Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Ole bull Gasparo da Salò


Sapiens
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

What’s the actual consensus about the originality of the c.1575 Gasparo da Salò violin aka “Ole Bull” housed in Bergen?

Also, what’s in common between this violin and the c.1560 (ex “Al Droubi”) from the Chimei collection? 

Are they really from the same maker?

Thanks in advance for your enlightenment.

S.

836E81F3-1513-4EF8-9B15-7C3D3F2F5745.jpeg

6DE0E895-EC5F-456F-AE9C-7A6E662A223F.jpeg

74EE2C28-B9DA-4B84-AB27-6BC5892BD43C.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 2/9/2021 at 5:34 PM, Sapiens said:

Hi there,

What’s the actual consensus about the originality of the c.1575 Gasparo da Salò violin aka “Ole Bull” housed in Bergen?

Also, what’s in common between this violin and the c.1560 (ex “Al Droubi”) from the Chimei collection? 

Are they really from the same maker?

Thanks in advance for your enlightenment.

S.

 

 

I know that some people doubt the accuracy of the attribution, although the latest ring on its one-piece belly falls in the  early part of the 16th century, so on that front, it certainly does not rule out that maker, or ANY other:D ( I just say that to humor Jacob S. and before anybody points it out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
35 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

What?  not answer the question

Ok...
If you must know...


The most significant cross-match with published regional references from the International Tree-ring Data-Bank was identified with a Master chronology from Obergurgl, Ötztal, in Southern Austria  (ITRDB/AUST003, F.Schweingruber), followed by a further central Alpine reference from central Switzerland (ITRDB/SWIT173, F.Schweingruber et al.).  Both place the latest visible ring on the one piece belly at A.D.1514

Against data from other instruments, the ring-patterns from just over 100 separate instruments cross-matched significantly at the date suggested by tests with the published references.


The most significant from my database are:
a Viol by V.Linarolo, a violin by A.& G. Amati, a 1563 Francesco Linarolo lira da braccio, a viola attributed to Andrea Amati likely Peregrino Zanetto, 1564 Andrea Amati violin, violin by Giovanni Paolo Maggini (South Dakota NMM), a viola by Peregrino di Zanetto, a violin by V.Rugeri, c.1620 G.P.Maggini, 1590s William Bowelesse viola da Gamba, an early keyboard  by J.Ruckers, a 1582 Lute by Vendelio Venere, a double bass by Gasparo da Salò, a viola by Gasparo da Salò, a c.1590 violin by Girolamo Amati, an early Brescian violin possibly Gasparo da Salo, a c.1560 viola by Andrea Amati (South Dakota NMM), a 1622 Theorbo by Giovanni Tesler, a 1670 Jacob Stainer violin, a Tenor viola by Jacob Stainer,  ac.1580/90 Brothers Amati violin, a Jacob Stainer violin (Royal Academy of Music), a cello by G.P Maggini, an early 17th century Italian viola, etc... 

That's where I get my info from, Jacob.
(I know, total bollocks as far as you are concerned...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ratcliffiddles said:

Ok...
If you must know...


The most significant cross-match with published regional references from the International Tree-ring Data-Bank was identified with a Master chronology from Obergurgl, Ötztal, in Southern Austria  (ITRDB/AUST003, F.Schweingruber), followed by a further central Alpine reference from central Switzerland (ITRDB/SWIT173, F.Schweingruber et al.).  Both place the latest visible ring on the one piece belly at A.D.1514

Against data from other instruments, the ring-patterns from just over 100 separate instruments cross-matched significantly at the date suggested by tests with the published references.


The most significant from my database are:
a Viol by V.Linarolo, a violin by A.& G. Amati, a 1563 Francesco Linarolo lira da braccio, a viola attributed to Andrea Amati likely Peregrino Zanetto, 1564 Andrea Amati violin, violin by Giovanni Paolo Maggini (South Dakota NMM), a viola by Peregrino di Zanetto, a violin by V.Rugeri, c.1620 G.P.Maggini, 1590s William Bowelesse viola da Gamba, an early keyboard  by J.Ruckers, a 1582 Lute by Vendelio Venere, a double bass by Gasparo da Salò, a viola by Gasparo da Salò, a c.1590 violin by Girolamo Amati, an early Brescian violin possibly Gasparo da Salo, a c.1560 viola by Andrea Amati (South Dakota NMM), a 1622 Theorbo by Giovanni Tesler, a 1670 Jacob Stainer violin, a Tenor viola by Jacob Stainer,  ac.1580/90 Brothers Amati violin, a Jacob Stainer violin (Royal Academy of Music), a cello by G.P Maggini, an early 17th century Italian viola, etc... 

That's where I get my info from, Jacob.
(I know, total bollocks as far as you are concerned...)

Thank you very much for posting this.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2022 at 5:59 AM, Derek Law said:

Any makers before Ole Bull!

On photos, Brescian and Stainer instruments both have high archings. I sometimes wonder if Stainer has any Brecian pedigree.

The arching geometry of the Brescians and that of Stainer have virtually nothing in common. That they both tend high is where the similarity ends. The geometry of Stainers arching is decidedly Cremonese in nature, using the same "rules" to develop the long and cross arches, with only a very subtle modification which results in a certain "fullness" of the central, positive arching region. Otherwise, the ratios of the positive to negative (the channel, or recurve) are distinctly Amatese. 

Looking further, Stainers apparent method of construction is likewise common with that of Cremona, using an interior form, blocks, linings, and some sort of thicknessing scheme of the Cremonese sort (see dorsal pin discussions). The Brescians on the other hand built on the back and did not originally install linings, though many have been given them after the fact in their modernization. 

If you have an opportunity, look at some technical drawings or CT scans of Brescian and Stainer/Cremona arching and the stark difference in geometry will make itself very evident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of taking the left side of violinA and joining it with the right side of violinB is fascinating. Is this something people are doing now? I would love to see what results if you take 2 different violins by the same maker, and perform that image composition. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Al Cramer said:

The idea of taking the left side of violinA and joining it with the right side of violinB is fascinating. Is this something people are doing now? I would love to see what results if you take 2 different violins by the same maker, and perform that image composition. 

 

I've seen people do it, even auction houses, to make a comparison of some kind. Haven't seen anyone do it with halves of physical violins yet, but maybe someday! 

In Cremona work due to the method, there will be inherent asymmetry anyway, so I imagine it's just as interesting to look at a whole instrument as it is two halves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ratcliffiddles said:

The most significant cross-match with published regional references from the International Tree-ring Data-Bank was identified with a Master chronology from Obergurgl, Ötztal, in Southern Austria  (ITRDB/AUST003, F.Schweingruber), followed by a further central Alpine reference from central Switzerland (ITRDB/SWIT173, F.Schweingruber et al.).  Both place the latest visible ring on the one piece belly at A.D.1514

Against data from other instruments, the ring-patterns from just over 100 separate instruments cross-matched significantly at the date suggested by tests with the published references.

Thank you for answering

Is somebody knows if a CT scan of this violin existed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ratcliffiddles said:

The most significant cross-match with published regional references from the International Tree-ring Data-Bank ...

 

Do you mind me asking roughly what proportion of instruments you test find their most-significant match in the ITRB (or other generic database) compared to your own instrument-specific database? I imagine that a personally-curated database is the most useful by far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, notsodeepblue said:

 

Do you mind me asking roughly what proportion of instruments you test find their most-significant match in the ITRB (or other generic database) compared to your own instrument-specific database? I imagine that a personally-curated database is the most useful by far?

Very few, and yes, you are correct, the vast majority find their most significant cross-match against data from other instruments.  

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...