The model and f holes - vienna, tyrol, mittenwald or venice?


Recommended Posts

Just for another try to determine school or circle - the form of the corner blocks and linings, is it like this (with regards to Martin):

 

post-57937-0-91550000-1461309073_thumb.jpg

 

what could be an indication for the Mittenwald/Vienna/Danubian school,

 

or like this

 

post-57937-0-58544600-1461309166_thumb.jpg

 

what would lead to "something else". B)

 

The upper block/neck attachment is in this case insignificant, if it's unoriginal, as you wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a very subtle way, yeah...

 

Find the 5 differences :D

 

post-57937-0-59591400-1461318678_thumb.jpg

 

The top view allows a look at the lining as well as at the importance of considering the block grain direction to prevent cracking.

 

post-57937-0-23651800-1461318705_thumb.jpg

 

Edit: #51 is Strnad, you're right, I named from blurred memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like to quiz look at this! It is rather exemplary as I already wrote!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_of_the_Rocks 

 

For which one you vote as original- the one from Paris or London?!!! There are loads of books regarding both! 

 

Thanks for all support and information. We have not opened the violin- as it was not necessary to do that. WIll try to look at the corner blocks without opening it and see if there are any inscriptions handwritten things inside- if some restorers will borrow me the endoscopy camera!

Perhaps in the end I will prove it is a lost strad that was sent to mars during the cold war! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abrinkmanis,

We are trying to demonstrate a basic principle of identification.

How was the violin made?

1. Inside Mold

2. Outside Mold

3. Built free on the back

These are the basic categories which allow you to exclude a majority of possibilities from any identification, though obcviously you have to look at this in relation to probable date of manufacture.

Once you have evidence for 1. inside mold (for example) then you can exclude a number of schools. No pins = can't be Cremonese etc.

Once you have determined that a violin is of the Mittenwald/Prague/Vienna type, then you can look more closely at the inner work to exclude further possibilities. You would look to other details to get an indication of the maker.

If the intention is to identify the exact maker rather than the school and the period, then somewhere along the line you need a REFERENCE EXAMPLE. This is a violin which is widely agreed by contemporary scholarship to have an original undisturbed label or signature. Such reference examples are not to be found in Jalovec, but they are documented in many other less widely available publications, often very expensive, sometimes not so expensive (for instance the Geissenhof book)!

Yesterday I happened to be visiting John Dilworth at the point where he had just found a reference example for a maker who must have supplied instruments to Joseph Hill. The cello was in all respects Joseph Hill, except that on the top plate it bore the signature of an obscure Shropshire cabinet maker, dated 1817. This is the sort of instrument that Chi Mei Foundation collects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Martin, 

Thanks for your kind message - perhaps this is what I was looking forward to hear. I will inquire regarding the mould issue and the inside built description. For understanding if there are pins etc, I will probably need to find a way to make some photos inside the violin. The neck seems to be original and since it is a transition one (visible in the photos on dropbox i linked previously) it had not be grafted but just angled correctly putting a small piece of maple on top of the original one. 

So I will inquire on all the details you are mentioning and will then post the answers. What regards the books- indeed expensive and not always available. Will see if the other books are available. To indicate the school would be already great and unless any decipherable inscriptions will not appear I believe it will be impossible to detect the exact author. I will try to understand more in detail by having a look at http://www.roger-hargrave.de/PDF/Book/Chap_02_The_Mould_PRN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andris,

I've just taken a look at the dropbox photos.

There are no pins - these would be visible on the outside of the back.

Without seeing the blocks, this seems to me to be most likely Mittenwald circa 1800, with its original neck, but revarnished.

The bottom rib is in one piece, and the saddle was at one point inset - this is typical of Mittenwald. There are other features which would exclude Saxony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Martin, thanks - yes this sounds very much in line with what I have gathered as information so far. There are some rather good photos on mittenwald violin making museum website and some look fairly similar. Did Austrian makers used a similar construction method - continuous lower ribs? I will try to describe corner blocks too. I think the top and sides might still have the original varnish- the back has been sadly ruined with what you call in italian polish or shellac applied with tampone. A pity but fact indeed. Mittenwald would mean what Koltz school? Knitl or someone from Hornsteiners? Take a look at the photos http://www.geigenbaumuseum-mittenwald.de/index.php?id=105

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom rib is in one piece, and the saddle was at one point inset - this is typical of Mittenwald. There are other features which would exclude Saxony.

