actually made through these generations. I would rather digagree with you (and Martin) with the date 1850, as the point where the violas got bigger again, and think it much later, or do either of you know dozens of 40cm and more mid 19th. C. Violas (I can only think of rare exceptions).

BTW:The old Füssen makers, and their diaspora (ie. half of Europe), seem to have ”done” 3 sizes of Viola; Small, 38cm (or little more), Large (rare after mid 18thC) 41,5cm (sometimes larger), but the medium ones have an absolute “norm”, and should one be in the mood, one can win a pint of beer every time (whichever sort you prefer)by saying “Oh, your viola will be 39,6cm Long" and passing the tape measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 'Romberg flat' - only twenty five years ago nearly all violas here had one, and I still like them on small instruments. A short C string can be a bit like an elastic band, and can use plenty of room around it.

I like small violas, and they can sound very good indeed. I have a 1750's Mirecourt in original condition, about 15 1/2", loaned to a young baroque head, and it is much admired for it's sound. There are some really lovely small English violas about too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Conor's point about the "romberg flat" is a good one - much more useful on a small viola with lower string tension ....

I'm sure Jacob is right about viola sizes in Germany and Austro-Hungary - I'm a bit of a newcomer to this table of delights, but I have seen a few great C20 Hungarian violas that were under 39cm.

I think things are a bit different in France and Mirecourt - perhaps as a result of batty Berlioz. 40-40.5cm seems to be standard for late 19th century instruments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a little out of topic but it could suit well in historical context of this thread.

What you experts think about this tailpiece and mute.

 

At the tailpiece two names are written: name of the famous Czech violinist Jan Kubelík and name of well known Czech/Hungarian violin maker Pál Pilát.

Time is the beginning of the 20th century.

Could it be assumed that the patented tailpiece is the joint work of violinist and maker, which I guess is not so usual case.

 

The second question relates to your opinion on the age of this violin/viola/cello (?) mute. It looks quite old and quite large to me.

 

edit: 

errata corrige: CHIN-REST instead TAILPIECE 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Berlioz quote is very interesting, but, as often, it is only the opinion of one person. Quite how many of his contempoaries thought him a compleate nutcase isn’t reliably known (unless you have another pertinent quote ready). On the other hand, the viola size demanded (ie. bought) by the pleno titulo public can be read fairly exactly from the sizes of the instruments that violin makers actually made through these generations. I would rather digagree with you (and Martin) with the date 1850, as the point where the violas got bigger again, and think it much later, or do either of you know dozens of 40cm and more mid 19th. C. Violas (I can only think of rare exceptions).

BTW:The old Füssen makers, and their diaspora (ie. half of Europe), seem to have ”done” 3 sizes of Viola; Small, 38cm (or little more), Large (rare after mid 18thC) 41,5cm (sometimes larger), but the medium ones have an absolute “norm”, and should one be in the mood, one can win a pint of beer every time (whichever sort you prefer)by saying “Oh, your viola will be 39,6cm Long" and passing the tape measure.

 

Berlioz, known as the master of instrumentation, is likely to have an impact on the change in the general approach to orchestration, but of course it's not just about him. Using small violas in orchestras in the period 1750-1850 is very rough estimate, because to change the "fashion" must have been a long lasting process that can’t be placed in firm time frames.

Actually, it could be assumed, as you claimed, that the return of the large dimensions began around 1850 and ended with the beginning of the 20th century.

Of course, during all this period there existed violas of all dimensions, but am I right when think that after Tertis exclamations: "Cinderella no more", small violas definitely were gone in history?

Anyway, one could been intrigued with question (but should not expect an answer, because lack of any data about it), about size of violas Haydn, Mozart , Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Dvořák… were composed for, but also played on... or whether perhaps even Mahler's symphonies in his time have been performed on small violas?

 

That is rhetoric question, but here is a real one:

 

In the first half of 18th c. violist wanted the sound of old tenor instruments and comfortable playing in the same time. The answer was to cut down the old large instruments to an appropriate smaller size.

There were two ways of shortening the length: (1) shortening the ends, and (2) shortening the middle.

Sometimes it was successfully done, sometimes not.

Have you, or someone else some knowledge/experience about that, and if so, could you provide us with some pictures of such shortened instruments, or the method of doing that?      

Think it could be very interesting to discuss about. Apologies if that was a topic of former threads, but I am relatively new here and don’t know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first half of 18th c. violist wanted the sound of old tenor instruments and comfortable playing in the same time. The answer was to cut down the old large instruments to an appropriate smaller size.

There were two ways of shortening the length: (1) shortening the ends, and (2) shortening the middle.

