Carl Stross Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 "Nemessanyi copied some Stradivari and Guarneri models so perfectly, that many from his unlabeled and unbranded instruments are in circulation and sold as 'original Italian instruments'. Due to this fact, we only know about a relatively small number of instruments as being personally made by himself ..." Peter Benedek, Violin Makers of Hungary Is there a point you are trying to make ?
Omobono Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Henley has this not entirely flatering profile of the maker: NEMESSÁNYI, SAMUEL FELIXBorn 1837. Descendant of an impoverished noble family at Liptoszentmiklós (Upper Hungary). Went to Pesth in 18th year to work for Schweitzer, and (in 1858) for Sitt at Prague. Later lived at Szeged, and returned to Pesth, 1863. Died 1881. Particularly ingenious copyist of old Italian models. Had a marked predilection for Guarnerian modelling, and produced many specimens magnificently adherent to the masterly prototype. So great is the similarity that some have been re-labelled and sold as genuine Cremonas. Similar treatment given to the Strad and Maggini designs. Backs generally with broad well defined curly maple cut on the slab. Sound-holes rather sharply cut and cleanly finished. Slight channelling. Rims and corners rounded with the utmost nicety. Immaculate purfling and scrolls. He seldom varnished in one colour, but preferred remarkably warm shading. Though containing little oil this alcohol varnish possesses sufficient to give the necessary “fire” and is beautifully transparent. Beneath this yellow gold to deep red varnish, he applied his “secret” golden yellow ground, all contributing to the impression that the instruments must have emanated from Italy. Used belly wood of the very finest quality, which allowed him to work it as thin as 2.2 mm. under bridge. His superior specimens have this treatment. Made a few violas of small pattern, generally of a lower standard than the violins. Also produced several magnificent ’cellos comparable with the best of any country. Unfortunately, unable to place a check on his unruly disposition towards dissipation and inebriation, ultimately descended to merely trading with German made merchandise, and finally wandered from town to town glad to do anything to temporarily replenish his purse - a typical instance of genius trampled on by one of the numerous afflictions besetting humanity, and ending in death at the zenith of life.
pahdah_hound Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 For my taste there are too many unnamed people "who usually know", anonymous experts, famous or unfamous, not at least a mysterious buyer, and a bit too much malice in the OP here. But who knows? Let's wait for some facts, maybe it will become some fun for the lawyers. No malice, just second hand information, that I haven't verified personally, but came from two sources whose information has been accurate in the past. The expert whom I have been told has certified the violin is, beyond question, the recognized authority on violins of this kind. It is interesting to me that at least the two previous owners apparently had no idea that the violin was a del Gesu. And, supposedly, the violin was purchased by the consignor ten years ago for $5000. The fact that many dealers, who are more expert than the auction's specialist, saw and handled the violin without concluding that it was a del Gesu, suggests to me that the auction house has ample evidence to suggest that the level of expertise required to properly attribute the offering is beyond the reasonable expectation of an auction's specialist. When recent provenance were also unaware of its attribution, I do not think that the auction house can be held accountable for the lack of correct attribution. Had the consignor represented to the auction house that the violin was an authentic del Gesu, and the auction expert disagreed, without exercising due diligence, then I think the consignor would have a case against the auction house. Similarly, if the violin was sold to a dealer at the auction for 100 times the estimate, then the auction specialist could be at fault for not recognizing what others apparently could. However, in such a scenario, it is not likely that the consignor would have suffered harm or could prove damages. Isn't this one of the reasons people attend auctions? To get a great find for much less than it is worth. Jesse
Jeffrey Holmes Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 1) No malice, just second hand information, that I haven't verified personally, but came from two sources whose information has been accurate in the past. The expert whom I have been told has certified the violin is, beyond question, the recognized authority on violins of this kind. 2) Isn't this one of the reasons people attend auctions? To get a great find for much less than it is worth. Jesse 1) That is my understanding as well. 2) Yup! I think that is a prime motivator. Wasn't at the auction this time, but congrats to the buyer(s)!
pahdah_hound Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 I was at the auction and apparently, I couldn't recognize a great violin when I held it in my hands. I think I might have looked at it much more seriously if I had seen it in a flea market or a garage sale. That others far more expert than I, also missed it, intrigues me. This was certainly a one-in-a-million long shot, but does that make the next Skinner sale in two weeks more or less interesting...? Jesse
jacobsaunders Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Henley has this not entirely flatering profile of the maker: Henley is for the most part a Lütgendorff plagiarist, who pretends to be presenting his own observations, and to this end, gives no references that one may check anything. The most dangerous thing with Henley though, is that he sprinkles his own groundless prejudices about makers whose instruments he has never seen and who's biography he has never investigated, so that I find his book almost worthless, and not to be trusted. The most authoratitive reference work on Hungarian makers is that by Dr. Erdelyi, which I link to below: http://mek.oszk.hu/12500/12530/12530.pdf The top half of the pdf is in the Hungarian language, but don't be put off, the bottom half comes in an English translation.
