[Harp-L] Who on earth is Anton the Plumber?

[Dave Payne, Elk River Harmonicas]

I've heard folks say he invented the Richter, but it was probably his brother Joseph. But Anton Richter of Haida had his own company in Bohemia back in the 1800s, the German Harmonica museum has hinted that the Anton Richter company was a paper company owned and operated by Seydel, especially since ol' Anton was a plumber, but rich. I've been researching this further and come up with some additional circumstancial evidence to support that theory and at this point, I'm convinced that was the case. But I also came across something interesting, modern bass fiddles marketed under the Anton Richter name. I have no idea who makes Anton Richter bass fiddles or where the company is. It apears to be a European company that has shifted production to Korea. But, even if it is an Asian company, companies don't usually just pluck names out of thin air, which would hint that there is some association with Anton and stringed instruments, even if it's just
Anton cashed in on his brother's name with some other companies besides Seydel. 
On the Seydel thing, what I've come up with circumstantial above what the museum has are similarities in advertising and the fact that Seydel employees around the water cooler called Richter-style harps "Haiders" for years.
It's a shame more of this history wasn't preserved, but it's a lot more fun for me this way.
 _________________________________
Dave Payne Sr.
Elk River Harmonicas
www.elkriverharmonicas.com

_______________________________________________
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
Har...@harp-l.org
http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l

[Jonathan Ross]

Dave Payne writes:

"I've heard folks say he invented the Richter, but it was probably
his brother Joseph. But Anton Richter of Haida had his own company in
Bohemia back in the 1800s"

It's hard to say exactly what Richter invented, who he was or the
like. This page presents the issues pretty well:

http://www.patmissin.com/ffaq/q37.html

I draw your attention particularly to these two sentences (copywrite
by Pat Missin, from his website http://www.patmissin.com ):

"However, they note that harmonicas were also made in the late 1800s
by Anton Richter and Johann Richter. Relationships, if any, between
these three harmonica makers are unknown."

Moreover, contemporary histories from the late 19th and particularly
early 20th centuries are not exactly impartial. The study of history
was often used as a political tool for much of the last hundred and
fifty years, particularly swayed by two major trends: nationalism and
progressivism. Thus, people and facts which don't fit the desired
narrative were often simply discarded. So, while we see an
outpouring of similar free-reed invention across Europe and even the
US in the early 19th century, much of this is ignored in favor of the
trends which led to the status quo when people were writing,
particularly the status quo of German's writing in the early 20th
century when Germans dominated the market and nationalism was the
dominant political force. Added to this is the desire to find an
"inventor", and when one didn't exist perhaps create one in a semi-
mythical fashion (perhaps Richter fits this mold), which certainly
wasn't confined to any one country nor to harmonica history by any
means (see the Abner Doubleday mythology in baseball).

I would also suggest reading this page as well for more information:

http://www.patmissin.com/ffaq/q1.html

These basic issues should be common knowledge for anyone wanting to
understand or research the history of the harmonica, IMO.

()() JR "Bulldogge" Ross
() ()
`----'

[Joe and Cass Leone]

So..what are you saying here?

smo-joe

> create one in a semi-mythical fashion (perhaps Richter fits this

[Dave Payne, Elk River Harmonicas]

Yes John. The research I was talking about was done very recently. However, sorry if I wasn't clear, my question was about Anton Richter bass violins.  When I wrote that post, I was thinking of you, I know you have this abyss of obscure left-field facts and if anything's up your alley, I thought it would be Anton Richter Bass fiddles. Do you know anything about Anton Richter bass violins?

Grateful, as always,
Dave

 _________________________________
Dave Payne Sr.
Elk River Harmonicas
www.elkriverharmonicas.com

[Jonathan Ross]

Dave Payne writes:

"However, sorry if I wasn't clear, my question was about Anton
Richter bass violins. "

It was, but your basic misunderstanding of the harmonica history was
the part I felt like dealing with, since I have no knowledge of Anton
Richter stringed instruments, nor a particular desire to find out.

Still, I took about two minutes and did a Google search. There was a
musical family in the German speaking regions from the 18th through
20th centuries named Richter, mostly related to positions as
organists and Kapellmeisters. There seems to have been at least one
organbuilder in the family, and he could have possibly made other
instruments as well (which was not uncommon) particularly stringed or
free-reed keyboard instruments (depending on the dates of the
individual).

Also, it appears that the Anton Richter name is used for members of
all the orchestral strings, not just basses. I found no corporate
website as typing "www.antonrichter.com" redirected here:

http://www.worldpiano.net/products/new.html

Whether this has any relation to the Anton Richter violins is not
mentioned.

Mostly, it seems that Richter in general is not a rare name, and
"Anton Richter" a not uncommon variant, turning up architects,
musicians, homesteaders and others.

All of that has nothing whatsoever to do with the points I raised and
which you have conveniently ignored.

[Dave Payne, Elk River Harmonicas]

John,

I do have formal training in the historical research arts and that award from the West Virginia Press Association for Best Investigative Journalism (that was a previous award, not the one I won this year) and one thing I have learned during these years is to identify and target those who can most help steer research in the proper directions. I know that if I throw some question into the thinnest of air, there is but one man capable of answering that call --- one can rely that somewhere Johnathan Ross will be working in his research library and the Internet ether to dig up the fact in question. Thank you for coming through here on the Anton Richter fiddles and whatnot.

