Giovanni Battista Guadagnini is a fascinating maker. Eitherthe last of the classical makers, or the first of a new generation, dependingon your point of view. His working association with Count Cozio di Salabue, oneof the first connoisseurs to try and understand and document the phenomenon ofItalian violin making, has served both to clarify and obscure his position. Atthe very least, he is the missing link between Stradivari and the modern age.

Biography of Giovanni Battista Guadagnini

Born in Bilegno, west of Piacenza,in 1711, he could have met and known the great masters of Cremona;Stradivari, Guarneri and Carlo Bergonzi. Whether he did is doubtful however,despite his claim to have been a student of Stradivari. Thanks to theremarkable research of Duane Rosengard, published in his book ‘GiovanniBattista Guadagnini’, many of the myths, some of them instigated by the manhimself, have been punctured. Ideas that he might have been taught by hisfather have been dispelled by Rosengard’s revelation that Lorenzo Guadagninihad no connection with violin-making. In fact, Giovanni Battista only took upviolin making a few years after a move to the city of Piacenza,and after an apprenticeship as a woodworker.

All theindications in Guadagnini’s work point to him being self-taught. His style andtechnique have little or nothing to do with any known maker of he time, yet hewas able to build first class instruments by the early 1740s, and by the timeof his next move, to the city of Milanin 1749, they showed signs of brilliance. 

About the Guadagnini 

This violincomes from these early years in Milan,and is a very typical and characteristic example. Guadagnini’s work is so fullof idiosyncracies it is totally distinct from that of any other maker, despiteall the variation and development it went through during his long life andperegrinations from Piacenza to Milan,Cremona, Parmaand finally Turin. There he died in1786, still active in his profession, aged 75.

The outline form of his violins varied only slightly throughout this time, pointing to hisuse of a mould, in the Cremonese style. The linings of the interior are alwaysdeeply morticed into the blocks, again in Cremonese fashion, and similarly theplates are pinned to the upper and lower blocks. But beyond that, Guadagniniwent out on a limb. One of the earliest features that developed in his Milanperiod was the peculiar oval shaped lower circle of the F. This remained afeature of his work until persuaded by Count Cozio to make more traditionalStradivari copies during his last years in Turin, but is seen clearly in thisinstrument. Another distinctive feature is the purfling, the white core ofwhich he made from the white sapwood of walnut , again a technique he persistedwith throughout his life. The wood is unique in appearance, with long openpores resembling splits in the grain, and also unique to Guadagnini. Itcertainly would have been a convenient and easy material for him to find-walnut sapwood is usually discarded by timber merchants because of its lack ofcolour and vulnerability to rot and infestation.

The edge inwhich the purfling is set is also unorthodox. Most classical makers give theedge a subtle variation in thickness, with the corners flaring upward, and themiddle bout slightly thicker than the upper and lower bouts. It is arguablewhether this was done for aesthetic purposes, or was merely a result of thetechnique used, but in Guadagnini’s case, his technique was definitelydifferent, and the result a reversal of convention, with the corners thinnedout, and appearing to fall away from the edge. It may all be to do with the waythe chamfer and final rounding was laid onto the edge, and a similar effect isfound on Guadagnini’s scrolls.

The Guadagnini Scrolls 

Guadagnini’sscrolls are also, needless to say, a law unto themselves. But thechamfer of ascroll is always an interesting place to look when trying to identifyaninstrument’s maker. The handling of the chamfer betrays many thingsabout thecraftsman. It looks like a minor effect, a last touch in the process ofcarvinga scroll, but for it to be done properly, as the Cremonese knew, thechamferhas to be anticipated from the very beginning. If it is not, all sortsofproblems arise as it is chased around the constantly changing angles ofthepegbox and volute. Guadagnini was not one of those who anticipated theproblems, but worked by eye and instinct. The chamfer, in his case,evidentlywas the last touch, the undercuts, the flutes, and all the variousparts of thehead having been already finished. The problem is, as the chamfer thencutsaway the chiselled edges, proportions alter. Suddenly the flutingappearsshallower, the spirals change, and the last turn into the eye of thescrollbecomes very difficult to control. And the main observable result ofall thisin the typical Guadagnini scroll, as this example clearly shows, isthat theedges of the pegbox and the volute, reduced by the cutting of thechamfer, fallbelow the level of the centre line. If you lay a straightedge acrossthefluting in the head of this Guadagnini, and any other, it isimmediatelyobvious that the centre line stands proud of the edges. And this seemsto be what Guadagnini did on the edges of his backs and fronts too. Bycarving the fluting of the edgefirst, and then laying the chamfer, he changed all the relationshipsbetweenthe middle, centre and corners. The corners effectively received twochamfers,one on top of the other, and consequently are thinner than the bouts.

