Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

'Manol"1904 for sale

omazuz - 1-19-2012 at 10:24 AM

"Manol" 1904,l .The Oud was bought for 6000$ and I will sell it for 5000$.
The Oud is located in Israel,and I'm not interested in shipping the Oud abroad.
The price is not negotiable,however,if the purchaser comes from America,he will be reimbursed 2/3 of the flight ticket.
A purchaser from Europe will be reimbursed the entire amount of the ticket. For a purchaser from Israel the cost will be 4500$.
I'm having trouble compressing the sound file so i will sent it by request.

Attachment: manol.mp3 (951kB)
This file has been downloaded 377 times

mavrothis - 1-19-2012 at 12:39 PM

Hello,

Would you please post a clear photo or two of the label inside?

Thank you,

Mavrothi

omazuz - 1-22-2012 at 09:55 PM

I sent you utu

Greg - 1-22-2012 at 10:05 PM

Dear Omazuz,

Congratulations, this looks like a wonderful antique instrument.

Would you be prepared to submit high quality close-up photographs of several aspects of this oud for verification by an expert?
I had in mind Dr. Cengiz Sarikus, as he is very familair with Manols.

Regards,

Greg

omazuz - 1-23-2012 at 01:42 AM

Dear Greg and other members of the forum,

Indeed such an oud deserves more professional pictures I will post some of them later on this evening.
Honorable Dr. Sarikus is certainly the ultimate expert for Manols and other antique ouds. In fact this oud was bought from him by my friend Michael Avital so definitely he can and will assure the authenticity of this gem.
I am sure you all have noticed that the oud is strung and tuned for arabic tuning so it is obvious that the oud sounds wonderfull in turkish tuning as well
Best regards

aytayfun - 1-23-2012 at 05:21 AM

Absolutely Manol. But not sure about the bridge. We had to see the sr,tring holes of the bridge. If it has wo holes for yegah location than its original. The shape of the bridge from the picture is not consistent wih Manol. we had to see more clear pictures.

aytayfun - 1-23-2012 at 05:23 AM

I think that the master used walnut and plum.

aytayfun - 1-23-2012 at 05:25 AM

The label is also a classic Manol. (without signature)

)

mavrothis - 1-23-2012 at 06:36 AM

Hi,

I think this instrument is beautiful in both sound and appearance, and your playing omazuz is wonderful.

However, the label looks like another label I have seen from a known forgery. The tear is in the exact same position (b/c it is a photocopy) and in this label they have even tried to cover the original photocopied date "1904" by writing "1905" over it.

I am not saying that I am 100% certain your oud is not by Emmanuel Venios (Manol), but it is very worrying that the label seems to be "familiar."

Since this oud was from Dr. Sarikus' shop, I hope he can clarify what's going on.

Thanks, and great playing again by omazuz.

Mavrothi

spyros mesogeia - 1-23-2012 at 06:44 AM

:shrug:

omazuz - 1-23-2012 at 06:57 AM

Dear Dr. Sarikus

Please put some light on the subject.
This oud came from your shop and you are the person that can clarify the matter.
btw I wish I could play like this but the wonderfull playing is by Udi Nizar Rohana.....

omazuz - 1-23-2012 at 07:41 AM

Dear Dr. Sarikus

I read my last post and it looks to me a little bit vague.
The question is very simple is Mavrothis right// is the oud fake//
Is this sad smily of Spyros in place//

spyros mesogeia - 1-23-2012 at 01:15 PM

Hello Omazuz,
if something like that [I mean the oud not to be original],than that is very sad,and that will bring the question of how many fake ouds with labels of Manol exist.....
My Face was a wonderind and sad face at the same time.
The price for these instruments sometimes is really high,and believe me I know from my own experience.
I hardly wait to see the end of this discution,because is very interesting and with a lot of suspence.
Warmest Regards
Spyros

mavrothis - 1-23-2012 at 04:44 PM

Hi,

I have to say, through all of this discussion (here & over email) Ofer (omazuz) has continued to have such a great attitude. I really appreciate it, and the positive and cordial discussion we've been having from the beginning. This is great to see, and I believe regardless all will work out for the best. Ofer, you have a great spirit! And Udi Nizar, health to your hands!

