Nicolò Amati / Stradivari connection

[Joel Pautz]

Hi all, I was poking around the local university's library yesterday when I found another example of Nicolò Amati's connection to Stradivari's work, in this case, concerning his decorated instruments. The Hill's do touch on this point (what an incredibly comprehensive work!), stating:
     "We have seen two violins, the work of Nicolò Amati, which were gracefully embellished with inlaid ornament: in one of them the ornamentation consisted of double purfling, and a fleur-de-lys inlaid in black at the corners of the back and belly, interspersed with small precious stones, while a design of similar character was let into the sides at the blocks."
     This passage is almost certainly referring to the 'King Louis XIV' violin at the Smithsonian: http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_763853 . They then make brief mention of Amati family instruments with painted decorations. 

My copy of "Stradivari" by Stewart Pollens only mentions in passing that ornamented instruments were a thing in Cremona and Brescia prior to Stradivari.

The "Sradivarius" exhibit catalog put out by the Ashmolean Museum mentions that Nicolò Amati's work influenced "the high arching and hollow edgework" found in the 1683 'Cipriani Potter' Stradivarius, and leaves it at that.

So I was a little surprised to find this photo of a violin attributed to Nicolò Amati, dated 17th century in the caption, located in the National Museum in Prague (I forgot to note the book title  ). I guess this could be the 2nd decorated Nicolò Amati referred to by the Hill's in the passage above. What really surprised me was how strongly Stradivari's and Nicolò Amati's decorated instruments resemble each other. The concept is all laid out right here: Inlaid ornamentation - probably using black mastic - on the scroll and rib corners. Double purfling with (Ivory?) dots or diamonds set in between the two rows.

So, who can we attribute this concept / vision of instrument ornamentation to? Stradivari's work was undoubtedly influenced by Nicolò, but the source didn't have a date for this instrument, and apparently Nicolò was still putting out new work after Stradivari had made his decorated instruments. Is this evidence of an active collaboration between both of them? Why isn't this instrument brought up as an example in every book passage pertaining to the Amati family's / Stradivari's decorated instruments? Or in passages alluding to circumstantial evidence of a possible Stradivari apprenticeship under Nicolò Amati (along with the 1666 'Serdet', similar forms, etc.)? Anyone care to venture a date for this instrument? I couldn't find it in Tarisio's 'Cozio Archive'. Is it even an Amati? (it wouldn't be the first falsely attributed instrument in older literature). 

Anyone willing to comment on shared / dissimilar stylistic traits, construction methods, evidence for or against collaboration or a possible apprenticeship between Stradivari and Amati are welcome to add as much as they want to this topic!

Thanks!
Joel

[Ben Hebbert]

Joel

Although Stradivari decorated like this in the fullest way, it is not exclusive to him with examples by Peter of Mantua as well as Nicolo Amati, and when you look to the Venetian school of Guitar making (and it's attendant outposts) you see that by 1600 all the techniques used by Cremonese violin makers were already well developed, and neither Nicolo or anyone afterwards was doing things differently. This refers not only to the inlay between the double purfling, but to the way the little fleur de lis on Amati, Peter of Mantua (and I think possibly Goffriller) appear.

However I do agree that the Prague Amati does for several reasons appear to have some Stradivarian interest, although I have only seen it in pictures, I think there is at least a 50% chance that Strad had something to do with it. The star on the button certainly is a reference picked up by Strad in later works and he must have seen these, though the purfling inlay of squares in this case is absolutely as you would expect to see it on inlayed Venetian guitars. 

So the answer is Venice  

[not telling]

I could be wrong, but I thought everyone acknowledges the extreme Nicolo Amati influence in Stradivari's work, all the way up until the Golden Period.  I think that is one reason some people are excited about the Tuscan Stradivari (Scrollavezza/Zanre vol. 2) , because the corners and some other features are very Amatise but there are also some unique features of Stradivari's work in that one (spell check is dinging me for that one, "Amatise", but I think it's a word).  Well, my husband is excited.  He likes Amati better than Stradivari, which makes him weird, but he is looking forward to making the Tuscan.  I am not even sure if he has made a Stradivari copy before...I actually don't think he has!  I know, really weird.  

