| Pages:
1
2 |
mavrothis
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1674
Registered: 6-5-2003
Location: NJ/NYC
Member Is Offline
Mood: big band envy
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
So, is that it?
|
|
|
aytayfun
Oud Junkie
Posts: 201
Registered: 1-28-2006
Location: Türkiye
Member Is Offline
Mood: luthier and player
|
|
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.
Dr. Tayfun AYDIN
|
|
|
mavrothis
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1674
Registered: 6-5-2003
Location: NJ/NYC
Member Is Offline
Mood: big band envy
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 643
Registered: 12-14-2006
Location: Beirut
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 578
Registered: 1-10-2009
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Curious
|
|
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...
The wood might be dead, but the oud is alive.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 145
Registered: 5-20-2007
Location: Israel-Tel Aviv
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1674
Registered: 6-5-2003
Location: NJ/NYC
Member Is Offline
Mood: big band envy
|
|
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
Oud Admirer
Posts: 5
Registered: 3-23-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
"... 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
Administrator
Posts: 926
Registered: 7-22-2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Serene
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 145
Registered: 5-20-2007
Location: Israel-Tel Aviv
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 108
Registered: 10-30-2010
Location: Binghamton, NY
Member Is Offline
|
|
more disgusted than fascinated...
|
|
|
Alfaraby
Oud Junkie
Posts: 796
Registered: 9-18-2009
Location: Holy Land
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cool
|
|
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
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Looks like this puts to rest the possibility that all Manol labels have the same decorative tear.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
