Celtic Lines violin science-Jean Baptiste Vuillaume

Celtic Lines

Celtic Lines we know the way

We welcome communications in the following languages:
English, German, Spanish and French

We know how

Inventions with revolutionary engineering design

Vuillaume Jean Baptiste �s measurements here as a PDF
�s list of instruments here as a PDF

Characteristics of Jean Baptiste Vuillaume Instruments

Despite various claims on the Internet, and elsewhere in printed form, as to when was Jean Baptiste Vuillaume born, and even more importantly when he passed away - only the data provided herein below has been unequivocally and irrefutably verified.

*7th October 1798 in Vosyes, (near Mirecourt) - †19th February 1875 in Ternes, Paris
His father’s Lifespan (1771-1834)

The Executor of the last will of Jean Baptiste Vuillaume was one of his two daughters, Marie-Claire Mestayer. It is documented that she carried out this function for at least a further period of five years. She was therefore the sole person entrusted with taking charge of all of Jean Baptiste Vuillaume’s affairs after his death 19th February 1875 including informing of all past, current and potential future customers of the closure and termination of the business of violin- making.

To all those ingenious contributors all over the Internet who claim God knows how much accurate knowledge of the life of this illustrious maker, including that Jean Baptiste Vuillaume died 19th March 1975, I have only this to say - before you choose to submit your opinion to the Worldwide audience, you could at least try to get your facts right!

No violins or any other type of stringed instruments that are claimed to have been made after the date of 19th February 1875 can possibly be accepted by any violin expert, (no matter how renown), simply as genuine instruments made by Jean Baptiste Vuillaume. Any such instrument is almost assuredly a forgery or consists of only part- finished components that may have indeed been stolen and perhaps finished at some point thereafter by someone else without the Heirs knowledge. In addition, any stringed instruments bearing the date 1875, (whether in form of handwritten inscription, in print, or inscribed in handwriting on a label within), should be subjected to a rigorous verification process, using only scientific processes, to establish whether they indeed could have been a part of the very few instruments that he had time to finish before his death only 19 days into February 1875.

After his death, (due to the effects of a short-term illness, likely not exceeding a week in total), no person was to be entrusted to inherit the knowledge Jean Baptiste Vuillaume acquired during his life as a violinmaker, and in Cremona, and no one was permitted to carry on the business of violin making.

Only the bow-making part of the original business of Jean Baptiste Vuillaume was according to the wishes of the maker handed over to his nephew Sebastien, (who died himself also in 1875 not long after JBV, at the age of 40).

His main contribution to violin making was the effort on recovering the lost Cremonese varnish formula as was last used by Antonio Stradivari, (even though a lesser grade form of this lacquer was subsequently used by Giovanni Battista Guadagnini, Carlo Ferdinando Landolfi, and lastly by Pietro Giovanni Mantegazza), or creating a new formula that would at least come near. The endurance and quality of his lacquer is surpassed only by the best of Italian violinmakers. However, it needs to be mentioned that there are often examples of his violins, (particularly from the first two periods), which show excessive lacquer wear, and deposits of dirt deeply ingrained with the top lacquer film, especially on instruments that have not been attended to for a long time. Such areas are mainly located on the top desk in close proximity to purfling lines on the centre bouts of the instruments, and under the bridge.

Purfling joints on the back table are often cut on the straight, and not on the bias (under sharper angle), as the tradition required. The joints positioned in the middle, under, or over the pin or nearby, (if present), are cut in the same manner. Yet, this is neither an absolute rule to be observed as a definitive trait. Exceptions have been noted, especially on copies of other makers. Furthermore, there are several well-known examples of his violins, which actually incorporate both styles of purfling joints together in various placements.

His violins of the first period have rather large, and wider edges.

His brand mark in the first period was located inside the instrument and generally positioned on the centre bouts, when used.

His brand mark is sized at the length of 10 mm precisely.

His varnish varied from tones of brown, to orange-red, and sometimes even red. But generally, after 1860, varnish on many of his instruments became lighter.

