"Countless remarkable instruments have lost their authorship to history"
There are around 10,000 violin and bow makers represented in John Dillworth’s Brompton’s Book of Violin and Bow Makers, and a similar number in Henle’s classic tome. However, over the course of more than four centuries of violin making, these 10,000 names likely represent only a fraction of all those who have contributed to the craft. Countless remarkable instruments have lost their authorship to history.
Additionally, many historical instruments have been altered by makers and dealers in the past— including the renowned Count Cozio himself— leading to a loss of their original identities.
“…Cozio was far from the most trustworthy custodian of great violins by today’s standards. In his notes, he makes clear his criticisms of makers who are now almost sacrosanct, and it’s evident that he had no qualms about ordering significant alterations if he believed they would improve the instrument's sound or appearance. Cozio, for instance, was not a fan of Guarneri del Gesù and recommended thinning out his instruments before use. He admired Bergonzi, yet still had the 'excessively long' corners of the violins he owned filed back and shortened.”
-Dillworth, John. “Count Ignazio Alessandro Cozio di Salabue.” Brompton’s Rare and Fine Instruments Reference Library Articles. 16 January 2014, https://www.bromptons.co/reference/articles/details/count-ignazio-alessandro-cozio-di-salabue.html. 20 December 2024
"...it became almost irresistible for some to apply a prestigious label to an instrument."
“The mid-1700s also saw the rise of the practice of cutting down older, larger violas and cellos, which became more common during the 19th century. Once a cello was cut down, its original maker’s distinctive outline was often lost. Add to this the absence of clear labels and the growing popularity of famous names, and it became almost irresistible for some to apply a prestigious label to an instrument. As a result, many fine makers lost their identities during this period, with some remaining anonymous to this day.”
- Kass, Philip. “Early Venetian Instrument Maker Matteo Goffriller Had a Near Brush with Total Obscurity: Goffriller was a prominent member of the musical instrument makers’ guild in Venice, at least until around 1710.” Strings Magazine, July-August 2024 Issue, https://stringsmagazine.com/early-venetian-instrument-maker-matteo-goffriller-had-a-near-brush-with-total-obscurity. 20 December 2024
"Just because an instrument lacks attribution today doesn’t mean it always will.”
It’s also important to note that attribution can exist on various levels. An instrument might exibit correct regional characteristics or a specific maker’s traits, but if all the evidence doesn’t line up precisely, it’s impossible to attribute an instrument with certainty. It’s always more honest to err on the side of caution and refrain from attributing an instrument if there’s any doubt. However, just because an instrument lacks attribution today doesn’t mean it always will.
A notable example of this is Matteo Goffriller, whose name nearly faded into obscurity despite his instruments being played in the finest concert halls. Pablo Casals famously purchased a cello bearing a Bergonzi label in 1913 and used it throughout his career, believing it to be a true Bergonzi. It wasn’t until years later that the cello’s true identity—as a Goffriller with a facsimile label—was uncovered. The reasons behind Goffriller’s near disappearance from history are as fascinating as they are understandable, but that is a story for another time!
- Kass, Philip. “Early Venetian Instrument Maker Matteo Goffriller Had a Near Brush with Total Obscurity: Goffriller was a prominent member of the musical instrument makers’ guild in Venice, at least until around 1710.” Strings Magazine, July-August 2024 Issue, https://stringsmagazine.com/early-venetian-instrument-maker-matteo-goffriller-had-a-near-brush-with-total-obscurity. 20 December 2024
"Unattributed instruments can offer exceptional value for musicians at a fraction of the cost.”
While it’s unlikely that every unattributed or misattributed instrument will have a story as remarkable as Goffriller’s, the key question remains: how much should attribution matter, assuming everything else—sound quality and condition—is equal? The answer depends on your musical goals, your budget, and your reasons for purchasing. If you’re buying an instrument purely for investment purposes, it’s certainly best to opt for one with well-documented attribution. However, if you’re a musician in need of a great historically interesting and charming instrument, it’s worth keeping an open mind. Fine unattributed instruments can offer exceptional value for musicians at a fraction of the cost.
All of this is to say that while classic, attributed instruments are becoming increasingly out of reach for most working musicians, high-quality unattributed instruments—those with the same charm and character as their named counterparts—represent a great middle ground.
Comments