 

Bottom rib one piece and inserted saddle isn't exclusively Mittenwald at all - it's seen in many old french instruments, too (what this here most probably isn't), but also common with many other not-Mittenwald south german or austrian schools.

I understood post #8 as if a neck from elsewhere was nailed to the block, maybe this was a misunderstanding? If the scroll is original, it's different from what I would expect of a Mittenwald scroll of the period, which are usually circular or more "4 o'clock" elliptic, not vertical as it appears to be here, with broader pegboxes and a wider first winding. But there are variations possible.

Examples:

post-57937-0-40580600-1461351869_thumb.jpgpost-57937-0-01544500-1461352107_thumb.jpg

 

As I wrote above (and Andris similar), there were a lot of small schools and relatively unknown makers in S-Germany between black Forest and Bavaria during the late 18th and early 19th century, and it's sometimes very hard to find out. I had a similar case recently and surrendered after having lots of conversations with different specialists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks- once again based on photos Joseph Hornsteiner Hofschmied example on mittenwaldmuseum website seems very similar- also seen from the back- except the little v detail. I would indeed qbsolutely exclude Cremona - but what about some minor Venetians? Ongaro family or others who worked workshop style? No materials available - apart a book by Stefano Pio. If not mittenwald would be plausible. Did mittenwald makers used to make corner blocks similar to Italians? The luthier who restored it said inside follows italian way of making- which does not mean it is Italian. German is very probable- but more Mittenwald, Vienna/Austria or the forbidden area? France is out of game for the moment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by "Italian way of making" he probably just meant inside mold.

Yes I admit this could be from anywhere in this geographical region (Bavaria/Austria). I suppose I think the arching and the wood look quite plausibly Mittenwald, though the scroll did give me pause too. I even considered Parais briefly but the scroll seems quite wrong - it's always much harder without original varnish, and in this case I'm sure we don't have it.

What is the back length - very useful information in this case I think.

 

If you hadn't huffed and puffed at Jacob he might have told us what it is by now  :lol:

We all learnt this kind of study from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Martin, thanks. I actually did not tried to be unpleasant with Jacob and he had alteady wrote dome time ago that it looked like german/ austrian work that has been revarnished. In respect to him I will also take away description Tyrolean - which was entirely my misconception and will just describe it as violin of an unknown origin not to do a bad publicity for my luthier colleague and will pay a lot more attention describing anytging that goes online.

Several instruments on Mittenwald museum website have a veru similar scrolls- the transitional ones. But once again I can be totally wrong. The length of back is 35,7 or 35,6. I can measure other parts more carefully. Top wood has an extremely narrow grain- what i was told Italians stopped using at this time. Thanks ince again and I was not trying to play expert here which i am not but just give all indications i had found - taking into account Austria and Germany. So Krems was unrellated to Tyrol and tyrol was something that just deviated the whole discussion- will take that away. More info and perhaps 2 photos soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise Jacob had given an opinion. I am relieved to find out that my thoughts were the same.

I had a slight worry about Vieux Paris but the back length seems much more indicative of Mittenwald etc.

At this point I would be very surprised if the inner work contradicted this, but it's an essential step ...

 

Original varnish is VERY handy when it comes to identification, not just because varnishes are so regional, but also because essential details can be lost or blurred by the process of removal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Martin Here are several measurements-

Length of back- 35,7 cm

Maximum width upper bouts back- 16.5cm

Maximum width c bouts back- 11,3 cm

Maximum width lower bouts back 20,1 or 20,2cm

Width between corners upper part 15,5 cm

Width corners of lower c bouts - 17.7cm

Upper bouts top- 16,3- wood is worn on side

C bouts middle -11,3 cm

Lower bouts top 20 cm

Linings near c bout corners - heigth- 3,7 cm

Linings near neck and button 3,5 cm approx

Distance between c bout corners - straight - 8,5 top and 8,3 back side.

