Talk of Fakes (or Antiqued newer Basses) came up......

[Eric Rene Roy]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

...the 'shadow' over them is just the deceitful antiquing and labeling.

I think the labeling and misrepresentation of pedigree is deceitful, not the antiquing.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Eric Rene Roy

I think the labeling and misrepresentation of pedigree is deceitful, not the antiquing.

Yes Eric, true but the labeled instruments are Antiqued to deceive.

I had a 5-string in my hands a few months ago that was a huge 4/4 sized Bass with an early 20th century Italian label. The price was too good to be true and it was. I looked over the Bass which by the way sounded and looked fantastic but came to my own conclusion that it was a fake or misplaced labeled Hungarian Bass.

Then I was offered another huge 4/4 5er but was told that the Bass was fairly new. It too was antiqued as well but unlabeled. On both Orchestra concerts I used it on I was asked "How old is that Bass?". It looked and sounded old or rather it did not sound new.

My Pollmann is antiqued somewhat as well as my Lott copy. These two Basses are labeled correctly and honestly. I agree that it's the labeling that is the deceit but they are antiqued as well. This does not stop people from putting labels in at the shop level afterwards. My Lott copy could easily be relabeled as a late 19th century English maker and no one would blink!

To make my point, please look at the 2 Scrolls pictured and try to date them from looks alone. Do not use my website to look up the dates. Try and give your first impression from looks alone. If you can, look at the webpages for each Bass and disregard the names and dates as if they are not there and tell me how old the Bass itself appears to be on its own.




Have fun...

[Ken McKay]

Here is something odd to me. Look at the contrast in work on the same bass. The corner work is first class showing a superb bee-sting, yet the f-fluting looks as if the maker didn't know how to sharpen a gouge or plane.

I have done a lot of faux antiquing myself (still working on making it convincing ) so I have developed an eye for a fake. Most antiquing done for artistic reasons does not involve wood destruction except maybe a few dings and dents. And corners might be worn in a realistic way, but that seems rare to me, at least in violins. And the lack of cracks is also a tell tale as Ken said.

Varnish wears in different ways but creates patterns that are very difficult to duplicate. Good varnish does not stick completely to the ground underneath and flakes off in large sections early on in its life. The sections that do stick, however, seem to stick forever. The sections where the varnish is gone should show old wood.

The wood underneath the varnish is the hardest to get to look old by artificial means. A general aged gold/yellow will do the trick but does not have the subtle dark honey tone of real aged wood.

Makers like the Kramers (Pohlman) have a "stylized" aging that the Germans are known for. It is very nice looking but easily recognizable.

[Ken Smith]

Forgive me for only having the Back 'bee sting' displayed. The Top and Back rarely match on any Bass as working Maple or Spruce is quite different. The Top usually looks much older than the Back on old Basses because it takes more of a beating.

Look here at the Top and Back pics of the Bass.


There is some gouging in the C-bouts that looks like 'after' graduation work;


On this Bass Ken, the maker was NOT the same person that antiqued the Bass. The Scroll work however matches the antiquing process. The Corner work was done by the maker. A different hand entirely. All the Corners on this Bass are 'stung', Top and Back. The extra gouging in and around the 'F' flutes were done as antiquing after the Bass was made. That was a 'red flag' as well to my eye.

This Bass however sounded great in the Orchestra and even did a few jazz gigs with it. It stood on its own and sounded at least as old as it was 'trying' to look. It was a good Bass, period!

[Matthew Heintz]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Here is something odd to me. Look at the contrast in work on the same bass. The corner work is first class showing a superb bee-sting, yet the f-fluting looks as if the maker didn't know how to sharpen a gouge or plane.

Educate me. I'm ignorant. What exactly are ya'll seeing in the f-fluting?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Heintz

Educate me. I'm ignorant. What exactly are ya'll seeing in the f-fluting?

Ken McKay sees that the antique work looks different than the makers hand in the Purfling bee sting work. He is 100% correct. The Bass was antiqued 'after' it was made and done by a different person. The F-fluting was altered to show wear and distress.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Some "craftsman" took a concave scraper to the area around the f-holes and scraped the crap out of it to try and make it look handmade. But the texture is localized, which makes it obvious fakery.

[Matthew Heintz]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Some "craftsman" took a concave scraper to the area around the f-holes and scraped the crap out of it to try and make it look handmade. But the texture is localized, which makes it obvious fakery.

Got it. Thank you.