Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Mirecourt innner moulds - a myth?


Brumcello
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Brumcello said:

Sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I should have put "we know that...." in quotation marks. That is the statement that has been made (or parphrased) by others here and is what I am questioning. Not sure I really understand why you need to be so rude, but if that's the way it is I will leave you all in peace.

You yourself seem to have cornered the market on rudeness in multiple rambling threads!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

You seem to labour under a nonsensical notion that one rib construction method was superior or more expensive that another

Goodness, I have been on this forum for number of years and I have always assumed that inner  mould construction is the superior method. I can see that from an acoustical point of view both methods can produce very fine instruments (Hilary Hann plays a Vuillaume)   But from a purely aesthetical angle I have always assumed that the inner mould construction is considered  superior in its slight asymmetry.  But I can also see that  some people like things to be totally symmetrical, and both have there appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brumcello said:

 

I get the impression that, rather like the flat earth society, the violin trade insiders have a view and dislike any suggestion that the view might be wrong.

Interesting. I thought you were the flat earther.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brumcello said:

But doesn't this become a self fulfilling prophecy? We know all 20th Century Mirecourt instruments were build using an outside form. So, suppose I bring a fiddle to you for appraisal. I looks French but maybe not quite typical. Not quite as symmetrical as you expect. It has a French label but that means nothing, it has black chamfers on the pegbox,  but thats not a reliable sign. So you look inside, appears to be built on an inside mould, so it can't possibly by Mirecourt. 

Your argument about the self fullfilling prophecy has some validity, but only if you leave out the "not quite typical". There are greyzones, but attribution works with comparison of "typical" features.

Therefore finding the white raven requires an undoubtly typical features in other regards. Your cello as example was questioned for many other reasons even before we had a look at the internal features, and the form of the blocks and residues of quite untypical glue were just more nails into the coffin. OTOH you reported about opposing opinions by quite respected experts. What you would need now would be a written certificate by one of these if you're interested to prove your find and answer your question in the thread's title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

No, Delablo is right, I also had that impression.

Why? I have personally tried out almost all different rib building methods. The only one I haven’t tried out yet is the “on the back, into a grove” method, and will get to that sooner or later. There isn’t a method better or worse, easier or more difficult than any other. The reason to work out what was used, is to narrow down the area where the violin comes from and it has at the very most an incidental correlation to any “Quality”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

Goodness knows why you run away with that impression

So you prefer outer mould ?

I know that your Dad used that method and taught you that way.

My prefernece for inner mould is simple. Outer mould stuff can be knocked off on a production run all looking much the same. Inner mould can ne used in a much more fluid bespoke manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

Why? I have personally tried out almost all different rib building methods. The only one I haven’t tried out yet is the “on the back, into a grove” method, and will get to that sooner or later. There isn’t a method better or worse, easier or more difficult than any other. The reason to work out what was used, is to narrow down the area where the violin comes from and it has at the very most an incidental correlation to any “Quality”

That makes much more sense to me. So I'm glad we sorted it out!

But...after years of reading on MN, that wasn't the take-home message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 2:24 PM, Blank face said:

What you would need now would be a written certificate by one of these if you're interested to prove your find and answer your question in the thread's title.

This is probably my final post in this thread.  I started a new (rambling perhaps) thread because I wanted to separate my own cheap Chinese /Reghin PVA glued, ugly  cello from a discussion on construction methods in 20th C Mirecourt. I dont believe this academic question has been answered. 

 

Any further information on my modern fake  cello will be posted in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Rue said:

That makes much more sense to me. So I'm glad we sorted it out!

But...after years of reading on MN, that wasn't the take-home message.

Ummmm...........not from Jacob.  He's always said that any of the 3 methods can produce a quality result.  IMHO, the prejudice about inner mold being somehow superior is a subliminal message transmitted along with the pervasive assumption that violins of the Cremonese tradition are the standards to measure against.  It's also the least common method to be found in "rubbish" trade violins.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Candi, and other Modern Italian makers used the outside mold. No one is going to remove a "0" from the end of the price because of the use of an outside mold. The inside mold is sacred to the "Golden Period" in Cremona. Outside of that inside, outside, no mold, has created good results. As a maker you tend to follow what you were taught in school, if it works for you, and not worry about the other methods unless you have a need to change something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Ummmm...........not from Jacob.  He's always said that any of the 3 methods can produce a quality result.  IMHO, the prejudice about inner mold being somehow superior is a subliminal message transmitted along with the pervasive assumption that violins of the Cremonese tradition are the standards to measure against.  It's also the least common method to be found in "rubbish" trade violins.  :)

I don't recall Jacob ever saying anything about a superior/inferior method.

But it was the conclusion that I (and apparently Delabo) came to over time, from reading many posts.

