Info for Heifetz enthusiasts
Interesting info for all the Heifetz fans on this site...
Looking at the 85th birthday special in Strad Magazine, there was an interview with Heifetz's luthier in L.A.. Aside from the fact that he apparently took excellent care of his violins, he had interesting info on his equipment.
Heifetz's prefered bow was not his Kittel, but a Tourte, though his luthier tried to encourage him towards the Kittel. He apparently also owned a turtle-shell Pecatte and something else that I forgot.
For strings, he always used Tricolore (never heard of those - anyone know?) and since Heifetz did not perspire his plain gut A's and D's apparently lasted for a long time. He used a silver wrapped G from the same company and a medium Goldbrokat E.
I thought I would pass it along. Seems to be so many Heifetz enthousiasts on this site.
Replies (100)
Hi,
Thanks Preston! That was the fourth bow mentioned.
Can someone explain what Tricolore strings are? I have never ever heard of those!
Cheers!
French ones?
Carl.
Here is a url giving a bit of info on the Tricolore strings: http://gamutstrings.com/catalog/id10.htm
Hi,
Thanks Carl and Tom!
Apparently they are American gut strings from Musical Perfection Co.(they were a division of Pirastro I was told also?!). They haven't been around for a long time, but were there until the 60's. I don't know more about it than that. That was the extra info from a luthier. Learn something new everyday. Would explain why I never recognized the coloured thread tailpiece end on his G string (or on Joseph Fuchs which was the same). I guess, now we know. Hmmm...
Cheers!
Thanks a lot for the info Christian. I'll look into those strings.
Christian,
I'm a Heifetz anesthetist. His playing really knocks me out!
Benjamin
P.S. You missed one.
HAHAHAHA!
Good one Benjamin!
Cheers!
Hi,
Nate: thanks. Let me know what you find out. I am very curious.
Cheers!
Tricolore strings disappeared from the market in the late 1970's. I used them before and they were very good. They were high quality, very well finished, and durable. The G had a blue and white wrapping which you can see in the Strad poster of Heifetz's Guarneri.
There are still violinists enthusiastic about Heifetz?
Yeah...and most of them post here. :)
Any Szigeti fans out there? I feel lonely amidst all the Heifetzniks. :)
I used to play with three naked gut strings and a metal E, but I stopped because the high E-string tension felt uncomfortably greater than that of the other three strings.
I've wanted to try the "Heifetz" by balancing out the high strung E-string with a metal G. I'll probably do that really soon.
I wonder why Heifetz's luthier encouraged him to get away from his Tourte? Those are great bows, although Kittels are supposedly great too. I've never played a Kittel, so I don't know.
Szigeti was cool too. I admire the sound he draws from his Stradivarius, though I do prefer a more old-fashioned sound to the violin. Szigeti really does sound as if he could step right onto today's concert stages, which is a good thing.
I played a great Kittel, gold mounted and tortoishell, owned by a dealer in LA. He's told me that a number of people prefer it to some very rare Tourtes. I've had the priveledge of playing on a few Tourtes, and I still think this Kittel is the best I've ever used. Too bad I don't have the 6 figures it takes to buy it.
Hi,
Frederick - thanks for that bit of information.
Kittels vary greatly in quality. I tried one that was terrific, and one that felt like a wet noodle. I have only tried one Tourte, and I knew what it was just from picking it up without being told in advance. That was one amazing bow.
I admire great players in general. And yes, Maura, Szigeti was something special. I love his Brahms concerto and Prokofiev First. Memorable performances.
Cheers!
Years ago I had a recorded performance of the Beethoven 7th Sonata with Szigeti and Horszowski (spelling?). It was recorded, I think, late in Szigeti's career. His vibrato was as wobbly as it gets, and his bowing sounded very awkward. It was unquestionably an eccentric performance. However, it was also electrifying, passionate, and totally convincing. So much so that to me every other performance I've ever heard still comes up a little short. Compared to the Szigeti, the Heifetz performance (while cleaner, more technically and tonally great) sounds like the violinist is just going through the motions.
Sandy
i remember hearing that as well on record, sandy. i think the sonata used to be called the 'winter wind.' szigeti's playing on that piece made that my favourite beethoven sonata for a long time. great great violinistic mind.
Greetings,
I think Szigeti played on a Peter Guarnerius, rather than a Stradivarius.
I still fele his last recording of the Brahms cocnerto is one of the most searching and insightful ever recorded.
Cheers,
Buri
A Peter Guarnerius? Interesting! I always figured he played a Del Gesu.