Ofer has asked me to help post some more pictures of the oud, and here is the first batch. Those of you who are most knowledgeable on Manol ouds and others made in the last 50-100 years are welcome to make your observations.

Thank you,

Mavrothi

mavrothis - 1-23-2012 at 04:45 PM

The remaining pictures:

veyselmaster - 1-23-2012 at 11:31 PM

please wait for response ...

Luttgutt - 1-24-2012 at 12:27 AM

Omazuz!

I hope all works out to the best!

Keep the good spirit!

I think this is a nice oud anyway!

Best of luck

Ararat66 - 1-24-2012 at 01:52 AM

Fingers crossed but what a beautiful looking and sounding oud whatever the outcome ... I suppose the only difference would be the final price because the sound is the sound

Amazing playing from Nizar.

Leon

spyrosc - 1-24-2012 at 01:54 AM

Dear Mavro,

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The label that omazuz is showing on his oud says 1904 and is not overwritten with 1905.

The label you are showing, which I don't know exactly where it comes from, is the one with the overwritting.

Why does that make omazuz's oud suspect ? Am I missing something? His oud label could have been copied by another party totally unbeknownst to him, or even before he bought it, or even before the previous owner bought it.

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Spyros C.

Ararat66 - 1-24-2012 at 03:15 AM

Just a thought, but could the 'fake' 1905 label have been copied from the 'original' label on Omazuz's 1904 oud ???

Tantalising thought.

Leon

mavrothis - 1-24-2012 at 04:16 AM

Hi Spyrosc -

As I said previously, the tear in both labels is exactly the same (that was the 1st red flag). And since the known forgery clearly also originally had the year 1904, this makes both labels exactly the same. Same tear. Same year.

The fact that the known forgery had a different year written over the photocopied year just made it 100% clear that it was fake. It's easy to just focus on that b/c upon close inspection the hand written "1905" is so clearly a forgery.

*edit* - To clarify more - the known forged label was from an oud offered to me for sale a few years ago, which was located in Turkey. That instrument, and two others also described to me to be authentic Manols, had other clear issues too. The sound boards looked very new for one thing. As far as I know, those instruments had nothing to do with Dr. Sarikus or his workshop.

Could omazuz's label be the original that was used for the photocopies? Possibly, but I think it is reasonable to point out that they are identical. Also, I think it is more likely that the authentic, ripped, 1904 label came from a damaged Manol bowl w/out soundboard, but that is just a theory.

Also, we should remember that a 'younger' oud can look as old as 100 years old. I am fortunate to own a 1963 Karibyan which looks 100 years old, even though it is really around 50 years old. *end of edit*

Thanks,

Mavrothi

veyselmaster - 1-24-2012 at 05:49 AM

omazuz - 1-24-2012 at 06:31 AM

What's up doc?

veyselmaster - 1-24-2012 at 08:09 AM

hi eveybody ,

i have read your whole comments and i became sad.

i have repered 551 manol ouds from 1966 till now.

Also i saw a lot of forgery untill now.

most of this ouds were terrible stuations and are not enough for playing. We complate some of thems bars , resettas , allso if there is some missing inlays we repair them as good as we can.

so i can say that its impossible making exactly same copy of manol ouds.because he has very special forum.So i am the only one who knows manol ouds and also i am writing a book about him and i have his first label which is pictured of manol.

Dear omuzaz

your oud is full original. also you sell it cheap . now you can not find this oud less then 10.000 usd.because it became very difficult to find manol anymore.

if you want to be sure you can show some luthier who is good at of manol ouds.

when 1905 years oud came to me there was 4 broken pices over body.this broken pieces were changed.so the label was slited from two part.then pasted again. we didnt do any thing . also i never play to labels.

i realised when i repairing that , this 1905 years oud has repaired three times before me.because i saw one time changed arround rosettas , one time opened the soundboard and changed some broken part , one time opened saoundboard again and changed same parts second times. actually i realised that somebody changed the date but i dont understand who did and why overwrite it.

for instance if its written 1894 instead of 1904 we can say that somebody wanted this oud more aged and gets higer price but only one year to future (not to past) is not important.

i think the master saw the 1904 very waek and wanted to became more clearly but while he was writing he wrete - 5 , instead of - 4 . Also we must consider these old masters knew Ottoman letters (old alphabeth) better then turkish. so this wrong is normal for them.

finally

both labels are different (look at the picture . there are two tears. not one like omazuz oud )

both oud is original and made of manol.

thanks everybody who comment

Dr. Cengiz Sarikus

mavrothis - 1-24-2012 at 08:20 AM

Hi Dr. Sarikus,

Thank you for replying, I appreciate it. When I first contacted omazuz, I was not aware that either of these ouds came through your shop, let alone both. Also, when someone says something is a "forgery," some parts could be authentic, but maybe something is not - like the soundboard for example.