Let me try with what I understood as what is generally the case...Amati arches really swoop up dramatically from the channel, as opposed to Stradivari arches, which I can kind of see in the example you posted...and I think the Tuscan, if I remember right, is an example of a clearly Antonio Stradivari arch. But it's still well before the Golden Period.  So there was a ton of Amati influence.  Isn't that generally understood?  Or maybe I don't understand the question.  I look forward to lots of dialogue on this topic, because it's something I need to learn more about too.  I should probably just read the Hill book cover to cover, but I would rather hear it from you all.  When Roger Hargrave was on here a lot there were lots of interesting debates about a possible apprenticeship.  It seems logical and likely to me, but it's not something that's accepted.  You'd think that, since they lived and worked on the same street, they would have to know an awful lot about each other's work.  

I like the decorated instruments but know nil about them.  Looking forward to someone making it interesting.  Please post more photos, everyone!

[Jim Bress]

14 minutes ago, not telling said:

I could be wrong, but I thought everyone acknowledges the extreme Nicolo Amati influence in Stradivari's work, all the way up until the Golden Period.  I think that is one reason some people are excited about the Tuscan Stradivari (Scrollavezza/Zanre vol. 2) , because the corners and some other features are very Amatise but there are also some unique features of Stradivari's work in that one (spell check is dinging me for that one, "Amatise", but I think it's a word).  Well, my husband is excited.  He likes Amati better than Stradivari, which makes him weird, but he is looking forward to making the Tuscan.  I am not even sure if he has made a Stradivari copy before...I actually don't think he has!  I know, really weird.  

Let me try with what I understood as what is generally the case...Amati arches really swoop up dramatically from the channel, as opposed to Stradivari arches, which I can kind of see in the example you posted...and I think the Tuscan, if I remember right, is an example of a clearly Antonio Stradivari arch. But it's still well before the Golden Period.  So there was a ton of Amati influence.  Isn't that generally understood?  Or maybe I don't understand the question.  I look forward to lots of dialogue on this topic, because it's something I need to learn more about too.  I should probably just read the Hill book cover to cover, but I would rather hear it from you all.  When Roger Hargrave was on here a lot there were lots of interesting debates about a possible apprenticeship.  It seems logical and likely to me, but it's not something that's accepted.  You'd think that, since they lived and worked on the same street, they would have to know an awful lot about each other's work.  

I like the decorated instruments but know nil about them.  Looking forward to someone making it interesting.  Please post more photos, everyone!

If enough "weird" people get together we become the new norm.   I put a N. Amati (inspired) scroll on my last Strad based violin.  Guess which direction my prefrence is progressing.

-Jim

[Ben Hebbert]

15 minutes ago, Jim Bress said:

If enough "weird" people get together we become the new norm.   I put a N. Amati (inspired) scroll on my last Strad based violin.  Guess which direction my prefrence is progressing.

-Jim

I recently sold a beautiful violin by Charles Frank Langonet, which incorporated a golden period Strad body, a early Strad scroll and Nicolo Amati soundholes - as one of the makers for Hills in the 1930s the standard was incredible, and it was clear he was picking favourite elements from the great classical Makers. It was a truly lovely and stimulating violin 

[Jim Bress]

18 minutes ago, Ben Hebbert said:

I recently sold a beautiful violin by Charles Frank Langonet, which incorporated a golden period Strad body, a early Strad scroll and Nicolo Amati soundholes - as one of the makers for Hills in the 1930s the standard was incredible, and it was clear he was picking favourite elements from the great classical Makers. It was a truly lovely and stimulating violin 

Very cool!  Would love to see pictures if you have them.

Thanks,

Jim

[Joel Pautz]

Ben, point taken regarding ornamentation concepts transferred from other string instruments to the violin family. It's just that I felt very certain in my head that a great deal of Stradivari's genius was the way he was able to envision his work before realizing it. He had a very particular aesthetic that he wished to realize, he made only small, gradual changes to his style during his very long career, and he applied this aesthetic vision onto all of his violin family work (and probably in degrees to his guitars, harps, mandolins, etc). 

