Richard Duke, London, 1772

Description

A notable English violin by Richard Duke, London, 1772, after Antonio Stradivari’s 1692 “Earl of Falmouth”.

The Hill family, in Antonio Stradivari, his life and work, mention “a violin dated 1692, which had been sold by Richard Duke, the violin-maker, to a Mr. Rawlings, was purchased by Betts for 72 guineas, and resold by them to a Mr. Herington, who still possessed it in 1834” (p.282). At Puttick & Simpson in 1853 “at the sale of instruments of the Earl of Falmouth, a violin, dated 1692, of the long pattern, realised £110” (p.288). There may be an unpicking of provenance that is necessary but thanks to Richard Duke, we can be certain that the long-pattern Stradivari violin that was in his hands from the late 1760s was the 1692 example that we now know as the “Earl of Falmouth” because he copied it.

During the 1690s Stradivari was constantly innovating around the concept of the long-pattern, and whilst many of his instruments have a predictable low and flat arch, there are outliers of all sorts. The “Earl of Falmouth” is an example with a pronounced Nicolo Amati-inspired pinched arch. In turn the challenge of setting the soundholes on this very curvaceous surface leaves them looking a little wayward and out of place. The form is tremendously successful tonally, and it is possible that he abandoned it for its physical appearance only, unable to resolve the symmetry of the soundholes. The same oddities appear on this long-pattern copy, made by Richard Duke in 1772, and since there is only one surviving Stradivari of this form, in the absence of any potential lost twin, it makes it clear that Duke either owned the instrument or was able to handle it sufficiently to make a detailed copy.

Duke seems to have begun making these long-pattern copies in the late 1760s. The red oil glaze over the usual brown varnish is always a sign of a particularly special violin from the Duke workshop, and the best of these are deservedly compared to the work of Daniel Parker. However, Like Stradivari, Duke also seems to have been dissatisfied with the outcome of this pattern, perhaps because in the absence of a reference point, it looks as if Duke was being wayward in his design. Other variations by Duke on the same theme tend to be more conservative in the treatment of the arching and soundholes. Some clue to the precision of this particular copy is that John Betts became foreman of the Duke workshop in the year that this was made. He would become a notable copyist after leaving the Duke family in 1781 and it is possible that it is his influence that motivated this near-bench copy. The instrument is stamped DUKE / LONDON on the back, and is signed and dated in pencil within, so it was never intended as anything devious. Instead it represents a significant landmark in the early history of deliberate copying in England.

From a player’s point of view, the instrument is awesome as a long pattern with the same velvety tones and enormous resonance that I have experienced in Strads I have played – there is a point where the violin can really vibrate under the chin and that’s a whole part of the responsiveness of the form. As such, it’s a violin with tremendous potential for anyone looking for a deep and rich sound. It’s up there with Daniel Parker and a great substitute at a lower price. If I could keep it for myself, I would.

Certificate: Benjamin Hebbert

Condition notes: The violin is in a good state of preservation and has undergone minor restorations. There is a significant and stable restoration to the pegbox with cheek repairs.