Two Ceccherini bowls

[Martin Jonas]

Here are a few photos of my two Ceccherini bowlbacks, one with a conventional single top (below), which I've had for a few months, and the other with Ceccherini's unique double-top design (above), newly-acquired this week and now cleaned and set up. The second top is suspended about one centimetre below the main top, similar to a Virzi. It's a wafer-thin spruce plate with the grain running at right angles to the main top. It's stiffened by and suspended from two braces running at an angle to the strings so that they form a jaw opening towards the soundhole and coming closer together towards the tailpiece (although they never cross or even get particularly close to each other).

With the single top, there is a tensioner similar to the more common de Meglios, whereas the double top goes with four brass hooks holding the strings down. I had envisaged that the hooks go down to the second top, helping to drive it. However, from feeling the underside of the double top, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Interesting to note that the single top Ceccherini has a significantly smaller sound box: it's about seven millimetres narrower and about one centimetre more shallow.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

This view shows the different construction, with the double top on the right.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

The backs of the bowls. Not much difference here, except for a darker colour and engraved tuners on the double top.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Two labels and pickguards.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Finally, the label of my new one. This also shows the very tight grain on the spruce top, much closer grain than on the other.

Martin

[John Bertotti]

Looks great how do the sounds compare between the two? John

[Michael Lewis]

Martin, is the bridge floating or glued? with the hooks directly behind the bridge creating a rather extreme break angle I would think the bridge might possibly be glued.

[Martin Jonas]

John/Michael,

Thanks for the questions. The bridge is floating, same as on "normal" bowlbacks. As with many of the fancier Neapolitans, the two round pearl markers either side of the bridge are fixed to the top and they indicate the original bridge position intended by the luthier. As you can see on the last photo, the current optimum position for correct intonation is still spot-on between the markers, so there does not appear to have been any significant movement in the top at all.

I think the idea of the hooks (and of the downholding bar on the other one and on the similarly constructed de Meglios) is to increase the string break angle in order to drive the top harder. However, this is not as extreme as it might look on the photos: these bridges are very very low indeed, with saddle heights well below a centimetre, and so the hooks only bring the string break angle a bit closer to what one would get with the higher modern bridges anyway. The upward break angle at the hooks is fairly minor.

Regarding the tone, I have been playing the double-top model fairly extensively over the past three weeks, and the tone (which was pretty good to start with) has opened up very nicely indeed. They are both very light, very responsive mandolins with great sustain, and the playability is equally good on both (same neck profile, nut design, fretting, similar action, etc). However, apart from that, they are not particularly similar in tone. The single top has a distinctly dark tone, mellow, best when played softly, with a tendency to become a bit boomy when driven hard. Not a particularly loud mandolin, but a very smooth and melodic one. The double top is much brighter, with a more complex sweet tone which has a slightly amplified quality to it (presumably the effect of the resonator-like second sound chamber). Somewhat surprisingly (considering that a common complaint with Virzis is that they supposedly reduce volume), this is a significantly louder mandolin, which keeps responding more and more the harder I play it. With a soft touch, it's melodic and smooth, with a harder drive it's bright and piercing, but never shrill. Great fun to play, and I think it may still not have finished waking up.

I am intrigued by the contrast between the two, which may well reflect different intentions by Signore Ceccherini (orchestral and soloist models, presumably). It's difficult to pick a favourite, and luckily I don't have to, but at the moment I'd say the double top is slightly ahead, on the strength of its greater dynamic response. Both are head and shoulders above my de Meglio, which is itself a perfectly respectable mandolin by a "name" builder in good playable condition.

Martin

[Bob A]

Regarding the difference in size, my very ornate Ceccherini measures approximately 205mm across the top, at the cant. (It does have the double top).

It has a light tonality, with perhaps less volume than yours may have. I suspect the carved ribs and various inlays increase the mass of the instrument somewhat, to the detriment of the sound.