EricSwanson Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 What if the instrument in question were filled with Hungarian repair stamps? I wonder if that would add to the mystery? Love the fiddle biz!!!!!
Violadamore Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Jacob, thank you so much for the link. [Returns to examining her rubbish for undetected masterpieces ]
skiingfiddler Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Henley is for the most part a Lütgendorff plagiarist, who pretends to be presenting his own observations, and to this end, gives no references that one may check anything. The most dangerous thing with Henley though, is that he sprinkles his own groundless prejudices about makers whose instruments he has never seen and who's biography he has never investigated, so that I find his book almost worthless, and not to be trusted. The most authoratitive reference work on Hungarian makers is that by Dr. Erdelyi, which I link to below: http://mek.oszk.hu/12500/12530/12530.pdf The top half of the pdf is in the Hungarian language, but don't be put off, the bottom half comes in an English translation. Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to compare Erdelyi's thoughts on Nemessanyi with Peter Benedek's
jacobsaunders Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to compare Erdelyi's thoughts on Nemessanyi with Peter Benedek's hardly neccesary, since that is where Benedek copied from
Omobono Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 The most authoratitive reference work on Hungarian makers is that by Dr. Erdelyi, which I link to below: http://mek.oszk.hu/12500/12530/12530.pdf The top half of the pdf is in the Hungarian language, but don't be put off, the bottom half comes in an English translation. Quite a lot of biographical information. A good reminder that someone's work or trade only represent a small part of their lives, sometimes quite turbulent. "After Nemessányi's death several appreciations of his personality and lifework were published and have been published up to the present day. The authors of the writings and lectures, both instrument makers and musicians, all highly appreciated his work and unambiguously admitted that he was the greatest Hungarian master of violin making. The idea to compare his creations with that of other masters has not even turned up in Hungary yet. The appreciation is really rightful and well-deserved. Nemessányi's oeuvre by far surpasses the performance of ail instrument makers who have ever lived or are living in Hungary." "Succeeding generations are often inclined to judge superficially. This happened in many cases when appreciating Nemessányi; sometimes because of the lack of knowing the facts, sometimes - and it might be more forgivable - out of respect and reverence." (P. 267-268)
skiingfiddler Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 "Nemessanyi copied some Stradivari and Guarneri models so perfectly, that many from his unlabeled and unbranded instruments are in circulation and sold as 'original Italian instruments'. Due to this fact, we only know about a relatively small number of instruments as being personally made by himself ..." Peter Benedek, Violin Makers of Hungary Thanks, Martin, for that quote. We hear statements that the violins of Nemessanyi or Michael Doetsch or someone else are so convincingly made imitations of old Italians that they circulated as authentic old Italians. Such statements lead me to some questions: 1. Who was it that declared such fiddles were authentic Italians? Was it a community of dealers or just one person whose word carried sufficient weight to make it so? 2. Were the person or persons who misidentified a not so old non-Italian as an old Italian simply in error or was there deliberate deception for financial gain? In other words, how hard or easy is it to be mistaken about these things? Would someone knowledgeable about old Italians be able to see at first glance from 10 feet away that a Nemessanyi isn't an early to mid 18th century Cremona? 3. Who, as a buyer, was it that believed the word of some expert or experts without verifying the authority of the expert or experts to voice an opinion? Do some buyers want to be deceived? This leads me to the following questions about the current fiddle: What will be the verification process after someone with a requisite amount of expertise voices an opinion? What are the checks and balances on any one person's or a small group of people's opinions about provenance? How willing are colleagues to challenge one another's opinions in the violin trade at the top most level?
jacobsaunders Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Thanks, Martin, for that quote. We hear statements that the violins of Nemessanyi or Michael Doetsch or someone else are so convincingly made imitations of old Italians that they circulated as authentic old Italians. Such statements lead me to some questions: 1. Who was it that declared such fiddles were authentic Italians? Was it a community of dealers or just one person whose word carried sufficient weight to make it so? 2. Were the person or persons who misidentified a not so old non-Italian as an old Italian simply in error or was there deliberate deception for financial gain? In other words, how hard or easy is it to be mistaken about these things? Would someone knowledgeable about old Italians be able to see at first glance from 10 feet away that a Nemessanyi isn't an early to mid 18th century Cremona? 3. Who, as a buyer, was it that believed the word of some expert or experts without verifying the authority of the expert or experts to voice an opinion? Do some buyers want to be deceived? This leads me to the following questions about the current fiddle: What will be the verification process after someone with a requisite amount of expertise voices an opinion? What are the checks and balances on any one person's or a small group of people's opinions about provenance? How willing are colleagues to challenge one another's opinions in the violin trade at the top most level? Dear Ski, I have to post this time congratulating you on asking some very pertinent questions! I think however, that you should concede that an “authentication” is always an expression of current opinion (however learned) and not a “declaration” of fact. An exception would be a statement of fact by the living individual who actually made the instrument. Never the less, I can well remember, 20 years ago, how difficult it was to convince the Dorotheum that their “Guarneri” was in fact a “Hargrave”, although I had older photos of it, and Rogers advertising brochure, where it was illustrated. I had the positively steaming, red faced Dorotheum CEO standing in my workshop counting the flames on the pictures, then on the violin. Being deceived is evidently one thing, owning up to the fact another!