Body length on his instruments is usually 357 mm, 359 mm, 363 mm, sometimes even 356 mm, etc.

Generally, a black dot, (for those who are in the know, the reminiscence of the Cremonese centre hole system, or the imitation thereof), can be found on the joint of the top table, under the position of the bridge. However, it is presumed that Vuillaume would have started to use this measure only after he became more famous and was very well set up as a known entity in Paris, particularly after his trip to Count Tarisio’s heirs. One can in no way claim that all, or even most of Vuillaume’s instruments would have this feature on them.

Commencing approximately in 1852, he begun to use an external mould to build his violins. He created this system in the mid- nineteenth century, which was later interpreted as the French system of violin making. It was his aim to copy with absolute perfection the given master, for instance the best Cremonese makers. Being an extraordinarily ingenious and skilled craftsman, he made the mould around the original violin and then built the new instrument inside the mould. So, his dream of making violins almost identical to the Cremonese instruments, became true.

When making copies of violins by the famous violinmakers before his time, such as Stradivari, and Joseph Guarneri Del Gesu, Maggini, and others - J. B. Vuillaume occasionally even incorporated into the new instrument original parts from other violins beyond repair made by the maker he was copying.

The “Body Stop”, (Mensur), is generally (193 mm) long. In this respect, he follows the French 18th century tradition of a short stop (190 mm), which was traditionally (195 mm) long in Italy, and even (200 mm) long in Germany. However, on copies of other makers, Vuillaume did not use this Mensur, as it would have been a ridiculous rule to adhere to in this instance.

Instrument serial number is at first in most cases inscribed in the mid-section of the upper bouts inside, centrally, and later in the upper treble bouts area, while the actual generally two-digit date of the instruments is inscribed in most cases just above the loops, (or within the bounds thereof), almost exclusively, inside.

An instance has been noted, where a copy of a long back Stradivari instrument incorporates an inscription in the upper bass bouts inside, on the back table. This denotes a combination of letters & a single number, Nu 2. This may well be a previously reserved and later assigned serial number 2. However, it cannot be excluded that this is an assigned number signifying a second copy of a specific Stradivari violin, or a simply designation of a copy of a specific instrument that is no longer in existence due to its state before copying, or total destruction.

Some important instruments of Jean Baptiste Vuillaume incorporate identical serial numbers on the back table inside, on the ribs (usually on the left top side), and on the top desk. This is a clear indication of maintaining order within his workshop, and a security measure that only those parts of an instrument that belong together, were finally married. Instruments made by his apprentices were not signed by Vuillaume, only initialled in the mid-section, and in many instances, bore a different label to the ones he used on his own work.

Instruments are dated in most cases, (using only the last two digits), which are to be found in the upper treble paraph on the back table, inside. Nevertheless, examples have been also noted where a date is clearly shown on the label, (using four digits), mostly in manuscript positioned vertically on the right. These instances appear generally in the latter period of his violin-making career, in 1870’s usually in copies of Stradivari, and Del Gesu. Moreover, a substantial number of authenticated violins are not dated at all. At least one instance is known to us where the date in the upper treble paraph is inscribed by hand using a 4-digit version - this is from 1830.

Instruments made by his apprentices were not signed by Vuillaume. Generally, these were only initialled in the mid-section of the back table and in many instances such instruments also incorporate a different type of label to the ones he used on his own work.

His range of practice violins was manufactured by one of his two brothers, Nicholas and are generally fitted with a label St. Cecile, whilst the other range of these lower grade instruments was Stentor.