I've often wondered just how much of an effect the string trees would have on the sound; it seems to me that the tension increase on the bridge would be countered by the upward pull on the string trees, more or less cancelling each other out. Of course, it would seem to move the center of force to a point between the bridge and trees. This may have the effect of increasing the effective footprint of the bridge, without substantially increasing the mass. I suppose the only way to find out would be to test the same instrument in both configurations. Seems like too much trouble, to me, but it might prove interesting.

[Eugene]

I've been admiring your beautiful pair of Ceccherini mandolins since you posted the pictures, Martin; I just haven't had anything useful to add. I still really don't have anything useful, but thought you might be interested that "Golden Era" virtuoso Leopoldo Francia endorsed Ceccherini. You should take up some of his compositions for amusement.

[Martin Jonas]

Eugene -- that's an interesting bit of information. I have to say that I know nothing whatsoever about Umberto or his mandolins. The only things the labels tell us are that he seems to have sold exclusively through Voigt in London and that he won a prize in 1881. Otherwise, no serial numbers, no model numbers, no years. So, this is the first info I've had that goes beyond the label. You don't happen to know of any further details about the Ceccherini model range, and how my two (or Bob's more ornate one) might fit into it? Or the years during which he was active? I suspect that my single top is older than the double top, but I don't actually know this. I'll have a look for Francia compositions: maybe I'll find them uniquely attuned to the tonality of the Ceccherinis...

Bob -- I'm not so sure the forces would cancel out. Both of the contact points, at the saddle and at the hooks, provide an acoustic coupling of the top to the strings and the firmer the couple, the better is the top driven. Still, I suspect that the actual effect is fairly minor, which may explain why so few other luthiers bothered. As it happens, on one of my D-strings there was no visible upward deviation at all, and I've now raised that string a bit at the tailpiece to get it to deflect at least a little bit, seeing that this was the luthier's intention.

Looking at the photos, I apologise for the quality: I reduced them in file size by increasing JPG compression, which has led to some ugly artefacts. I should have resampled them instead. I did that for the last photo, which looks much better than the others. I'm not sure if I can replace the photos with better quality files by using the "edit" function: I'll try.

Martin

[Eugene]

Eugene -- that's an interesting bit of information. #I have to say that I know nothing whatsoever about Umberto or his mandolins. #The only things the labels tell us are that he seems to have sold exclusively through Voigt in London and that he won a prize in 1881. #Otherwise, no serial numbers, no model numbers, no years. #So, this is the first info I've had that goes beyond the label. #You don't happen to know of any further details about the Ceccherini model range, and how my two (or Bob's more ornate one) might fit into it? #Or the years during which he was active? #I suspect that my single top is older than the double top, but I don't actually know this. #I'll have a look for Francia compositions: maybe I'll find them uniquely attuned to the tonality of the Ceccherinis...

Indeed.

On the instruments themselves, I don't know much of the make outside of seeing a few instruments carrying Ceccherini labels. There was a person in somewhere in South America who once sent me images of a very ornate Ceccherini double-top mandolin, but I fear those images might have been lost in some computer mishaps over time. All the pieces I have seen seem pretty typical of Neapolitan instruments of the late 19th c.

[Martin Jonas]

Regarding the difference in size, my very ornate Ceccherini measures approximately 205mm across the top, at the cant. (It does have the double top).

That makes yours larger than either of mine: my two are 193mm and 200mm at the cant. In other words, he must have had at least three different moulds.

Martin

[Finklestein]

Martin

I have been doing quite a bit of research on Ceccherini bowlbacks recently for my local circle's newsletter. I adore bowlbacks, and my Frignani is my pride and joy! You might be interested to know that I read in Concert magazine about 8 months ago (I think it was an Article by Dr Simon Mayor)there are several late 60s German-built copies of Ceccherinis on the market at the moment - I hope you haven't bought one of those! It is apparently relatively easy to tell the difference, but I can't remember how at the moment.

Anyway, they certainly look like a beautiful pair.

Congratulations on your new aquisitions and fine taste! I confess to being a little jealous (unless they are the German ones!).