Sometimes it was successfully done, sometimes not.

Have you, or someone else some knowledge/experience about that, and if so, could you provide us with some pictures of such shortened instruments, or the method of doing that?      

Think it could be very interesting to discuss about. Apologies if that was a topic of former threads, but I am relatively new here and don’t know.

Being asked to “reduce” an instrument is probably the 2nd. most grotty assignment one could possibly dream of, probably only surpassed by being asked to re-enlarge one that some previous person has reduced.

I remember, as a youngster going to a job interview in Germany. The person I was being interviewed by proudly showed me one of those very small Gagliano violas that he had “reduced” to violin size. Before I could think, I said, “Bloody hell, it looks like a Hopf”. I didn’t get the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being asked to “reduce” an instrument is probably the 2nd. most grotty assignment one could possibly dream of, probably only surpassed by being asked to re-enlarge one that some previous person has reduced.

I remember, as a youngster going to a job interview in Germany. The person I was being interviewed by proudly showed me one of those very small Gagliano violas that he had “reduced” to violin size. Before I could think, I said, “Bloody hell, it looks like a Hopf”. I didn’t get the job.

 

I completely agree, I misspoke - wasn’t think on the experience in doing this "blasphemy" but in contact with examples of such a poor "Frankensteins."

I am very sensitive to questions of authenticity and respect for the integrity of one's work, so that even removing of "my Romberg" so much bothered me.

Unfortunately in the past (but now a days as well), violin makers didn’t show too much respect to the deeds of their predecessors.

 

By the way, I am just thinking of one very popular debate on this forum (in fact, at least of three), with a very erudite opinion about "Art or Craft" issue in violin making.

I think that everyone before their engaging in similar "plastic surgery" should very good think over, because if the violin is a piece of "Art" (but also if  it's a piece of "Craft"), then should be left as it is.

It is inconceivable that a single artist "improve" the work of a another (how can one improve, for example Vermeer or Malevich).

Or, on second thought maybe that’s not so impossible...  :)  :( 

 

post-60277-0-55034700-1391200473_thumb.jpg

 

However, it would be interesting to see examples, pictures of such projects on the violas. Just for a record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a remarkable viola here briefly last week. It started life as a little viol by Barak Norman. The width had been reduced at the joint, leaving only the sides of his purfling designs beneath the fingerboard. The C bouts had been filled up and recut, and various other adjustments had been done. I couldn't see that the f holed had been altered in any way, and I wondered had the front started out as a bigger viola. I think the owner said it had been done by one of the Hardies, and if so it's holding up extremely well.

I'll try to get a photo or two some time, and post them here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a remarkable viola here briefly last week. It started life as a little viol by Barak Norman. The width had been reduced at the joint, leaving only the sides of his purfling designs beneath the fingerboard. The C bouts had been filled up and recut, and various other adjustments had been done. I couldn't see that the f holed had been altered in any way, and I wondered had the front started out as a bigger viola. I think the owner said it had been done by one of the Hardies, and if so it's holding up extremely well.

I'll try to get a photo or two some time, and post them here.

Yes, please do that if possible. I pushed maybe too hard with my last post, results of such an “operation” must not be bad at all, but I simply don’t like the general principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree, I misspoke - wasn’t think on the experience in doing this "blasphemy" but in contact with examples of such a poor "Frankensteins."

I am very sensitive to questions of authenticity and respect for the integrity of one's work, so that even removing of "my Romberg" so much bothered me.

Unfortunately in the past (but now a days as well), violin makers didn’t show too much respect to the deeds of their predecessors.

 

By the way, I am just thinking of one very popular debate on this forum (in fact, at least of three), with a very erudite opinion about "Art or Craft" issue in violin making.

I think that everyone before their engaging in similar "plastic surgery" should very good think over, because if the violin is a piece of "Art" (but also if  it's a piece of "Craft"), then should be left as it is.

It is inconceivable that a single artist "improve" the work of a another (how can one improve, for example Vermeer or Malevich).

Or, on second thought maybe that’s not so impossible...  :)  :( 

  

However, it would be interesting to see examples, pictures of such projects on the violas. Just for a record.

Shortly before Christmas, some very good customers rang, and said they had got an old cut-down viola, that they would like me to re-enlarge. I think you can just about guess what I thought, but I was my usual impeccably polite self, and they came with it. I got quite a big surprise. I will just share a couple of pictures for now, in case anyone wishes to puzzle without me putting a flea in their ear, and could write what I worked out tomorrow (bed-time soon here).

http://imgur.com/a/wAkP8

u9IsETd.jpg

tEaQZ7z.jpg

AfE00eN.jpg

nUwuJxP.jpg

A8vmHP7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very interested in what Mr. Saunders' enlargement project might be, but I imagine he's not going to give any clues until one of us puts his neck on the chopping block, so...

