Hagop - 3-6-2007 at 08:54 PM
I am, by no means, an expert with this stuff. However, based on the appearance of the inlay on the bowl and the face, I'd say it looks like this oud
was produced by the same factory as the "Haddad" one you posted. The label says "1901" but, judging by the glossy varnish and the look of the
soundboard, theres no way this instrument is that old. Nevertheless it looks pretty cool. Also, is that glue caked around the edges of the pickguard?
ALAMI - 3-7-2007 at 06:59 AM
The Label says:
Workshop
Michel Masabni
Al Sham (Damscus)
Year 1951
(and not 1901 Hagop, I think you were confused by the fact that 5 in arabic is a simple circle like the 0 in latin)
SamirCanada - 3-7-2007 at 08:35 AM
why whould one write NINE like 9 and Five like this 0 ?
ALAMI - 3-7-2007 at 11:05 AM
sorry, Samir I don't understand what you mean, 9 in arabic and in Latin are nearly alike . (not to forget that when we say latin numbers we mean
arabic and when saying arabic we mean indian, and all the numbers funny history), Better a small drawing:
zalzal - 3-7-2007 at 12:52 PM
The design of the soundboard (and even fingerboard and neck) is similar to that George George Nahat on sale by Nazih Ghadban (1957). May be this
Masabni oud follows a commonly appreciated Nahat design. Nahat finishing is richer in inlaids, rosette and fingerboard, however.
Having said that we can say that 1951 is almost sure the date of this oud.
May be Masabni frequented Nahat workshop, are they fm same city Al Sham, Dimashq ?
SamirCanada - 3-7-2007 at 03:37 PM
Sorry Alami,
completly my bad, I got confused.
But its highly unlikely oud makers had computers to print there labels in 1951 or in 1901.
its the same factory as the khalifeh ouds you posted before. The wood is the same on the bowl and so are the inlays.
al-Halabi - 3-7-2007 at 04:14 PM
The label does not look like the real problem. Oud labels came in printed form way before computers. The problem is the oud itself, which looks like a
patchwork of parts from multiple makers rather than an original integral instrument.
Nasir, here is a definition of an antique:
"A collectible or other item which is old (usually at least 100 years old) and is collected or desirable because of its rarity, condition, utility, or
other unique features."
Your oud does not meet the definition of an antique either in terms of its age or any special qualities. It's annoying to have dealers going on
fishing expeditions on this forum with "antique" ouds, or pretending not to know much about the ouds they are trying to sell.
al-Halabi - 3-7-2007 at 06:07 PM
Nasir, if you really don't know the products you are selling and you need us to tell you what exactly they are and even how to price them, then you
are in the wrong business. It's pretty bad if what you are saying about your own ignorance is true, and much worse if it is not true. In either case
your customers will be poorly served.
excentrik - 3-12-2007 at 10:30 AM
yup, Samir-
You're right- this is, I think, part of a new generation of ouds from the Khalifeh Factory- I think they are sick of getting low dollar for their work
(It all could be purely cosmetic)- They stepped up, huh? I wonder how they sound?
but why do they put Fake labels now? They might as well just reinvent the name Khalifeh and raise the bar a little on the quality- you know?
tarik
Melbourne - 3-16-2007 at 05:30 AM
Good point excentrik -
nasir - why dont you try to convince those boys at the khalifeh factory to sell ouds under their own label huh? I'm sure they'll have better luck than
trying to folg off their ouds under some poor long dead oud maker's name. Those guys, Nahat(s), Hadad and all them are on the other side now, give em
a chance to RIP 