~ 

 The above information is provided for all who wish to know the truth of the matter, not for the
few who choose to remain ignorant.  ~
 Please examine carefully all side by side montages and superimposed images added to the view panes
and those following in the section below. The images presented herein will clearly illustrate the
consistency in models and materials the real Joseph Guarneri del Gesu used throughout his working
life. So, I might as well begin at the beginning and end at the "ending" according to the 'last' instrument
purportedly made by this liutaro. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest known and "officially"recorded
violin by this master bears a label dated anno 1706, being illustrated in Horace Petherick's manuscript,
"Joseph Guarnerius, His Work and His Master", which was first published in THE STRAD, 1906.

For those who really want to see...what you see is the way it was, and is. No need for any more
hypothetical guess-timations by modern luthiers. Why? It is as normal as can be for any instrument maker
to revert to the exciting, wonderful days of his youth...when the time to die draws near. That is exactly
what Joseph Guarneri del Gesu did. Whether or not the head of the "Leduc" (above right) was carved
when Guarneri del Gesu was a much younger man I can not say, because I wasn't there. But what I can
say can be said with something as simple as a picture. Now Cattharina Roda might have been
Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri's wife, but everyone can be assured that "her hands" never at any time
assisted the real Joseph Guarneri del Gesu at his own bench. The above montage exposes the most
ridiculous 'theory' ever put forward in the history of luthierie. Can anyone not see that it is so? 
 
In the two montages right above this one, we see a facsimile of the label inside the back of Horace
William Petherick's Guarneri del Gesu violin and a photograph of an almost identical label inside
the back of a viola that was made and dated the same year, the head of which is illustrated in
the uppermost montage. Below the label montage are the front of the Guarneri del Gesu (alumnus
Gisalberti) viola of 1706 beside another viola by the same hands, that was made and dated in the
year 1721. Both instruments reside outside the USA.
The creation (by digital imaging software) of these 'side by side' montages featuring comparative
views of the heads, fronts, sides, and backs of hitherto 'known' specimens by the hand of a
'known' maker enables the enquirer to establish and trace a clear and distinct pattern  in each
example by thoroughly scrutinising their most characteristic traits and other obvious physical
similarities, in the (not so) un-likely event a 'soi-disant' example by the same maker comes under
notice. Fiction always estranges itself from the truth of a matter; thank you very much, Monsieur
Jean Gerardy! 

Finding an 'unknown' Guarneri del Gesu that was made and labeled in the same year as a 'known'
Guarneri del Gesu helps one to establish accurate reference points to help prove authenticity,
which (in essence) simplifies into actual 'provenance'. Now this does not include a lengthy list of
famous names, which 'expert' dealers often fabricate (out of thin air) hoping to 'authenticate'
authenticity, thus bedazzling the eyes and ears of prospective clients as they dangle the list
before their eyes, while reciting the names of 'past owners'. I have never once in my life come
across a fiddle that could tell me who owned it before we met, nor who might have played it the
most. But, a Cremonese fiddle can (and will) tell you who made it. As long as one understands 'the
dialect', that is. So ask yourself a question. Which (of the two) is the more important issue? Would
anyone be so greatly impressed (as if rumor had it) that Jascha Heifetz actually owned and played
a pre-WWII German violin by E. H. Roth, instead of one that was made by Joseph Guarneri del
Gesu in 1742?

