|
Hello,
I was just reading about the corrupt business of violin
dealing--which was well-known to me--that harms players, the music,
and the historical accuracy of a great instrument-making legacy.
One thing I don't think you've addressed is a number of instruments
documented as Nicolo Amati by Beare and sold in the Tarisio auctions
during 2010 an 2011. There was a real one in June 2010 year that
sold for a record price: a magnificent small-pattern from 1648, a
sister of the great 1649 'Alard' Amati--neither papered by Beare,
each with a long pedigree. Then at least two others came up in
successive Tarisio sales, papered by Beare, that were quite clearly
not by Nicolo but were sold as such.
Nicolo Amati's breath-taking work is absolutely unmistakable, and
the fact that spurious violins are being attributed as genuine by
someone as erudite as Beare muddies the historical waters and
insults probably the greatest violin-making artist, the true
fountainhead of the great violin-making.
I have also known two other examples, owned by players--one in the
UK and one in the US, that were sold by Beare as Nicolo Amati's work
but also did not come close.
As a violinist, scholar, and organologist, I can only puzzle: does
Mr. Beare have a blind spot when it comes to the work of the most
famous and recognizable maker of all?
|