Possible Salzkammergut violin? Unlabelled

[Strad O Various Jr.]

59 minutes ago, reg said:

Is Jacob on vacation?

Jacob is recovering from surgery, but he is fine, just a little under the weather

[Andreas Preuss]

30 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

This looks BoB to me. The other views don't show the seams, but otherwise they look pinched to me.

Looks pretty blurry. And the shadow at the corner end could be almost interpreted as ribs inserted in the back, though the side view doesn’t confirm this. 

From this picture we could also argue if the sloppy purfling joints at the corner are typical for whatever school. If the term ‘typical’ accounts for the majority of instruments from a given region/school then I would rule out again Markneukirchen. 

For the moment I would really eager to know how the interior build looks like.  
 

(And I definitely think that a discussion forum should encourage a different opinion when based on good arguments.)

[Guido]

Quite possibly the head doesn’t belong as it seems to have had a darker varnish before.

I still have a bit of a dutch feeling about this one, the purfling in particular, but also ffs and varnish.

[jacobsaunders]

To me, the Op violin is from the Saxon area, early 19^th C. It is not unusual to see avaricious sellers trying to pass such things off as Dutch. I think one can ignore all French/Dutch/Salzkammergut suggestions as red herrings for quite good reasons. I think it is partly manipulated, e.g. the rib ends were surely not originally blackened

[antoneeyuh]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:35 AM, Andreas Preuss said:

I’d rather think in the direction of old Mirecourt.

1. How large are the corner blocks?

2. Is the back button original?

3. How precisely is the back joint in the center. (When measuring the upper, center, and lower width?

For your first two questions, I don't know. I'm not a luthier and I'm not going to try to open up the violin.

For your last question, the center joint does appear to be quite center, at worst maybe only a millimeter off. 

To everyone: I'm sorry that I am unable to reply individually but I'm only given permission to reply so many times since I'm new here. I wanted to thank you all for your information! I've also supplied additional photos, though I'm not sure how helpful they will be.

Regarding the varnish discussion, the scroll does appear to have a darker varnish but I wanted to point out which may not have been evident in the original photos that by the neck of the violin, it has a similar dark varnish that has worn away. I've attached more photos.

 

 

Edited February 13 by antoneeyuh
Pictures messed up the post formatting

[antoneeyuh]

5 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

For the moment I would really eager to know how the interior build looks like. 

I am unsure if this may be helpful but I did my best to take a picture of the inside. Perhaps this could be more enlightening to some?

[Blank face]

8 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

My point s that saying for the flatted back of the scroll with two ornamental arches is ‘exclusively found in the region between Saxony, West Bohemia and Salzkammergut’ is IMO a bit risky. Early Makers in Poland made this too, Groblicz or Dankwart.

I didn't say that the pegbox rear was the only evidence for a Saxon (or Westbohemian) origin, and listed some more features. But one can say that it is a very strong one, especialyy as I don't know about any proven old Polish instrument has this feature. A typical and most probably real Groblic is this :http://www.violini-cracovia.com/en/466/violin-marcin-groblicz-circa-1609/

Just that they might have used the flat pegbox rear with archings the instrument in question should have more in common with old polish violins, model, ff etc, what the OP has not.

which has an ornamented, but very different pegbox. Maybe they are a lot of "ascribed to" Groblic , Dankwarts or others, being in fact just from the regions I named before, similar like inked purfled Salzkammerguts are often certified as Testore or other Milanese. At least I'm still waiting to see any violin from France, Netherlands or

Reg. broad cornerblocks: It is very clear at a built on the back construction, which this definitely is, that corner blocks are not an essential part of the construction but are always added later. Sometimes by the original maker after the construction of the rib garland and before closing the box, often by some much later repairer or improver. Therefore it's quite possible to see any randomly added form of these blocks, small, wide, longer in the upper or lower bouts (though the symmetrical form might be the most frequently). A cornerblockology should always start with the form of the rib joints before drawing further conclusions.

