A case study: the Messiah violin

[Archiver]

In the Stewart Pollens' book "Stradivari" I found a description of the analysis of the originality of the violin 'Messiah' and there is written  (Appendix 3: A case study: the Messiah violin):

 

"In another entry he added that there was " un tasello sotto sopra l'anima ii Scagnello per Fortezza stato messo autore dal alla costruzione "(a patch above the soundpost and below the bridge for strength, placed by the maker during construction) '

 

 

How to understand this sentence with regard to establishment time of the soundpost patch? Does this mean the Stradivari places such patch already during the construction of the violins?

[Ben Hebbert]

Thanks for this. 

 

I have two comments to make about this. In the first place, 'tasello' does not mean a 'patch' so much as a piece going through the wood - ranging as I understand it from an 'inlay' to a dowel. There are other points in Cozio's Carteggio where he uses quite different words to describe what is more obviously a 'patch'. 

 

My second comment is that a 'tassel above the soundpost and below the bridge' does not necessarily equate to the soundpost position. There is a chance that Cozio - who wasn't using modern terminology, is representing a gun-barrel view of the violin. In which case, the 'tassello' that is inlayed through the wood like a dowel, is the piece of wood filling the sap pocket up near the fingerboard (in line with the bridge foot and soundpost). This was certainly put in by the maker during construction, because it is under the original and undisturbed varnish.

 

Whilst this argument doesn't completely account for the description made by Cozio, I think it ticks more boxes than the assumption of a soundpost patch put in by the maker. It is fairly certain that the Tassello description infers a cutting in to the body of the instrument, which is absent from the Messiah.

 

So that's my theory! 

[Violadamore]

It has a case, too?  Did it come with a bow as well? 

 

This could cast valuable light on Tony's marketing practices. 

[Archiver]

Thanks for this. 

 

I have two comments to make about this. In the first place, 'tasello' does not mean a 'patch' so much as a piece going through the wood - ranging as I understand it from an 'inlay' to a dowel. There are other points in Cozio's Carteggio where he uses quite different words to describe what is more obviously a 'patch'. 

 

My second comment is that a 'tassel above the soundpost and below the bridge' does not necessarily equate to the soundpost position. There is a chance that Cozio - who wasn't using modern terminology, is representing a gun-barrel view of the violin. In which case, the 'tassello' that is inlayed through the wood like a dowel, is the piece of wood filling the sap pocket up near the fingerboard (in line with the bridge foot and soundpost). This was certainly put in by the maker during construction, because it is under the original and undisturbed varnish.

 

Whilst this argument doesn't completely account for the description made by Cozio, I think it ticks more boxes than the assumption of a soundpost patch put in by the maker. It is fairly certain that the Tassello description infers a cutting in to the body of the instrument, which is absent from the Messiah.

 

So that's my theory! 

 

 

Thank you very much for your answer

 

One of people on this forum wrote, "the picture is more worth than words", so I ask, is there are any materials that picture of how it should look like, ( this part of violin, what I refer of quotation)?.  

Can be visible on the CT scans pictures?

[Dr N Sackman]

In response to Archiver's first posting:

 

Count Cozio's text from late 1774 or early 1775 (Cozio ms. 41 at the Biblioteca Statale di Cremona) reads: "con un tasello sopra l'anima sotto il scagnello per fortezza stato messo dal autore alla costruzione del violin" which translates as " with a patch above the sound-post, under the bridge, for strength, placed there by the maker during the construction of the violin."

 

The 20-year-old Count has mistakenly used 'tasello' rather than 'pezza'. The word 'scagnello' is a Cremonese dialect word meaning the bridge of a string instrument.

 

When Cozio, aged 45, wrote a second description of the same violin (in 1801; Cozio ms. 42) his text is: "ed una pezza larga quadrata sopra l'anima per una crepatura che e invisibile, e forse per necessario rinforzo dal G. B. Guadagnini." ("and a wide square patch [set] above the sound-post for a crack which is invisible, and perhaps for necessary reinforcement, by G. B. Guadagnini."

 

Sacconi recommends the insertion of a protective patch of wood to prevent the underside of the top plate from being damaged by the adjustment of the sound-post.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

 

Sacconi recommends the insertion of a protective patch of wood to prevent the underside of the top plate from being damaged by the adjustment of the sound-post.

' 'insertion'.....Where? Reference?

