PAJEOT 1812As promised, this week I will show you the other ancient bow, I had the luck to study so to take a picture of it with no rush. This is one of the most beautiful Pajeot I have ever seen.
Violin bow by Etienne Pajeot - 1812 Even if I had not yet had the opportunity to take a photo of it, I know this bow since long and I have a particularly happy remembrance of the moment I met it. As soon as I saw it, it was as if it owned a light, it was such an intense feeling that it was difficult for me to perceive at once the exact coding of its shape. It is a rare example of the early period, the pure Pajeot. The construction year of this wonder is, accordingly to J.F. Raffin 1812, when I saw it I said instinctively '10. Well, I do not know who was the right one between the two of us, but the fact that my dating differed only two years than the one given by the greatest bow expert of our times and that I needed just a fraction of a second to date it, really impressed the one who would have become, a little later, a good customer of mine.
In fact the shot had a good effect, but it was not so difficult to hit the mark. Pajeot's dating is relatively easy because, as you will recall, he becomes orphan of his father when he is only thirteen and begins working in various workshops of Mirecourt. He improves his technique during this period and in 1815 he opens his business, few years later he already hires apprentices who are a little younger than him: Fonclause and Maire (see PAJEOT OR PAGEOT; ETIENNE PAJEOT: THE THOUSAND HEADED BOWMAKER )
We know for sure that he built his own bows before '15, but, not having yet open his business regularly, they are not stamped. So if they are not stamped, like this one, they may dated before this year. It is not easy to ascertain the exact year , considering the development of the work it is most likely not earlier than '10. The head is already refined and the size of the frog are much more functional than those of earlier periods, during which he copied his father's style. As I said this bow is the pure Pajeot, and is beyond evidence that this man, as also supported by Raffin, was a genius, like few others. Ladies and gentlemen, it is 1812 ! Persoit has begun to build since no more than three years, Tourte was working since for many years, but the bow, as we know it today, has come to a complete fulfillment in the early '800. Furthermore the most impressive thing is that in '12, Persoit was twenty-nine, Tourte more than fifty, Pajeot twenty-one, additionally, he never left Mirecourt and therefore he could not have learnt from anyone how to do what you see.
The used material is beautiful. Perfectly cut, compact and owns a strong resolute character. The head reveals a peculiarity shared by many greats and if you look at every little detail it is not the maximum in terms of harmonic conception of the shape but if you look at in its totality, you can not see consider discordant and exudes the smart character of the person who has made it. The structural construction of the bow, however, betrays the young age , even for a genius. This material has really a vry high density and our dear Pajeot must have faced the arduous dilemma that often grips also my colleague –The bow has the right measures and it is finished ended, but there are still three grams in excess. From where do I remove them? - Being still too young he has decided to thin the head, which, as you can see from the pictures, is very thin and with the support of ivory in a triangular shape, quite an unusual detail for a French bow. But while thinning the head gives the opportunity to balance the bow in a better way, on the other there is a risk about its structural strength, as in this case, because as you know the head is almost hollow, and working too much on the cheek the thickness of the wood is affected so to becomes weaker in that point. The white spot you see on the head is not a reflection of light, at that point the wood is so thin as to be transparent.
The frog is also very interesting, even if it betrays a lack of certain stylistic devices such as the size of the eye, too small in this case, it reveals very clearly the idea that Pajeot had about functionality. The length of the plate is much reduced compared to that one of his father, making the structure more solid. Another indication of the fact that he cared the structure of the frog is the presence of a metallic coulisse, solution adopted by Tourte in the first decade of '800.
So long Paolo
|
   |
