Sign in to follow this  
jandepora

A new one to ID

Recommended Posts

Hi again to all.

 

Now I have this one violin and I want to know your opinions.

It has 4 blocks, and the top inside is like a field of cleats. It looks like the border of the top has been remade inside.

 

 

The label: Johann Christoph Leidolff / Lauten und Geigenmacher / In Wienn 17(35)

 

post-77467-0-99185000-1471450177_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-51498400-1471450183_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-10730000-1471451004_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-33747500-1471451016_thumb.jpg

post-77467-0-70170000-1471450190_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-39094900-1471450194_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-96436300-1471450197_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-79167600-1471450198_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-62569100-1471450199_thumb.jpg

 

Thank you all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange mixture: The Scroll Looks like a Sebastian Rauch (of Breslau), but the Body certainly isn't, rather a later saxon fiddle. The Label Looks like it has been transplanted several times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange mixture: The Scroll Looks like a Sebastian Rauch (of Breslau), but the Body certainly isn't, rather a later saxon fiddle. The Label Looks like it has been transplanted several times

Then the violin looks XIX century? the neck looks baroque...

 

post-77467-0-98274400-1471453311_thumb.jpg

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacob, did  Rauch do  "through neck" construction? I've seen a few violins attributed to Rauch, hanging in various shops, but they were all over the place in terms of style so I have no Idea if any of them were actually real.

 

Anyway it seems strange that somebody would replace a through neck with another one. the glue job doesn't look so hot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a confusing one isn't it. Stylistically I can't believe that the body and the scroll were built at the same time, or in the same place to save my life, but it has a “through“ scroll. Sometimes one is left scratching ones head!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the effes and the double purfling did not point to one maker or school?
I think the effes are very personals, the very small upper circle and the straight position...

And about the inside work?

If it helps here are more pictures

 

post-77467-0-37665200-1471464767_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-94016000-1471464795_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-27097300-1471464832_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-03638700-1471464853_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the effes and the double purfling did not point to one maker or school?

I think the effes are very personals, the very small upper circle and the straight position...

And about the inside work?

If it helps here are more pictures

Yes, that is rather the Problem. The "f" and the construction of the Body look like it wasn't far from mid 19th C. Klingenthal, wheras the scroll seems much earlier from a different direction. Rauch was, for instance an ethnic Füssener (via Prague). How far into the throat does the fluting go? Blank Face is on Holiday this week, I think. I would be interested to hear what he has to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you have a picture... I hope this is what you are looking for... My knowledge of the violin parts in english language is limited.

 

post-77467-0-07133100-1471468177_thumb.jpg

I see that the double purfling continues down the fingerboard... Mean this something?

post-77467-0-56848700-1471468167_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now, trying on myself with my photography skill...

Better colors, more accurate with reality...

post-77467-0-99645700-1471523678_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-80488100-1471523683_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-29675000-1471523687_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-16640600-1471523694_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-63482100-1471523699_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-33938200-1471523702_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-15590600-1471523705_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-60293700-1471523707_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-49830300-1471523710_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-65012200-1471523714_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-31564000-1471523736_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-37458600-1471523740_thumb.jpg

 

I was thinking that the throug neck was not original... inside it looks like the original was bigger and that the neck button was not original, now little that original... in any case someone took too much care to repair this violin....don´t you think?

 

post-77467-0-18769400-1471523996_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-83910100-1471524010_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-25250700-1471524028_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-77682200-1471524044_thumb.jpg

 

it looks like under the fingerboard and its supplement, the neck has a channel all the way to the saddle.

The chinrest zone is cracked and wavy like if it has been used in baroque style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like under the fingerboard and its supplement, the neck has a channel all the way to the saddle.

The chinrest zone is cracked and wavy like if it has been used in baroque style

 

??? Normally baroque violin is holded more on the right (discant) side, or at right on a middle upon tailpiece. Chin is rarely touching table, as it mentioned in all sources. Especially nice picture you can find  in L. Mozart's violinschool .   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Normally baroque violin is holded more on the right (discant) side, or at right on a middle upon tailpiece. Chin is rarely touching table, as it mentioned in all sources. Especially nice picture you can find  in L. Mozart's violinschool .   