So when I looked at Stradivari's most celebrated decorated instruments, I assumed that I was looking at something which was almost entirely him and his own vision of how ornamentation on a violin should be realized. I have no doubt that he was exposed to a wide variety of decorated instruments which influence how he chose to execute his own work. For example,  I'd assumed he had learned from past work by the Amati family about the impermanence of painted ornamentation, and this guided him towards choosing to inlay his decorations (yes, I'm aware he did paint ornamentation on some instruments). He chose to refrain from the fleur-de-lis as a decorative motif (probably not the best choice for instruments destined for the Spanish Court) but he didn't put anything else as a substitute to fill its place (at each corner, for example). He decorated the ribs and scroll lavishly, but chose to limit ornamentation of the plates to between the purfling, which never deviated from the outline. Some ornamental work from the period makes his decorated instruments look downright restrained, while other work makes it seem way to heavy handed. All of these are examples of choices he made and stuck to, even though there were examples of other options around that he could have gone with.

I guess my point is that we all borrow things, but in the end there is so much variety out there that the choices you don't make say as much as the choices you do make. Even with two luthiers living in the same region, during the same era, making decisions based off of exposure to the same body of prior work they have been exposed to, I still feel that if they were drawing up their own ideas it seems very unlikely (to me) that they would have arrived at such similar places independently. 

Which makes me ask questions. Wish I knew which instrument was produced first. Part of me wonders if Stradivari's decorated instruments were an easy way to show that he was Nicolò's newest and best pupil (even if he never had a formal apprenticeship, and therefore didn't learn the entirety of the Amati building method). Another part of me wonders if Nicolò saw Stradivari's decorated instruments, worried about his son's place and the Amati dynasty, and directed his son to make this instrument to show that the Amati family were still as good as ever. 

Photos of a couple of decorated Strads can be found here for reference: https://www.si.edu/sisearch?edan_q=stradivari

Final note - if the Nicolò Amati violin pictured at the top is indeed the second decorated violin of the two referenced by the Hill's in their book, I find this quote a little further down the page to be somewhat humorous: "Certainly no decoration hitherto applied to the violin appeals so much to the eye or charms us so greatly by the lightness and simplicity of its design as that introduced by Stradivari." If anything, the Amati lacks nothing, and yet exceeds the Stradivarius violins in "lightness and simplicity of design".

Thanks for the replies,
Joel

[Joel Pautz]

Just came across John Dilworth's article "The Young Stradivari, Part 1" (Tarisio's Cozio Carteggio) which speculates upon possible ties between Stradivari and the Amati shop, and briefly mentions both of the inlaid Nicolò Amati violins "that definitely anticipate Stradivari's inlay work". Apparently the decorated Amati which took me by surprise has a speculative date of circa 1650, and is now residing in the Czech Museum of Music. 

He still gives Stradivari a lot of credit though, saying "Stradivari had already perfected his wonderful and innovative decorated instruments [by 1680]" and "They [decorated Strads] are almost unprecedented in the complexity and completeness of the inlay and design as far as the earlier Cremonese masters go." Emphasis mine.

I had heard / read that Stradivari might have gotten start in violin making through his obvious talent for ornamentation. These two instruments are plausible explanations as to how he might have gotten his foot in the door at the Amati shop. I guess I'm just really surprised that I haven't seen these mentioned more frequently in the literature. 

[not telling]

How many decorated Nicola Amatis are there? Does anyone know? Only two known? Or more...?  I'm embarrassed that I hadn't seen this and didn't know about it, just about the numerous old man Andrea decorated instruments. Thanks for the link to the Dilworth article. He is such a fantastic researcher and maker. 1650 makes sense and is an interesting hypothesis.

Edited to add: I just saw Roger Hargrave's article on N. Amati and the Alard, which mentions the two decorated instruments. The King Louis you posted has a date of 1656, which would have made Stradivari 12. Roger is a proponent of the apprenticeship to the extent that he believes it's pretty obvious that it happened. You may want to have a look at that too. 

 

[Ratcliffiddles]

Just for information, the Prague Museum decorated Nicolo Amati is certainly not from the 1650s, and much more likely from the very late 1670s at the earliest.

[Ben Hebbert]

1 hour ago, Ratcliffiddles said:

Just for information, the Prague Museum decorated Nicolo Amati is certainly not from the 1650s, and much more likely from the very late 1670s at the earliest.