 

The ff's and their placement remind me of Pellizon, as do the blunt corners, "hardy" purflung and deep center bouts, but the scroll isn't anything like that school, and the varnish seems almost too fine and deep for the Gorizia/Trieste school. Based on some violins I've owned, I'd wager a pint on the body being 18thc. Flemish, though I couldn't give a maker, and the scroll a 19th c. replacement from Mittenwald. 

 

I managed to "avoid" viola duties for most of my playing career, but as my chamber music teaching job has grown over the last decade, I've found myself taking up the "snoring box" regularly to play with my students. Last year I played a Brahms piano quartet with students in a concert, and next April I'll be doing a "Kegelstatt" in another student/professor concert. The tricky bit is I also will be playing violin in the same concert (as i did for the Brahms program), so being able to make a "quick switch" is primordial. When I first started doing this sort of thing 7-8 years ago, I had a 38cm "Paesold" factory viola which was NOS from my dad's shop which sounded just awful and weighed a ton. I also had a 37cm Bernardel Père Maggini model fiddle around, so I strung it up as a viola, and it did a great job. Yes, the c-string was rubbery and gave away that it wasn't a "real" viola, but from the g on up it was great. Then I started stumbling on dirt-cheap 38cm. violas at auctions, since no one seems to want them, and I've amassed a Chappuy, a Dodd, and a mystery "mittel-europa" that I should post here one of these days. With proper set-up and a heavy c-string to make up for the short string length, these "baby" violas do just fine, in my opinion. I've since sold the Chappuy to a friend in a major orchestra who was having shoulder problems. He'd been playing 17 inch behemoths since that's what's expected of pros, but the poor fellow is about 5'6", or 168cm, and after a few decades in an opera pit, that can add to the wear and tear...

 

Another anecdote, a couple of weeks ago, I played a Mozart duo with a friend and colleague who has a beautiful late Vuillaume viola. (Most of his earlier ones are in the 38-39cm range, but towards the end he started making more 40+ Strad models),My friend's viola is gorgeous, however, despite 40+ years of experience, he's convinced that his viola has too much of a "french" sound, and he's frustrated by it. I tried to reassure him that I had just played on a beautiful big Amati viola a week before, and his Vuillaume had more low-end than the Amati, and frankly sounded better all-around, but nothing doin', just as some violists are convinced nothing under 40cm will do, some string players are convinced only an italian will do... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shortly before Christmas, some very good customers rang, and said they had got an old cut-down viola, that they would like me to re-enlarge. I think you can just about guess what I thought, but I was my usual impeccably polite self, and they came with it. I got quite a big surprise. I will just share a couple of pictures for now, in case anyone wishes to puzzle without me putting a flea in their ear, and could write what I worked out tomorrow (bed-time soon here).

http://imgur.com/a/wAkP8

 

Donnerwetter, this creature really passed through Procrustes bed once. What was it in former life, alto/tenor/cello?

What are dimensions, could it be playable?

What do you intend to do with it and better to ask HOW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The surprise was quite a curious one, which took several minutes to work out.

If you look at the way the “original” purfling veers out, above and below the corners one can only presume that there has been about 2cm or more sawn off the top/bottom outline. I smelt a rat, since if you did that, you could not possibly manage without half-edging (or “doubling” as the Americans call it), since the ribs would not meet a flat surface. Also one would be obliged to graft a new button on, since there wouldn't be enough “meat” at the right place, particularly "meat" with original varnish on. The whole thing is topped by an absolutely wonderful near mint Prague, +/-1800ish scroll, with the original unchanged (nailed) neck. The ribs, which had been built around an inside form, showed no signs whatsoever of having been “reduced", rather they gave the impression of someone trying his damnedest to make slightly wonky ribs, who had never ever made a “wonky” rib in his life before. They also had absolutely text-book Prague corner blocks etc. (we have discussed those before!). So the question was if this had ever been “reduced” at all.

The (absolutely kosher) label reads “Caspar Strnad/ hoc Opus antiqitum/A°1794” which, I suppose this goes to show that he had a sense of humour (the work reported since antiquity???). This is a viola that was “cut down” from day one, as a “copy” of some old cut down Italian, although not seriously denying where it was from.

Of course this can never be a re-enlarging project, since it was never larger in the first place. That would be a first class ticket to making a total wally of yourself. I hadn't realised that such “faked up” things were made in the 18th C. (I had presumed that that started later), but one lives and learns!

