Swiss dealers made international headlines in the 1950s in connection with fraudulent business practices. At the centre of the dispute, known as the ‘Swiss Violin War’, were accusations against two Swiss violin dealers. Several lawsuits focused on the accusation that falsely attributed vintage instruments had been sold at a higher value.
This dispute had a long history.
In 1937, on the occasion of an exhibition in Cremona commemorating the 200th anniversary of Antonio Stradivari’s death, about 2,000 alleged instruments by the master were submitted, though only about two percent of these instruments could actually be attributed to Stradivari beyond a shadow of a doubt.
A heated debate about how to put a halt to this inflation led nowhere. The underlying problem: the expertise about vintage instruments was in the hands of dealers who had made a name for themselves as experts. Their conflict of interest, however, is clear and obvious.
In 1951, the ‘Beratungsstelle für altitalienische Streichinstrumente’ (Advisory office for vintage Italian stringed instruments) was founded in Zurich. Giovanni Iviglia, Secretary General of the Italian Chamber of Commerce of Switzerland, chaired the advisory board. The advisory board sought to offer reliable analytical methods, in particular fluorescence analysis under UV light. In addition to the Zurich violin maker Carl Mächler, Professor Max Frei-Sulzer, forensic scientist of the Zurich City Police, was also a member of the advisory centre.
About 90% of the submitted, presumably vintage Italian instruments were described by the panel as non-genuine. For most of these examined instruments, however, owners submitted certificates of authenticity and value from international experts.
The findings of the advisory board triggered vehement opposition in the professional world. The authority was accused of lacking stylistic knowledge and using unsuitable methods of analysis. The respected London expert Desmond Hill even lodged a note of protest with the country’s Italian embassy, warning of economic consequences.
In fact, in the following years and as the methods of analysis became more sophisticated, it became clear that the advisory centre had misjudged the validity of its analytical methods. In other words, many of the advisory centre’s findings turned out to be wrong. Today, newer scientific analytical methods and improved expertise of the already known methods are available.