Above we have a Guarneri del Gesu from the early period bearing soundholes which closely
resemble those of another said by 'experts' to have been made 33 years later, which allows one to
establish even more accurate reference points towards establishing authenticity.
How so? Because the shape of the soundholes in the original creation of a master liutaro instantly
reveals the true 'spirit' of that master.
With but rare exceptions the same principle applies to every fiddle that was made by the real
Joseph Guarneri del Gesu, irrespective of the period. Any who may attempt debunking the fact
value depicted in the above montages would do so (with but one intent) maliciously. Does anyone
truly think or believe that any Joey come lately fiddle faker could get the best of the greatest fiddle
maker who ever lived?
================================================================================
====================
In the below montage (looking from left to right) we see a transition from rather extreme breadths across
the upper and center bouts, to a slightly narrowed form. However, the overall length of the corpus is
increased. The ffs in the violin of 1710 look rather short, the notches centered vertically. The ffs in the
violin of 1718 appear to lengthened considerably: but the stop length (the distance measured from either
or both sides of the neck to the center notches of the ffs; ie. bridge position) does not seem to change
much, if at all.
Below we see a more distinct pattern taking shape--one that seems to hold true until around
1734...perhaps a little later. These violins were doubtless made on the same bench, within the space of
12 months, as witnessed by their remarkable similarily, and the fact, that, each one bears the maker's
undisturbed original label. The virtuoso Sarah Chang owns and plays a violin said to have been made by
Guarneri del Gesu, in 1717. Straight on images of the front and back of her violin are hard to come by,
though, making a good comparison with its nearest benchmate rather difficult.
Above we can discern that these heads are very well developed, and of a much higher level of finish than
what the (real) world has been led to think (or believe) that Joseph Guarneri 'del Gesu' could possibly
achieve. Sure, any luthier can have "a bad day"...but to have one (or many) modern luthiers making
excuses for another's "shortcomings" isn't necessary, especially when they're talking about the wrong
man. The Joseph Guarneri 'del Gesu' (of real life) was every whit as skilled in handling his tools as any
luthier who ever lived, including Antonio Stradivari and all who were associated with his name. Granted,
not even one of the greatest masters ever achieved 'perfection' but being 'perfectly imperfect' is quite
satisfactory, although that 'state of mind' can never be good enough for the hypercritical methodologists of
today.

Steady as a clock in his younger years, Joseph Guarneri del Gesu created these massive, broad pattern
violins and sent them out the door of his shop. William Henley left to posterity his rather keen insight
regarding the tone qualities of this type, saying they rank among the very finest sounding concert violins
ever made and that no devising of dealers could pull them down to 2nd place. Henley also gave
opinion, that, the instruments bearing top plates of open grain were of an exceptionally good quality,
making special mention of the stains and saplines in them--my own experience being quite similar.
Below left we have the front view of the violin from 1710...the one piece back it bears already being
illustrated above: first published by Horace Petherick, in 1906. To the right we see another violin that was
made a decade later.
The violin of 1720 bears every sign of long and continuous use and, to the best of my knowledge, has
never been altered. In between the joint of the lower bout ribs there lives a strip of purfling. The exact
same feature is found on the Guarneri del Gesu violin, "Il Cannone", made in the year 1742.
 Additionally, the head of the 1720, above, and all four mitres at the rib points are outlined with a black
varnish. Here again, "Il Cannone" follows suit. Now the sons of William Ebsworth Hill claimed that
Guarneri del Gesu always blacked the outline of the heads, and rib mitres of his work. Incorrect. The only
thing a truly great master liutaro never did (provided he was fully embued with the genius of del
Gesu) was the same thing twice in a row.
Above, one can see that the type of form which established the outline of the 1720 del Gesu clearly sets a
precedent for several models which were later developed, especially the one known as the "Leduc", said
to bear an original ticket dated 1745.
I was some years ago very fortunate to acquire 2 (two) 'soi disant' Guarneri del Gesu fiddles that were
made in 1720. One is varnished light red, the other being of a peculiar looking yellow color; and
which, like the 1718 Guarneri del Gesu, came from the UK--London--to be more specific. I soon
discovered that the materials Guarneri del Gesu chose and used for constructing this violin were rather
unique--quite unique in fact. Both spruce and maple (head, back, and ribs,) came from trees once
infested with the larvae of wood boring beetles, which killed them, while standing, long before being
harvested for which ever use was intended, and not necessarily being intended for use as "tone wood" in
the first place.
This may be the reason the maker used a different color varnish as some of the holes in the back appear
to have been filled with a substance called lycopodium, or something similar.
The holes the beetle larvae bored in the tree which the belly came from were filled with tiny round wooden
pins--lower left in the above. To the upper right, outside the purfling, one can discern a rectangular
depression which may have been partially filled with a mastic consisting of sawdust and glue. The lower
rib, treble side, bears clear sign of its being repaired (by the maker)while the garland was being shaped
around the mould. This very unique repair doubtless having to be carried out because that particular spot
must have been weakened by the voracious appetites of the beetle larvae as they dined their way to
freedom and adulthood, thus allowing their generation to do the same thing all over again; sometimes
even destroying entire forests.

