Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hello all

Just had an old couple in the shop not 2 hours ago. They presented with a violin which they want to give to their granddaughter!

I did a double take, because (Vuillaume or not) it is very lovely instrument in good condition, and on questioning them it hasn't been out of the case since before WWII - not something you give to a 6 year old to play with?

I had just 10 minutes to take photos on my phone - which don't really do it justice

Label is dated 1839

20220203_120452 (004).jpg

20220203_120448 (002).jpg

20220203_120038 (002).jpg

20220203_120029 (002).jpg

20220203_120020 (002).jpg

20220203_115931 (002).jpg

20220203_115923 (002).jpg

20220203_115907 (002).jpg

20220203_115900 (002).jpg

Posted

Doesn't look quite Vuillaume (the button is huge unless it's the photo, the arching is a bit bulbous and what we can see of the varnish looks slightly tradey) but it's a nicely made French violin worthy of further research.

Were the pins in the back half-covered by the purfling? They look suspiciously visible in your photo ...

Actually the varnish looks much better in the side and scroll shots.

Posted

Thank you Martin

I will have to ask them to come in again, as they scuttled off like frightened bunnies!

Could I have a few salient points to check eg the pins covered by purfling etc

I am sure the photography is poor because it was a rushed job

Posted
1 hour ago, reg said:

Thank you Martin

I will have to ask them to come in again, as they scuttled off like frightened bunnies!

Could I have a few salient points to check eg the pins covered by purfling etc

I am sure the photography is poor because it was a rushed job

I know I'm not Martin... and the varnish does look a little "bright" and the arching a bit "round", in the photos you posted (although lighting and camera angle can throw things off)... but internal numbers (center of and just under the upper block on inside the back), Vuillaume's "hieroglyphic" signature (inside the treble side upper bout of the back), and his small brand (often located just above center on the inside of the top and back) would be useful data. I've posted photos of these details several times on this forum, and images can be found in the Millant/Hill Vuillaume book.

Posted
Just now, Jeffrey Holmes said:

I know I'm not Martin... and the varnish does look a little "bright" and the arching a bit "round", in the photos you posted (although lighting and camera angle can throw things off)... but internal numbers (center of and just under the upper block on inside the back), Vuillaume's "hieroglyphic" signature (inside the treble side upper bout of the back), and his small brand (often located just above center on the inside of the top and back) would be useful data. I've posted photos of these details several times on this forum, and images can be found in the Millant/Hill Vuillaume book.

Hi Jeffery,

Do you happen to know the name of the thread that contains the photos? I'd be interested in taking a look. I performed a quick search, but didn't see it.

Thanks!

Posted
1 hour ago, TedN said:

Hi Jeffery,

Do you happen to know the name of the thread that contains the photos? I'd be interested in taking a look. I performed a quick search, but didn't see it.

Thanks!

Many more than one...but I don't think I ever uploaded all three details on a single thread. I remember the timing of maybe a one thread (or if if I'm lucky two) off the top of my head, but after more than a couple decades of moderating here, the time line and titles of the threads tend to blur! I'll fill in the blanks from my archive. Someone remember where this one is for me, OK?  :) 

I'll give it a try.

OK. I found this recent one:

Link to brand

Here are a few archive shots (3 different fiddles; Number, brand on back, signature 1, signature 2):

DSC_0282.jpgDSC_0277.jpgVuillaumesig.jpg

DSC_0281.jpg

 

Posted
53 minutes ago, Jeffrey Holmes said:

Vuillaumesig.jpg

 

 

This is a flourish typically underneath 18th and 19th century signatures.  As in John Hancock and Ben Franklin seen here.  Just pointing out the difference in a flourish and a signature.  Although V. seems to use it as a signature. 

 

flourishes.png

 

Here's an eve better example

 

Vuillaume_signature1.png

Posted
2 minutes ago, MikeC said:

This is a flourish typically underneath 18th and 19th century signatures.  As in John Hancock and Ben Franklin seen here.  Just pointing out the difference in a flourish and a signature.  Although V. seems to use it as a signature. 

 

flourishes.png

It's referred to by many as a hieroglyph. I'm fine with either of the three designations. I just prefer it be there.  :)

 

Posted
Just now, Jeffrey Holmes said:

It's referred to by many as a hieroglyph. I'm fine with either of the three designations. I just prefer it be there.  :)

 

You replied while I was editing :D check the third picture.  

Posted

Very interesting. I learned something new today! Thanks for digging up those photos Jeffery. Much appreciated!

So he would stamp the inside, write the date on the inside, and then write a "hieroglyph" or "flourish" on the inside.

I have seen the John Hancock signature before, but I never noticed the lines and circles below it. I also didn't realize that they referred to that as a flourish.

