Bowlbacks of Note

[vic-victor]

with a very un-Roman neck profile.

And the bridge is not Roman either

[brunello97]

Thanks, Victor. I don't have Battiato in my records of Italian makers / sellers either, so that is a nice addition as well.
Did he make them, or Puglisi? The bowl construction is noticeably better than some LE copy mandolins I've seen. Why didn't they follow it all the way through? Or was it a conscious attempt to morph to an LE style bowl on a neck we mere mortals, 180 average bowlers could handle? ��
Mick

[vic-victor]

Thanks, Victor. I don't have Battiato in my records of Italian makers / sellers either, so that is a nice addition as well.
Did he make them, or Puglisi? The bowl construction is noticeably better than some LE copy mandolins I've seen. Why didn't they follow it all the way through? Or was it a conscious attempt to morph to an LE style bowl on a neck we mere mortals, 180 average bowlers could handle? ��
Mick

Mick, I have no idea and haven't heard of that maiker before either. Just saw the ad in the Russian Classifies. The instrument does not look that very old, perhaps 1930's or later. Checked the address via google maps, still there, looks like it is a bank branch now. The scratch plate is the same as on many higher end Olivieri instruments, but they could have been generic, as many other Catanese ones. A nice touch is the binding lines embedded into the fretboard.

[brunello97]

Thanks, Victor.... Can you read the address number on Piazza S Placido? I was just checking it out on Google just now, too. Charming if not curious little piazza with a nice little (very Roman looking) Baroque church. Makes you wonder, eh?

You think it is that new, maybe from the tailpiece? Everything else appears of the classic era. I just love these Catanese mandolins. Each one is a story in and of itself.

Mick

[vic-victor]

I think the address is no. 2, but it looks somethings has been erased from the address line. I dolci di Nonna Vincenza at the opposite building looks like an old warehouse or factory, by the way.

Age is my guesswork based on a condition. Most pre-revolution times mandolins in Russia are now completely ruined. But it could be just a well preserved example, who knows? There was virtually no musical instruments import into Russia after 1918 for quite some time. I have seen a somewhat similar Embergher-like mandolin I had a brief encounter here in Oz years ago, it had a similar maple bowl and a plain light green label mentioning someone's name and address in Catania only. It was from 1950's. Can't recall the details now, but I thought of that one as soon as I've seen this one.

[DavidKOS]

Saz (No info yet & just posting as a curiosity of lutherie rather than anything mandolin related)

The round body, and very long neck make this look to me more like a Greek tamboura or a Turkish Tanbur:



Sazes, be they divan, baglama, cura, etc. are more almond shaped and have slightly shorter necks.

That is a very fancy sample, though, fancier than any I've seen. It also seems to have a lower bridge than the ones I've seen, too.

[Martin Jonas]

Yes, price is up there considering it will need considerable work plus a good bath. I believe that is how it would have been strung. Martin J has one (or maybe had one?). Take a look at the two treble hooks. The right side looks longer to take two strings, I believe.

Yes, I did have one of these Ceccherini 10-stringers, but sold it a long time ago. They are four-course instruments intended for a 2+2+3+3 setup -- you can tell that from the hooks, but more clearly from the tailpiece which has six pegs on the treble side and only four on the bass side. Lovely headstock inlay on mine, which none of my other Ceccherinis have had.

Mine was an opportunistic buy: it was an attic find the seller put on Ebay for 50 Pounds BIN, collect in person from Colwyn Bay (15 minutes drive from me), so I pulled the trigger immediately. I cleaned it up, set it up for playing as an 8-string, and sold it again on Ebay to a buyer from Naples -- it went home to where it was made more than a century ago!

As I recall, it had a slightly wider and slightly stouter neck than the 8-string version, presumably to allow for the additional string tension, but not wide enough to set it up for five courses. Other than that, it had the typical double-top and the corresponding tone much like any other Ceccherini. I can't recall whether it was as responsive -- I would expect the extra bracing for the higher tension to make it less so, but having a more sturdy construction is not necessarily a bad thing for an old bowlback.

I think I posted some photos in the bowlback picture thread back then.

Martin

[Vangelis M.]

Anyone heard of an Embergher copy by Calace?





Description mentions:

Mandolino Raffaele Calace del 1924, copia del mod. n. 5 Embergher.

[brunello97]

Anyone heard of an Embergher copy by Calace?

Looks to be in a strangely untouched condition. Something seems sketchioso about that label, too, though Calace used a lot of different ones. The '24 labels I have in my files are in blue ink with the "e figlio" (and son.)

Maybe someone else has a better match.

Mick

[Namder]

Is this in your possession? if so give us some more information.

John

[Jim Garber]

It looks like it is for sale here: Subito

I wonder how close to Embergher specs it is. Is the fretboard radiused? Hard to tell tho the bridge looks flat. Those engraved inlays look nice tho. Overall it looks like a nicely made mandolin.

[Bob A]

Hard to imagine a brand-new 80 year old mandolin. Bowl lacks the compound recurve that Emberghers exhibit; inlaid bridge position dot not seen in Calace.