The sound holes in these violins (see below) line up to almost exactly the same position, another
very important aspect in the process of identifying instruments suspected of being made by the same
maker, in the same shop, in the same year. Close scrutiny of the wood used for the backs also helps.
 When I change the yaw of the vertical axis both outlines seem to almost merge into one, but the
soundholes will be slightly askew. Even then, however, the positions of their lower points, though splayed
outward differently, do not appear to change very much at all. A match is a match, no more no less.
 Even though Guarneri del Gesu designed slightly different patterns, the instruments can still bear
soundholes which are almost identical in their shape. All montages of the ffs bearing witness to the fact.
'There can be no difference in the estimation of a line'. - William Haight A. Leggett, Pontiac, Mi.
The above includes a brief dialogue between two posters @ 'Maestronet'. Each reply stating a
simple fact.
Yup, a really simple fact. Above (left) we have another del Gesu violin with a sapline on the center
joint.

Above we have another view of 'stains and saplines' in the belly wood of a mighty fine sounding Guarneri
'del Gesu' fiddle that hasn't been seen out in public for almost 70 years. Linger for a while...look carefully
and you will see something that is very, very interesting.
Above we have the 1718 Guarneri del Gesu beside (the other) 'ex-Vieuxtemps' Guarneri del Gesu, said to
be from the 1742 period. Saplines aside, does anyone find it to be a rather remarkable 'coincidence' that
the tints and hues of colors in their top coats of varnish appear to be almost identical? Now if one fiddle
was merely a "cheap German factory copy" of the other, would it not be a physical impossibility that both
could (and /or) would be wearing almost identical varnishes? Even their surface preparations are of the
same color. Yet these images were taken under totally different lighting circumstances, in different time
zones several thousand miles distant from each other.
 Should anyone be amazed that not a few Guarneri del Gesus have been seen by violin dealers who may
not have "recognized" them? I have (not so recently) uncovered an instance wherein the sons of Willam
Ebsworth Hill, c.1930, debunked a very fine late period Joseph Guarneri del Gesu violin that was sent to
them by Hamma & Co. Why these men would do such a thing is not beyond our understanding nor should
it be. Any cognizant person with two eyes (equipped with functioning pupils) will be able to see right
through their intentions.
So...which one "is a del Gesu" and which one "isn't a del Gesu"?  Huh? Say what? I will dare to venture
this. Neither violin in the above montage was made by anyone living very far from Cremona, or whom
wasn't a native of that city and/or whom wasn't trained in his craft at Cremona. The fiddle (to the right
above) is one that the sons of William Ebsworth Hill  never knew existed, having been in the USA for quite
some time before they came along. It's near benchmate (to the left above) obviously confounded their
eyes, likely because they had all "formed opinions" as to what type Guarneri del Gesu they would or
would not "accept" as being original, thereby deliberately restricting the number of original instruments,
and through their "lofty"position being able to fully control the market, where financial desire
dictates physical need of (the finest) instruments . The same dealer MO exists to this very day.

Should anyone be amazed that some connoisseurs would never let any fiddle dealer even so much as lay
eyes on their precious Guarneri del Gesu? Such instances are on record, and these were by most
learned connoisseurs whom themselves published their own accounts.
 More fodder for the fire.

