Sign in to follow this  
JacksonMaberry

A Markie, a Cremonese, and a Chinese walk into a bar...

Recommended Posts

Seems to be some confusion about the Diguini. He is a "modern" Cremonese maker to the extent that most of his output is 20th century. He died in 1937, so the contemporary practice of some Cremonese "makers" of selling modified Chinese or Reghin instruments is totally irrelevant to this violin, which looks like a very good and typical example.

 

I found these on Skinner:

http://www.skinnerinc.com/search?s=digiuni

 

There are several differences, so perhaps it is too strong to say "typical example".  Please reference other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be some confusion about the Diguini. He is a "modern" Cremonese maker to the extent that most of his output is 20th century. He died in 1937, so the contemporary practice of some Cremonese "makers" of selling modified Chinese or Reghin instruments is totally irrelevant to this violin, which looks like a very good and typical example.

No confusion.  My intent was mostly humorous, but one feels compelled to point out that the Italians themselves acknowledge that their violinmaking tradition bottomed out during the 20th. Century and had to be resurrected with training programs from about the 1960's on.  There are some videos about it on YouTube.

 

I agree that the current use of Chinese and Eastern European "in the whites" is irrelevant.  Obviously he would have had to use German.  ;)  :P  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My violin has a repair label from Johannes Albrecht sometime in the early 19th century.  I am pretty confident that the label is authentic, since the violin itself was made c. 30 years before in the shop Albrecht took over...  Worth comparing, perhaps...

 

post-55808-0-07575200-1458878582_thumb.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, that's really neat! Thanks for chiming in. Any chance of a photo or two?

post-25192-0-54283400-1458880204_thumb.jpg

 

Prepared by cutting with a very sharp plane at a few different angles, rubbing in some black paint, then wiping it off with acetone.

 

The most prominent squiggling shows up close to the quartered plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be some confusion about the Diguini. He is a "modern" Cremonese maker to the extent that most of his output is 20th century. He died in 1937, so the contemporary practice of some Cremonese "makers" of selling modified Chinese or Reghin instruments is totally irrelevant to this violin, which looks like a very good and typical example.

 

Thanks for clarifying this ^_^ !

Of course he would have used, if he did at all, Schönbach boxes - the thread linked by VdA gives some evidence that this could have been the case within the oeuvre of some other more important modern italian makers, a very common practice during the first half of the 20th century not only in Italy.

The interesting question would be, if they can be counted into the "Ecole d'Est" also, as a general phenomena, not regarding to the OP only..

 

Given that the "labelled" instruments from Skinner are genuine Diguini isn't, as a self-taught maker, very highly esteemed. Nonetheless I can see some differences to the OP (fluted ffs, no pins, especially the button looks quite different).

 

Johannes Albrecht was a Kremser

https://www.dorotheum.com/auktionen/aktuelle-auktionen/kataloge/list-lots-detail/auktion/10641-musikinstrumente/lotID/19/lot/1701096-albrecht-johannesoberneustif-t-1766-1828-krems.html

from the early 19th century, who definitely hasn't anything to do with one of the "Johann" labelled violins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found these on Skinner:

http://www.skinnerinc.com/search?s=digiuni

 

There are several differences, so perhaps it is too strong to say "typical example".  

Well the first three are the same violin, sold 3 times - one wonders why it kept coming back!

These are all described as "a modern violin labelled Diguini" etc - not to cast nasturtiums, I would be very wary of using Skinners as a source of reference examples, though the fourth example does appear on the Archivo della Liuteria Cremonese website as a Diguini, and it does seem to have at least one pin! I have to say I am suspicions of it and think it might be one of Blank Face's overworked MK things.

There's very little online, but I found a double bass here which looks original : http://www.doublebass-cello.com/instruments_onsale.html

(scroll down to the 6th instrument).

you will see that the scroll fluting, varnish, edgework, drawn out corners etc are very similar, while retaining the quirky artistic unpredictability of an autodidact maker who Marlin Brinser generously describes as an "experimentor and inventor".

This also looks credible to me : http://www.houseofviolin.com/forum/download/file.php?id=583&mode=view

There's a good example in "La Liuteria Lombarda del '900" pages 170/171. I suppose this would be the most reliable reference example.