 I play baroque violin and viola and certainly do not use my chin except in great hand position changes, and I always put my chin in the center-right like you said... But I know many players that use the left side all the time... maybe one thing is the theory in the books and other the real time playing.

In any case the most of the XVII or XVIII c. violins has the left side worn out because the chin contact in that side... or why is this part the most worn out of the violins of this period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I play baroque violin and viola and certainly do not use my chin except in great hand position changes, and I always put my chin in the center-right like you said... But I know many players that use the left side all the time... maybe one thing is the theory in the books and other the real time playing.

In any case the most of the XVII or XVIII c. violins has the left side worn out because the chin contact in that side... or why is this part the most worn out of the violins of this period?

Maybe it is because in 19th century they started to use very small chinrests halfmoon type and changed side. that chin rest is a miniature one and explains sweat coming in to that side. but - it is nothing to do with baroque period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jacob I would say, the body looks like some saxon violin related somehow to the Hoyer family, whose typical style features this idiosyncratic ffs with broad space in the "chest", while the scroll is something very different, probably older. The inside view looks like something what was called a "dog's meal" here before :) . Sometimes I changed a through neck by myself, it's not that difficult to do.

Double purfled saxon violins are rare, but not unusual, the Lippolds made some, I also once had a Hopf (or Hopf branded) double purfled instrument.

 

The body appears to be revarnished (irregulary brushed), possibly to hide the many repairs, what makes it difficult to say something in particular about the age; but ca. 1800 or some decades later could be right IMO.

 

The question "baroque/not baroque" was discussed here and at other places many times; historically the baroque period ended ca. 1760, but violins were constructed "baroque" much longer, depending of the definition possiby untill the end of the 19th century.

 

What's the correct way to "play baroque", where to put the chin etc., we could argue some 20 or 30 pages, I'm supposing. Wasn't it that Mozart wrote his school of "How to play right", because there were so many different ways to hold the instrument and bow during his period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

The question "baroque/not baroque" was discussed here and at other places many times; historically the baroque period ended ca. 1760, but violins were constructed "baroque" much longer, depending of the definition possiby untill the end of the 19th century.

 

AGREE 100% . I own Bohemian violin with totaly baroque construction, built circa 1880... ( really cottage baroque one). :)

 

 

What's the correct way to "play baroque", where to put the chin etc., we could argue some 20 or 30 pages, I'm supposing. Wasn't it that Mozart wrote his school of "How to play right", because there were so many different ways to hold the instrument and bow during his period?

 

About different ways of holding violin - no, it is not so easy, there is not so much differencies in baroque time, there is not so much differencies in sources - lets say from BIber up to Mozart. Playing dance music and beeing a fidler is one thing, playing Biber Rosenkranz Sonaten is something different. Try to do Biber even with french bow grip - you will not succeed. High positions and good sound with a right angle for bow - you will imediately be close to Geminiani/Mozart/Tartini.  And to judge baroque playing technics it is a good thing to be a skilled baroque player able to play all virtuosic staff to make conclusions about player's staff. As well as I sure violinsts should not judge violin building technologies, if they have not finished at least one violin... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I do not see the resemblance with the Hoyer ffs... I have found this two examples of Johann Friedrich Hoyer. Maybe you could show me another ones?

hoyerfront.jpg1.jpg

For instance I see more resemblance with Johannes Gullich ffs...

6719775_orig.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent many years trying to tell the makers of this area apart, I think a word of warning might be in place.