 Some years ago a certain 'world class' fiddle expert (from Chicago) declared that a certain fine
Cremonese violin was not authentic, but that it was 'a fine and dangerous copy of a Guarneri del Gesu'
made by 3 fiddle making brothers from London, UK, whom are praised the world over for their 'cleverness'
at making copies of Italian masterpieces. Now the front of one of the violins in the above montage is that
exact same specimen. The front of the other violin is the only bona-fide copy of any Guarneri del Gesu
that has ever been known to exist and, published as such. However this very unique violin is not at all a
copy of any Guarneri del Gesu that I know about. Granted it looks mighty close to several examples but,
neither the outline nor the ff holes will line up with any other to 'exact-ness'. Thus, questions rightfully
follow now that the 'world class' fiddle expert has opened his mouth in error:  (1 Which is the real deal?  (2
Which is the copy? (3 Who could have made (and / or) who did make the copy? Correct answers do exist.
Un-biased, hard nosed research proves that "truth crushed to earth shall rise again", and again, and
again for as long as the need exists. For this saying we can thank the famous French violinist, Jean
Delphin Alard, who was Jean Baptiste Vuillaume's son-in-law, whom told him to his face that he knew full
well that Stradivari didn't make the fiddle Vuillaume decided to call "Le Messie" which, (thanks to Luigi
Tarisio) remained unknown to and unseen by the world (outside of Italy) before he died. The middle
portion of this saga has been hashed over countless times, so I'll cut to the chase here and now. Even
though the "so named" has never been proven to be the same violin, which Delphin Alard had jokingly
provided the moniker for, he actually watched as Jean B. Vuillaume ceremoniously removed Guarneri del
Gesu's (original ticket) from inside the back and wrongfully put in its place a Stradivari ticket, dated 1716.
But not until after he had maimed what may well be the finest fiddle that Joseph Guarneri del Gesu had
ever made. Please fasten your seat belts. Intense scrutiny of the events which transpired so very long
ago have created turbulence of a severe nature, optically that is.
According to those who knew him intimately Jean Baptiste Vuillaume worshipped Stradivari as God,
which became his 'spiritual' warrant for butchery, perpetuation of name fraud and, outright deception of
the visiting public who came to see the fiddle he called, "Le Messie". These are long documented facts
that no (contemporary) "internationally famous, highly respected" fiddle dealer will ever admit to knowing
about, or that they actually exist, at least publicly. Ask one if you don't believe me. What everyone can
believe is what anyone (with eyes that can see) sees in the above montage. Jean Delphin Alard was right
and Vuillaume knew he was right. Stewart Pollens was right, too, and that's all there is to it. If any
person can differentiate and identify two different makers (in the montage which I created  two years ago),
that person should be appointed the title: "The Greatest Fiddle Expert Of Them All"!

Now don't blink. You might miss something very important.

The above image is living proof that Horace William Petherick was indeed a bona-fide expert on the life
and work of Joseph Guarneri 'del Gesu' and his master, Andrea Gisalberti. Petherick knew exactly what
he was talking about. His written description of the manner in  which Gisalberti taught Guarneri del Gesu
to construct the interiors of his violins clearly shows that Petherick could have not done so without first
seeing something similar with his very own eyes. This empirical evidence forever renders useless any
further attempt to ficitionalize or debunk actual fact; including the last feeble outcry of the person below,
who names himself and 'frames' even less.

You're wrong, Michael Darnton. The sons of William Ebsworth Hill never 'figured out' anything concerning
the identity of any member of Andrea's (not so illustrious) clan of the Guarneri tribe. They did however
create a method to make lots of money by falsely and deliberately infusing a luthier whom in fact was not
of the same blood line. The Hill's "proof" as to who Guarneri del Gesu actually was (of their own
machinations) is still in print. The genealogical record (above) speaks for itself. Now go back to real life.
================================================================================
=====================