Peter, that makes a tremendous amount of sense to me  

 

the Segelman 1666 Amati is particularly interesting for the way it corresponds with the 1666 Alumnus Amati Stradivari, with very similar wood, very similar model and overall form, and yet one is distinctly Amati and the other Strad. From  photos (caveat) one may imagine they were made on opposite benches in the same workshop. 

[Joel Pautz]

Thanks Not Telling, I've checked out Roger's article (and thanks again Roger for posting your invaluable articles online!).

That's a really fascinating (dendro informed?) date Peter  !  That would place this instrument right next to Strad's first ornamented instrument, the 1677 'Sunrise' Stradivarius violin. A quick glance at some photos of Stradivari's 1677 'Sunrise', 1679 'Hellier', and 1687 'Ole Bull' decorated violins (dates given by S. Pollens) seems to show that they all have the same pattern along the ribs and scroll, with only small alterations between instruments (the 'Ole Bull' has a reversed pattern on a C-bout for example). The 1683 'Cipriani Potter' is a small violin, an although it had a similar floral theme, Strad must have made new patterns to accommodate its smaller size. Pollens doesn't mention a source for these floral patterns, and just implies that Stradivari was accomplished enough to design them himself. He does write about the patterns used for Strad's c. 1698 / c. 1709 'Greffuhle' violin, tracing them to a book of sewing and embroidery patterns by Giovanni Ostaus published between 1557 and 1591.

Of course all of these patterns are different from both of the decorated violins by Nicolò. I think it's interesting that Nicolò's scroll's are no less decorated than Stradivari's - he just held back when it came to the ribs. I seem to recall reading that Stradivari reinforced the ribs on his decorated instruments with linen? Perhaps this structural concern is what caused Nicolò to hold back. 

Thanks everyone, this has been really interesting,

Joel

[Ben Hebbert]

Exactly, Joel

I wouldn't speculate on Nicolo holding back, more on Stradivari outdoing his master/rival/as you see fit. The dots and diamond pattern (also on Strads guitars) is certainly more involved and I think more visually pleasant than then square diamonds of the Prague Amati and of Sellas guitars. Likewise, applying decorations to the whole of the ribs is going the extra mile, providing a totally different idea of decoration - it is just as notable that he refrained from putting decorations on the front and back plates in variance to Nicolo or Peter of M. 

I do wonder if Domenico Galli's instruments are a response or an influence. The cello is curious because the f-hole is so Stradivarian that he must have started off with access to a Strad cello to begin with! 

[Joel Pautz]

Ben, I took a look at Matteo Sellas's guitars and now I finally get what you were saying. Especially with the guitar attributed to him in the National Music Museum. My favorite observation is how both Sellas and Nicolò (on his 1656 violin) only used a rigid fleur-de-lis icon where symmetry was needed, and allowed it some freedom to take on a life of its own elsewhere. They kind of remind me more of birds in flight more than they do of lilies, but I like it. Aside from the dot - diamond - dot inlay design, I can see some similarities between the Sellas headstock pattern and the patterns Strad used on his first decorated instruments. Both seem to have a more gradual roundness to the curves than the patterns used by Nicolò on his decorated scrolls. 

The image of the 'Prague' Amati at the top is still the only photo I have seen of this instrument, and I honestly couldn't tell what kind of dot, square, diamond, etc pattern was used along the edge. Can you share a pic of a guitar with similar binding?

[Rue]

So pretty! 

[Ratcliffiddles]

5 hours ago, Ben Hebbert said:

Exactly, Joel

I wouldn't speculate on Nicolo holding back, more on Stradivari outdoing his master/rival/as you see fit. The dots and diamond pattern (also on Strads guitars) is certainly more involved and I think more visually pleasant than then square diamonds of the Prague Amati and of Sellas guitars.

I agree, and the Prague Amati purfling decoration, assuming it is all original, is less than perfect in execution,  but then he was well into his seventies...

[Ben Hebbert]

Slam Dunk! Joel...

I'd only add that this one at the Met is a good example of the inlay between the double purfling. This one is triangles, but it differs from instrument to instrument, and a 1638 one has a rather large dot and diamond motif a bit like a Strad ... and that the technique, though clearly easy to replicate without having to learn it from a Venetian guitar maker, shows the same method for making the fleur-de-lis-ish things. 