 

I know I started the mud-slinging by questioning whether the "Albrecht" could be what it purported to be, but I think it's a rather different matter to say that someone's precious early 20th century Italian violin with a Weisshaar certificate isn't genuine, on the basis of a few photos from Skinners or a general tendency to see Schoenbach schachtels coming out of the walls. Jackson must be wishing to God he'd never started this thread ...  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I know I started the mud-slinging by questioning whether the "Albrecht" could be what it purported to be, but I think it's a rather different matter to say that someone's precious early 20th century Italian violin with a Weisshaar certificate isn't genuine, on the basis of a few photos from Skinners or a general tendency to see Schoenbach schachtels coming out of the walls. Jackson must be wishing to God he'd never started this thread ...  :lol:

 

Thanks for the links!

While I find it hard to say something significant about the bass, the HoV violin, more photos visible from this site

http://www.houseofviolin.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=332

is clearly very similar to the OP, including details like ff, purfling, button ^_^

 

I'm guessing, nobody here implied ever that Jackson's Diguini wasn't genuine, nor that it isn't Cremonese in the way it's certified, or did I miss something?

The "Schachtel" question is a different matter, and if (as stated in the other thread) a genuine and in all aspects convincing Sanino appears to be made out of it, it isn't a fact to be ashamed about it.

There was a lot of kidding in this statements; you might need to see a lot of more internal details before judging if a certain instrument was made from a Schachtel or not, so please don't take it too serious.

 

It's a much entertaining and educating thread IMO, just to see how important the angles of a photo can be for the appearance of a violin.

Both the Diguinis, Jackson's and the linked from the House of violins, are possibly very similar when you're looking at them in real life, but how different do they look at the pictures reg. varnish!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johannes Albrecht was a Kremser

https://www.dorotheum.com/auktionen/aktuelle-auktionen/kataloge/list-lots-detail/auktion/10641-musikinstrumente/lotID/19/lot/1701096-albrecht-johannesoberneustif-t-1766-1828-krems.html

from the early 19th century, who definitely hasn't anything to do with one of the "Johann" labelled violins.

 

Just a minute!

I found the probate procedure of Magnus Anton Ficht in the archive in Krems, he was born in Lechbruch (near Füssen) and had moved to Vienna as a 13 year old to learn with Martin Mathias Fichtl, and he died (of TB) on 2nd. December 1792. His widow wrote a letter (16th August 1793) to the Magisträt, bitterly complaining that she had brought a dowry of 500 Gulden into the marriage and was now left, 8 years later, with 3 infants, and no money! Mind you, she promptly had a marriage contract with Johannes Albrecht, dated 2nd. June 1793 (she was evidently a glutton for punishment) and this clearly states that Johannes Albrecht was Viennese, and not a Kremser.

Quote:

"Herrn Johann Albrecht Lautten und

geigenmacher in Wien gebürtig, als

Brautigam

dann

Frau Maria Anna Fichtlin burgerl:

Lautten und geigenmachers Wittwn

in Krems, als Braute"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a minute!

 

"Herrn Johann Albrecht Lautten und

geigenmacher in Wien gebürtig, als

Brautigam

dann

Frau Maria Anna Fichtlin burgerl:

Lautten und geigenmachers Wittwn

in Krems, als Braute"

 

Dear Jacob, thank you very much, too, for clarifying this!

Surprisingly we found here the Johann Albrecht again :D !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing, nobody here implied ever that Jackson's Diguini wasn't genuine, nor that it isn't Cremonese in the way it's certified, or did I miss something?

The "Schachtel" question is a different matter, and if (as stated in the other thread) a genuine and in all aspects convincing Sanino appears to be made out of it, it isn't a fact to be ashamed about it.

There was a lot of kidding in this statements; you might need to see a lot of more internal details before judging if a certain instrument was made from a Schachtel or not, so please don't take it too serious.

 

I was having fun with the idea of Cremonese production suddenly being damned as "rubbish" wholesale, rather than denigrating Jackson's example in particular.  :)  Perhaps Addie can produce suitably ornate and impressive labels and certificates for "Genuine Naturalized Italian Rubbish, Distributed by _________, Cremona, Italy", or some such?  :lol:

 

The "Schachtel Question" is most certainly a far more serious matter, IMHO requiring much more investigation than it has previously attracted.  Unfinished violins were not just marketed from the Musikwinkel region, but also from Mirecourt and Mittenwald.  They were used by makers in every making region that I'm aware of, not only by dealers/distributors like Scherl & Roth, etc..  We've gotten in the habit (especially on The Auction Scroll) of summarily damning everything with certain characteristics as "fakes" of one variety or another.  Perhaps that's been more than a little hasty, even naive.  One wonders how much "rubbish" might be technically genuine?  Another related issue is the distinct possibility of mislabeled "rubbish" being bench copied by naive regional makers in the mistaken belief that it represented a genuine Cremonese school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cremonese production suddenly being damned as "rubbish" wholesale, "Genuine Naturalized Italian Rubbish, Distributed by _________, Cremona, Italy", or some such? One wonders how much "rubbish" might be technically genuine?  "rubbish"

Why do you put the word “rubbish” in quotation marks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you put the word “rubbish” in quotation marks?

