18th Century Italian Violin 4/4 Full Size 357mm Vintage Amati Violin Copy – c. 1700s Florentine Fiddle Made in Turin Italy, Possibly French Paris France (Hieronimus Amati fecit Cremonae 1630)

– For your consideration is this incredible 18th century (c. 1749) Italian 4/4 violin.
– While the foremost experts can’t agree upon whether this violin was made in either Italy or France, they have unanimously agreed that this violin is circa mid-1700s, or mid-18th century.
– Recently procured from the estate of a gentleman who purportedly played for The Denver String Quartet in the 1940’s-1950’s, this was previously used  for many decades in a professional context.
– Some may contest that the aforementioned discrepancy between the country in which this violin was crafted represents an unrectifiable divide, however, bear in mind that pre-Napoleonic and Napoleonic France effectively occupied portions of modern day Italy. Considering both Italy and France currently share a border over 500 kilometers in length, is to consider that the difference between a Northern Italian violin (as Fred Oster and Matthew Fenge suggest) and one having been made in France (as Peter Ratcliff contends) is quite minute with respect to where the lumber was sourced.
– This nearly 300-year-old violin looks the part. It is quite visibly in very poor original condition. With many age-old cracks on both the top and back, this violin needs some serious professional restoration.
– As Fred Oster writes, the scroll was made later by another luthier, that is because this violin was made prior to the modern neck which emerged around 1800.
– The 59 photos best illuminate the overall condition and pedigree, however, please reference what the experts believe in the emails below:

– The violin you sent to us, is in my opinion, an interesting 18th century North Italian violin of the Florentine or Turin school.
I have yet to identify a particular maker. What I can say is that it has a very long soundpost crack to the back, as well as additional table cracks, none of which have been nicely repaired over the years. Even if one could give it a definitive attribution, the overall condition would give it quite a low value. Additionally, the scroll was made later by another maker, further devaluing it by an additional 20%. I do not recommend restoration, unless a player wants to restore it for personal use.
There are also 2 bows: a silver-mounted bow by and branded: AUGUST NURNBERGER-SUESS, in somewhat rough condition with a later nickel outer adjuster ring. Low value.; and a silver-mounted bow, unbranded, with likely later frog, and in poor condition. also Low value.
Sometimes when these sorts of violins and bows are put into a public violin auction, they can be sold as-is, and bidders speculate on buying them very cheaply for restoration.
The two auctions which sell these restortable [sic] violins are: Tarisio Auction in New York, and Amati.com in London.
Let me know if you need additional information about them.
Another tool to help identify the time frame and school of making would be for us to send some photos of the top to Peter Ratcliff in London, for dendrochronology. I believe he charges about 285. pounds for a basic report.
Regards,
Fred
Frederick W. Oster Fine Violins & Vintage Instruments
507 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19147
215-545-1100

– Thank you very much for submitting this online valuation request. This violin appears to be a fine old instrument of genuine age and quality, and overall I think an Italian origin seems plausible, though the label seems likely to be spurious. However, in order to maximize this violin’s potential at auction my feeling is that this would need further research to firm up the attribution and hopefully arrive at a maker or school of makers. With this in mind I suggest contacting experts with experience in fine old violins with a view to having the violin examined in person, or alternatively you could contact Peter Ratcliff to commission a Dendro-chronology assessment of the front of the violin – you can find out more details here: https://violin-dendrochronology.com/contact
Many thanks again for using this service, and please do get back to me with any thoughts or questions about any of the above points.
Kind regards
Matthew Fenge
—
AMATI Auctions
The Marketplace for Stringed Instruments