 

[Ben Hebbert]

18 hours ago, Ratcliffiddles said:

I agree, and the Prague Amati purfling decoration, assuming it is all original, is less than perfect in execution,  but then he was well into his seventies...

I think it's less than perfect because it is unnecessarily difficult to do it with squares, which is why the Venetians seem to have used triangles, and why Stradivari went for the dot and diamond technique. When you are having to line these up point-to-point it is actually impossible to look good when you are going around a curve. A naive mistaken choice on Nicolo Amati's part rather than poor workmanship as such, methinks. imho. humbly speaking. etc. etc. etc. 

[Ratcliffiddles]

Look like diamonds to me..

and the white of the purfling looks like ivory.

Interesting to see that every shape is slightly different in proportions to the next, which seems to suggest they were not sliced from a strip with the appropriate diamond shape profile, but individually cut??

[Ben Hebbert]

Whether it's diamonds or squares, it's the problem that of the points don't match to one and other it will begin to look sloppy, which doesn't happen if you have the backside of a triangle or a circle instead. But yes they don't seem to be perfectly even. Ivory, which Strad mostly used has the advantage that you can shape strips and saw them up, or cut them from a large flat sheet, whichever way allowing for consistency. You are far more constrained with mother of pearl. 

[Joel Pautz]

Thanks for sharing Peter, very cool! 

I think it might be possible that the variations in the diamond shape are the result of not being put in place exactly the same. The slight difference in angle when laid in the channel, and the distortion compounded when cut back to appropriate height / scraped after vanishing. 

What a headache! 

Edited: I didn't realize the diamonds were mother of pearl and not ivory. Ben has a good point that he may have been constrained by his materials. 

[Ben Hebbert]

Also interesting - I missed Peter's comment, but yes the "whites" look like ivory - except that the system here seems to be that the diamonds are banded by ivory then a single black - look how close the diamonds are to the ivory. This is very similar to Sellas's technique, but Stradivari's system is to use double purfling and to excavate the channel between the two. It's probably an easier technique, and it looks better proportioned, so Stradivari's technique as we know it is significantly different from Amati's. 

Strad did have different thoughts at different times, some of his early instruments have mother of pearl dots with ivory diamonds, and later they are all ivory I think... please correct if I am basically right, but essentially wrong. 

[David Beard]

It's seems there were fashions in Cremona making to some extent.   In many ways, it seems that makers from different families tried similar things around the same time.

So perhaps that goes to the OP's to whether or not these similar ornamented instruments suggest a student/teacher connection.   I would tend to think not.   And, as Ben points out, the techniques aren't really the same when you get down to details.    Just an opinion, but it seems that Strad not only influenced others, but also was influenced by others throughout his career.

 

[Ben Hebbert]

Absolutely! 

It's worth mentioning that there is a Peter Guarneri out there which evidently had the same kind of inlay (but some bastard infilled it with wood). Whether that was inspired by Amati or Stradivari, it was made in Mantua and Peter was trained by his father, and of course many with the fleur de lis in the corners, or over the back in a Amati manner - So we can see how a basic idea can travel around Cremonese makers (not withstanding that Peter probably went backwards and forwards from Mantua and Cremona) without necessarily requiring a "direct" connection. At the same time as saying this, I'm not ruling out any deeper teacher-pupil relationship between Amati and Strad. I don't think this is necessarily the evidence for it, but I think there is good evidence generally - or rather, I think the likelihood that he developed Amati technique fully in his early years makes it rather improbable that he had nothing to do with the Amatis. I don't see where this fetishisation of the highly implausible comes from (yeah, yeah, lack of documentary evidence, I know - bleugh!). 

 

[Berl Mendenhall]

What a wonderful thread. You folks are so knowledgeable. Not telling, for being the wife of a maker and not a maker or a dealer your self, I am impressed by your knowledge and desire to learn. John Dillworth's article (part 1) was wonderful.

One of the things that amazes me is the craftsmanship of some of these early guitar makers.  That guitar head of Sella's is stunning, not just the inlay but the shape.  Some of these makers were artist of the highest degree. Very few violin makers display anything close to this in craftsmanship, a few but a lot of pretty sad workers.  

Some of the great craftsmen that I know of were the Amati's, Strad, Sarafin, Stainer. (sp). These last two didn't take a back seat to anyone.