I have no horse in this race, so it certainly doesn't matter to me, other than I like to have my facts factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter how instruments are made to players even at the top of the pile? Apparently not..........

From my understanding YoYo Ma seems to think that his cello table is bent under pressure and the grain orientation of the back and front are opposite directions. Starts around 5:46.

It would be interesting to know how many players could explain how their instrument functions with some accuracy :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, duane88 said:

No one is going to remove a "0" from the end of the price because of the use of an outside mold.

Of course they will.

I have a violin with a beautiful back that would convince anyone that its Cremonese when viewed in isolation from the rest of the instrument. But a quick glance at the rib corners confirms that it is BOB construction - and the "0's" get quickly deleted from the estimate. So for indentifying the provenance of an instrument construction method is paramount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Delabo said:

Of course they will.

I have a violin with a beautiful back that would convince anyone that its Cremonese when viewed in isolation from the rest of the instrument. But a quick glance at the rib corners confirms that it is BOB construction - and the "0's" get quickly deleted from the estimate. So for indentifying the provenance of an instrument construction method is paramount.

Bob could mean that it's Neapolitan, just as example.

Construction method as an identification feature - yes. As a valuation method - no.

That's why I declared the OP's considerations about "top Mirecourt firm instruments high priced because of internal mould construction/constructed with internal for to make them valuable" as nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
1 hour ago, Blank face said:

Bob could mean that it's Neapolitan, just as example.

Construction method as an identification feature - yes. As a valuation method - no.

That's why I declared the OP's considerations about "top Mirecourt firm instruments high priced because of internal mould construction/constructed with internal for to make them valuable" as nonsense.

Blank,

You have mentioned before Neapolitan instruments built on the back. What makers and time period are you referring to? Thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nathan slobodkin said:

 

Hi Nathan,

you can read for example that John Dilworth decribes here https://www.bromptons.co/reference/articles/details/alessandro-gagliano.html

the rib construction of Alessandro Gagliano as "totally unlike the Cremonese internal mould system, possibly working without a mould at all. Internally the coarse pine blocks and linings are not morticed" and speculates (at the beginning of the essay) that he could have learned it from immigrated Füssen makers. Similar considerations he is repeating in his description of a Ferdinando Gagliano violin from this website, and this all is also in accordance with my personal observations.

Beside that the early Piemontese school was also using the bob method (with ribs in a groove), what they might have adapted from French makers.

https://tarisio.com/cozio-archive/cozio-carteggio/violin-making-in-turin-part-1-1650-1770/

This few examples give evidence that there are enough highly esteemed and valuated violins made using this method of construction, not only cheap massproduced instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of high quality makers that seem to have been building on the back is actually quite impressive. Besides the Neapolitans and the Piemontese like Catenar and Cappa, the Brescians, the Milanese (before Landolfi and Guad), Contreras, the Parisians like Pierray and Boquet, the Dutch like Jacobs and Rombouts, the English like Parker, and of course the higher quality Saxon makers. It seems as if no one was using an inside mold besides the Amati family until their apprentices and some mobile family members started spreading the technique towards the end of the 1600's. In many places where the makers were doing just fine with their own methods, there was no point in changing. In others, like Piacenza, Mantua, Venice, Absam, Mittenwald, Vienna and Prague the Cremonese method got imported, adopted, and sometimes adapted, in places like Regensburg where the inside mold seems to have been combined with a through neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Blank face said:

Construction method as an identification feature - yes. As a valuation method - no.

Sorry, but this is not making much sense.

The thread about the recently discovered Del Gesu confirms that it is genuine because the dendro said its correct for the period. But if the construction was found to be BOB or Outer Mold it would have been rejected as not being of that maker. The valuation for an unknown late 17th century violin with BOB construction would be vastly different to a real Del Gesu with the correct inside mold construction. So valuation is very much based on the correct construction for the maker in question. I agree that a Gagliano or other makers who used BOB, or later Italian and French makers who used Outer mold, can still be very valuable and superb instruments, but the construction and subsequent valuation has to all line up.

But of course you already know all, this so I am puzzled with some of the answers by experts in this thread. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Delabo said:

Sorry, but this is not making much sense.

The thread about the recently discovered Del Gesu confirms that it is genuine because the dendro said its correct for the period. But if the construction was found to be BOB or Outer Mold it would have been rejected as not being of that maker. The valuation for an unknown late 17th century violin with BOB construction would be vastly different to a real Del Gesu with the correct inside mold construction. So valuation is very much based on the correct construction for the maker in question. I agree that a Gagliano or other makers who used BOB, or later Italian and French makers who used Outer mold, can still be very valuable and superb instruments, but the construction and subsequent valuation has to all line up.

I don't understand your confusuion

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...