Most of his instruments are signed in pencil, (in his first period still in pen), in the upper treble bouts, on the back table inside. He did not adhere to one specific type of pen, or pencil. There are various examples of his inscriptions known to us showing all the different writing pens and ink colours used. From the outset, he used a series of developing signatures over time, which are clearly distinguishable and can be easily associated with various periods of his violin making carrier. Two main variants of his signature are of substantial size, second of which incorporates in most examples five-six (even seven) round decorative loops underlining the signature, ending with an axially inscribed loop resembling loosely the infinity sign. One signature variant displays a clear inscription of the surname “Vuillaume”, under which is the above-mentioned set of loops, while the other evidently depicts the loops without the surname “Vuillaume above. The reason for this variant appears to be one of date placement in the mid position above the signature loops, whereas in the complete version of the signature there appears to be no space left for the placement of the date in that position. Furthermore, the actual loops of the signature appear to depict “Baptiste” due to starting on the left, then turning upwards and going into a clear first letter of Baptiste, “B”. Both noted examples of signatures share a significant common denominator, wherein a line copies the form of the closest positioned rib, as a single stroke, beginning far left and tracing the rib roughly at the same distance all along, ending with a final stroke behind the top right corner of the signature, or loops.

Some of his more significant instruments are further signed in ink on the upper bouts inside on the top table. The examples we have encountered are small and over time became indistinct, best seen under high magnification.

Some of his more important instruments are decorated in black decorative lining, applied with a thin brush, on the scroll, pegbox, and the rib corners. According to Bignon, these decorations denote that the instrument was made in Paris.

Labels used by Jean Baptiste Vuillaume from the 2nd Croix des Petits Champs period show a possibly intentional “misprint” in words ending with a small letter “s”. This shows as a slight inclination of the letter “s” towards right, whereas precisely the opposite trait is used on labels from 3. rue Demours-Ternes.

Whilst he used classical fixing pins on a large number of his instruments, in some instances the pins have no other function than to lead the sight of an observer towards the pin, and away from the surrounding area, thereby making the person miss the actual position of such, close positioned, marks as an initial “JV” inscribed, thus hidden, within the boundaries of classical inlay width.

An instance has been noted, where the lower pin detracts from a nearby inscription located between the purfling lines, towards right, perhaps depicting “IP 320LJ32F”. This appears to denote a serial number, in an alternative position, combined with a second set of numbers and letters, which still remain unexplained.

It has been noted that on some of his instruments he used a miniature pin, or a black, (dark brown) dot positioned on the front table just under the sharp inlay joint of the top right corner.

Some of his instruments appear to use a clearly intentional, and rather significant mark, depicting a purfling hairline cross on the back table, positioned at the bottom left corner. This was also noted on instruments of Nicolo Amati.

It is stated in a copy of a letter by Vuillaume, that he could not make himself do purfling on violins that were ready for this process. It is the only such example we have come across to-date, clearly noting his likes and dislikes of the luthier process.

It is claimed in various resources that J.B. Vuillaume kept a personal log book with inscribed records, by serial number, of every violin that he made throughout his life. However, it seems to be now proven that some violins, or indeed quite a large number of them, actually slipped being listed in this so-called log book, as it is obvious that if J.B. Vuillaume wished to adhere to his rule without exception, from the absolute beginning of his violinmaking carrier, all violins made by him or his apprentices would have been marked with a corresponding serial number inside, which simply does not apply to most of his instruments.

One must avoid committing the same error as most of ignoring the almost always forgotten fact that Jean Baptiste Vuillaume’s violin making carrier did not start in 1822 at Lete’s organ making company in Paris, where he already arrived as an accomplished violin maker. There was clearly a time prior when he was a pupil of his father in Mirecourt and then an apprentice of Chanot in Paris. During both of these, (not insignificant), periods he clearly had to make a number of stringed instruments, which simply could not have been marked with his name, and certainly would not be part of any book of records.

It is a matter of fact that J.B. Vuillaume removed the original base bar from a specific Stradivari instrument to improve sound quality on several occasions. The most famous example of this amendment is to be found on the original of Stradivari’s Messiah. Furthermore, J.B. Vuillaume is known to have made numerous copies of this specific violin, while taking pleasure in letting his visitors guess, which one is the original. One must conclude that since this is a very well documented case, it is more than likely that J.B. Vuillaume actually made several copies of other Stradivari instruments in other than this single instance. This also clearly signifies that he would have had to find an alternative solution for numbering of these “additional” violins, and leave them out of his log book. He wrote to his brother informing him about his trip to Italy in the 1860’s, particularly referring the latter part of this trip to Cremona, that he has finally managed to acquire what he was still missing after his purchase of everything from Tarisio’s heirs, (i.e. the technologies, procedures, tools, and knowledge), to enable him to produce many copies of the Messiah.