I don't see two tears/rips in the "1905" label, could you point out where the second tear is?

Also, isn't it strange that the tear in each label has the exact same shape and path through the letters?

I think to be sure for either label they have to be examined to see if the tears/rips are real or just a photocopied image. If you didn't touch the labels, it is still possible someone else did something before you isn't it?

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Mavrothi

mavrothis - 1-24-2012 at 08:43 AM

Dear Dr. Sarikus,

Thank you for adding the picture of the other label.

I see the two rips (the picture I had was only of the right side, which I posted).

Why do you think the rips on the right of each label are the same? Isn't it strange? It still feels wrong to me that both have the same year and same rip on the right.

Thank you again,

Mavrothi

fernandraynaud - 1-25-2012 at 05:29 AM

So, is that it?

aytayfun - 1-25-2012 at 05:31 AM

After looking detailed pictures I am sure that this is an original Manol . Guys It is not easy to find a %100 original Manol Today.

mavrothis - 1-25-2012 at 06:44 AM

Hello,

Again, there is no denying this is a beautiful oud with a lovely sound.

But regarding its authenticity, without having the instruments here in person, side by side, it really all comes down to the labels. How can they be so impossibly similar? I don't think anyone has addressed that - same tear, same year.

If both Ofer and Dr. Sarikus can provide large, clear pictures of their respective labels, then we can more definitively see if they are the same or not.

Otherwise, we are all just guessing depending on our inclinations towards the instruments and the parties involved.

That's all, I think I am repeating myself a lot here, so until there are any new developments, I think I will retire from this thread for a while.

Again, I really appreciate Ofer's willingness to discuss this openly and most cordially, and for everyone's patience with my questions and point of view.

Sincerely,

mavrothi

ALAMI - 1-25-2012 at 11:01 AM

I have to say that it is very difficult to assess the authenticity of an oud based on Internet low quality jpgs. I have some real old ouds and I know that physical contact is very important, the touch, the scent, the feel....

I am no expert in Turkish ouds, personally I'd trust Dr Gengis opinion on this.
However the probability of having two exact same tears on a 2 labels is mathematically impossible and I understand what is bothering our friend Mav.
The pure logical analysis is either the 2 ouds are fake or the second possibility is that the forgery was done based on the label of THIS oud which is the authentic one, they took a hires pic, photoshopped it and kept the tear to make it look old.
Just an analysis, the only way to know is to put both side by side or..... Just to go play the oud and let the instinct and the feeling decide.

This oud is probably a 2 hours drive away from Beirut.... Another time, another
life...I would've been tempted.

Regards to all

fernandraynaud - 1-25-2012 at 01:50 PM

What a story! Isn't it possible that Manol's demented housekeeper tore a whole stack of labels during a fit, thus creating the famous Manol Tear?

As to the mathematical impossibility argument, i cannot resist pointing out that less mathematically likely events, like random inert molecules assembling into living cells and animals by random mutation and natural selection, are considered scientific fact by all those who think a Creator is a "fairy tale".

Whichever turns out to be true, and Mav is right, can't have it both ways, it's a heck of a fine condition that hundred and eight year old oud is in.

Luttgutt - 1-25-2012 at 03:54 PM

My! that housekeeper must have been really mad at Mr. Manol :-)

Fernand, if Manol had produced so many ouds as there are molecules on earth, then I would have agreed with you that the chance to get the same tear would be big :-)

I see Mavs point! But hope he is wrong about that oud. Crossing fingers...

Brian Prunka - 1-25-2012 at 08:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

As to the mathematical impossibility argument, i cannot resist pointing out that less mathematically likely events, like random inert molecules assembling into living cells and animals by random mutation and natural selection, are considered scientific fact by all those who think a Creator is a "fairy tale".

