Clueless: Modele d'apres: Nicolas Lupot . . .

[cher...@my-deja.com]

Hi all,

First of all, I know nothing about stringed instruments, but we recently
found my great-grandfather's violin and are trying to figure out if it
is an imitation or the real thing. The label says: Modele d'apres:
Nicolas Lupot Luthier rue de Grammont; a Paris l'an 1798. Can anybody
help me or point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Anders Buen]

If the neck is replaced, that is if there is a joint between the scroll and
the neck, there is a higher likelihood that this instrument is older than
1800

Anders Buen

<cher...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8uqorn$d7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[Bob Goddard]

In article <8uqorn$d7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cher...@my-deja.com writes

>Hi all,
>
>First of all, I know nothing about stringed instruments, but we recently
>found my great-grandfather's violin and are trying to figure out if it
>is an imitation or the real thing. The label says: Modele d'apres:
>Nicolas Lupot Luthier rue de Grammont; a Paris l'an 1798. Can anybody
>help me or point me in the right direction?

The words on the label indicate that it's a copy (modele d'apres = model
after) of an instrument by Nicolas Lupot. Whether the date refers to the
original or the copy, I wouldn't know. Try a Web search on Nicolas Lupot
- this might turn up his dates. If he stopped making fiddles before
1798, then that just might be the date of the copy. But I suspect it's
more likely to be a later copy of an instrument made in that year.

The punctuation on the label seems rather enigmatic. Loosely translated
we have:

"A copy after: Nicolas Lupot Violin-maker Grammont Street; in Paris in
the year 1798"

Could this be a deliberate attempt to blur the distinction between "a
copy of (an instrument made in Paris in 1798)" and "a copy (of an
instrument) made in Paris in 1798"?

(Bob

--
>---B-----------| "All music is folk music, |--NB - "News"-->
Goddard | I ain't ever heard no horse | may be updated
>---b-----------| sing a song." - Louis Armstrong |--occasionally-->

[cher...@my-deja.com]

In article <yK34mmBB...@godwit.demon.co.uk>,
Bob Goddard <new...@godwit.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> The words on the label indicate that it's a copy (modele d'apres =
> model after) of an instrument by Nicolas Lupot. Whether the date
> refers to the original or the copy, I wouldn't know. Try a Web search
> on Nicolas Lupot - this might turn up his dates. If he stopped making
> fiddles before 1798, then that just might be the date of the copy. But
> I suspect it's more likely to be a later copy of an instrument made in
> that year.
>
> The punctuation on the label seems rather enigmatic. Loosely
> translated we have:
>
> "A copy after: Nicolas Lupot Violin-maker Grammont Street; in Paris in
> the year 1798"
>
> Could this be a deliberate attempt to blur the distinction between "a
> copy of (an instrument made in Paris in 1798)" and "a copy (of an
> instrument) made in Paris in 1798"?

Thank you so much for your help! From the research I've already
attempted on the Web, it seems that Lupot was still making violins in
1798, so as you said, it probably is a copy of an instrument Lupot made
in 1798.

The full translation was very helpful as well. I found your comments
about the punctuation especially interesting--I'm a copy editor! With
the info you gave me, I think you're probably right that this was
deliberate to make it harder to date.

I guess now I need to figure out whether copies are of any value and
whether I should pursue this further. Would an appraisal be appropriate
now?

Thanks again!

[Jon]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:07:52 GMT, cher...@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <yK34mmBB...@godwit.demon.co.uk>,
> Bob Goddard <new...@godwit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The words on the label indicate that it's a copy (modele d'apres =
>> model after) of an instrument by Nicolas Lupot. Whether the date
>> refers to the original or the copy, I wouldn't know. Try a Web search
>> on Nicolas Lupot - this might turn up his dates. If he stopped making
>> fiddles before 1798, then that just might be the date of the copy. But
>> I suspect it's more likely to be a later copy of an instrument made in
>> that year.
>>
>> The punctuation on the label seems rather enigmatic. Loosely
>> translated we have:
>>
>> "A copy after: Nicolas Lupot Violin-maker Grammont Street; in Paris in
>> the year 1798"
>>
>> Could this be a deliberate attempt to blur the distinction between "a
>> copy of (an instrument made in Paris in 1798)" and "a copy (of an
>> instrument) made in Paris in 1798"?