One supposes you're right.  Since you first introduced it, it's rather become a technical term, or even a provenance.   :P  :lol:  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you first introduced it, it's rather become a technical term

I had feared that you could have misguidedly thought you might be quoting me.

You should not conflate the condition of having been made from a “Schachtel” (pre-fabricated parts) with being “rubbish”, since, although some are, there are many instruments manufactured from a “Schachtel” that are anything but.

Talking “rubbish” is a separate theme of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! I don't in the least regret making what has become a very engaging topic. And really, I'm not offended by conjecture about the provenance of our instruments, nor do I feel anyone has been crass in their discussion. While idiosyncratic, the Digiuni we have is a really fantastic sounding and playing fiddle. I wish you all were able to play it and assess it in person. It's too bad we are all scattered across the globe, as I feel a Maestronet meetup would be a huge amount of fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had feared that you could have misguidedly thought you might be quoting me.

You should not conflate the condition of having been made from a “Schachtel” (pre-fabricated parts) with being “rubbish”, since, although some are, there are many instruments manufactured from a “Schachtel” that are anything but.

Talking “rubbish” is a separate theme of course.

With all due (and very considerable) respect, everyone else who has been here a while knows full well how I came by the term "rubbish" to begin with, as well as has a shrewd idea of why I make (admittedly sarcastic) use of it to describe those violins falling outside the "fine" market category (yet still having playing, historical, and decorative utility), that a great many of us here fiddle with.  My own contention is that most of the available "rubbish" is well worth restoring or remanufacturing by those of us who can, as well as providing a superior playing experience when the job is properly accomplished.  A load of fun and experience is also had along the way.

 

Sounds to me as if you might be reassessing your original position.  Good for you.  Now, please instruct us on these "Schachtel" based violins that aren't "rubbish".  Do you consider the practice of "name" makers working from prefabs as legitimate1:)

 

1.  One notes that in some other fields such as artisan ("fine") black-powder gunsmithing, signing an item assembled and finished from rough parts made outside the shop is considered quite acceptable, even traditional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is nonsense of course, and no I am not “reassessing my position”.

Violin making started the 19th C as a craft, and became gradually more industrialised through that centuary. Thus, in Vienna as an example, one progressed(?), for instance from Martin Stoß to Jaura. By the dawn of the 2oth. C. almost nobody made violins exclusivly from a solid lump of wood anymore without the use of varing degrees of pre-fabricated parts, since it would seem to a Victorian mentality to be an irrational waste of time. For this reason, these instruments are more diffucult to tell apart than the 18th. C ones. On the other hand, I am sure that you could fabricate a violin that I might characterise as rubbish from solid lumps of Wood. Thus the equasion "Schachtel used" = rubbish, is conflating two seperate issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is nonsense of course, and no I am not “reassessing my position”.

Violin making started the 19th C as a craft, and became gradually more industrialised through that centuary. Thus, in Vienna as an example, one progressed(?), for instance from Martin Stoß to Jaura. By the dawn of the 2oth. C. almost nobody made violins exclusivly from a solid lump of wood anymore without the use of varing degrees of pre-fabricated parts, since it would seem to a Victorian mentality to be an irrational waste of time. For this reason, these instruments are more diffucult to tell apart than the 18th. C ones. On the other hand, I am sure that you could fabricate a violin that I might characterise as rubbish from solid lumps of Wood. Thus the equasion "Schachtel used" = rubbish, is conflating two seperate issues

It's reassuring, one supposes, in this age of spinning and waffling, that some positions remain constant.  ;)

 

Let me restate my earlier question, omitting the "rubbish" reference.  Could the liberal use of prefabricated assemblies, mostly (but not exclusively) produced around and sourced via Markneukirchen, be leading to what were instruments actually made by the makers whose labels they bear being generally dismissed as mislabeled trade instruments?  Your answer above seems to support "yes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in reference to anything being discussed other than the delightful word "rubbish."  I can just see an Abbot and Costello routine:

 

Abbot:  "What's that violin you're playing on?"