It's also interesting that Vuillaume would opt to just use the hieroglyph/flourish and not include the signature along with it. 

Posted
10 hours ago, Philip Perret said:

I've heard that type of flourish called a "paraph".

That's a new one for me Philip! Definition makes total sense... and I have a new scrabble word! (just enough Ps)

11 hours ago, TedN said:


So he would stamp the inside, write the date on the inside, and then write a "hieroglyph" or "flourish" on the inside.
 

The number on the inside was essentially an inventory number (and several lists have been published listing what numbers correspond to the year the instrument was made),  The last two digets of the year appear in the paraph (gong to use that a few times so I remember it!)

Posted

I have contacted the old couple and they will call again next week to show me the violin.

I think they took fright with my (stupid me!) body language and when I told them it was possibly worth more than the £600 they had expected.

I'm told I have an honest face but maybe not...

Posted (edited)

If I may add my 2 cents on the semiotic aspects... :) A paraph is a signature shortened to a few characters (initials), but it is not a signature in the legal sense, as the name does not have to be necessarily indentifiable. Vuillaume's paraph would be recognizable as something like "JBV" ;) Though most signatures today are often actually paraphs, the one above by Vuillaume (the example without his name, on the back of the instrument) is rather just a "sign" or, in terms of semiotics, an "icon", as it does not consist (at least for me) of indentifiable letters. It coud serve as a cartoushe, though, as used first by the Egyptians to enclose important names. That would would not have been unlikely for the 19th century, as during Vuillaume's times, the fascination for Egyptian script was wide-spread due to the then recent discovery of the principles of that writing system (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartouche), or the form might have simply been inspired by its similar use in art and architecture (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartouche_(design)), which, I have to admit, seems even more likely...

Edited by Vafan
Posted

I can remember, back in the 80’s. Visiting a lecture Roger H gave to the German vm. Assn. in Stuttgart, where he gave a detailed explanation of how to fake Vuillame’s signature. He started with the 4 circles at the bottom, and he said that the measure of if it were successful, would be if your bank manager would fall for it if it were on a cheque. Well, thank god I’m not a bank manager! The whole room was full of elderly violin makers in their Sunday best, with appropriately matching wives, all wondering if they should call the police.

Posted
32 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

I can remember, back in the 80’s. Visiting a lecture Roger H gave to the German vm. Assn. in Stuttgart, where he gave a detailed explanation of how to fake Vuillame’s signature. He started with the 4 circles at the bottom, and he said that the measure of if it were successful, would be if your bank manager would fall for it if it were on a cheque. Well, thank god I’m not a bank manager! The whole room was full of elderly violin makers in their Sunday best, with appropriately matching wives, all wondering if they should call the police.

I've drawn it a few times.  It's simple but would take some practice to make it look smooth and flowing and authentic.  The odd thing about the one on paper that I posed earlier is that one end of the line looks thick and the other end trails off thin which makes it look like he drew it starting on the end that I would finish on.  

Posted
39 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

I can remember, back in the 80’s. Visiting a lecture Roger H gave to the German vm. Assn. in Stuttgart, where he gave a detailed explanation of how to fake Vuillame’s signature. 

Yup... An American maker I knew, Don Eckland, could pull off a convincing Vuillaume paraph/ hieroglyph/signature/doodle on demand as well.

Posted
On 2/4/2022 at 6:44 AM, reg said:

I have contacted the old couple and they will call again next week to show me the violin.

I think they took fright with my (stupid me!) body language and when I told them it was possibly worth more than the £600 they had expected.

I'm told I have an honest face but maybe not...

Why would this be frightening?

Posted
25 minutes ago, deans said:

Why would this be frightening?

Funny things can be happening, or have happened, and one may not know the reason for a reaction at the time. 

Many years ago, a woman from the UP in Michigan walked in to "the firm" with a very nice Pedrazzini violin. She asked if it could be set up so her son could learn fiddle on it. I asked her how she came by it and she showed me the receipt of purchase, from Pedrazzini, from the early '50s. I seem to recall the two instruments were listed at the equivalent of about $500 a piece.

I suggested she might want to obtain a less expensive instrument for her son to learn on, and informed her of what the fiddle was worth. Instead of the happy surprise I expected, she looked upset, closed the case, and left the showroom without a word. 

About a year later, a young woman from the same town stopped in to have her Pedrazzini violin worked on. Same town, fiddle made the same year.  No clue what it was worth. I asked her how she came by it and she said a lady in her town had sold it to her a little over a year ago for $1,000.

So.... I guess I informed the first woman that she had sold a 5 figure fiddle for $1,000.  Kind of explained the reaction.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...