Quote:
Originally Posted by Anselm Hauke
some weeks ago i played a (so-called) forster bass with the royal coat of arms on the back of the scroll.
that was a really great bass, and in a healthy state, no bad cracks at all, very huge sound.(but a little expensive imho)
but irrc the coat of arms was different from the ones i know from mr. houskas website (the only place i´ve seen that scrolls):
did forster made several different basses from this kind?
do you know anything of the bass that belongs to the above scroll? |
Ok, is that the Scroll pictured from Houska? Where did you play the Forster? What size and model/shape was the bass made in? Price? PM me if it's private but I am curious to know. Forster made only 3 for the King and I believe they were each a different size. One that sold here years back was a Chamber size and one noted in the book was full sized to out do the Italians as the King requested. That's all I know as I have never seen any of them in person. One I did see in New York I believe was made by Young Forster when Gilkes worked there. The dealer swears it's Old Forster but in Simon's book, he describes that model bass as they made 5 or 6 for lending out. Cello shape all with second class making. The one I know is dark varnish, big ugly scroll and scratched purfling on both plates.
There is a claim mentioned by Simon Andrew Forster that as a young man or boy, Gilkes met Old Forster who shared his secret varnish recipe with him. Simon Andrew goes on to discredit this theory because Forster II (Snr. of London) died in 1808. Gilkes left the Harris shop and started in the Forster Shop (young Forster III, 2nd of London, the Grandfather William I having worked only in Brampton) in 1810, 2 years after the death of Snr. Gilkes however was already working in London with Harris for several years before 1808 and could have easily met the old master by introduction as only 2 years or less later, he was hired by his son, William III.
Now, the bad blood between Gilkes and Simon Andrew ran deep deep red. Gilkes was appointed teacher of Simon Andrew, the son of William III. William IV, Simon's brother and son of III worked side by side with Gilkes as noted in the family records of instruments they made together. Simon Andrew wrote in his book some decades later how Samuel Gilkes would not teach him all that he knew and because of this his progress as a maker was hindered. Simon also learned a bit from his older brother William IV and his father known as Young Forster, William III. Some books mix up these 2s and 3s because the first William never worked in London so the first William to hit town was the 2nd. Adam Whone in his book about the Wither's shop makes this error calling them 1 and 2 instead of 2 and 3. I emailed him about it but ofcourse he didn't respond to my correction.
I think whether true and false about any hint of relationship between Samuel Gilkes and William Forster II (Old Forster) is strongly disputed due to this bitter taste which sounds to me like self inflicted. Simon Andrew was a talented maker to a degree but not up to the strengths to match any of the family named William. In the Simon Andrew book he also mantions having made 5 basses in his own shop and numbers them as well. Number 4 recently came up for sale here in the States. One potential buyer asked my advice and sent me some pictures. Before I go on, let me say that in the book he states that due to the large size of the basses, he had to solicit some outside help. I don't recall the exact quote word for word. Anyhow, I looked at the pictures of the bass and then turned my head to look at a J.F.Lott sitting here behind my desk and then I remembered something. One of our distinguished bass authorites had mentoned to me earlier that he had seen two S.A. Forster basses and they were the work of none other than J.F.Lott. The Varnish and Scrolls however possibly not. The bass #4 was a Lott bass made for S.A.Forster as Lott also worked for the trade.
So, this English stuff is quite interesting to me especially when you can read the books and look at the instruments side by side. Regardless of Simon Andrew's whining about his studies with Gilkes, he gives high marks to both Samuel and his only true non related apprentice John Hart.
On the Gilkes/Forster cloud of information, the son Young Forster aka William III I am sure knew the varnish mixture of the falimy whom Gilkes worked for. My Bass of 1814 looks to have taked years to make by the details alone. Gilkes started his own shop the same year he took employment with Forster. Why 2 jobs? Well this was common back then and often the 2nd job was not in music or at least in making fiddles. I believe the motivation is from several factors. One, he trained with Harris who was considered a great maker but stayed out of the limelight working often for the trade. This first training must have inspired Gilkes to open his own shop after his apprenticeship. Two, his son also named William (Gilkes) was born in 1811 so starting a family and having that added expense required him to raise his income abilities. Three, the job in the Forster shop which lasted for 10 years or so gave financial security for him and his family. Having his own shop as well I am sure helped to adjust his hours as needed if I may speculate. The Gilkes bass in my posession shows details and varnish combined not seen before on any bass English or Italian. The varnish which seems all original appears to be quite durable yet flexible. Looking close, real close you can see it is totally crackled on the Top. This I believe is that Amber Varnish they all talk about with real fossle added to the mix for lastisity. The Purfling is paper thin (or actual paper) 7-layer but within normal diameter as used for Violins. The Back is totally intact from the shoulder cut on down as well as the purfled Diamond loop under the Button. The Top has been worn on most of its edges with maybe less than half the original Purfling remaining.
This talent alone between the Varnish and Purfling seems to be beyond the grasp of most any maker, Forster or other so Simon need not be so jealous. Talent is not taught in my opinion. George Hart, son of John states that his fathers master (S.Gilkes) in the regards to the best work seen on some of his instruments was more of
a labor of love.
A few years ago a top English dealer paid me a visit here. I showed him the Gilkes and handed him a flashlight and magnifier glass to look at the Purflied diamond and corners on the Back. He remarked something to the effect (with eyes wide), "I have never seen anything like this in my life" in a very complimentive tone, very.
The English have made some amazing instruments in the 18th and 19th centuries. They deserve the highest marks along side the best Italians where and when deserved.