To date it still remains unclear if there in fact ever was a physical item in the form of a book, or similar, that could be described as a “Log Book of Serial Numbers and Dates”. Having had ample time to examine the available evidence, one can only reasonably conclude that the well-known “book of records” referred to by many sources and authors is in fact a “Sales Ledger” simply providing a running record of daily sales of instruments, which does not by any stretch of imagination comprise actual sales of instruments made by Jean Baptiste Vuillaume. In fact, many if not most instruments contained in this book are sales of instruments by any maker ranging from Stradivari to unnamed instruments of any school and country of origin.

An un-researched, unverified, and ill-construed statement presented by numerous contributors in past and even current literature, on major Internet resources, and in numerous publications worldwide that this violin maker “numbered almost all” of his instruments, (i.e. inscribed serial numbers into them), which was further disseminated into other worldwide public domain resources needs to be set straight. Jean Baptiste Vuillaume absolutely did NOT inscribe serial numbers in “almost all” of his instruments - in reality not even anywhere near an amount that could have perhaps justified using that expression. Nor did he inscribe a date in all, or even most of his instruments. In fact, he did not even put his label into all of his instruments.

Over time our research proved beyond doubt that from the total of just over 3,000 instruments claimed to have been made and sold by the maker perhaps more than 50% were not signed by him, or has he inscribed serial numbers into them, nor has he ever let any other person substitute him in this capacity. When looking at the extremely low numbers of known, accepted, authenticated, certified, and recorded instruments, which still exist today, (in comparison to the claimed total of “over” 3,000), it is rather doubtful that he would have actually inserted any version of his numerous labels into the assumed 50% plus portion of the total output of the premises under his personal direct supervision.

It seems obvious to us that the St. Cecile and/or Stentor instruments, that were made under the supervision of his brother Nicholas have been assigned serial numbers, which cannot be simply placed in between, or instead of, the sequence of serial numbers of instruments created by the hands of J.B. Vuillaume or any of the majority of the instruments created by up to 20 luthiers of varying expertise who worked for the maker throughout his life. It is of course an attractive proposition to choose this as an easy option given the lack of numbers to deliver proof. It is assumed that one cannot explain the currently missing 2,574 (or more) instruments by stating that those were St. Cecile, whether just by themselves, or including the Stentor brand. Both of the Vuillaume brothers clearly intended that there is a definitive set separation between the various lesser grade instruments and those produced by Jean Baptiste and we observe that this separation remained in effect until his death in 1875.

Whilst various sources insist on implying in their descriptions and records of past sales that St. Cecile violins are “Jean Baptiste Vuillaume” instruments, (leaving out the “by” designation), fact of the matter remains that the two series or lines of instruments have literally nothing in common and should not be referred to in this manner. The proof is not just in the low-grade expertise of makers who made St. Cecile violins, (and the extremely limited time given to them to make an instrument in what was essentially a factory), but above all in the difference of sales price of these instruments during the life of Jean Baptiste, which correlation remains in effect to date, and will likely stay so forever.

Of the 427 authenticated violoncellos, violas, violins, child violins, one full-size guitar and one small-sized version currently known to us that can be referred to justifiably as “by Jean Baptiste Vuillaume” of which we have in our possession most of the relevant details, 132 instruments do not have a serial number inscribed in any part of the instrument, 38 instruments are undated, 78 instruments have only been assigned an assumed “c. Date” by auction houses or violin experts, where in most of those cases there is neither a date inscribed anywhere in the instrument, or the date present therein clearly does not fit together with the serial number, nor with the label that was inserted into the instrument. In 12 instruments a spurious label of another maker was inserted. In 9 instruments an incorrect label was inserted not matching up to the date inscribed within by hand. In 5 instruments there is no label present from the outset. In 1 instance there is neither a date or a serial number, stamp, signature, label inserted, or any other kind of an identifying feature. Further in 2 rare cases, the serial number inscribed within is so faint that it is illegible. It has taken us since 1984 until 2019 to compile and verify our data and the reader may rest assured that we have seen perhaps more instruments by this maker up close and personal than most.

