Talk:Messiah Stradivarius

References in this article are very specific in regards to one of the historic owners of the Messiah Stradivari- J.B. Vuillaume played a major role in its history.His son-in-law Jean-Delphin Alard nick named the instrument as such (Le Messie).

The list of publications is very specific to the subject of this instrument and its maker, Antonio Stradivari. Please respect the article by not deleting valuable information.Milliot (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Never played?
If "it has apparently never been played", then how does anybody know it's a "marvelous instrument"? (It looks good?)

Is its fame purely *because* of its nickname, and the fact that it's never been played? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My violin teacher has told me many times that it is in fact detrimental to a violin if it isn't played. Many museums will lend out their instruments to top musicians since this actually helps to preserve the tone of the instrument (or so I was told). At any rate, yes it's worth verifying whether experts think that the quality of this instrument is likely to have been preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.215.65 (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it likely that a 300 year old instrument has never been played? Are we confusing recent history with all history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.37.105 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the Messiah at the Ashmolean. It is obvious that it is in mint condition and the precision of its workmanship is so striking that my first thought was that it must have been made with modern machine tools. If you doubt that it is a "marvellous instrument", go and look at it. It is!

Whilst it is of course contentious that it has never been played, we do know that it has not been played for about the last 300 years. String players know that playing an instrument keeps it flexible and that a new instrument needs to be "played in" for twenty odd years before it gets its voice. I have heard it said (but lack authoritative confirmation) that long disuse will render the wood of a violin rigid and brittle, so that if it were strung it would collapse under the strain.CPKS (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a book by Toby Faber entitled Stradavarius, five violins, one cello and a genius. (ISBN 0-330-49259-4)in it he devotes some considerable attention to the Messiah. My understanding is that it is housed in a glass climate controlled casing and that it is never played publicly.(it is not uncommon for some museums to loan instuments to certain performers for certain performances. This does no occur for the messiah). That said, I understand that once a month or so, a member of the museum staff dons the white cotton gloves, removes the instrument from its glass casing (privately)and goes through a few scales simply to keep the timber supple and prevent the kind of deterioration mentioned in neglected violins. Faber speculates that some of the older Stradavaris are starting to show signs of deterioration, the notion of a violin taking a period of time to "play in" is well documented, it may also be true that they do eventually wear out. If that is true, it's even more important to have violins like the messiah which are retained for posterity by being housed correctly, not being subjected to the rigours of a "working violin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.212.11 (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time, and the bit about "never been played" seemed as contradictory to me as it does to some others here. I'm a guitarist, not a violinist, but to me, the quality of an instrument can never be ascertained until it's been heard. There are a lot of beautiful but lackluster guitars out there. While I have no doubt that this instrument is, in fact wonderful, the part about its former owner commenting on its quality was almost certainly preceded by at least a little playing. Of course, the comment above mine outlines the details about this quite nicely, and makes it clear (if the book mentioned is correct, which I should think it is) that the instrument has, in a literal sense, absolutely been played. Now, not having ever been played publicly, or (less likely, I think) for any noteworthy duration (including by its owners 300+ years ago), are quite different claims, and I imagine it would be more correct to note as much as appropriate. I'm very new to contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure who's supposed to implement such changes, and I doubt that I am (though if provided with proper facts and references, I suppose I could put it into decent wording, should someone who knows the "drill" tell me to). Anyway, it's an interesting article, and I'd like to see the information in the previous comment in it, inasmuch as it's truly accurate. Dmutters (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As New?
how can it be "As New" if it has had certain pegs etc replaced? Sounds to me that someone was desperate to justify giving this one specimen a Page. I wouldn't think is is worth a Page here. There are hundreds of Strads in the world and I see little that seperates this from all the rest. Our house is worth more; many other instruments are rarer.

IceDragon64 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's so much worse than as described in the article -- the neck was lengthen, the soundbar replaced, bridge replaced, safe to assume the sound post replaced, pegs, tailpiece... Very little of the violin is original.
 * If this is the most pristine Strad on Earth, that tells me no one alive has actually heard a Strad. Skintigh (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)