Lee Finklestein

[Martin Jonas]

Lee --

Thanks for your message (and welcome to the Cafe!). I'd be very interested in both the article you mention and in the results of your other research. Do you think you could lay your hand on it? As I mentioned above, I know very little about the maker other than what is apparent from the instruments and from photos of other instruments that have popped up on the web at various times (such as here and here).

My single-top is most certainly older than the 1960s (the strings that came with it were already older than that), and the double top could only be a 1960s rebuild if they were more properly called "forgery": the label has all the original references (including the Alban Voigt address), and a signature from Signore Ceccherini, the workmanship and decoration is very similar between both instruments, there are real ivory tuner knobs (can't see them being used in a 1960s German copy), the correct patent stamp, vintage-style bar frets (unheard of in 1960s instruments) and, perhaps most tellingly, both instruments have a maker's marking scratched onto the underside of the bridge and a matching marking written in pencil onto the place on the top where the bridge goes. Both instruments have resurfaced separately in UK auctions (where Alban Voigt traded and where one would therefore expect most genuine Ceccherinis to be located) following house clearances. In view of these factors, I'd think it's fairly unlikely that either of them is a copy. The copyists would in any case also have needed to duplicate the fabulous tone. Nevertheless, I'd be obviously most interested in knowing what the article you mentioned describes as the telltale signs, just quell any doubts that might remain.

Martin

[Finklestein]

Martin,

Thank you for your kind welcome! I have lurked here for a while, but was only moved enough to post following display of your Ceccherinis.

I was trying to track down the magazine but I couldn't find it in my home but my ex-wife (Marie-Anne Downing - you might have heard of her if you've ever been to a bluegrass concert in Oklahoma) has a copy. She don't want to send it to me but I can ask her to scan it, but anyway I must have been thinking of some other mandolin. I really don't think your gonna want to do this, but anyhow, to see if your mandolins are the real McCoy you have to sand off about 1/16" from anywhere on the neck. The German copies patina
changes rapidly over that depth, whereas the genuine Ceccherini's patina stays virtually the same colour. I guess this method is only ever used by people who strongly suspect their Ceccherinis are fakes.

From what you say, your mandolins sound kosher. In any case, late 60's German fake or not, you should enjoy them, they're beautiful!

[Martin Jonas]

Lee --

Thanks for the follow-up and for trying to get hold of the artivel. Very interesting info, but: Urghh. I don't think I'll be doing that anytime soon. I'm not so sure I understand the test, as the surface wood on the neck is a veneer anyway: is the article referring to the actual neck wood, underneath the veneer, and suggesting that Ceccherini used a dark wood (similar in colour to the veneer) whereas the copies used a light wood (like in the attached Angara & d'Isanto neck)? If so, then at least my single top is in the clear: there's a small piece of veneer missing from the back of the headstock and the wood underneath is plain-figured, but the same colour as the veneer.

I'm still puzzled why anybody would go to such lengths to forge a Ceccherini. It's one thing to try to build copies of a historical mandolin for modern players, but quite a different thing to imitate all the appointments, labels, frets and hardware to the extent that the definitive test for authenticity is a destructive removal of the neck veneer. And if you were forging a historical mandolin with the aim of fooling collectors (rather than as a player's instrument), wouldn't you aim for the most lucrative ones? I mean, Ceccherinis are well-regarded, arguably underrated, and I love mine, but surely in terms of market value, they've never been as prized (and priced) as, say, an Embergher or a Vinaccia.

Martin

[Eugene]

I can't imagine relatively recent efforts to fabricate fraudulent Cechherini mandolins. #I can imagine relatively recent efforts to emulate Ceccherini's style; however, in the case of entry- to mid-level instruments by a relatively prolific Neapolitan builder like Ceccherini, putting a Ceccherini label on your modern efforts at emulation will cause it to be worth less than it would be as a newly produced piece! #That doesn't provide much incentive for forgery. #Before Seiffert, the better German shops seemed to be very interested in producing good, working-class instruments in the style of Italian builders, especially Embergher from what I've see. #I have not seen one that made any effort to pretend it is what it is not. #After such pieces are a few years old, depreciation would make them worth less than original Ceccherini mandolins. #It is possible that a later owner would place a fake label in a rapidly depreciating recent mandolin to make it seem a bit older. #Still, such stuff should be relatively easy to spot.

