>>9580703>makerso that's hard to tell, the way it worked back then was
>czechoslovakia was backwards nation in 1910s/1920s>bunch of rando lutiers around the nation make violins and sell them to bulk distributor without signing them>bulk distributor puts signature on the inside and sells/exports the thingso it's this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Juzekbut he wasn't the maker, just the seller. the actual maker was likely some unnamed czech or slovakian that he bought it from
>to maintainviolins are heavily varnished and since they don't experience a lot of wear and tear on the wood they last a long time without doing much. if i see something wrong with it i take it to a lutier
basically all i've had to do is replace the strings (can do myself, you just buy them), the bridge (needed the guy to glue it on properly) and the bow (i was a dum and let the original warp by not loosening it)
>worthroughly a grand is what my parents bought it for iirc, it's the cheapest of all sibling violins though
>new vs. oldi'm not sure. the thing about those tests is that they are normally orchestrated by the people biased to new and try to frame the thing in favor of those
so in the violin study i linked, one of the people involved that disputed the results said they treated and fine tuned and did acoustic work to make the new violin sound better in the judgings but just had someone pull out the old ones and perform on the fly. similar to the wine ones, they basically are trying to rig a result so they're not entirely trustworthy
so as far as sound i don't know, but as far as the tradition i think the idea of old = better is important to uphold