Scroll is approx 10,5-11 cm long

Diameter 5cm hotizontally (depth of volute) and 3,5 cm vertically ( heigth of first throw)

Narrowest point of development of scoll on top 1,5 cm widest point bottom of volute of scroll looking from front 2,5 cm

Width of ears 4 cm approx

Inside scroll narrowest point top from front 1,8 low part 2,2 cm approx

F holes diagonally from one eye to another left 7 cm approx right 7.2 cm approx

Distance between top eyes of ff holes top 4,3 cm

Lower part 12,7 cm

A lot of measuring- with a soft tape on top of arching!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise Jacob had given an opinion. I am relieved to find out that my thoughts were the same.

I had a slight worry about Vieux Paris but the back length seems much more indicative of Mittenwald etc.

At this point I would be very surprised if the inner work contradicted this, but it's an essential step ...

 

Original varnish is VERY handy when it comes to identification, not just because varnishes are so regional, but also because essential details can be lost or blurred by the process of removal.

Just added some measurements and a photo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Martin, thanks - yes this sounds very much in line with what I have gathered as information so far. There are some rather good photos on mittenwald violin making museum website and some look fairly similar. Did Austrian makers used a similar construction method - continuous lower ribs? I will try to describe corner blocks too. I think the top and sides might still have the original varnish- the back has been sadly ruined with what you call in italian polish or shellac applied with tampone. A pity but fact indeed. Mittenwald would mean what Koltz school? Knitl or someone from Hornsteiners? Take a look at the photos http://www.geigenbaumuseum-mittenwald.de/index.php?id=105

Sorry to say your violin doesn't resemble anything from the above link.  Maybe give credit for a half of a c-bout curl, really.  For the time being just accept that the violin is from the region others have mentioned made by someone who may of wished they could be in the same class of making as Hornsteiner, Klotz, etc.- it's not as good - speaking of the rubustness, elegance/execution of makers whom you wish it to be.  It just ain't there, sorry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say your violin doesn't resemble anything from the above link.  Maybe give credit for a half of a c-bout curl, really.  For the time being just accept that the violin is from the region others have mentioned made by someone who may of wished they could be in the same class of making as Hornsteiner, Klotz, etc.- it's not as good - speaking of the rubustness, elegance/execution of makers whom you wish it to be.  It just ain't there, sorry.

Ok - I hope you saw the corner block photo too. I do not expect it to be anything particularly special- if mittenwald remains an option that is ok- i heard vienna too so just wanted to see if there were some more indications
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a list of lessor makers of that region not including Northern Italy, Central Germany or North of, Switzerland or Russia.  Just what I perceive to be the Austrian/ Tyrol region only based on the dendro results.  Only makers with dates next to their names are mentioned.  I wonder how many students they had over the years.

 

Bausche   Leisic  fair merit

Christa      Munich  18th century

Dollinger    Vienna   1784

Fritz       Leipsic    18th cent.

Fritzsche  Leipsic   1790

Gaissenhoff   Vienna   1803 

Geisserhoffe    Vienna

Huller    Leipsic   18th cent,

Kirschschlag    Tyrol   18th cent.

Kolditz    Bohemia    1800

Lautten    Tyrol     no merit

Otto's son      Gotha     1795

Partl      Vienna     1789

Pfenner      Tyrol 1789

Reichel    Absom     1785  inferior merit

Stangl      Mittenwald   1799   fair work

Stofz         St. Polten        1821

M. Thier    Vieena   1804

A. Thir    Presburg,Vienna   1766-97

Vogler    Wurzburg    18th cent.

Weickert       Halle    1800

Withalm    Nuremburg     1765-88

Wornle      Mittenwald     1790 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bizarre list

They are from all over Germany and Austria, North and South and central, and I can't imagine anyone would call Geissenhof or Stoss "minor makers".

 

Andris, I'm out - you need someone more experienced. I agree that the scroll if original doesn't look like Mittenwald, the corner blocks as far as I can see aren't that indicative of Mittenwald, and the bottom rib would be easier if it had a notch for lining up the centre.

I don't know any more.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.