 

Costello:  "Rubbish."

 

A:  "Wait a minute.  You can't call this violin rubbish. Someone in the heart of Germany gave his life to making it.  And YOU call it rubbish.  Why, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  Now, what is the name of the maker?"

 

C:  "Rubbish!"

 

A:  "Hey, hold on there!  Didn't I tell you not to put down the product of a man's life?"

 

C:  "I didn't put it down.  I'm still holding it in my chubby little fingers."

 

A:  "Alright, alright, but you still called it rubbish."

 

C:  "That's right.  Rubbish."

 

A:  "I'm ashamed of you!  What's wrong with you!  Where's your humanity?  While you were living the easy life, some poor slob was making this violin, probably fighting to keep the wolf from the door."

 

C:  "Wolf.  That's the name of my bow maker."

 

A:  "Oh, shut up and get on with it.  Who made your violin?"

 

C: "Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, final answer, end of story!"

 

A:  "Oh, alright, have it your way the violin is Rubbish.  If it's Rubbish, how much does it cost?"

 

C:  "About $50,000."

 

A:  "$50,000!  $50,000 for Rubbish?"

 

C:  "Well, yes, for Giovanni Battista Rubbish.  But his brother, Sam Rubbish, that kind of Rubbish goes for about $95..."   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in reference to anything being discussed other than the delightful word "rubbish."  I can just see an Abbot and Costello routine:

 

Abbot:  "What's that violin you're playing on?"

 

Costello:  "Rubbish."

 

A:  "Wait a minute.  You can't call this violin rubbish. Someone in the heart of Germany gave his life to making it.  And YOU call it rubbish.  Why, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  Now, what is the name of the maker?"

 

C:  "Rubbish!"

 

A:  "Hey, hold on there!  Didn't I tell you not to put down the product of a man's life?"

 

C:  "I didn't put it down.  I'm still holding it in my chubby little fingers."

 

A:  "Alright, alright, but you still called it rubbish."

 

C:  "That's right.  Rubbish."

 

A:  "I'm ashamed of you!  What's wrong with you!  Where's your humanity?  While you were living the easy life, some poor slob was making this violin, probably fighting to keep the wolf from the door."

 

C:  "Wolf.  That's the name of my bow maker."

 

A:  "Oh, shut up and get on with it.  Who made your violin?"

 

C: "Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, final answer, end of story!"

 

A:  "Oh, alright, have it your way the violin is Rubbish.  If it's Rubbish, how much does it cost?"

 

C:  "About $50,000."

 

A:  "$50,000!  $50,000 for Rubbish?"

 

C:  "Well, yes, for Giovanni Battista Rubbish.  But his brother, Sam Rubbish, that kind of Rubbish goes for about $95..."   

Brilliant!   :)  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, I have a customer called Herr Hrubesch who I always call Mr. Rubbish, and he certainly isn’t pre-fabricated.

He came in once with a ‘cello, and asked if I could sell it for him on comission. I said “out of the question, some moronic idiot has stripped the varnish and creasoated it”. He swalloed hard, and replied “Des wär i” (That was me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all, 

I am sorry for resurrecting this thread. I am not a luthier but I have been doing some research on Luigi Digiuni and found this thread along the way. I thought that some of you may be interested in what we found.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331207283_Case_Study_of_a_1935_Guitar_by_Cremonese_Luthier_Luigi_Digiuni_Casalbuttano_1878_Cremona_1937

The fact that Luigi Digiuni was self taught is debatable because he produced the only guitars we could find anywhere that are neither Baroque nor de Torres, thus suggesting that Cremonese lutherie maintained inventive capability during a period which is commonly regarded as severely decadent.

It is difficult to believe that by chance Andrea Guarneri (1626-1698, founder of the Guarneri dynasty of luthiers), his grandson Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri del Gesu’ (1798-1744) and Luigi Digiuni were all born in Casalbuttano a minuscule Cremonese village. The discovery that Casalbuttano, not Cremona, is the birthplace of Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri del Gesu’ has been announced in October 2019 http://www.anlailiuteria.it/173885644 (Please, see 2nd document from top). Most likely Giuseppe Guarneri (1666-1740, Andrea's son and Bartolomeo Giuseppe' s father), too, was born in Casalbuttano. My mom definitely was born there, although I am not sure if this is of any interest here.

Regards

Massimo Maddaloni

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.