One of the feasible theories that we are conscious of is that Jean Baptiste Vuillaume started to inscribe serial numbers inside his instruments intentionally with No. 3 following the logical numerical sequence for a period of time, until implementing first changes, with a specific desire to retain Serial No. positions 1 & 2 for such time in the future when he would resolve to make two instruments that would in his mind justify using up the first two instrument positions. Unless we are provided with irrefutable proof, (i.e. the physical instrument), it is felt necessary to state that instrument Serial Nu. 1, remains undiscovered, and we are not aware that anyone has actually encountered it at any time since its earliest possible creation sometime around 1822. During the past decades, we have had in our possession five instruments of this maker, of which one was an extremely early example, but whilst it was within the first 20 instruments, it was certainly not the elusive Serial Nu. 1, which we certainly believe was at some point created by Jean Baptiste Vuillaume, even though likely much later than around 1822.

When one assesses the more than 13 distinctly varying styles of the maker’s signatures from the total of 53 examples that we have managed to acquire during our research into his life as a violin maker, business person, and an inventor, it becomes rather self- apparent that he was on a hefty quest for some 20 years to chisel out a signature that would satisfy his requirements in the sense of being almost impossible to falsify, yet showing the traits of an artist. It would seem that he has finally come up with what he believed was the most suitable version of his signature in 1841, and used it with little variances for the rest of his life not only in the instruments he chose to sign, but on letters, notes, quotes, invoices, and numerous official documents. The only notable difference is that on documents he almost always used his complete signature, whereas when signing instruments within, those particular examples (with the exclusion of three such examples) mostly do not incorporate his surname.

First signature style change of the maker when signing instruments on wood inside appears around Serial No. 6 where he changes his signature from a triple initial to two initials and full surname. Second amendment is one of implementation of a slightly different handwriting style, which takes place in the period of 1826 - 1827. More than anything this is represented by a far more easily flowing type of handwriting, and confidence. Two examples we possess in our files show yet another change, which is not repeated at any time thereafter to the best of our knowledge. This relates to an apparent overall curve (shaped upwards) in the signatures placed in violins Serial Nu. 59 and Serial Nu. 81. There is an extraordinary example that we have in our records, from 1827, which incorporates a three- looped signature with what could be described as the first attempt at incorporating the infinity loop, but instead of Vuillaume’s surname, or the two digits signifying the year, the space within the constraints of the overall signature is taken up with an inscription of the surname of the person the violin was made for - Ms Theress, who was also a violin maker. Commencing with Serial Nu. 143 Vuillaume starts to experiment with incorporating a boundary curve underneath his signature, but as far as we can determine, this was only a single attempt in 1830. In one violin dated 1841 Vuillaume attempts to use yet another intermediate version of his signature incorporating only three loops instead of the five he finally chose to use throughout the rest of his life, also leaving out the typical infinity loop. In 1844, two examples have been observed where he signs his violins in one instance on wood and in the other on a paper label with his complete five-looped signature also incorporating his surname. At some point during 1845 Vuillaume experiments with yet another, this time a four-looped signature version also incorporating an attempt at the infinity loop. At some point between 1844 - 1846 Vuillaume amends the final version of his signature by removing his initials and surname whilst leaving the surrounding loops and curved eclipse, in order to make space for placing the two-digit year inscription within the instrument. In another extraordinary example of a violin dated 1848 Vuillaume yet again returns to using the three-looped signature version, where instead of a fourth loop he used in another violin he inscribes an unmistakable shape of a heart. In the year of 1853 Vuillaume inscribes what could be described as the final version of his signature, (without his surname), in the upper treble bouts on the back table within the violin made by Bartolomeo Joseph Guarneri - Del Gesu, that later became known as the Alard Del Gesu from 1734. In this particular example, he uses the space available to him within the confines of that signature version to inscribe a comment regarding as to where and when he obtained this violin. In the year of 1854 Vuillaume abandons totally the use of the initials J. B. and reaches what could be described as the penultimate version of his signature, which he then uses to sign one of his most significant letters, and violin Serial Nu. 2. We are not aware of any deviations from this style in the period from 1855 to 1863 where he uses this signature style, excluding his surname, almost always placing the last two digits of the year (the instrument was supposed to be made in - often incorrect date) within the constraints. He then implements this version of his signature basically without any amendments at least up to the violin Serial Nu. 2968 made in 1874, whilst using his full signature (with his surname) on all correspondence with clients or authorities. The last example of the maker’s signature that we are aware of dates from 1st February 1875, inscribed on an enlarged paper label, that presents the typical complete version incorporating Vuillaume’s surname, five loops, and an infinity loop through the signature, horizontally. Next to the signature, (on the left side of the label), is also the exact date inscribed in what appears to be also Vuillaume’s own handwriting.