The 30 odd “Vogtländische” towns and villages where musical instrument making (and later industry) dominated the economy, consisted of a large number of families, that were mostly either more or less related to each other, or who had been apprenticed to each other, or who worked for each other on a formal or informal basis. Further, it is only a small percentage of these instruments that have a straight forward honest label, or stamp. Thus it is an achievement should one be able to single out a particularly distinctive clear-cut surname (Hamm might be an example) to ascribe to a particular instrument. For the most part, this is the apex of a fools errand. The fact is that one will have to be sattisfied with a reasonably sure, rough geographical area, and a reasoned time period. I realise that everyone would like to give his baby a name, but one must learn to live with frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, I actually don't have acces to my digital archive (and a very weak internet connectivity),maybe I could find some examples of Hoyer ffs with more resemblances than the (possibly right, possibly wrong) attributed violins you're picturing, Here is another one from the Markneukirchen Museum

 

http://www.studia-instrumentorum.de/MERZ/projekte/hoyer_k_meinel.htm

 

OTOH, Zoebisch shows in his book an Andreas Hoyer looking much different to the above shown.

 

But as Jacob pointed out, there can't be much more than some kind of "it reminds in some way of..", and this resemblances mustn't be taken as a clear attribution to a particular maker or family, if there aren't more strong evidences.

Not long ago we had a similar thread discussing an old probably Vogtland violin with "resemblances", and it was exactly this what I tried to explain in private messages after we were interrupted by some "I know better" person B) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have understood both of you.

Then the possibility my violin being a Leidolff looking at similarities with other pictures is the same that with Hoyer or others.
I have looked other leidolffs and could see mine has as similarities with other Leidolffs as with Gullich, Hoyer or Rausch.
Here is a comparative with other Leidolffs I have found in the web.

I am not doubting of your expert eye looking this similarities, but I am trying to train mine eyes and I have make this...

 

post-77467-0-43331500-1471683993_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-61837500-1471684000_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have understood both of you.

Then the possibility my violin being a Leidolff looking at similarities with other pictures is the same that with Hoyer or others.

I have looked other leidolffs and could see mine has as similarities with other Leidolffs as with Gullich, Hoyer or Rausch.

Here is a comparative with other Leidolffs I have found in the web.

I am not doubting of your expert eye looking this similarities, but I am trying to train mine eyes and I have make this...

While I applaud your aim and determination to learn to differentiate between old violins, I do rather wonder if your approach has a particularly large chance of success.

Back in the 18th. Century, there were various regional “schools” of making, and the young beginners started as apprentices at about the age of 12 or 13, and retained the same working methods throughout their whole life, not like today, where some 20 or 30 year old start to make violins, with the spurious notion that he/she has discovered some sort of rocket science, which requires his/her improvement. As such, the accuracy of dividing up violins into different groups of regional building methods, is obviously the successful way to, at least exclude a violin from being something specific.

Re. Leidolff: The Leidolff family was a rather prolific (particularly Johann Christoph) group of makers in 18th C. Vienna. Simply the large number of violins that have survived the attrition of the last two and a half centuries betrays the obvious, that Leidolff was a shop with a large number of workmen. In fact, post Leidolff's death, his widow continued his workshop by several years, such that there are plenty of Leidolff “opus-postum” violins, that are just as genuine as the earlier ones. The Leidolff workshop can be pigeon-holed in the Ethnic Füssen- Viennese group of makers for building method purposes. From a Leidolff violin, one expects several things. The ribs were built around a form (a subject that I have posted about ad nausium on these Fora), the centre bout linings let into the corner blocks, the neck fixed with a nail. They normally have (if not ruined by some “violin improver” in the meantime) high ribs, ca. 32 or 33mm. The stubby corners are normally rather distinctive (Mnemonic-dead pigs noses), the middle joint reinforced with a strip of paper (if not removed in the meantime). The Scroll, viewed from the profile tends to have an oval, rather aero-dynamic feel to it, the fluting going all the way into the throat, etc. So that, all together one can say with absolute certainty that your violin is not a Leidolff, and hasn't even been to Vienna on holiday.