The fiddle (to the right) in the below montage is the very reason why the British turned German maker,
Herr Roger Hargrave, says that none of Giuseppe Guarneri del Gesu's wood seems to match with
any wood used by his (mythical) father. Is it any wonder? That fact alone is proof enough that Giuseppe
Guarneri 'del Gesu' was not a direct blood descendant of Andrea Guarneri. The 'source' from which a
child receives anything is their parents, at least that's the way it was when I was growing up. And
yourself?
The good part is that the maker's original label is still inside the back. It was made at Cremona, in the
year 1752. There is but little information about the maker, though more than one biographical reference
has been published. Henri Poidras states that he worked for Carlo Bergonzi, but that makes no sense at
all. Another gives his name, nothing more. But then........ a ticket inside the back of another violin which
was "discovered" well over 150 years ago, and doubtless authentic, reads as follows ~"Paolo Falco
difcipulus Giuseppe Guarnerius / fecit Cremona 1754" ~ So, it seems a good thing that the accurately
calculated dead reckonings of a highly skilled navigator will almost certainly bring a lost, wandering, storm
tossed sailing vessel safely back to home port, its true colors still proudly flying in the breeze. When the
Falco leaves 'home port' the next time you'd better watch out! This old blackguard will become known as
the greatest nemesis of every fiddle maker (and the greatest envy of every fiddle player) still living on
planet earth.
Speaking of 'old blackguards'........ the above image depicts a fine old violin which spends most of
the time locked in a cage made of what is probably some type of 'bullet-proof' glass. As it so
happens, I have a friend whose business interests takes him almost halfway around the world
several times a month, and whom is also a devotee of fine Italian violins. Being notified that my
friend was about to visit a certain city, wherein lives the above violin, I asked him to take pictures
of the front and back (without using the flash). He graciously complied, emailed the images to me,
and the enhanced result is what you see now. Going further: some time ago this same image was
posted by a certain individual in a certain "very popular"violin related ethernet chatroom, whose
'experts' are notorious for debunking (or trying to debunk) any fiddle any person enquires about...
(to be continued)...and below we see the next step towards making my point. 

...(to be continued...

The two piece backs depicted below should dispel all doubt that at least one 1710 and one 1724 Guarneri
del Gesu was documented prior to 1900. Horace Petherick's 1706 Guarneri del Gesu (alumunus Andrea
Gisalberti) has already been illustrated, so we have a record going well back in time. There are,
however, exceptions to 'the rule'; because 'del Gesu' did at times revert to Gisalberti's model, the year
1719 giving us at least one example. It is the most interesting violin I have ever met up with, coming to me
straight out of London, U.K.
So can anyone not see a clear and distinct pattern (consistency in the back outlines) during this 14
year "early"period of Joseph Guarneri del Gesu's output?   I now state categorically that
the (genuine) work of Guarneri del Gesu does not at all 'resemble the work' of Joseph Guarneri
filius Andrea. The reverse is true, if anything. Now 'the work' of his son (Bartolomeo Giuseppe
Guarneri) who is most certainly not 'del Gesu' might resemble his work somewhat: (BUT, was the
youngest grandson of Andrea Guarneri really a fiddle maker at all? I now seriously doubt that he
was! There are just too many holes in the canvas upon which the lives of Andrea Guarneri's family
have been painted.) When you're done reading here tear around to 'Tarisio Auction' where we find
'that firm' trying to assist in passing off a fiddle upon which 3 (three) 'other firms' [long expert at
dealing in fiddles] have, within 30 days time, all agreed (on paper mind you) that it was made by
Joseph Guarneri del Gesu as indicated by the label it bears (or words to that effect). Huh? So if
anyone wishes to check this out, here's a tip. For your edification please use an unbiased
reference source as a control mechanism such as a true and genuine Guarneri del Gesu from said
period. For instance, one may compare the outline and sound holes of the ca. 1725 "Guarneri del
Gesu" with that of the 1724 Guarneri del Gesu (to the right in the above montage) which is, after
all folks, the nearest 'known and certified' benchmate, save three (which are genuine) from the
same year--one not yet known (for certain that is) to have been published before. Simple enough,
eh? I believe so. Now if anyone can make their outlines match, I'll give credit where credit is due.
Take it further and make the soundholes match up. If anyone succeeds, and can show me
photographic evidence that the ffs do match, I'll shut up and offer a sincere public apology to
everyone concerned. Don't wanna hurt any 'feelings', ya know! 
However, I do in fact have temporary custody of a very fine old Italian violin which also bears the
label of Joseph Guarneri del Gesu, dated 1725. - Of which I can say with all authority that neither
the outline nor the soundholes will match up with the Joseph Guarnerius filius Andrea--which the
3 dudes--'expert at dealing'--have recently re-baptized (miraculously resurrected unto a new life)
as a genuine Joseph Guarneri 'del Gesu', bestowing upon same a brand new name, 'The Folinari',
which is not at all the name it was given long ago. ----------------------------------------------A more
appropiate moniker would be 'Il Farcinerious'-----------------------------------------------------------------.