The case would be different for the very finest bowlback mandolins by the most prestigious shops. #I'm certain there are fraudulently labeled Embergher, Calace, and Vinaccia...possibly even imitations of the very fanciest Ceccherini...mandolins out there, but this is not the case here. #Those pictured here are beautiful examples of mid-level instruments. #Can you imagine somebody being able to produce this kind of work in modern times for the prices you paid, Martin?

[Eugene]

Well, I was typing as you were posting, Martin. Pardon the redundancy.

[Finklestein]

Martin,

I understand your concern over possible forgeries and that fairly destructive method, but please don't get upset with me about what I read out - I only wanted to help... My daughters are always telling me I am a doom-monger and always look on the black side - you would too if your
daughters shacked up with the guys they have!! But I'm sorry if I've caused you any unnecessary concern - your mandolins are beautiful whatever their provenance.

I see your point about the veneer, Martin, but I think 1/16" would be less than the thickness of the veneer. Perhaps the copies have a veneer of even a whole neck piece made of a paler wood that had been only surface stained -
that would explain the big difference in color over such a small depth. I'm only guessing here, but I have seen something similar on a poor Vinaccia copy during my research.

As to your other point, and the one Eugene made, well, I'm not sure, but I reckon that they were becoming more and more sought after in the 60s and were suspected of having increased value over the following decade. I remember as a young man in the 60s me and my buddies were desperate to get a hold of one. But by that time they had obtained an image of only being bought by buskers and bar singers because they were inexpensive for such a fine instrument, which I think is why they are so undervalued now - maybe you disagree. Unfortunately now as then, there is so much prejudice in music and everything else you buy. And even though they are well regarded as you say, for many collectors and musicians, Ceccherinis will always be a poor man's instrument. Its a damn shame.

Anyway, I can't agree more with Eugene - definitely the best value mandolin for the beauty, sanded or not!

[Martin Jonas]

No problem, Lee, I do appreciate you passing on the information (and am still keen to know more). Eugene and I were just trying to figure out how it fits into the bigger picture.

Being a recent buyer, I'm not really complaining about them being undervalued (which they clearly are): I wouldn't have been able to lay my hands on them otherwise! As I got them for playing, not for collecting, I'm not too worried about future value or collectability either.

Martin

[Jim Garber]

I have been doing quite a bit of research on Ceccherini bowlbacks recently for my local circle's newsletter.

Please, Lee, share with us some of what you found out about Umberto Ceccherini. For instance, I would be interested in his concepts for the double-topped design and what he was trying to accomplish. I also would be interested in his relationship with other Italian makers, notably DeMeglio.

I also have my doubts that any German Ceccherini copies wouldbear little resemblance to the genuine. As Eugene mentioned, the German copies of Emberghers, among the most desirable of the Italian makers, bear only superficial resemblance to the actual ones.

Jim

[dave17120]

Hi Martin, I'm a bit new to this, so you'll have to excuse any mistakes. I was very interested in your single top string tensioner, as I am trying to renovate an old bowlback, with marks that suggest it once had one. See picture, assuming I can get it loaded. I got this wreck with no furniture at all, so have no idea what the gismo is made of, how big it is, how it is attached, if there is anything under the soundboard, how it was adjusted, and so forth. My instrument looks very very similar to yours, but has a label saying Bellini.
Perhaps you might be able to help with a few details? And why am I doing this???? Well its not for the money!
Thanks, Dave

[Jim Garber]

Dave:
You have a long road ahead of you on this project but it should be fun. Welcome to world of the bowl.

Attached is a pic of a 1898 deMeglio (from an eBay auction this fall) which yours resembles. There seem to be many of this type of bowlback around under different names. You can get an idea of the pickguard and the typical bridge and string tensioner.

Jim

[Jim Garber]

Here is a full view of a 1904 deMeglio.

Jim