Szigeti to me is just the most perfect example of what a violinist should be--that is, not just a violin player but a MUSICIAN, a scholar, an adventurous programmer, always looking to learn new things about everything, and of course, a great musical spirit who puts expression and communication above flashy pyrotechnics or mechanical perfection. To paraphrase the last line of his own autobiography, "He plays like--a citizen of the world!" JOSKA SZIGETI, I LOVE YOU!!!
Oh dear. I've taken a Heifetz appreciation thread and turned it into a Szigeti appreciation thread. Sorry, Jascha, no offense meant. :)
Who's Heifetz?
:P
Who's Szigety?. I know an hungarian violinist
called Joseph Singer. But Szigety? Well, maybe he
changed his surname.
Jascha, we still love you.
Emily, Daniel Heifetz is an excellent modern day violinist with very Asiatic features.
I haven't heard him play, but I'm sure he's terrific since he's a big time professional.
Carlos, good catch. Szigeti's birth name WAS Joseph Singer. His family was of Jewish origin, and like lots of Jewish people in Hungary (come to think of it, like practically every non-Magyar in Hungary) his family changed their name. They ended up Szigeti, after the village that their family was from, Máramoros-Sziget. :)
btw is Daniel Heifetz related to Jascha? Or is it just a weird coincidence?
Really wierd coincidense.
Daniel is some sort of second or third cousin. As I recall, he is not a favorite of some regular contributors to this board.
Re: Christian and Frederic
Tricolore strings:
I just got an email from Dan Larson of Gamut strings. He has the original machines for the Tricolore Strings and is still producing them. He says they will be on his website soon. If his silver wound gut is anything to go by they should be amazing. That is still the best wound gut string I have found on the market.
Kristian
Out of curiosity, what luthier did they interview?
(I always thought Paul Toenniges was Heifetz's luthier for the later years--correct me if I am wrong--and I believe he has been deceased for quite some time.)
I think Hans Benning was his later luthier but I don't think he was the one who was interviewed.
Heifetz had a large collection of bows didn't he?
I think he had more than just 3. In fact, I almost bought a Lamy that had been in his collection. Wow that was a nice bow...but so overpriced b/c of its heritage.
Preston
you're overpriced.
Joseph Heifetz,Joseph Singer,Joseph Hassid,Joseph Joachim,a pretty good quartet....
But who would play the cello?
Except his name is Jascha, not Joseph.
Joseph Green (= Giuseppe Verdi)!
Enosh, isn't "Jascha" short for "Joseph"? Or am I just out of my mind?
Iossif Robertovich Heifetz
I think "Jascha" is the Russian version of "Joshua."
I'm pretty sure Jascha is a nickname for something.....just don't know what!
His orignial name was, I think, Jakov or Jakoff. Not sure of the spelling.
YAKOV!! That's it!! I remember!! (can be also spelled Jakov). It's Russian for Jacob. Phew!
Yakov isn't exactly Russian, it's the original Hebrew sound.
According to Kenway Lee,(STRAD Jan95),Auer changed his name in class to his nickname,Jascha.Real name is Iosef(Joseph) Hope this settles the question.I just wanted to point out the number of great violinists with the same name.
Hi,
Kristian - thanks for that bit of information. I would be quite interested in trying these strings if\when they come out.
I thought so that Jascha was an affective diminutive for Joseph, just like Mischa is a diminutive for Mikhael or Natasha for Natalia...
Cheers!
Enosh,
well, it's Russian now too...
damn russians... they figure out a way to say everything in like 50 different ways. For people who drink so much they're suprisingly sophisticated.
You think their names are complicated? Try learning the language--they have about 10 (at least) different ways to say "to go", depending on whether you're going TO somewhere or FROM somewhere, on foot or by vehicle, one time or habitually.....arrrrgh. And that's only one of many examples...
Jascha means "jewell" in hebrew...
Marc Villeneuve wrote: "Jascha means "jewell" in hebrew..."
For the record, it's actually "Heifetz" that means "gem" or "desired" in Hebrew. Sometimes this name and word is transliterated as "Chafetz".
Oliver, sorry, you are right...
Marc
Hi all--
I just came across yet one more reference to heifetz' imitation of a student audition. For some reason everyone here finds it funny--I find it mean spirited and nasty and it only confirms what I've always thought of Heifetz--an immensely talented prig!
Sense of humour, get 'em here! They're lovely.
Get 'em while they're hot. Get ya sense of humour here!
Neil
Greetings,
Jay, why assume everyone here finds it funny? I didn`t either. However, I don`t think Heifetz was an arrogant prig. To me a slight sense of a lonely person trying to be liked came across. Like wise I also felt the laughter was somewhat forced from the students as though at some level they felt obliged, or they were overdoing it because of the sheer stres s of actually sitting in a Heifetz class.