I also offer my humblest and most sincere of apologies for my behavior in the previous e-mail where I blantantly, selfishly and convienently ignored the points you raised in your initial e-mail.

_________________________________
Dave Payne Sr.
Elk River Harmonicas
www.elkriverharmonicas.com

----- Original Message ----
From: Jonathan Ross <jro...@comcast.net>
To: har...@harp-l.org
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:51:16 PM
Subject: [Harp-L] re: Who on earth is Anton the Plumber?

[Joe and Cass Leone]

> J.R. Ross wrote some stuff.

> http://www.patmissin.com/ffaq/q37.html

I read the article and can only say that anyone who does research
uses bits and pieces from OTHER people's writing. So this article is
speculation and since the author wasn't born in 1835, there is no way
to prove it. In fact, none of you 3 were born in 1835. lol

>
> I draw your attention particularly to these two sentences (copywrite
> by Pat Missin, from his website http://www.patmissin.com ):

Copywrite or copyright? Two different things.

>
> Moreover, contemporary histories from the late 19th and particularly
> early 20th centuries are not exactly impartial.

Ok, but neither is ANY history. History goes to winners. If the
cowboys are good, the indians are bad, if the Scottish Highlanders
are good, the Zulus are bad. And on and on, ad absurdium.

> The study of history
> was often used as a political tool for much of the last hundred and
> fifty years, particularly swayed by two major trends: nationalism and
> progressivism.

I'll buy that.

> Thus, people and facts which don't fit the desired
> narrative were often simply discarded.

Ok, so far

> So, while we see an
> outpouring of similar free-reed invention across Europe and even the
> US in the early 19th century, much of this is ignored in favor of the
> trends which led to the status quo when people were writing,
> particularly the status quo of German's writing in the early 20th
> century when Germans dominated the market and nationalism was the
> dominant political force.

But you're saying that anything a German wrote about Germany was
automatically accepted by all Germans. In other words there were no
Germans who took these writings with a large grain of salt. In other
words millions of Germans were oblivious to wool being pulled over
their eyes.

> Added to this is the desire to find an
> "inventor", and when one didn't exist perhaps create one in a semi-
> mythical fashion (perhaps Richter fits this mold), which certainly
> wasn't confined to any one country nor to harmonica history by any
> means (see the Abner Doubleday mythology in baseball).
>
> I would also suggest reading this page as well for more information:
>
> http://www.patmissin.com/ffaq/q1.html
>
> These basic issues should be common knowledge for anyone wanting to
> understand or research the history of the harmonica, IMO.

What I'm seeing here is that you tend to give some people credibility
while others are left wanting. I find this amusing coming from a
person whom I had long ago cloaked with the robes of impartiality and
decreed as defender of the truth and grand remover of ambiguity.

Journalism is an intriguing profession. After courses in: (and I'm
just guessing here), Philosophy, English composition, Psycology?,
English, a journalist goes about practicing their craft. Now they can
only go on what they find. Sometimes true, sometimes false. We see
this all the time. A Hurst used to say "We don't report the news, we
MAKE it". Me? I am a voracious reader. How much do I take as gospel?
About 8 1/2 to 9 %.

smo-joe...back to my Nat'l Geo.

[Jonathan Ross]

All quotes from Smokey Joe:

"I read the article and can only say that anyone who does research
uses bits and pieces from OTHER people's writing. So this article is
speculation and since the author wasn't born in 1835, there is no way
to prove it. In fact, none of you 3 were born in 1835. lol"

That is the point I was trying to make. There can be no definitive
statements made, and so when they are made, especially when made as
if they are known and by someone who wishes to be seen as a serious
researcher, that is a significant error. In areas like early
harmonica history where most things are unknown, then that is how
they should be presented.

"But you're saying that anything a German wrote about Germany was
automatically accepted by all Germans. In other words there were no
Germans who took these writings with a large grain of salt. In other
words millions of Germans were oblivious to wool being pulled over
their eyes."

History as a political tool is a strong force, especially when most
people want to believe it. In a case like this, it helped feed into
the force of nationalism. There were undoubtedly some who wouldn't
believe it, but then, as there was less ability to know what was
going on in other areas of the world, there was less ability to
refute it. And most people in the 19th and early 20th centuries,
especially in the caste-like societies of Europe, deferred to those
in positions of authority, in this case academics. It is significant
that well into the end of the 20th century most people in the field
would probably not have questioned the Bauschman-Richter-Hohner line
of harmonica history, in Germany and elsewhere.

"What I'm seeing here is that you tend to give some people
credibility while others are left wanting."

Credibility is either earned or lost. I find those credible who can
back up their claims. Similarly those who jump to conclusions, can
be shown to be wrong by their own writing and fail to grasp basic
issues I find lack credibility. Those who never deal with direct
questions very quickly loose my respect. Those who avoid the issues
raised and attack the individual have no credibility.

[Frank Evers]

Am Sonntag, 16. November 2008 schrieb Jonathan Ross:
> Mostly, it seems that Richter in general is not a rare name

It's not rare at all. Richter means judge. I was very common, that
professions turned into names and you can figure, that there were
judges most everywhereand hence persons called Richter, too.
Anton isn't rare either.

--
Gruß,Frank