Other than the extremely rare complete signature inscribed on wood in Serial Nu. 2, to date we have discovered only two additional examples, where J.B. Vuillaume inscribed his full signature, (incorporating his surname), resembling the last version from 1841, into stringed instruments that he obviously created with no other person’s assistance. Nonetheless, we have noted several such examples where he used this type of signature, but replaced his surname with a surname of a person that he was making a specific instrument for, or where he was making a note for posterity referring to an important event in his life. These signatures are generally inscribed into the upper treble bouts inside on the back table and are clearly totally separate from his standard use of the five-looped example where in most cases the space for his surname was replaced by a two-digit date, with or without hyphens either side.

There are also a few examples from the first period, where he signed his instruments in the upper bouts inside on the back table, centrally, using a rather basic manuscript inscription “J B V”. It appears that this was a very short period, extending perhaps to no more than 3-4 instruments in total, which predates all other examples of securing his instruments by whatever means.

Several examples of his full signature exist where the two smaller loops far left do not as usual exhibit the traits of a “B” (for Baptiste), but either accidentally, or with full intent resemble the instantly recognisable shape of a heart. Whilst this assumption may seem a little far-fetched, it is precisely these very few and unique examples, which can be found on the maker’s manuscript letters addressed to persons one can safely assume were dearest to him.

We have discovered just one instance of a variation of the final signature inscribed into a violin dated 1841, made at Croix des Petits Champs, Serial No. 1400, where Jean Baptiste Vuillaume used a signature that incorporates only three circles below the infinity loop, instead of the final five. It would be foolish to assume that this must be the only such example in existence, even though it may well be the last remaining example of such an instrument. Further to this theme, we possess quite a few different examples of his manuscript signatures executed in most cases on documents or correspondence where he uses 1, 2, 3, 4, and even up to 7 circles under the infinity loop in his signature. One could easily venture into multiple variations of hypothetic reasoning behind these examples, but from our perspective the simplest and most logical appears to be a desire to develop a version of a signature that is hard to impossible to forge.

Only a single instance is known to us until now where Jean Baptiste Vuillaume inscribed a “flowery” decorative example of the letter N using it to assign a serial number to an instrument that is placed in the upper bass bouts on the back table inside - that is Serial No. 2. Two other examples of this type of the letter N exist to the best of our knowledge. One on a typeset, but previously handwritten example of a business trading letter from 1829, and a further single manuscript example present on a label inserted into instrument Serial No. 21 dated 1825.

Looking at the range of instruments he created, but particularly at the significant number of instruments that totally span out of what is the accepted classical Cremonese shape, most of which are exhibited in Paris, one can easily appreciate that he was obviously on a quest to improve the already stunning sound quality of top Italian instruments. It would however seem that his conclusions finally lead him straight back to the original shape developed by Andrea Amati in Cremona, which was subsequently perfected by Nicolo Amati, Antonio Stradivari and Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri - (Del Gesu).