The f-holes can hint towards some particular geographical area sometimes. Some are more rounded, others more angular, some far apart others closer together, and so on, but they are not contingent on the building method, and thus, viewed in a vacuum as you do, treacherously dangerous as an identification feature, viewed without the other parts of the violin. Further it is unhelpful to concentrate on just one feature, when comparing violins, rather you need a whole list of boxes to tick, otherwise you are sure to come, sooner rather than later, to some ridiculous conclusions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed that in the first post the 7th photo pictures a corner block - and it looks as if the squarish linings would be inserted into the block. If this is right, it would be an evidence of an innner mould, not saxon construction. Is the lower rib one piece or cut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ustnoticed that in the first posldt the 7th photo pictures a corner block - and it looks as if the squarish linings would be inserted into the block. If this is right, it would be an evidence of an innner mould, not saxon construction. Is the lower rib one piece or cut?

The lower rib is one piece.post-77467-0-42221900-1471815539_thumb.jpg

Edit: The ribs are 30 to 32 mm

I  opened the violin yesterday and you could see better the blocks... I think the linnings are inside, only the center linnings up and down. The blocks are larger in the upper and bottom ribs.

post-77467-0-54097600-1471815579_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-86593400-1471815588_thumb.jpg

I put another inside pictures.

The top has like a mountain in the center, but is not a distorsion of the top wood, I measured the thickness and in the center of the top it has more than 4mm and near of this mountain, abruptly, it descends to 3mm

post-77467-0-99386600-1471815614_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-49554500-1471815601_thumb.jpg

post-77467-0-45250100-1471815627_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-07368900-1471815568_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-44183300-1471815554_thumb.jpg

 

Thank you Blank face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I applaud your aim and determination to learn to differentiate between old violins, I do rather wonder if your approach has a particularly large chance of success.

Back in the 18th. Century, there were various regional “schools” of making, and the young beginners started as apprentices at about the age of 12 or 13, and retained the same working methods throughout their whole life, not like today, where some 20 or 30 year old start to make violins, with the spurious notion that he/she has discovered some sort of rocket science, which requires his/her improvement. As such, the accuracy of dividing up violins into different groups of regional building methods, is obviously the successful way to, at least exclude a violin from being something specific.

Re. Leidolff: The Leidolff family was a rather prolific (particularly Johann Christoph) group of makers in 18th C. Vienna. Simply the large number of violins that have survived the attrition of the last two and a half centuries betrays the obvious, that Leidolff was a shop with a large number of workmen. In fact, post Leidolff's death, his widow continued his workshop by several years, such that there are plenty of Leidolff “opus-postum” violins, that are just as genuine as the earlier ones. The Leidolff workshop can be pigeon-holed in the Ethnic Füssen- Viennese group of makers for building method purposes. From a Leidolff violin, one expects several things. The ribs were built around a form (a subject that I have posted about ad nausium on these Fora), the centre bout linings let into the corner blocks, the neck fixed with a nail. They normally have (if not ruined by some “violin improver” in the meantime) high ribs, ca. 32 or 33mm. The stubby corners are normally rather distinctive (Mnemonic-dead pigs noses), the middle joint reinforced with a strip of paper (if not removed in the meantime). The Scroll, viewed from the profile tends to have an oval, rather aero-dynamic feel to it, the fluting going all the way into the throat, etc. So that, all together one can say with absolute certainty that your violin is not a Leidolff, and hasn't even been to Vienna on holiday.

The f-holes can hint towards some particular geographical area sometimes. Some are more rounded, others more angular, some far apart others closer together, and so on, but they are not contingent on the building method, and thus, viewed in a vacuum as you do, treacherously dangerous as an identification feature, viewed without the other parts of the violin. Further it is unhelpful to concentrate on just one feature, when comparing violins, rather you need a whole list of boxes to tick, otherwise you are sure to come, sooner rather than later, to some ridiculous conclusions

I only could say thanks for your patience, knowledge and wonderful and inexhaustible desire to teach.

I think I understand that the best way to approach the possibility of indentificar a violin is through construction methods.