As a bonus, the (old replacement?) fingerboard has a “Romberg flat”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Jacob's fine sense for irony, it's supposed to be the instrument for which he didn't get the job; although the neck/scroll must have been replaced, and the general pattern reminds me more of a Hoyer than a Hopf.

Now I've laid down my head on the block, very curious for the solution :( !

 

 

EDIT: I was about one minute too fast, the irony is much greater as I ever could suppose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (absolutely kosher) label reads “Caspar Strnad/ hoc Opus antiqitum/A°1794” which, I suppose this goes to show that he had a sense of humour (the work reported since antiquity???). This is a viola that was “cut down” from day one, as a “copy” of some old cut down Italian, although not seriously denying where it was from.

Of course this can never be a re-enlarging project, since it was never larger in the first place. That would be a first class ticket to making a total wally of yourself. I hadn't realised that such “faked up” things were made in the 18th C. (I had presumed that that started later), but one lives and learns!

As a bonus, the (old replacement?) fingerboard has a “Romberg flat”

While I catch the time for reading and re-reading (at least several times) all this most interesting stuff, could you be so kind and remove this "Romberg flat". I just can't stand it.  :angry: 

 

And we are eagerly waiting for a real downsizing sample.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This viola is fascinating.

 

Mr. Saunders, I'll gladly buy you that pint whenever we may meet up, in Vienna, Paris or London, but I'm left a little perplexed. No half-edging does suggest no cutting-down, but are you sure the visible edge isn't a "ledge replacement", if you know what I mean? A half edge inside the purfling channel, then a full edge outside the purfling?

 

The text "hoc opus antiquum" might be translated otherwise. In old stoneworker's latin, "opus antiquum" was the name for "rubble-work," making walls or arches from available old and often irregular stones. "Hoc opus antiquum" could be translated "here is rubble-work." Could Strnad have been suggesting he recuperated a top and a back from an older viola and made the ribs and the neck for it, a bit like the famous Hardie re-cut Norman viol? Is the "fake new" purfling identical to the "old purfling," because from your photos, it looks finer and cleaner than the purfling in the center bouts. I admit I've never had a Strnad in my hands, but I did own a Laske at one point, and I remember the edgework, corners and purfling as being finer and more precise than what I see in your photo of the center bout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This viola is fascinating.

 

Mr. Saunders, I'll gladly buy you that pint whenever we may meet up, in Vienna, Paris or London, but I'm left a little perplexed. No half-edging does suggest no cutting-down, but are you sure the visible edge isn't a "ledge replacement", if you know what I mean? A half edge inside the purfling channel, then a full edge outside the purfling?

 

The text "hoc opus antiquum" might be translated otherwise. In old stoneworker's latin, "opus antiquum" was the name for "rubble-work," making walls or arches from available old and often irregular stones. "Hoc opus antiquum" could be translated "here is rubble-work." Could Strnad have been suggesting he recuperated a top and a back from an older viola and made the ribs and the neck for it, a bit like the famous Hardie re-cut Norman viol? Is the "fake new" purfling identical to the "old purfling," because from your photos, it looks finer and cleaner than the purfling in the center bouts. I admit I've never had a Strnad in my hands, but I did own a Laske at one point, and I remember the edgework, corners and purfling as being finer and more precise than what I see in your photo of the center bout.

I take your point, and yes that would be at least a theoretical possibility (I am assuming your “ledge replacement” is what I would call ”Ungarische Belegen” here), it just without doubt certainly isn’t the case here though. There is no edge replacement of any sort, and there would simply be no way to have a raised edge outside of the purfling (and particularly the noticeably raised button) from what would be left over if you sawed a couple of centimetres off each end of the top/bottom bouts.

 

I appreciate your help with the Latin translation (that is why mine had 3 question marks), although I would point out that your translation is only one interpretation of several that could be argued about all evening. Further Lütgendorff was always complaining about 18th. C. violin maker Latin, so it isn't like translating Virgil. On the other hand, calling it “rubble work” would only increase my admiration for Strnad's sense of humour. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And we are eagerly waiting for a real downsizing sample.  :) 

 

I was wondering since a long time about the "Mozart" viola:

 

http://www.bemf.org/images/press/fest13/hires_mozartviola01.jpg

 

It was discussed before here:

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/328615-mozarts-violin-and-viola/?hl=%2Bmozart+%2Bviola

 

The proportions are very odd, it looks as if the upper and lower bouts were cut both in width and length, but purfling and edges seem to be in original condition.

Does anybody know more about it? :huh:

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...