We have no idea what the mathematical probabilities are for life, since we only have one data point. It may be that it is far from unlikely; there is some evidence that it might be a near-certainty given appropriate conditions. Until we can investigate other planets similar to Earth, we do not remotely know what such probabilities are.
Also, natural selection is not random in any way, it is the opposite. It operates in very predictable ways and serves to reduce randomness.

If Manol produced billions upon billions of ouds starting at the beginning of time, sure it would greatly increase the chances of a nearly identical tear occurring.

I believe that Mike has asked us all to refrain from discussing religion, please respect that.

fernandraynaud - 1-25-2012 at 09:25 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Brian Prunka

I believe that Mike has asked us all to refrain from discussing religion, please respect that.

Huh? "discussing religion" ? I beg your pardon?

Anyway, we may not have to discuss religion, but we may no choice but to invoke a miracle to explain the two labels. Look at the overlay of the two labels (the 1905 in pink), it's positioned as precisely as I could without better resolution images. Maybe i need to explain that the image of the 1905 label was made 50% transparent and pasted over the 1904 label so we can see how well they "line up". You can see both labels, the 1904 faintly through the 1905 one, and they line up exactly, which almost 100% proves one is a copy of the other. At this poor resolution and given the fact they had to be extracted from a larger photo and resized, the very slight offset is inevitable.

Here is also a blow-up of the label Dr. Sarikus posted. Same tear. The slight difference in the shape of the "hook" in the upper portion is due to the stretching/resizing/rotating I had to do to get Dr Sarikus' photo extracted into roughly the same orientation.

It seems impossible for two independent labels to go through 108 (or 107) years independently and emerge with the same shaped tear on the right side. One would quite appear to be a photo or scan or xerox or some mechanical duplicate copy of the other. Because of the 1905, it would seem either both are copies of some third label, or the 1905 one is a copy of the 1904-only label.

It is highly improbable that Manol's workshop, even if they had access to that day's best photo technology, would use it to duplicate a label with a tear to glue into their oud(s), unless it shows up on several other known-original ouds and can be explained as Manol's own countermeasure to forgeries.

Given these issues, for Dr. Sarikus to add nothing leaves the entire antique oud market with a disturbing quandary.

Mav, can you please tell us more about the origin of the photo you posted. Though it seems less important now that Dr Sarikus has posted his, fuzzy as it is.

Dr. Sarikus, since both these ouds passed through your hands, how do you explain this? So are both real Manols?

Is it possible that an instrument is authentic but its label is not ? Is it possible that someone who was restoring a real Manol used a photocopied label because the instrument's own label was unusable?

omazuz - 1-25-2012 at 10:22 PM

Please get back to Manol riddle
is it, is it not?
Mavroti feel free to load the detailed photos if it is not too hard for you
and feel free of course to adress any expert that can solve the mystery
Dimitris you are my friend if you have acomment to all this please do it anyway you desire publicly or to my/Mav's mail

mavrothis - 1-26-2012 at 11:27 AM

My friends, I think we know what the answer is here, as disappointing as it may be for all of us.

Remember that Emmanuel Venios (Manol) did not work alone, and that there were assistants in his workshop. Some of these assistants continued to make ouds under his name for a few years after the master passed away. Ofer's oud may very well be originally by one of these assistants, who knows? Maybe some parts are by Manol himself.

As the comparison in photoshop proves (thank you fernandraynaud), the labels are identical.

But, put the labels aside for a moment. With some closer inspection of omazuz's oud, you can see some characteristics that are not "Manol" at all. Little things, like the nut and pickguard. More important things, like the bridge and base plate on the bowl.

Are these authentic? I honestly do not think so. Then if I am even partially correct, how is this a "100% Manol" oud? The fact is, it isn't.

Listen now.

It is admirable to repair an oud that can no longer be played.

It is admirable to replace a sound board if it is necessary.

It is admirable to replace whatever may need it; a bridge, a nut, anything if that is what it takes for the oud to sing again, just as it is admirable to tend to an injured bird.

But once these things are done, they must be clearly identified by whoever has done the work. A duck or a goose cannot honestly be called an eagle, as beautiful as those other birds may be.

As for tampering with labels, that is inexcusable. Whoever did this is clearly a dishonest person. This is beginning to remind me of the antique violin, viola and cello market, where experts will actually smell an instrument before bothering to examine a label, because forgeries are so rampant.