[David Burgess]

To what has been said already, I'll add that there could have once been a surface veneer patch, later removed. It's not like that fiddle has never been opened, and even I might be able to remove a surface patch without leaving much of a visible trace. And there are restorers who are much better than I ever was.

[curious1]

To what has been said already, I'll add that there could have once been a surface veneer patch, later removed. It's not like that fiddle has never been opened, and even I might be able to remove a surface patch without leaving much of a visible trace.

:^)

[Ben Hebbert]

In response to Archiver's first posting:

 

Count Cozio's text from late 1774 or early 1775 (Cozio ms. 41 at the Biblioteca Statale di Cremona) reads: "con un tasello sopra l'anima sotto il scagnello per fortezza stato messo dal autore alla costruzione del violin" which translates as " with a patch above the sound-post, under the bridge, for strength, placed there by the maker during the construction of the violin."

 

The 20-year-old Count has mistakenly used 'tasello' rather than 'pezza'. The word 'scagnello' is a Cremonese dialect word meaning the bridge of a string instrument.

 

When Cozio, aged 45, wrote a second description of the same violin (in 1801; Cozio ms. 42) his text is: "ed una pezza larga quadrata sopra l'anima per una crepatura che e invisibile, e forse per necessario rinforzo dal G. B. Guadagnini." ("and a wide square patch [set] above the sound-post for a crack which is invisible, and perhaps for necessary reinforcement, by G. B. Guadagnini."

 

Sacconi recommends the insertion of a protective patch of wood to prevent the underside of the top plate from being damaged by the adjustment of the sound-post.

 

 

Cozio’s Carteggio is if anything incoherent at times, which means that we have to tread carefully when trying to interpret what he was writing at different times. One of the problems that we have is that there is no complete list of the instruments that Cozio owned, and what we may deduce has to be open to scrutiny. These are also personal notes, which means that whilst they may be reliable to aid his own thinking, they need to be cited very carefully when we don’t understand the specific context each time. Whilst some statements may be self-evidently reliable, others may not be.  

 

In the case of the patch – by whatever name, Sackman is following Pollens in making the assumption that the 1716 violin mentioned in 1774/1775 is exactly the same one described in 1801. What I find most disturbing about this argument is the arrogant assumption that any inconvenience falls to the allegation that ‘the 20-year-old Count has mistakenly used ‘tasello’ rather than ‘pezza’.  How on earth can any scholar come to that rigid conclusion, and what are the perils of being able to dismiss a primary source as being ‘mistaken’ that easily: The ability to freely adapt any statement to support a preconceived argument on the basis that the primary source was ‘mistaken’? ...

 

Sackman entirely misses the point of the 1801 description that the large square ‘pezza’ is to reinforce a crack, and was put in by Guadagnini. There is no such crack on the Messiah even if the ‘pezza’ has been removed perfectly. This is totally contradictory to the 1774/75 description. Even for the ‘tasello’ to be replaced by a ‘pezza’, as may plausibly happen, there needs to be a crack detectable to justify these statements. There is none - not even any trace of an 'invisible' crack when looking under the closest scrutiny..  Instead, we are looking towards the possibility that there are two different 1716 violins that belonged to Cozio: One with a 'tasello' put in by Stradivari, the other with a 'pezza' put in by Guadagnini to reinforce a crack. At the very least, we are looking at evidence that is too weak to be accepted as describing ‘the same’ violin.

 

This should be obvious. In fairness to Sackman, he is only parroting arguments that have been plagiarised from Pollens. They are not his own.

 

For the record - when the Stradivari Varnish book was being researched, we had the opportunity to look for surface evidence of an invisible crack under a microscope. There simply is no disruption to the wood or varnish that would indicate the slightest crack.  

[curious1]

Cozio’s Carteggio is if anything incoherent at times, which means that we have to tread carefully when trying to interpret what he was writing at different times. One of the problems that we have is that there is no complete list of the instruments that Cozio owned, and what we may deduce has to be open to scrutiny. These are also personal notes, which means that whilst they may be reliable to aid his own thinking, they need to be cited very carefully when we don’t understand the specific context each time. Whilst some statements may be self-evidently reliable, others may not be.  

 

In the case of the patch – by whatever name, Sackman is following Pollens in making the assumption that the 1716 violin mentioned in 1774/1775 is exactly the same one described in 1801. What I find most disturbing about this argument is the arrogant assumption that any inconvenience falls to the allegation that ‘the 20-year-old Count has mistakenly used ‘tasello’ rather than ‘pezza’.  How on earth can any scholar come to that rigid conclusion, and what are the perils of being able to dismiss a primary source as being ‘mistaken’ that easily: The ability to freely adapt any statement to support a preconceived argument on the basis that the primary source was ‘mistaken’? ...