I guess it all depends on the idnividual how the see the dynamics of a given situation. I also think it is a real shame that one has to call one of the great figures of violin history offensive names(I emphasize history becuase he is dea d and gone in spite of rumours to the contrary). His behaviour on many occassions may have justified that kind of labelling but the behaviour is not the person , and it is rather easy to forget that this is a person who not only gave/gives uncountable hours of pleasure to people the world over, but was also in many ways responsible for setting a standard against which modern violnists still measure themselves and only a mere handful are yet doing it any better.
Cheers,
Buri
Buri, good psychology there!.
Greetings,
Yes, I use anchors a lot. Not to be confuse dwith shoulder rests, sorry, I mean aubergines.
Cheers,
Buri
Greetings,
notice Buri repsonding to wrong thread here...
Cheers,
Burp
There's a new mastering of Heifetz's New Brunswick Decca CDs (with Bing Crosby), Any comments please?
Gramphone will be reviewing the CDS next month.
Cheng,
Those duets with Bing Crosby are lovely. Don't you have them? Of course, Crosby's real name was Harry Lillis, and I wonder if he was a distant relation of mine. I saw Crosby at a celebrity golf tournament in Dublin in 1976. I remember watching him leaning on his club, wearing the baggy golfing apparel of the 1920s.
Buri - sorry but I don't know the violinist (living or dead) who does it better than Heifetz, let alone a handful. I have listened dispassionately for 30 years to scores of violinists and am forced to conclude that Heifetz was in a class of his own. I say this while recognising the greatness of Kogan (in particular), Rabin, Oistrakh, Milstein and a few others.
David Lillis
Greetings,
I"m inlcined to agree with you but I also accept that this cannot be argued objectively any more. The only so calle d objective case I remember being put forward was that by Axelrod that he was the highest paid violinist of all time, but this was pretty spurious in my book. Soviets violnist weren"t on the scene, player slike Stern were keeping their prices down , marketing abilty is afactor etc., etc.
So if we get down to the criteria of the playing itself then it is virtually imposisble to prove that Heifetz, for example, played better in tune than the top players today. A longditudinal study but based on what intonational criteria?
Better tone? How can one argue that. Plenty of people on this list include one of the top few violnists in the world have said they dislike his sound . Often they display a distinct preference for Oistrakh or Rabin. Midori's favorite violinist is Grumiuax.If the greatest violinist is clealry not everyones favorite then there is soemthign wrong with the criteria for greatness in my book at least.
Are we going to talk about speed of fingers. An awful lot of players today have incredibly precise technical facility. Milstein was more gifte din some areas in this respect. So wa sMenuhin when he had his act together. Rememeber Perlman saying that 'when Menuhin was on form there was nobody better." That is not a statement to be taken lightly. So did it mean that Heifetz was the greatets except when Menuhin wa splaying well?
I compare pieces in the repertoire and my blanket assumption that I want to listen to the version by Heifetz above all else is quickly shot to pieces. Certainly Heifetz is supreme (or is he?) in very specific areas of the repertoire like tedesco, Vieuxtemps, et al. But look at the listing of preferences for players and pieces that appear on this list everytime this kind of issue is raised.How many times is Heifetz consistently nuber one choice fro the people who really should know!!!!?
Almost never.
Thus I submit that the idea of Heifetz being the best -for now and all time- exists in part on concrete foundation but is also partly an opinion and as time goes by the very standards he created leads to more opinions saying otherwise. One cannot really dismiss so mamy voices out of hand. Thus I qualified my statement and hope the reasons I offer above are an adequate explanation of it.
Cheers,
Buri
Dear Buri--
At the risk of putting too fine a point on it--once people become part of history they are fair game. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Szeryng was despite his magnificence as an artist a miserable human being who enjoyed skewering students for sheer sport. I saw him do it. Betond that you yourself said that when favorite performances come up Heifetz is rarely among them. musical performance is a peculiar amalgam of technic and musicality and a number of intangibles. heifetz has never done it for me--Oistrakh and Szeryng always have. I own recordings of almost everyone of that generation but I owned no Heifetz before Naxos made him available cheaply because I derived no pleasure from him. And some of his cadenzas are as dumb as a box of rocks--the Brahms is absolutely unmusical. My bad perhaps, but I find Oistrakh infinitely more desirable at every level.
Anything you can do
I can do better
I can do anything
better than you
Replace "you" by "Heifetz", and you'll feel better.