To help those who don't know what a genuine Guarneri del Gesu (dated 1725) looks like, it is to the left in
the above montage. Viewers will notice that the soundholes (in this particular model) are set well up in the
belly, and quite near the edges. The violin of 1741 was built upon a similar pattern. Everyone with eyes
that can see will see that the 1725 del Gesu does not at all look anything like the fiddle that the 3 so-
called 'experts' have agreed and claimed (on paper mind you) is genuine. - Sometime ago I sent images
of the 1741 del Gesu to a fiddle dealer who puported himself to have been 'accepted' by a certain judicial
jurisdiction as a 'bona-fide expert on old Italian violins' and, that he was under oath to give truthful
testimony in case the need arise. Well, that 'expert' (during a telephone conversation we had subsequent
to him viewing images of said violin) stated to this writer the following, and which words from his own
mouth I now quote verbatim: "Guarneri del Gesu NEVER EVER set his soundholes high up in the belly".
That fiddle dealer, sadly, is now dead and can never know that he died not knowing that he was dead
wrong. What a pity it is that so very few of the so-called 'highly respected professionals' in modern lutherie
know so little of the true, salient characteristics of the work of the greatest master who ever plied this
ancient craft!
 <="" p="" style="margin:
0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px;">
If any viewer, whether a true connoisseur, or the self-proclaimed "skeptic/debunker" type(s), can show the
present writer where one violin begins and the other ends, excepting the shorter button, he will be forever
grateful: knowing that he has finally learnt the truth as to whether Joseph Guarneri del Gesu was who he
said he was, and not whom many 'professionals' within the trade would like him to be: namely -- the
youngest son of Giovanni Giuseppe Battista Guarneri - whom was the son of  Andrea Guarneri. - But,
where's their proof? Huh? Well, ya'll just pretend I'm "from Missouri", so you'll have to "show me". But,
that ain't gonna happen because they have no real proof. However, I can show you where "their proof"
exists! It exists in their own vain (theory based) imaginations always spouting "mytheries" (as if it were
concrete fact) to those even more void of understanding, but always with the disclaimer: "I could be
wrong".

Concerning the 1718 Guarneri del Gesu, the present writer has sought neither 'opinion' nor 'endorsement'
whether real, imagined (or "implied") at anytime from any luthier, fiddle dealer, or so called "world famous
expert", like Dietmar Machold (now a jail-bird) and others of his silk and satin ilk. 
Well folks, after letting this beautiful violin re-acclimate for a good while I decided it was time to string it
up. Surprisingly, the sound post still stands exactly where the famous and highly regarded English luthier,
Thomas Earle Hesketh, of Manchester, UK, set it. His finely carved bridge (stamped front and back, with
name and city) still works just as well as the day it was finished. And that was at least 67 years ago!
The vibrating string length is set to 327 mm, exactly. Did you know that T. E. Hesketh was also known as
a fine musician? Well, it's a fact. He made some quartets, lent them to the best known (amateur and
professional) players of his time and, he also peformed with them: naturally to promote his
own productions which in the estimation of these highly skilled players were outstanding.  Mr. Hesketh
was even more highly regarded for his skill at restoration, repairs, set up / adjustments, and honest
appraisals of the very finest stringed  instruments, the constant and growing demand for these services in
fact hindering his own making. - Now this begs for a question! Is it not within the realm of possibility that
such a well known luthier, player, and keen eyed judge of stringed instruments just might happen to
entertain a genuine Guarneri del Gesu fiddle, every now and then? The shops that are offering T.
E.Hesketh's work aver that he copied a 1737 del Gesu. Incorrect! More correctly: one -- 1730:  one -- ca.
1733-35:  and yet another -- 17??   # # #
In the above montage we see a Guarneri model violin said to have been made by T.E. Hesketh in 1928,
courtesy of Brompton's.