I generally would interpret that label to mean that the instrument you
have could have been made anywhere, anytime based upon a design of
a Lupot violin which Lupot made in Paris in 1798. I'm well aware with
what the French on the label proclaims and the ambiguity it presents
[How unFrench!] I base my interpretation on the way the violin
business is conducted which could offer at least these two scenarios.

1. The violin was mass-produced in a factory using a Lupot pattern, or
even the Lupot name as a sales device. In this case I would give the
maker some points for creativity since it did not have the ubiquitous
Stradivari label. This is done usually just as a marketing device
although attempts to defraud are sometimes noted. In this case, the
maker acknowledged his debt to Lupot. It would have been nice if
he [either as an individual, or as a factory] identified himself on
the label.

2. Someone, somewear, made a deliberate copy of a particular Lupot
violin, or at least used the lines of one. This is a pretty common
practice among some of the best studio makers. The fellow who does my
repair work as made some fine violins in which he deliberately copied
some noted violin such as the Betts Stradivarius [which happens to be
at the Library of Congress, nearby]. These violin sell in the five
figures and contain the label of the actual comtemporary maker.
My own violin, although the label does not say so, is a copy of a
particular Guadinini violin in the sense that the gross measurements
are the same and the carving and wood grain configurations and
coloring are similar. In the case of my violin, the finish was as a
newly made violin. I have seen some makers deliberately imitate the
finish of the violin copied including aging effects. This sort of
violin is advertised in "The Strad" all the time by legitimate
contemporary makers. In some cases, touring soloists with big name
violins have had copies made of their solo instruments for use in
practice and occasionally at concerts.

>
>
>Thank you so much for your help! From the research I've already
>attempted on the Web, it seems that Lupot was still making violins in
>1798, so as you said, it probably is a copy of an instrument Lupot made
>in 1798.

Exactly

>
>The full translation was very helpful as well. I found your comments
>about the punctuation especially interesting--I'm a copy editor! With
>the info you gave me, I think you're probably right that this was
>deliberate to make it harder to date.
>
>I guess now I need to figure out whether copies are of any value and
>whether I should pursue this further. Would an appraisal be appropriate
>now?

At least a preliminary appraisal is always worthwhile, if for no other
reason, you have some figure upon which to base an insurance valuation
assuming it is worth insuring. Of course, if you like the sound and
have some qualification to evaluate the sound compared to instruments
you like or do not like...you would have a "keeper." I can assure
you, that in the high level, but non-professional, orchestras in which
I play, we usually do not snoop at other folks labels except when they
are trying out new [to them] instruments.

Jon Teske, violinist
>
>Thanks again!

[Bob Goddard]

In article <8utn9m$qii$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cher...@my-deja.com writes

>
>I guess now I need to figure out whether copies are of any value and
>whether I should pursue this further. Would an appraisal be appropriate
>now?

Quite possibly. Just because it's a copy doesn't mean it's not a good
instrument. If you take it to a /proper/ violin dealer (not a general-
purpose music shop), they should be able to see straight away whether
it's a half-decent instrument without the need for a formal appraisal.
If they say it's not complete junk, then go for an appraisal - if you're
keeping the instrument you will need this for insurance purposes, and if
you're selling it you want to know neither party is getting ripped-off
on the deal (I hope!).

Good luck.

[cher...@my-deja.com]

Thank you all so much for your help! You've been wonderful. I spent
hours upon hours on the web trying to find out the information you have
provided, with no luck. Then I thought, Newsgroups! And of course,
that's where I found knowledgeable people who were willing to help. We
probably will sell the violin since no one remaining in the family
plays, and I do want a fair price--both for me and the buyer. So now I
know how to go about it. Thanks again, and I hope everyone has a
wonderful holiday season!

Take care :-)