 

Sackman entirely misses the point of the 1801 description that the large square ‘pezza’ is to reinforce a crack, and was put in by Guadagnini. There is no such crack on the Messiah even if the ‘pezza’ has been removed perfectly. This is totally contradictory to the 1774/75 description. Even for the ‘tasello’ to be replaced by a ‘pezza’, as may plausibly happen, there needs to be a crack detectable to justify these statements. There is none - not even any trace of an 'invisible' crack when looking under the closest scrutiny..  Instead, we are looking towards the possibility that there are two different 1716 violins that belonged to Cozio: One with a 'tasello' put in by Stradivari, the other with a 'pezza' put in by Guadagnini to reinforce a crack. At the very least, we are looking at evidence that is too weak to be accepted as describing ‘the same’ violin.

 

This should be obvious. In fairness to Sackman, he is only parroting arguments that have been plagiarised from Pollens. They are not his own.

 

For the record - when the Stradivari Varnish book was being researched, we had the opportunity to look for surface evidence of an invisible crack under a microscope. There simply is no disruption to the wood or varnish that would indicate the slightest crack.

:^)

[Omobono]

... we are looking towards the possibility that there are two different 1716 violins that belonged to Cozio:

Ah yes, this brings back recollections of discussions past.

Thanks, Ben, for putting in the effort to reply at length.

Amazing the amount of energy generated in reference to one fiddle.

It continue to intrigue. 

[Dr N Sackman]

Post 6

 

Sacconi "Segreti" (1972) p. 103

"In new instruments it is advisable to increase the thickness of the front plate by about 8/10ths of one millimetre for a small circular area of about 2.2cms in diameter, and no more, corresponding to the position of the sound-post, in order to avoid the wear produce by the shifting of the sound-post when adjusting it."

 

Sacconi includes photographs of the 'La Pucelle' and 'Delfino' violins to illustrate the scuffed and worn areas of wood on the underside of the front plate.

[DBurns]

Is the Messiah Stradivari celebrating a 300th  birthday this year with something special?

If you ask me, it does not look a day over 100!

[Omobono]

Is the Messiah Stradivari celebrating a 300th  birthday this year with something special?

If you ask me, it does not look a day over 100!

How perceptive! It's a nice round number.

What date might you suggest for a celebration? Christmas Day?

[Wolfjk]

Whenever I looked at the Messiah violin, my first thought was :"this tree was not old enough to make a violin"

[Ben Hebbert]

Ah yes, this brings back recollections of discussions past.

Thanks, Ben, for putting in the effort to reply at length.

Amazing the amount of energy generated in reference to one fiddle.

It continue to intrigue. 

 

Yes, the Tuscan of 1716, which is of all Stradivari violins the closest to the Messiah and also in very pure condition does not appear in the detailed inventories of the Dukes of Tuscany until about 1820, after Cozio dispersed his collection (whereas other instruments do exist in 18th century inventories). From external observation there is clearly the kind of disturbance around the bridge foot that is consistent with an emerging soundpost crack (i.e. what could be termed 'invisible'), and the curator of the collection has confirmed to me that there is a soundpost patch in the instrument, although I have not seen it for myself. This may be Guadagnini's 'pezza' or a later replacement when it was modernised more recently, so there may be no supporting evidence.

 

There is a significant hypothesis therefore, that the 1716 violin described in 1801 is the Tuscan, and not the Messiah - although it is questionable whether this would be more than a theory. Certainly returning to the material of the instrument, it is the closest to a 'twin' to the Messiah that exists, so quite plausible that it also emerged from the box of violins sold by Paolo Stradivari to Cozio. However, this is deduction rather than fact.

 

If we take the mistaken hypothesis to it's logical extension, the 20-year-old Cozio, unskilled enough to mistake a 'pezza' for a 'tassello' may have misidentified a viola for a violin, or mistaken the date of the instrument. If evidence is unreliable, we cannot be selective about what part of it we chose to trust. 

 

This is a difference between letting a bias lead our reading of a document, or taking the document for what it is. 

[martin swan]

 

 

Sacconi recommends the insertion of a protective patch of wood to prevent the underside of the top plate from being damaged by the adjustment of the sound-post.

