Peter (II) Wamsley

History

Peter (II) Wamsley (circa 1734-1751) was an English maker who worked in London. According to John Dilworth, he was the son and successor of Peter Wamsley (I), becoming active in the workshop from approximately 1734. The business was subsequently passed to Thomas Smith in 1751. Cecie Stainer notes that he was active in London from about 1715 to 1751, and at one time, he held a great reputation, particularly for his violoncellos. Henri Poidras also places him in London around 1730. Willibald Leo Lütgendorff states that he initially operated under the sign 'at ye golden Harp' and later changed it to 'at the Harp and Hautboy'. Lütgendorff further mentions that Wamsley stood in high regard among his countrymen during his time, and the tone of his instruments was highly praised.

Craft

• Models: Peter (II) Wamsley closely copied the Stainer pattern and also made a few imitations of Stradivari instruments. According to Henri Poidras, he primarily followed the Stainer model. Willibald Leo Lütgendorff notes that he imitated a type of Stainer model, but the proportions were incorrect, and the F-holes were very ugly.
• Workmanship: His work varied significantly; some instruments were badly proportioned with ugly straight sound-holes and brownish-yellow varnish. Others were well made, featuring thick and brilliant red varnish. Cecie Stainer states that those with dark brown varnish are generally preferred. Vidal describes his lutherie as 'très médiocre' (very mediocre) overall.
• Materials & Technique: In his attempts to achieve an Italian quality of tone, he sometimes thinned the wood too much, which resulted in a hollow sound. However, his violoncellos with thicker wood possess a fine tone. His double-basses are rare and generally feature red varnish. Instead of purfling, he commonly drew a line with ink, a detail also noted by Lütgendorff.
• Varnish: His best varnish is described as dark red or reddish-brown, and instruments with darker varnish are considered more valuable.
• Instruments Made: He made violoncellos, double-basses, and viols. Lütgendorff mentions that he made a few violins and violoncellos that do him credit.

Influence

• Family Lineage: He was the son and successor of Peter Wamsley (I), indicating a continuation of a family tradition in instrument making.

Legacy

• Reputation: George Hart considered him one of the best English makers, and Cecie Stainer noted his great reputation, especially for his violoncellos. Willibald Leo Lütgendorff confirms that he was held in high esteem by his contemporaries.
• Conflicting Assessments: While praised by some, Vidal critically notes that his instruments, due to excessive thinning of the tops, have lost much over time, leading to his assessment of 'très médiocre' lutherie.
• Succession: The business was passed to Thomas Smith in 1751.

Further Information

• Workshop Locations: He worked at 'ye Golden Harp in Pickadilly London' and later at 'the Harp and Hautboy in Pickadilly'.
• Labels: A violoncello contained the label 'Made by Peter Wamsley at ye Golden Harp in Pickadilly London, 1727', with a similar label dated 1733. Other labels include 'Made by Peter Wamsley at the Harp and Hautboy in Pickadilly, 1735'; 'Made by Peter Wamsley at the Harp and Hautboy in Pickadilly, London, 1737'; and 'Peter Wamsley, maker at he Harp and Hautboy in Picaddilly, 17 London 51'. According to John Dilworth, he seems to have used his father's label throughout his life, as no instruments are known with his individual signature or label. Lütgendorff also states that he used various, mostly printed labels.

Summary

Peter (II) Wamsley was an English instrument maker active in London from approximately 1734 to 1751, succeeding his father, Peter Wamsley (I). He gained a significant reputation, particularly for his violoncellos, and was known for copying the Stainer pattern and occasionally imitating Stradivari instruments. His work quality varied, with some instruments exhibiting fine tone, especially his violoncellos with thicker wood and his rare double-basses, while others suffered from excessive wood thinning. He often used ink lines instead of purfling and employed various labels, frequently his father's. Sources offer conflicting views on the long-term quality of his instruments, with some praising his skill and others noting the deterioration of tone over time due to his construction methods.