It was determined that there was a clear lifelong bond between Jean Baptiste and his brother Nicholas, (not his second brother Nicolas Francois), which extended not only to violinmaking and the running of that business enterprise basically in the sense of a joint operation, but also in joint investment of the profits accrued from the business deals related to that enterprise. Indeed, several items of correspondence between the brothers show clearly, (what we assume may well have been the unofficial and true accounting over periods of time), and agreement sought in various instances from his brother Nicholas as to who should be paid, how much, for what, and why from these profits.

There were several periods when Jean Baptiste Vuillaume chose to break the sequence of serial numbers that he would have otherwise had to follow under the assumed rule of consecutive numbering of all instruments expedited from all of his various business premises. Yet another such period commences according to Jean-Jacques Rampal in the 1840’s, and we would extend this further back into the late 1830’s. One such instrument was a cello still recently owned by this top-level authority on J.B. Vuillaume, which had neither a serial number or a signature, dated internally 1873, which is held to be a spurious date.

Many of Vuillaume’s “own” instruments incorporate classical fixing pins, but on instruments where he was copying the work of another maker, these would be used as they used them on the particular copied instrument. It must be noted that in some instances these pins have no other function than to lead the sight of an observer towards the pin, thereby making them miss the actual position of for instance an inscribed mark that represents an initial “JV” in close proximity. Such marks generally remain hidden within the boundaries of classical inlay width, or in close proximity, and can be observed only with the use of instruments with high level of magnification.

Generally, instruments with serial numbers positioned close to the centre of the back table inside, (with hash either side, or not), which at the same time do not incorporate Vuillaume’s signature in the top right section, on the back table, or other instances of serial numbers on remaining parts of the violin, may be in most cases safely attributed to his pupils, and various violinmakers working under his supervision.

An instance has been noted where one of instruments ascribed to Jean Baptiste Vuillaume depicts a handwritten initial “J” in the right section of the instrument label. This initial has been compared with other examples of his writing, and found to be similar.

Labels in genuine Jean Baptiste Vuillaume instruments often display faults caused by imperfect cutting of the edges by less sophisticated, or simply less sharp tools, resulting in stretching of the fibres in at least one of the corners.

It has been established that Vuillaume used at first three distinctly different types of manuscript labels, which are from the very beginning of his carrier linked with Lete’s shop, bearing the address of the organ maker. After this, he used two further typeset label types, partially pre-printed, enabling the insertion of manuscript date and serial number, likely up to the violin Nu. 30. After this first series of instruments, he begun to use one after another, in total three main different types of printed labels; two versions based at rue Croix-des- Petits-Champs, the third type based at 3 rue Demours-Ternes. In the period of 1865 - 1868 he dated at least 3, but more likely even up to 10 instruments on the right side on the label, using manuscript numerals inscribed vertically, in an upward direction.

Commencing with Serial Nu. 2756, and perhaps up to Serial Nu. 2968 the printing typeset of Vuillaume’s labels changes radically from that used previously, even though the overall form and text remains the same. This may be attributed to running out of labels before a new batch was delivered, nonetheless as this occurs in the last few months of Vuillaume’s life, it may well be that he simply wished to stop making instruments - ergo may not have desired ordering a new batch of labels, perhaps choosing an in-house printed version instead. Lastly, shortly before his passing in March 1875, the maker inserted into his instruments at least two additional new versions of rather different labels that he never used before. One of these states the address at 3 rue Demours-Ternes and incorporates on it the purchase, (or the asking price), for the instrument concerned printed on the label, whilst the other bears a manuscript inscription “1 Fevrier 1875”, and the five-looped signature, to which purpose the size of the previous typical label was enlarged vertically to accommodate for these inscriptions. Other than the label dated 1 Fevrier 1875, only two further examples of this vertically enlarged format are known to us - both bear the date of 1844 inscribed directly on the paper label. Whilst the two last versions of labels differ totally from all previous ones, they return to the identical printing typeset used on a day-to-day basis before Serial Nu. 2756.

