Dendrochronology Report
Dendrochronological Assessment Performed by Peter Ratcliff
The belly of this cello is made in 2 sections, jointed down the centre.
The grain orientation runs from the edges towards the centre joint on both halves.
A total of 93 rings were measured on the bass and 81 on the treble side.
The most significant cross-matches with my database place the latest visible ring on the bass side at A.D.1695 and latest clearly visible one on the treble side at A.D.1691. Those rings are situated along the centre joint.
A comparison of the plotted data on a graph of the 2 halves illustrates some good similarities between the ring-patterns and their data correlate highly significantly. It is likely that the 2 pieces came from the different parts of the same tree.
As the 2 sides are related, their data were combined into a mean chronology, which usually represents the general ring-pattern of the tree better than individual ring-series.
The data were initially tested against published regional data from the International Tree-Ring Data-Bank (ITRDB). Highly significant correlations were identified with Master references from Switzerland, the northern Italian Dolomites and southern Austria. Currently, although no Master regional references exist which are able to pin-point the exact location of the growth of the tree, the results clearly indicate a good "central Alpine" response.
Many significant cross-matches were obtained against data from other instruments.
From our database, the most significant with the mean chronology refer to the following instruments (in decreasing order of statistical significance):
A composite cello with a front thought to be by David Tecchler. With regards to this cello, the "possible Tecchler" attribution is from a good and trusted source. I will also point out that a comparison of its plotted data was carried out against the cello under study and It is very likely that the wood on the two instruments came from the same tree.
This was followed by further highly significant cross-matches with the wood on a 1706 Alessandro Gagliano violin, an 18th c. Italian cello attributed to Bartolomeo Cristofori, an 18th century Italian cello attributed to Giacomo Gavelli, a violin c.1700 probably by Andrea Guarneri, a violin attributed to Domenico Montagnana, a 1714 violin by A.Stradivari, a c.1760 cello by by Alessandro Gagliano, a c.1715 A.Stradivari violin, a violin by David Tecchler, a 1732 violin by Antonio Zanotti, a 1743 violin by G. Guarneri del Gesu, a 1712 violin by Stradivari, a cello by Domenico Montagnana, a cello attributed to B.Cristofori, etc....
The above instruments form the set of highest recorded t-values out of our entire database, their data all achieving t-values of t>8.1. Several hundred more cross-matches were identified down to a t-value of 4.
As well as the potential same-tree association with the wood of another instrument, with a composite cello, the belly of which is thought to be by D.Tecchler, the cross-matching tests have identified many strong correlations with instruments of Italian origin on an almost exclusive basis, made throughout the Italian peninsula. The wood used on the belly of this cello can therefore be described as being typical of some of the batches used throughout Italy during a good part of the 18th century.
Essentially, with a dendrochronological or latest ring date of 1695, a making date from about 1705 onward is possible.
The results of this analysis therefore fully support the making date of 1712 present on the label of this important cello.
Assessment Performed by:
Peter Ratcliff ~ Luthier
Peter Ratcliff Dendrochronology Ltd