The biggest problem today is my very limited knowledge of technical English on the construction of violins. I read your comments and tried to learn but often limit me the words ...

Of course this is a very long way and just hope to enjoy it ...

Thanks Jacob and all maestronet members...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great new photos!

What I can see now at the small screen here (and sorry for the many typos :unsure: ) are inside mould corner blocks with inserted linings slightly sharpened and probably made of beech (?) - this definitely excludes Saxony/Vogtland and probably Mittenwald, too, The upper end of the inside back has a platform ("catwalk") for a through neck, it's hard to say if the actual neck is original and just reglued or a later exchange neck.

 

This combination (inside mould and through neck) is very unusual, it was once described here for the South German Buchstetter school by Jacob, but I can't see any affinity to Buchstetter. The same with Leidolf, and the label appears to be a 19th century or later reproduction.

I'm still thinking, that the body was revarnished once, what doesn't make things easier.

 

The "hill" along the center is something I've never seen or heard about before. Maybe it's a sort of regraduation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Jandepora,
What would be your preferred language, if I might ask?

I rather wonder if the belly didn't originally have a dark varnish, like the scroll, and has been sanded down/away. One can see on the belly where a dark varnish has soaked into the soft end grain bits between the grain lines, which gives me that suspicion. That is what probably made me think scroll and body didn't match to start with.

Thanks for the much better pictures. It is quite unusual to find violins with ribs made around a mould, but nonetheless a through neck (as BF has pointed out). So far, I have only ever observed this with G.D. Buchstetter, who we discussed here: http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/329708-gabriel-david-buchstetter/?hl=buchstetter and the Lower Bavarian makers of the Thumhard family, as well as some South Bohemian instruments (near the upper Austrian border), although your violin doesn't resemble any of those. I can't quite make out from the pictures, if the Bass bar is a carved-out-of-the-belly one, or if it is a fitted and glued one.

The trouble is, that there are all sorts of regional “Schools” of making, like for instance Silesia, which nobody seems to have any knowledge of. If the violin was mine, I think I would just store it in my back room for the next thirty years, just like it is, in the hope that a similar one with a plausible label, would just walk into the shop one day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Jandepora,

What would be your preferred language, if I might ask?

I rather wonder if the belly didn't originally have a dark varnish, like the scroll, and has been sanded down/away. One can see on the belly where a dark varnish has soaked into the soft end grain bits between the grain lines, which gives me that suspicion. That is what probably made me think scroll and body didn't match to start with.

Thanks for the much better pictures. It is quite unusual to find violins with ribs made around a mould, but nonetheless a through neck (as BF has pointed out). So far, I have only ever observed this with G.D. Buchstetter, who we discussed here: http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/329708-gabriel-david-buchstetter/?hl=buchstetter and the Lower Bavarian makers of the Thumhard family, as well as some South Bohemian instruments (near the upper Austrian border), although your violin doesn't resemble any of those. I can't quite make out from the pictures, if the Bass bar is a carved-out-of-the-belly one, or if it is a fitted and glued one.

The trouble is, that there are all sorts of regional “Schools” of making, like for instance Silesia, which nobody seems to have any knowledge of. If the violin was mine, I think I would just store it in my back room for the next thirty years, just like it is, in the hope that a similar one with a plausible label, would just walk into the shop one day.

 

My native language is spanish...

I think the bassbar is not carved from the belly, but I ask my self if is original. It looks like the original was carved and someone removed it and made a new one. The current bassbar is farther from the ffs and nearer of the center (upper 10mm and lower 25mm to the center). The total lenght of the bassbar is 265mm

post-77467-0-80625200-1471858574_thumb.jpgpost-77467-0-90836700-1471858588_thumb.jpg

The grain in the center of the belly is really close...post-77467-0-42650300-1471858601_thumb.jpg

The varnish is not original, sure, there are one piece of wood in the left side of the belly and it has not trace of varnish changing.

post-77467-0-10712400-1471858612_thumb.jpg

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.