Lockey Hill

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Kjetil Laukholm

Martin sold it as a Lockey, but what are your thoughts?

I can't say either way professionally. The bass I posted above Martin called a Lockey and yours looks completely different. Also, the FFs on yours look closer to the other Joseph Snr. basses I have seen. I can't say but either way, it's a beautiful bass. The sons trained and worked with him. There are 4 sons that I have read about, all makers. Who is to say for sure which one did which part of a given instrument without bearing personal witness? Also, with the bass being cut as you say, it makes things even harder as far as the overall outline. Did you try contacting Leon Bosch to get the history of this bass before it came into Martin's possession? I would do that if I were you. Also, I would find out why it was called a Joseph before and a Lockey now! Doesn't hurt to ask.

His son was Henry Lockey Hill who trained with Lockey and then worked for John Betts. H.Lockey as well as a brother of his, Panormo and son, Fendt and son, Carter, Tobin and others all worked for Betts at one time or another. It is written by Morris that H.Lockey later worked with his father who made a firm with his brothers (his 3 uncles, I think he means) to make instruments.

Pay attention now because it gets confusing and interesting. Henry Lockey's son was William Ebsworth known as W.E. Hill who would later become W.E. Hill and sons. Before that firm started W.E. went to train further to hone his violin making skills with Charles Harris Jnr. about 1833-1835? Charles II had just finished working for John Hart before moving back to his birthplace. Hart was the apprentice of Samuel Gilkes. Gilkes was related to Charles Harris I and was first trained by Harris Snr. as well. Hart had a son named George. Later it became Hart and Son and George had a son George II. They were in stiff competition with the Hills. Generations earlier there is no mention of any feuds between the makers but later in the 19th century with dealings of old Violins and the Harts being 'King' in that respect the Hill's sent out to destroy their reputation by saying that the Hart's were never makers, only dealers. Dealers yes but all three generations were trained makers regardless of their small personal output. I have an original early John Hart bass as proof.

Now that you have a Hill and I have a Hart, can we be friends 150 years after this 'business is war' thing started between the two families?

.. I just thought that a little background color would help make the story interesting. All of this I have read in various books. The early 20th century Hill's did acknowledge that the Hart's were the main dealers of the 19th century. The Hill's however were credited with their repair innovations. John Hart, pupil of Gilkes was also known as a fine repairman. Gilkes trained with Harris I, then worked for W. Forster III and also trained S.A. Forster as part of his employ contract and then trained J.Hart after the Forster shop closed. Harris II then worked for J.Hart after Gilkes Snr died. W.E. Hill THEN trained with Harris II before opening his firm later with his sons. So, was Hill doing what was passed down to him thru the lineage of Gilkes, Forster, Hart and Harris or did they invent something as far as these repair techniques go?

Hummm... The thlot plickens (plot thickens).. or.. does it?

Can't we all just get along?