Whoever made it did a nice job. The fact that it has a Calace label rather than one by the actual maker smacks of intent to defraud. If I made such an instrument, I'd want my talents to be made known. Of course, it might be the only Embergher-style Calace ever made, carefully stored away for a couple generations

[Vangelis M.]

No, it is not in my possession. Just happened to come across the ad and it seemed rather extraordinary; so I posted here.
I contacted the seller for more info, but I haven't received a reply. He also has for sale another embergher and one calace (http://m.subito.it/annunciutente-mob...view_202913902)

The fretboard must be inclined, because the bone saddle looks thicker on the bass side. The nut too.
The highly detailed floral inlays reminded me of the calace decorations.
Can you tell whether the bowl is spruce lined or paper lined?

[vic-victor]

A fine instrument, but is it made by Calace? Anything is possible, could be a special order, but the fact that no one have seen a Calace like that before and that the seller is actually in Catania suggests there is a possibility that the instrument in question is a Catanese mandolin with an added label. As for good condition, it looks like it has been restored and probably refinished. Another Embergher he has for sale look legit. As for another 1954 Calace, it looks legit, but I always thought that that "fingers" end of the fretboard is more modern innovation. Any oppinions on that?

[Beanzy]

I reckon someone bought a good one on ebay from up in York at £125

[Tavy]

I reckon someone bought a good one on ebay from up in York at £125

That one looked like a cheap copy to me?

[Martin Jonas]

That one looked like a cheap copy to me?

Yes, I think that's a generic German Embergher copy. For some reason, the Roman style appears to be harder to copy successfully than the Neapolitan style -- the clones I have seen have tended to be pretty uninspiring to play.

Martin

[Beanzy]

I assumed the same as you.
If you look at the hi res on ebay you can see it's been well done with good wood and a very nicely shaped body/neck join too.
Radiused fingerboard & proper bridge make it a very attractive starting point.
My trio partner picked up a lovely maple backed proper one for a similar price about two years back.
The Embergher necks are too narrow for me or I might have taken a flier on this up to about £200 and if necessary thinned the back.
Definitely looks good for what they paid.

[Jim Garber]

I concur that the one Eoin notes is a copy, prob German. The scratchplate is completely wrong for a N.1.

[Vangelis M.]

... but I always thought that that "fingers" end of the fretboard is more modern innovation. Any oppinions on that?

What do you mean by 'fingers' end, Victor?

I reckon someone bought a good one on ebay from up in York at £125

I believe this mandolin is from Vincenzo Miroglio. A lot of similar characteristics (bridge shape, headstock proprtions, scratchplate design, tailpiece..).
It seems like a nice construction though.

Perhaps all these luthiers were not trying to copy the emberghers, rather were inspired by them and used the features they liked, fused with their own... perspective or luthiery/decorative skills.
So many 'bad' 'copies', but were they intended to be copies in the first place?




----------

On a different note, there was also this beautiful mandolin on ebay.it from ... Fratello Diosino Rossi (titled 'Roma', but right under 'Munchen'), with figured maple staves.
Also a 'copy', but with more character of its own.
Anyone know of their performance perhaps?

[vic-victor]

What do you mean by 'fingers' end, Victor?

[brunello97]

Perhaps all these luthiers were not trying to copy the emberghers, rather were inspired by them and used the features they liked, fused with their own... perspective or luthiery/decorative skills.
So many 'bad' 'copies', but were they intended to be copies in the first place?

Nicely put, MV. I found myself wondering almost the same thing. The MC is full of discussions about builders of F5 model mandolins some of which are obvious attempts to duplicate the qualitative aspects of the classic Gibson mandolins, and some attempts to better them.

Many are inexpensive models that seek to reproduce some of the iconic formal aspects of the F5s while leaving others to chance, cost-cutting or lesser craft. These "F5" mandolins span the full spectrum of quality and playability. Besides the ones from the era where blatantly false labels and inlays were added I really don't consider any of these to be "copies", but "in-the-style-of".

There is a weird hagiography around Embergher mandolins here which differs from the maturing conversations about F5s. Maybe because they are not as plentiful and widespread anymore.

I agree. Why shouldn't we just view these as (which is what I think Martin is after with his post) as Embergher / Roman "style" mandolins rather than the pejorative "copy" and then evaluate them on their own merits rather than to how faithfully they reproduce the hallowed master LE?

I had a German Embergher / Roman style mandolin for awhile that admittedly was way too tiny for my fingers. But it was a decent mandolin, likeable even, for what it was, nicely, if not expertly made. My evaluation of it was in terms of what it was, not how short it stood relative to a "real" LE. It seems weird / pointless to me to do that any more than I would comp an Eastman or a The Loar with an actual Loar.

Mick

[Jim Garber]

BTW there were, as many of us already know, Roman style mandolins before Embergher. All Roman copies do not have to be strictly Embergher copies. In fact Embergher copied someone and he and Cerrone refined the style and the instruments.

[vic-victor]

The one from Peru. Armadillo back instrument. It once was a large armadillo. The ones used for charango are smaller.

[Ausdoerrt]

Oh wow, that's something!