– I fear that my observations proved 100% correct. There were aspects of the work/ style and varnish colour which looked as I would expect in French 18th century work. The first thing I saw was the purfling, the type/ width/proportion of the strips, screamed French to me. It is of a type that re-occurs on so many French instruments of the period. The reason seems to be that makers (Guild makers) before 1789 were not allowed to make their own purfling, but had to purchase it from another Guild ( presumably makers of veneers), and it seems that there was mainly one supplier! then the rest seemed to fit, but, as I said, the dendro or French instruments of that period is highly specific to them, and I was prepared to be proved wrong. but wasn’t!……..
If the inside work is examined carefully, I have no doubts that it will fit the French method, including the size and proportion of the corner blocks, which usually extends further into the C bouts than anything made in Italy. Fred mentioned the scroll is replaced. I would love to see a good profile picture of it, and wonder whether it looks French? Usually French 18th century scrolls are often extremely recognizable and fitting a certain style, again, as I understand, they were usually made by members of yet another Guild, presumably that of the “wood sculptors.
Kindly let me know if you use Paypal, or Wise, or Revolut.
Anyhow, please find below the email report
Dendrochronological test on the belly of a violin from digital images (picture below) ref:jn21365
The belly of this instrument is made in 2 sections, jointed down the middle.
The grain orientation runs from the centre joint outwards on the bass side and from the edge to the centre joint on the treble side. The last original ring available on the bass is adjacent to the right side of the purfling, and is unlikely to have been the latest original ring. The edge on the outside of the purfling has been replaced, and inevitably a number of rings were lost. Based on the last part of the available original ring-growth, we can estimate about 4 to 5 rings are now missing at the very end of the ring-series.
A total of 121 rings were visible and measured on the bass side and 135 on the treble side.
The latest measured fully formed annual ring on the bass side dates from A.D.1709 and that of the treble side somewhat later, from A.D.1763.
A latest original ring date on the bass side, after adding the estimated missing rings on the edge is bound to be closer to about c.1714.
On the treble side, the spring growth of the following year is visible, leading to an overall final date for the wood from A.D.1764.
A comparison of the plotted data of the 2 halves, clearly illustrated different ring-patterns, evidence that they are from separate trees, growing at slightly different periods. Their data overlap 80 years, and a significant correlation equivalent to a t-value of 7.3 exists across that data-overlap, suggesting that the source of their wood is closely related.
The most significant cross-matches on the bass side are:
A French c.1760 violin, an 18th century French violin attributed to Jean Louvet, a French violin by Joseph Gaffino, a French c.1750s violin attributed to the school of Castagneri, a French violin by Francois Leclerc, a c.1730 Paris school violin, a 1751 French cello by Joseph Gaffino, a violin probably by Louis Guersan, a 1747 cello by Louis Guersan, a c.1750 Frenchy cello, a violin French 18th century possibly Francois Lejeune, an 18th century violin labelled Gagliano probably French, a c.176-s French violin follower of Pierray, a French an English violin c.1720 by Daniel Parker, a French pardessus de viole by Loui Guersan, c.1760 violin by Joseph Gaffino, an early 18th century English cello by Barak Norman & N.Cross, a c.1750s cello by Louis Guersan, a French violin ascribed to Gand Pere, a c.1770 Paris school violin, a French cello probably JD Salomon, a c.1728 French violin by Jacques Bocquay, etc…
The most significant cross-matches on the treble side are:
A French late 18th century guitar, a c.1760 French Paris school violin, a French violin by Jacques Bocquay, a French violin by Joseph Gaffino, a composite violin the top French c.1750s, a French 18th century violin, a c.1728 French violin by Jacques Bocquay, a French violin attributed to Louis Guersan, a French violin probably Louis Guersan, a French cello by Claude Pierray, a c.1750s French violin possibly by Jean Louvet, a French c.1780 double bass, a violin attributed to Jean Louvet, a c.1780s viola probably Vincenzo Panormo Paris period, a 1787 violin by Joseph Bassot, a French violin stamped Guinot, a c.1785 French violin a French violin by Joseph Gaffino, a 1747 cello by Louis Guersan, a c.1740s French cello by Pierre Francois Grosset, a French violin ascribed to Gand Pere, a violin Vincenzo Panormo (French period/wood), etc..
The most significant cross-matches on both sides were therefore identified with ring patterns recovered from instruments made almost exclusively in France during a good part of the 18th century. Interestingly ( but not surprisingly) several of the instrument cross-match with both sides, again confirming a single region for the provenance of the wood of both halves.
The wood on both halves can therefore be classed as being typical of some of the batches used in France rather than anywhere else, between about 1730 and the Revolution in 1789. Sadly, many of these instruments have lost or never had original labels, many acquiring fictitious labels, often from Florence or Naples, occasionally Cremona.
In my experience, and based on many genuine examples of French work from the 1730-1789 period, makers appear to have been bound by restrictive obligations imposed by the French Corporations (Guilds). All evidence points to the fact that they were required to source their wood via a single channel, with what appears to be a unique timber provenance. The “dendro-signal” from that area is very strong, and replicates in the vast majority of French instruments made during that period. The regional provenance of the wood is still unknown, although there are some relationships between the ring-growth of the wood used predominantly in France and that growing in the Black Forest, and Bavarian Forest. Common sense would suggest that this area was within the French territory, and sadly no published regional references exist from the area suspected to be the source of the wood, which is likely to be Franche Conté.
The Corporations were abolished at the Révolution in 1789, and at the very same time, the availability of this timber totally disappears.
Essentially, with a dendrochronological, or overall latest ring date of 1764, the front of this violin could have been made from about the very late 1760s, although likely a little later, and probably not after 1790.
Kind regards,
Peter
Peter Ratcliff~Luthier
Peter Ratcliff Dendrochronology Ltd
50 Brunswick St, West, Hove, BN3 1EL