Details of Construction 

It is this ‘ad hoc’ approach that supports the idea that this itinerant, but verysuccessful violin-maker was to all intents and purposes self-taught. In thescroll of this violin, there are several barely perceptible pin-pricks aroundthe eye of the scroll. Once you start to look for them, they can be seen of allhis scrolls, and generally they are far more prominent than they are here. Theyare the remains of the first ‘prick-through’ of his scroll template. Throughexamining various scrolls of Gaudagnini it is apparent that these prick marksare all in the same place relative to each other. What is odd is that theydon’t always appear in quite the same place on the scrolls. Why did he take thetrouble to mark out the scroll from his template, and then ignore the markingswhen he cut it? And especially since, through experience, he must have knownthat they would show up on his finished piece. One explanation, which isagain  born out by other aspects of hiswork, is that he carved the scroll wet. It is a common technique forwoodcarvers- soaking the wood as you carve it changes its resistance to thetool. It becomes much easier to cut, with a more homogenous texture, especiallyacross the grain. Guadagnini almost certainly adopted this method. The problemswith it are that any layout mark you put on the wood block disappears when itis dipped in water. Delicate points or scratch marks are lost when the grainsoaks up the water and expands. So Guadagnini made sure he punched big enoughmarks, using an awl, to keep them visible throughout the wetting and carvingprocess. But inevitably, they did disappear temporarily during the work, andGuadagnini’s gouge followed its own course. But when the wood finally dried outat the end of the job- out they popped again, and not quite where they wereexpected.       

Furthervisible evidence of Guadagnini’s use of standard woodworker’s methods, ratherthan those of the specialist violin maker, is in the actual finish of his instruments.Unlike most, they have a very smooth finish on the table. The soft grain of thespruce is polished down, and the varnished surface is very smooth. Otherclassical period maker’s work generally shows a slight corrugation in thefronts- the spruce takes on a texture like corduroy as the soft grain absorbsmore of the varnish and expands slightly. Guadagnini probably used water againto wet the grain before varnishing, then rubbed it down until the surface wasflat and unaltered by the varnish. Indications of abrasives can be seen allover his work, again unlike the Cremonese, who appear to have used only edgetools in the main, finishing the surfaces with steel scrapers.

Appearance of the Guadagnini 

One thingGuadagnini did have in common with the greats of Cremonawas a similar richly coloured varnish, although used with great variationthroughout his career. The recipe he used in Milanwas the best and richest, with thick, plummy red tones, and it appears onlyslightly worn, on this violin. He applied it here over some very handsome wood,quarter-sawn with a deep regular flame slanting downward to the centre joint,only in this case it was evidently a little too narrow for a violin. Withtypical pragmatism, Guadagnini simply glued some off-cuts onto the edges, andwent to work. The joints can be seen clearly in the lower bouts.           

The violinhas a fairly high arch, typical of the almost flamboyant nature of Guadagnini’sMilan period, and in keeping withhis usual scheme, it is relatively light in wood, with a maximum thickness inthe back of 4.1mm. It is a contrasting style to say, late del Gesu, who seemsto have relied on very stiff and strongly wooded plates to deliver hischaracteristically powerful and dark sound. Guadagninis naturally have a verydifferent timbre, powerful and penetrating, but bright and malleable. The frontof this violin is strong, however, a full 3.0mm in the breast, which has helpedkeep it pretty clear of damage- it has only a moderately sized soundpost patch,and on the bass side, just a handful of cracks and a small external pieceinserted in front of the bridge foot.

Guadagniniis a very important character in the history of violin making, who has left aconsiderable trail of clues to his life and work, both in documents and in hisunique approach to his craft. Furthermore, his instruments have entered thefirst rank of concert performers, and continue to attract huge interest anddiscussion.

Details: 

LOB                  352.2mm

UB                    166mm

MB                    110.8mm

LB                     204.8mm

Stop                  190mm