And I stress, I don't know who did this, but I do believe Dr. Sarikus can tell the difference between authentic and inauthentic; whether it is a label, a nut, a soundboard or a bridge, because he is correct in saying he is an expert regarding Manol ouds and has worked on many of them in his career.

I am sorry; this entire discussion absolutely did not begin with any aim to point fingers at anyone, or to harm anyone's reputation in the slightest. It was about a very simple question regarding two very similar labels, because I was honestly interested in this instrument.

Unfortunately, the conversation took a natural course of its own. I am very unhappy to come to these conclusions, and take absolutely no pleasure in any of this.

But we must protect ourselves from these kinds of practices. The best protection is knowing that forgeries exist, and some things to look for. In addition, anyone shopping for antique or vintage instruments needs to get several neutral opinions before purchasing to be as certain as possible of an instrument's authenticity.

Documentation does not really exist, so we need to be able to trust luthiers to guide us. Otherwise, it is very difficult for simple musicians or collectors to tell the difference between what is real and what is not.

That is all I have to say I think. You are welcome to disagree with my conclusions, but I think they make sense. I'm sorry to say it.

mavrothi

bilginki - 1-26-2012 at 12:25 PM

I m Barış KARATEKELİ 's brother
We have bought many antique instruments from Cengiz Sarıkuş.
And all of them were original.

This Oud is original
You can trust Cengiz Sarıkuş.
As he is the master of the antique instruments in Turkey.

Best Regards

BİLGİN KARATEKELİ

fernandraynaud - 1-26-2012 at 02:02 PM

"... anyone shopping for antique or vintage instruments needs to get several neutral opinions before purchasing"

"... he is the master of the antique instruments in Turkey."

So, who on the planet is a greater authority on whether the details you mention are "pure Manol" or not?

Starting with the duplicate label, I'm afraid this looks like a very difficult corner every buyer is in, and it affects the whole "original ancient" oud market.

If an instrument has been renovated, and no wooden objects can easily last centuries, at what point does it stop being what it was? Surely this can't be a new question.

Is it a matter of definition? Whose?

A Manol with a new soundboard, new bridge, nut, fingerboard, repaired bowl and label is ... what? A renovated Manol? A faithful copy of a Manol? A different or same oud? And where exactly lies the value that commands a higher price? Only in the willingness of the next buyer to pay it?

It seems like in the Eastern mind-set the declaration by an expert can close the circle definitively, for this and the next buyer. So what happens when that mind-set meets the Western "show-me" mind-set?

This reminds me of the problems that arise when European Napoleonic law meets Anglo-saxon law. Under the former, ultimate truth or authenticity comes down to seals and stamps with which certified authorities certify adherence to codex and procedure. That settles it. Under Anglo-saxon law, it's derived from codex through interpretation, and hence through precedent, and the tree of reasoning/arguments/definitions is subject to debate and establishment of new precedents. In a nutshell the European model relies on authority, the Anglo-Saxon on presentation. This is very similar to the problem at hand.

[edit]I live and think under Anglo-Saxon law. Nomatter how respected the authority, his "stamp" does not override the "facts". I find it very strange that the Turks are completely insensitive to the argument that the labels simply cannot both be original if one is even in part an exact copy of the other, down to the tear. It's clear to me that one of them is unauthentic, maybe both. That means that one, maybe both, of the ouds is to some degree unauthentic.

Is it common for an authentic antique to be fitted with a fake label? How many parts must be original for the oud to be original?

It is not uncommon for example for Fender electric basses to lose their "Fender" decal. The owner then (legitimately?) looks for a replacement decal to apply to the headstock. If asked about the decal, he would likely say it was a replacement, but he wouldn't necessarily volunteer it. The authenticity of the bass can be assessed on other grounds.

Greg - 1-27-2012 at 01:59 AM

The authenticity of this instrument is a matter between the purchaser of the oud, Michael Avital and the seller of the oud, Dr Cengiz Sarikus. It really has little to do with anyone else but, as it has been listed for sale on these forums, several of us have involved ourselves.