Omobono Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 At times such as this is it a comfort or a concern that the there must be similar situations in the world of art appraisal as well? http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/authentications
Blank face Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 It is interesting to me that at least the two previous owners apparently had no idea that the violin was a del Gesu. And, supposedly, the violin was purchased by the consignor ten years ago for $5000. The fact that many dealers, who are more expert than the auction's specialist, saw and handled the violin without concluding that it was a del Gesu......... I think however, that you should concede that an “authentication” is always an expression of current opinion (however learned) and not a “declaration” of fact. I'm still not 100% sure someone who is not a known member of the trade can walk into a big expert's place and get a top fiddle certified. I can't resist to put some statements together, which are making me wonder what was going on here. It's irritating to give such an information to the public in this way before an "official" declaration is done - but maybe it helps to hear some more about the fascinating case now, I'm asking myself, if there anything has changed with the fiddle in the meantime. When there were several former owners, one a well established VIP, being not able to get this highly valuable information, opinion and certification about it, but now after the auction things have changed so dramatically that it has got this extremly rare attribution, is it just luck? Was the buyer better informed than the former owners? What made him able to get what the others didn't get? That's not a kind of conspiracy theory, only some questions on my mind. Also it appears to me a bit too easy to say "a great find" and "that's what we all expect from an auction", cause there seems to be too much money involved. The big win of the one person is the great loss of another, if it all is as described above. And considering the tragic and criminal (to use a more harmless word) history of the 20th century, in whose ownership could the violin have been before, and how might they have been separated from it? There are other examples for theft and robbery of great instruments. So if there is anybody hold accountable for this loss, is a question that isn't to decide here IMO.
uncle duke Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 Maybe the back and ribs are the real deal. Belly and neck/scroll ?
martin swan Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 I think the problem with Nemessanyi is that a world famous expert in del Gesu might have seen pretty much every del Gesu going, but perhaps only one Nemessanyi. A friend who was a leading figure at J&A Beare for a couple of decades had never seen one with an original label until the one at Bromptons last week .... in spite of being able to recognize most classical Italians from a hundred paces. And there's a difference between a labelled Nemessanyi and a Nemessanyi which is an outright fake of a del Gesu, toolmarks and all .... personally, I believe that very knowledgeable people could be deceived by this level of work. There are many examples. However, dendro can usually clear this stuff up in a jiffy. That's one of its great strengths - though there are instances where it gets confusing, for example the Vollers using wood from the early 1700s which came from the same source as Bisiach's supply. On the more general point of certificates, I think Pete Biddulph's approach is quite enlightened. We discussed this at some point, and he likens expertise to the role of a high court judge, hearing expert testimony and making a final determination on the basis of the best possible evidence and personal study. But as Jacob says, only the maker can really know if they made it or not ...
Violadamore Posted April 13, 2015 Report Posted April 13, 2015 But as Jacob says, only the maker can really know if they made it or not ... And then apparently, in some cases, only if they spent some time in the shop with the workmen......... [Goes back to reading books recommended by Jacob]
Will L Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 There needs to be a given: IF someone can copy well enough, then he can fool anybody. Of course that's a big if. But I wonder if all the glowing early writings of such as Benedek are not exaggerated. Most of us who have seen enough Nemessanyi, Doetch, Voller, Panormo, and so forth, know that we haven't seen one yet that would fool anyone. So one wonders if it isn't more often than not a myth that they ever did. OTOH, there was a Panormo (at least that's what it had been determined to be in about 1970) which had passed as a long pattern Strad for 150 years. It was pretty impressive, with a couple of little questionable things which apparently hadn't bothered anyone too much for a long time. I wonder if anyone wants to suggest that a percentage of the accepted Strads and dGs in Doring and Goodkind are something else? And what would that percentage be? It seems it is more likely for one to come upon a Strad or dG that hasn't yet been so-attributed than the reverse. Yes? No?