More importantly, we have uncovered an instance already in the first series of 30 instruments linked to Lete’s & Vuillaume’s joint business premises as partners where a serial number of a specific instrument/s exists twice, ergo two different manuscript labels assign the exact identical serial number to two different instruments. We are of the opinion that this cannot be an error on part of the maker, nor could one really assume by any stretch of the imagination that the manuscript text and the numerals have been misread, or misinterpreted. Whilst we have reached our own conclusion we do not feel the need for sharing it. It is left to everyone else to reach whatever opinion they may come to. The exact serial number referred to herein is being left out of this paper, intentionally. What can be however revealed to those who would like to know more about this maker is that when looking at any expert’s assessment of authenticity regarding any particular instrument assumed to be by this maker, is that no expert’s opinion can or should be taken as anything more than just that - An Opinion! Scientific proof using more than just a couple of disciplines is absolutely essential, and frankly exclusively court accredited experts with a long and successful carrier should be relied on.

Jean Baptiste Vuillaume, like no other violinmaker before him, or since his time, achieved an almost impossible result. His work is recognised rather easily on instruments where he wanted it to be so, yet he achieved precisely the opposite effect wherever he desired to conceal his work, and set in confusion to deceive most experts in the future.

Jean Baptiste Vuillaume actually begun to inscribe his signature into some instruments he made even before 1821 and use serial numbers as soon as 1822, i.e. commencing with instrument Serial No. 3. However, this version of his signature bears little resemblance to the subsequent versions, and of course also the final version.

Roughly from 1830 to 1841, the signatures and serial numbers appear to be missing in various sequential periods. Instead, Vuillaume’s name only is stamped to the inside of the violins, with a small rectangular stamp, and or marked on the label, if it was indeed fitted. It would seem that after 1841, he again returned to signing and numbering most of his violins.

While it is generally acknowledged that perhaps more than three thousand instruments came out of the various J.B. Vuillaume's workshops, (according to one of his letters, which is today in a private collection), the apparent lack of genuine instruments all over the world, and the few examples present in various violin collections, shops, museums, databases, etc., would appear to suggest that the true number of instruments made by his hands may perhaps be very different. The answer to this well-researched evidence is of course open to every individual’s opinion.

When one analyses the compiled data pertaining to instruments made by J.B. Vuillaume and the “consecutive” serial numbers he assigned to them, a massive gap is blatantly obvious represented by approximately 1,000 missing serial numbers, commencing late 1830, and ending in 1839 when he appears to have restarted regular production. At first, it was assumed that this could be a simple change in habits, series of travels, or similar, but after aligning this gap with actual historical events pertaining to Paris and its surroundings we can only conclude that the main reason for the 1830 - 1839 gap in making violins could only have been the second French Revolution of 1830, also known as (Révolution de Juillet) or (Trois Glorieuses) that overthrew King Charles X, (the Bourbon monarch), who was replaced by his cousin Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who was subsequently himself also overthrown in 1848, after further 18 years on the French throne in what became known as the June Revolution. If this event wasn’t enough of a reason for the maker to stop production and move away from central Paris, the 1831 Cholera Pandemic where almost 5% of the total Paris population died of the illness certainly provided ultimate justification. As one of the main assumed remedies against Cholera at the time was the proposed utter destruction of any old rags, cordage, and items of clothing, we dare to present a theory that it may well have been a very good reason for the maker to stop using rag labels in his instruments, and start using from then onward only paper labels. We are of course aware that J.B. Vuillaume did make violins some of which are indeed dated so they fit in the period 1830 - 1839, however there are only five such examples we know of, but the trustworthiness of the two-digit date inscriptions in these very few examples is seriously doubtful. Last historical period, which undoubtedly also affected negatively the output of all Vuillaume’s workshops was the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, (which ended in defeat of the French army at the Battle of Sedan), and the associated Siege of Paris 19 September 1870 - 28 January 1871, and the destruction to villages, towns and cities in France heading towards Paris from the East, mainly by artillery shelling, including Mirecourt.

Copyright Celtic Lines © (2001 - 2019)

P