A lot has been made of the duplicate tear on the labels of both ouds. Clearly, one of these labels is a copy of the other, or both are copies of a third label. But what has not been explained is whether or not this is an actual tear or just a graphic representation of a tear on the ‘1904’ oud and on the ‘1905’ oud.
The current owner of ‘1904’ can certainly advise if this is an actual tear.

Mavrothi has stated that oud ‘1905’ is a “known forgery.” But that raises questions (for me). Where is this instrument? Is the label torn or is the mark a graphic representation of a tear? What are the qualifications of the person or persons who have asserted that it is a forgery? What is the evidence that proves this to be a forgery?

Dr Sarikus has stated that he has worked on both instruments and that both are authentic. Dr Tayfun Aydin has asserted that ‘1904’ is “absolutely Manol” but he is unsure about the bridge.
Mavrothi has suggested that the characteristics of the nut, the pickguard, the bridge and the base plate are not ‘Manol’ at all.

Are there any Manol owners on these forums who would care to study the photographs and comment on the characteristics of this instrument?

Fernandraynaud makes an excellent point that sometimes decals fall off instruments and are replaced by the owner. That is easy to do if the instrument is a Fender or Gibson guitar, but how does one replace the decal on an instrument that has been “out of production” for a hundred years? And who do we blame if the label has been replaced on one or several Manols by one or several luthiers, sometime in the last hundred years? If the label has been replaced, does that mean the instrument is a fake?

Like several other members of these forums, I have visited Dr Cengiz and Veysel and I have seen, touched and ‘smelled’ some of the many Manols and Karribyans in his large collection.

I visited Dr Cengiz at the suggestion of a serious Australian saz player who visits Turkey most years. He told me that he played an extraordinary antique instrument from the Sarikus collection and loved it. But being an ancient instrument, the price was well beyond his means. Dr Sarikus sold him the instrument for a fraction of its worth, because he could see how much this man loved the instrument.
I tell this story to reinforce my own personal impression that Dr Sarikus is not a man driven by greed.

Dr Sarikus has suggested the owner take the instrument to a luthier familiar with the work of Manol. That seems like an eminently sensible suggestion, to me. From thousands of miles away, the rest of us have no way of identifying if this instrument is genuine or not. It may be that Mavrothi is correct and that this instrument is not genuine. But more evidence would need to be provided before I would be comfortable with accepting that as fact.

I am saddened that this saga has cast doubt on the integrity of a person who I hold in very high regard. I sincerely hope this matter can be resolved quickly and without causing further distress to the owner of the instrument or to the person who sold it to him.

Sincerely,

Greg

omazuz - 1-27-2012 at 05:25 AM

O.K guys,I think that more than 2000 views is enough .I wish no longer to sell this oud here or discuss the matter of labels. It brings us nowhere
In any case I insist that the buyer must be present in Israel in order to buy the oud ,so for those who know me personally and have contacted me by phone ,we will meet shortly. As for Mav and the other two members that I understand desire to stay incognito to the forum please contact me whenever it suits you. All options are open including exchange with other antique ouds.
Mr. Yifrah thank you for your phone call from abroad.,when you will be here next month we'll meet .
Thank you Mikeouds

fernandraynaud - 1-27-2012 at 07:30 PM

Omazuz, I hope you aren't feeling slighted by the discussion here, as you have been a true gentleman, and everyone here knows that.

Greg, your points are all very well-taken. Since Dr. Sarikus referred to the the 1905 label as having "two tears", whether it's an actual tear on both labels is indeed a good question.

Dr. Sarikus, I hope you can accept the fact that there are different points of view on the issues, and that differences in background inevitably play a role. Most of us are fascinated and trying to understand what's happening, without any preconceptions or the slightest desire to accuse anyone of anything. Since we are left with such uncertainty, and that's not ideal, perhaps you could help us with more information, for instance how YOU view the matter of the identical tear on the labels of two different authentic Manols, to help close this chapter on a more comforting note.

reminore - 1-31-2012 at 05:52 AM

more disgusted than fascinated...

Alfaraby - 1-31-2012 at 02:24 PM

For not being able to contribute to this highly interesting debate due to total ignorance (interest !?) in Turkish ouds, I hereby upload some Manol's labels I've found in my oud labels stock, hoping they might help .

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

fernandraynaud - 2-1-2012 at 01:27 PM

Looks like this puts to rest the possibility that all Manol labels have the same decorative tear.