Of course early French making did use bob and throughneck, and maybe some of the provincial makers could be similar in some aspects to Saxony (surely not Renaudin or others from the Vieux Paris school). But taking everything together, including the particular shape of the scroll and pegbox, it appears very unlikely that this is what we are looking at.

 

[Blank face]

2 hours ago, antoneeyuh said:

I am unsure if this may be helpful but I did my best to take a picture of the inside. Perhaps this could be more enlightening to some?

Thanks for this view! I think the only conclusion we can draw here is that, judged by the birghter color, the blocks and probably linings, too, are later additions.

[Andreas Preuss]

3 hours ago, antoneeyuh said:

I am unsure if this may be helpful but I did my best to take a picture of the inside. Perhaps this could be more enlightening to some?

Looks as if blocks AND linings have been replaced. 
 

Usually you find on Markneukirchen instruments only corner blocks added later. The reason is that they first bent the ribs to fit the outline of the back plate, and BEFORE they were glued to the back, the linings were glued to the ribs on the top side and bottom side. This would not only stabilize the form of the ribs, but also augment the glueing surface. It would also make the linings fit to the surface of the back without bigger gaps. (Your violin shows visible gaps between the c bout lining and the back plate) Therefore, in most cases, nobody would see it necessary to replace the linings on an instrument from Markneukirchen.
 

And one more question, how does the arching of the back between the CCs look to you. Pointed in the center or slim or full, or blown up? 

[Andreas Preuss]

5 hours ago, antoneeyuh said:

For your last question, the center joint does appear to be quite center, at worst maybe only a millimeter off. 

That’s interesting too. Most instruments from Markneukirchen have the center joint ‘dead on’  on the calculated division by two. This again has its reason in their method. They used a half template for the outline. After the back was joined the template was aligned first on one side to the joint to draw the outline on one side and then flipped over to perfectly mirror image the outline to the other side. Thereafter the outline was precisely cut out to the line and ribs set on the back following this outline. French makers never used this method so the center joint can be easily 1mm off. 

[Jeny Mahon]

Am I the only one wondering what this is?

I think I've been traumatized by seeing too many bug / wasp / spider nests in old fiddles, my mind went directly to that!    >>shudder<<

 

[Gtone]

Isn't it a dust ball?

[tetler]

@Blank face can you explain how you conlude that it is definitely built on back? I think it is difficult to see sometimes, even when I inspect personally. Do you see a seam where ribs are pinched, or do you base it on something else?

[Blank face]

53 minutes ago, tetler said:

@Blank face can you explain how you conlude that it is definitely built on back? I think it is difficult to see sometimes, even when I inspect personally. Do you see a seam where ribs are pinched, or do you base it on something else?

 

The photo detail posted by GeorgeH (below) shows clearly a seam in the middle of the rib joint, and that the rib end is flush with the bottom  plate. The belly corner has a later wooden elongation. The same is visible at the upper bass side corner, while the lower corner ribs are cut back and blackened, probably later as an "improvement" like Jacob wrote. So there's not much doubt about the construction method, what makes any question about the form of the blocks etc.superfluous.

It's a true observation that jointed Markneukirchen violin backs from the period of mass production are usually very symmetrical, while Mirecourt made can have the center seam rather off. But I would be very reluctant to use this as an identification point in regards of much earlier periods, as long as one doesn't have more prove about the tools the makers used 220 years ago than oral tell tales. At least most of the Saxon instruments from this period have one piece backs anyway.

 

[tetler]

20 hours ago, Blank face said:

 

The photo detail posted by GeorgeH (below) shows clearly a seam in the middle of the rib joint, and that the rib end is flush with the bottom  plate. The belly corner has a later wooden elongation. The same is visible at the upper bass side corner, while the lower corner ribs are cut back and blackened, probably later as an "improvement" like Jacob wrote. So there's not much doubt about the construction method, what makes any question about the form of the blocks etc.superfluous.