Omobono Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 I seem to recall reading in a Strad article years back that a good number of supposed Strads brought for display to the Stradivari Bicentennial exhibition in Cremona in 1937 were found to be pretty doubtful. Maybe someone can find the reference for that?
DGV Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 On the more general point of certificates, I think Pete Biddulph's approach is quite enlightened. We discussed this at some point, and he likens expertise to the role of a high court judge, hearing expert testimony and making a final determination on the basis of the best possible evidence and personal study. But as Jacob says, only the maker can really know if they made it or not ... Only if the maker actually remembers. If I had made 500 violins without some sort of bookkeeping, I don't think I could tell mine from a great copy.
Will L Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 I seem to recall reading in a Strad article years back that a good number of supposed Strads brought for display to the Stradivari Bicentennial exhibition in Cremona in 1937 were found to be pretty doubtful. Maybe someone can find the reference for that? I wonder if people such as Doring were not inspired by this event. His tome didn't come out until 1945, and Goodkind's in 1972. Goodkind points out that Haweis in 1898 estimated about 800 Strads left, which wasn't that far off. So there must have been some sort of accounting known to the community of experts. But there was not anything available as Doring or Goodkind. Even the Hill book didn't attempt to list all the Strads. I could be wrong, but I think when guys like Doring set to the task, I doubt they would have included violins without a high degree of assurance. Certainly doesn't mean they might not have made some mistakes. But what wandered through the doors in 1937 and what is in Doring or Goodkind are probably two different things. If anyone knows how accurate Doring and Goodkind are, or how many lemons may be listed by them, it would be interesting to know.
skiingfiddler Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 On the more general point of certificates, I think Pete Biddulph's approach is quite enlightened. We discussed this at some point, and he likens expertise to the role of a high court judge, hearing expert testimony and making a final determination on the basis of the best possible evidence and personal study. But as Jacob says, only the maker can really know if they made it or not ... An important difference between the violin expert and the law judge is that the judge shouldn't incur any gain or loss by his decision. The judge's decision should have no impact on the judge, himself. That would be a conflict of interest. In writing certificates for instruments the expert is selling or possibly buying, the violin expert is more like the judge, defendant and prosecution all rolled into one, with the expert's judgment having a possible effect on the expert's gain or loss.
skiingfiddler Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 I seem to recall reading in a Strad article years back that a good number of supposed Strads brought for display to the Stradivari Bicentennial exhibition in Cremona in 1937 were found to be pretty doubtful. Maybe someone can find the reference for that? David Schoenbaum, The Violin, 2013, p. 222, makes reference to that exhibition: "In 1937, with no Stradivaris in Cremona to exhibit at the bicentennial exposition, the organizers appealed to owners everywhere and even the general public for specimens. Of the 128 instruments accepted for examination, eight were found to be genuine." Schoenbaum's reference is "Santoro, ed., Le Celebrazioni, pp. 19ff." With the exhibition's very broad appeal for instruments from everybody and anybody, it's not surprising that an extensive weed-out process was needed. But it would be interesting to know the history of the 120 rejects. Given that they were "accepted for examination," the organizers must have had some reason to believe that they might be Strads.
skiingfiddler Posted April 14, 2015 Report Posted April 14, 2015 At times such as this is it a comfort or a concern that the there must be similar situations in the world of art appraisal as well? http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/authentications David Schoenbaum, The Violin, 2013, differentiates the process of appraisals in the art world from those of the violin world: Page 225: "Art experts acquire their skills in graduate schools and museums and tend to practice their craft as professors and curators. Violin experts acquire theirs in the handful of shops where a widest variety of instruments are likeliest to show up for repair, certification, or sale and have usually practiced their craft as dealers." Schoenbaum goes on, on that page, to note that, nonetheless, the art world has had plenty of fraudulent activity. Then Schoenbaum continues a contrast of art and violin worlds, pp. 225-26: "On the other hand, art expertise has existed independent of the trade since at least the mid-nineteenth century. Beginning in 1968, Dutch taxpayers underwrote a Rembrandt Research Project with a staff of academic experts. Even as it shut down, a successor project launched a data base, funded by the Mellon Foundation in New York. Nothing comparable existed, or was even imaginable, in the violin world. From the beginning to today, the violin dealer and authenticator have usually been the same person." Schoenbaum thus makes the case that in the art world there is some sort of checking and questioning of opinions on authenticity from outside sources not directly involved in the commerce of art, while the violin world usually has no such separation between authentication and dealing. Omobono, The link that you cite, with the guidelines offered there, confirms that in art attribution a wide variety of institutions and people have input: academic institutions, museums, independent scholars and experts. While the field of violin attribution has gotten somewhat broader in recent years with non-dealer scholars and some use of university facilities and faculty -- for dendrochronology for example -- the academic community doesn't seem as involved in violin authentication as it is in art.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now