I don't think this is correct. As your own quote above attests, he recommends leaving this area thicker, not adding a patch.

[PASEWICZ]

I don't think this is correct. As your own quote above attests, he recommends leaving this area thicker, not adding a patch.

I agree as Melvin has also picked up on. Adding material is a stretch.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Post 6

 

Sacconi "Segreti" (1972) p. 103

"In new instruments it is advisable to increase the thickness of the front plate by about 8/10ths of one millimetre for a small circular area of about 2.2cms in diameter, and no more, corresponding to the position of the sound-post, in order to avoid the wear produce by the shifting of the sound-post when adjusting it."

 

Sacconi includes photographs of the 'La Pucelle' and 'Delfino' violins to illustrate the scuffed and worn areas of wood on the underside of the front plate.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with your reading of Sacconi but different interpretations are always worthy of consideration. Sacconi suggest leaving the post area a bit thicker. He never mentions a patch or veneer in new making, One thing to keep in mind is that there will be people reading here who know the two violins you mention in the real world literally inside out and not just thru Sacconi....Oh...and there will be folk who knew Sacconi too....

[nathan slobodkin]

Dr. Sackman,

I have had many conversations about this with two people who worked with Sacconi. Both have instructed me to leave the area around the sound post slightly thicker to strengthen the area and prevent damage . This is completely different from added veneers or patches.

[Bruce Carlson]

Post 6

 

Sacconi "Segreti" (1972) p. 103

 

Sacconi includes photographs of the 'La Pucelle' and 'Delfino' violins to illustrate the scuffed and worn areas of wood on the underside of the front plate.

 

Dear Dr. Sackman,

 

'La Pucelle' on p.105 shows wear from adjustment of the soundpost. The violin on p.97, identified as the Dolphin', has a regular soundpost patch. It is not the 'Dolphin' but the 'Soil' from the same year, 1714. This was either an error by the Editor or possibly an error overlooked by Sacconi.

 

It's hard enough to identify instruments from the outside!

 

I can confirm that the reinforcement of this area is not an added veneer but an increase in thickness and was and is practiced by some makers here in Cremona. Ansaldo Poggi, who along with Sacconi also studied with Giuseppe Fiorini, increased the thickness of the soundpost area with a lozenge shaped area. Sorry, I can't find a photograph right now.

 

Bruce

[DBurns]

   I have not read this website, except for a quick glance, but it is contesting the Messiah.

 

lordstrad1716.com

 

"Chapter4

The “Messiah” violin, a composite violin

…the “Messiah” violin is a composite violin consisting of parts from at least two different violins: The belly of the “Messiah” violin was taken from Cozio’s Strad 1717 violin (made by Francesco); the back of the “Messiah” violin was taken from another violin that was also made by Francesco before 1742."

[Torbjörn Zethelius]

Information overload.

[Ben Hebbert]

I think it is useful to remind readers that the present discussion does not come from a slip of the tongue.

 

Sackman asserts the following: 

 

 

 

Sacconi recommends the insertion of a protective patch of wood to prevent the underside of the top plate from being damaged by the adjustment of the sound-post.

 

which he justifies with a later post within this thread, as a valid explanation of his claim.  

 

Post 6

 

Sacconi "Segreti" (1972) p. 103

"In new instruments it is advisable to increase the thickness of the front plate by about 8/10ths of one millimetre for a small circular area of about 2.2cms in diameter, and no more, corresponding to the position of the sound-post, in order to avoid the wear produce by the shifting of the sound-post when adjusting it."

 

Sacconi includes photographs of the 'La Pucelle' and 'Delfino' violins to illustrate the scuffed and worn areas of wood on the underside of the front plate.

 

 

In this case we are not talking about the nuances of a manuscript written in a regional 18th century Italian hand. We have a situation of a statement being written in very simple plain English. I can think of very few times when so clear a source has been manipulated and misrepresented to support statements that are quite so incompatible with the original. Needless to say, you can read many more statements displaying this dismal quality of interpretation and bias in The Messiah: An [un]reliable history. 

[PASEWICZ]

In this case we are not talking about the nuances of a manuscript written in a regional 18th century Italian hand. We have a situation of a statement being written in very simple plain English. I can think of very few times when so clear a source has been manipulated and misrepresented to support statements that are quite so incompatible with the original. Needless to say, you can read many more statements displaying this dismal quality of interpretation and bias in The Messiah: An [un]reliable history.

Thank you Ben, this explains the rather obvious misinterpretation of Sacconi.