It's a true observation that jointed Markneukirchen violin backs from the period of mass production are usually very symmetrical, while Mirecourt made can have the center seam rather off. But I would be very reluctant to use this as an identification point in regards of much earlier periods, as long as one doesn't have more prove about the tools the makers used 220 years ago than oral tell tales. At least most of the Saxon instruments from this period have one piece backs anyway.

 

Thank you! Are the corners always necessarily pinched and cut back when the instrument is built on the back? In my mind, that would imply more sharply angled corner tips on bob instruments than on those built with a mold

[Andreas Preuss]

21 hours ago, Blank face said:

shows clearly a seam in the middle of the rib joint

CLEARLY? from this blurred picture? 
 

Unfortunately most pictures are not very accurate. You could then also interpret the shadow as clearly ‘ribs set into the back’. (Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t say clearly for this.) But for example IF the ribs were set in the back, the execution of the (maybe) afterwards inserted blocks and linings would make sense to me. (And the way it looks like) 

21 hours ago, Blank face said:

corner ribs are cut back and blackened, probably later as an "improvement"

I would in no way do such a judgement from a picture. You can also say ‘probably not’. 

21 hours ago, Blank face said:

the rib end is flush with the bottom  plate

The others are not. I don’t think there are any particular conclusions from there other than that the execution was not very precise, neither on the ribs nor on the rest. 

21 hours ago, Blank face said:

one doesn't have more prove about the tools the makers used 220 years ago than oral tell tales.

I am not talking about tell tales. I made many measurements and in the case of doubt I would draw the outline of the back on a paper (fyi a special method which doesn’t distort the paper and therefore is very accurate) which would allow to see the actual symmetry of the whole outline. The symmetry with the joint in the center is very consistent for instruments from Markneukirchen. This also has the effect that the joint in the back button is always in the center of the button. The violin pictured here has the joint on the button not in the center, but since there was apparently some repair done to it, it unfortunately can’t be used as identification point. 

To me this is NOT a clear case. 

 

[Blank face]

1 hour ago, tetler said:

Thank you! Are the corners always necessarily pinched and cut back when the instrument is built on the back? In my mind, that would imply more sharply angled corner tips on bob instruments than on those built with a mold

Yes, they are with this method. Other similar like building on the back with preinstalled blocks or ribs set into grooves can result in a different appearance. There are also tests if one can pick up the violin with two fingers at the rib corner or sqeeze them easily there, but I would be carefull with such tests at antique violins.

[Blank face]

43 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

CLEARLY? from this blurred picture? 
 

Unfortunately most pictures are not very accurate. You could then also interpret the shadow as clearly ‘ribs set into the back’. (Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t say clearly for this.) But for example IF the ribs were set in the back, the execution of the (maybe) afterwards inserted blocks and linings would make sense to me. (And the way it looks like) 

I would in no way do such a judgement from a picture. You can also say ‘probably not’. 

The others are not. I don’t think there are any particular conclusions from there other than that the execution was not very precise, neither on the ribs nor on the rest. 

I am not talking about tell tales. I made many measurements and in the case of doubt I would draw the outline of the back on a paper (fyi a special method which doesn’t distort the paper and therefore is very accurate) which would allow to see the actual symmetry of the whole outline. The symmetry with the joint in the center is very consistent for instruments from Markneukirchen. This also has the effect that the joint in the back button is always in the center of the button. The violin pictured here has the joint on the button not in the center, but since there was apparently some repair done to it, it unfortunately can’t be used as identification point. 

To me this is NOT a clear case. 

 

We might agree on that we completely disagree here. This is in my eyes and experience a very clear case.

[Guido]

Talking about features :-)

https://tarisio.com/auctions/auction/lot/?csid=2199830528&cpid=3872899072

 

[Blank face]

14 minutes ago, Guido said:

Talking about features :-)

https://tarisio.com/auctions/auction/lot/?csid=2199830528&cpid=3872899072

 

Unfortunate to talk about an actual auction, but we wrote some words about old certificates. I won't say that I have much knowledge about Flemish instruments  but there's also another instrument by the maker in the auction (with an actual certification) and everybody can compare if the scrolls are similar.

[Guido]

22 minutes ago, Blank face said:

Unfortunate to talk about an actual auction, but we wrote some words about old certificates. I won't say that I have much knowledge about Flemish instruments  but there's also another instrument by the maker in the auction (with an actual certification) and everybody can compare if the scrolls are similar.

... and there are already three more cellos by this maker in the cozio archive featuring a back of the pegbox like this.

This is a scandal of epic proportions :-)

[Blank face]

7 minutes ago, Guido said:

... and there are already three more cellos by this maker in the cozio archive featuring a back of the pegbox like this.

This is a scandal of epic proportions :-)

There's exactly one b/w photo, accendentally by the same certifier with this feature, second is the actual auctioned, and about ten instruments without.

Another cello with flat rear pegbox, but without the double arches upwards, and a rather massive pegbox and scroll like the other instruments, not as slender and S-shaped.

[Guido]

I actually agree the OP is probably Saxon... (although maybe not as clearly as it seems to be for you and Jacob).

Just thought this was interesting as we discussed this feature in this thread.

7 minutes ago, Blank face said:

There's exactly one b/w photo, accendentally by the same certifier with this feature, second is the actual auctioned, and about ten instruments without.

Don't want to split hairs, but there are three cellos out of six with this feature in the cozio archive.

[Blank face]

8 hours ago, Guido said:

Don't want to split hairs, but there are three cellos out of six with this feature in the cozio archive.

If we are splitting hairs, there are flat pegbox rears without arches at the upper end, what was done f.e. by Testore and others, and the Saxon/Bohemian/Salzkammergut way.

Can't tell anything about Flemish celli, but I read that none of the documents is telling expressively that the scroll of the cello (which is one of the three in the archive, and another described as „scroll later“!) is definitely original. Just saying.

[antoneeyuh]

On 2/13/2023 at 2:47 PM, Andreas Preuss said:

That’s interesting too. Most instruments from Markneukirchen have the center joint ‘dead on’  on the calculated division by two. This again has its reason in their method. They used a half template for the outline. After the back was joined the template was aligned first on one side to the joint to draw the outline on one side and then flipped over to perfectly mirror image the outline to the other side. Thereafter the outline was precisely cut out to the line and ribs set on the back following this outline. French makers never used this method so the center joint can be easily 1mm off. 

I'm not sure what happened to my post but I responded 5 days ago and it's still not approved. Maybe it got lost in the nether.

When I initially measured, I used a small metal tape so it wasn't as accurate. I've since remeasured using a plastic tape and the center joint does appear to be dead on.

 

On 2/14/2023 at 4:20 AM, Blank face said:

 

The photo detail posted by GeorgeH (below) shows clearly a seam in the middle of the rib joint, and that the rib end is flush with the bottom  plate. The belly corner has a later wooden elongation. The same is visible at the upper bass side corner, while the lower corner ribs are cut back and blackened, probably later as an "improvement" like Jacob wrote. So there's not much doubt about the construction method, what makes any question about the form of the blocks etc.superfluous.

It's a true observation that jointed Markneukirchen violin backs from the period of mass production are usually very symmetrical, while Mirecourt made can have the center seam rather off. But I would be very reluctant to use this as an identification point in regards of much earlier periods, as long as one doesn't have more prove about the tools the makers used 220 years ago than oral tell tales. At least most of the Saxon instruments from this period have one piece backs anyway.

 

Here is a better image of the seam of the rib joint.

On 2/13/2023 at 3:20 PM, Jeny Mahon said:

Am I the only one wondering what this is?

I think I've been traumatized by seeing too many bug / wasp / spider nests in old fiddles, my mind went directly to that!    >>shudder<<

 

Lol that is indeed a dust bunny/violin mouse/tone ball