I'm on a Tchaikovsky VC listening phase. So yesterday I started with Heifetz's CSO Reiner version (very fast, fantastic technique, wonderful playing but not much in terms of Russian soul). Then I launched into Kogan's EMI Silvestri Tch VC (my fav. version) - the technique is very much up in the Heifetz class, but I find the Russian soul more easily on the Kogan version). I'm also doing the same with the Heifetz Mendelssohn (Munch BSO) against my fav. version (Campoli, Boult on Beulah). Campoli again won against Heifetz in the Mendelssohn. Sometimes in certain VC (like the 2 mentioned), the spirit just seems to elude Heifetz
(despite the magnificent playing, technically speaking).
In other repertoire, I'm sure Jascha ranks at the very top (perhaps his Spohr VC 8 is the best out there despite the cuts).
Hi David Lillis (possibly a relative of Harry Lillis!),
I had the MCA mastering of these 2 CDs but sold them as I bought the Heifetz RCA edition mastering. Just wondering if the DG is significantly better than the RCA mastering.
Well, Jay on the Brahms VC - I like the Oistrakh Klemperer EMI version very much but the Milstein Fistoulari runs this one very close. Milstein & F do a fast Heifetz-like Brahms but it has more fiery-ness than "merely fast" Jascha.
On the St Saens Op 28, Michael Rabin's later stereo version is my fav. - topping Jascha, Perlman, etc. Do hear this one, it is really very moving and soulful.
Regards - Cheng
Greetings,
Jay said
>at the risk of putting too fine a point on it--once people become part of history they are fair game. Bad behavior is bad behavior.
That`s an interesting point of view. Personally I think it is more useful to point out the foibles of someone who behaves badly -in the present- as a warning to others. The reason I very mildy object to blanket name calling of artists , or anyone else who is dead for that matter, is that it is usually non-productive. Within a context and idnetifying specific examples I suppose there is some value in pointing out that Heifetz performed such and such an unpleasnt act. Does it prove him to be a prig across the board? I don@t think so and it seems so rare in so many domains that the good things are offered in equal amount which surely would imbue the whole exercise with some sens e of fairness about being historical. Part of the picture that one might note is that this person is owed a great debt by violinists across the board whether they can stand his playing or not and that makes him worthy of a little slack in the respect department.
>Szeryng was despite his magnificence as an artist a miserable human being who enjoyed skewering students for sheer sport. I saw him do it.
The same comments apply to Szeryng who wa sa man of immense generosity and compassion at times.
Cheers,
Buri
IMHO, nobody should know too much about his/her
favorite artist. What he/she were, interfere with
your apreciation of his/her art. The man is not
important. Their art is everything.
something like that, yes.
This concept of the "Russian soul" is always very interesting to me. It seems that everyone but Russians, and people who have actually been to Russia say this.
It's a shame that everything by a Russian composer has to be played with melodrama and seismic level vibrato. Whenever something a violinist from Russia or a piece if played that is Russian I hear about this "soul". The way Ilya Gringolts plays Tchaikovsky must mean that he has no soul.
Of course I know that some time in early puberty Ilya sold his soul for chest hair, but this totally confirms it.
Ther´s no such thing as russian soul. The man
of steel killed it in 1936/38.
don@t ask what he got for his mother`s recipe for Borscht.
Heifetz' personal spin on everything he played sort of insulates him from direct comparison to any other fiddler. Certainly his quaint fingering/shifts, the quasi-sordino tone of his Guarnerius, rhythmic aberrations, erratic tempi and numerous musically idiosyncratic inflections make his playing rather easy to identify. Perhaps rather than futile attempts to compare and condemn, his interpretations should remain in a singular catagory...sort of "Just Heifetz"...his music taught so many of us so much.
I agree with Pieter, just didn't know how to say it. I love that Heifetz plays Tchaikovsky in a non "Russian" way. If anything, Heifetz is the most true to Tchaikovsky because he feels it like a dance, not like a heavy Russian drunk person lumbering around, which a lot of people play it like.
ok woah woah woah Mr. Kent...
There's a lot of other violinists who have done one of a kind interpretations. Heifetz had his own sound and way of playing but that doesn't really mean it was always brilliant.
Enosh, I totally agree about the drunken lumbering thing. It's not as heavy and dramatic as people think.
Hi,
Hmmm... The Russian/non-Russian way thing puzzles me. The concerto was written originally for Auer who was not Russian, and whose playing had more in common with Joachim than others. I don't know... Such arguments make to me, no sense.
I think that Heifetz was well, Heifetz. Gitlis said it best, "you can agree, or disagree with some things that Heifetz does, but Heifetz was unique."
Heifetz in the context of his time was on another level as a player. What he brought was consistency. Consistent, high-level performances was his thing. When one listens to live concerto recordings from the 1940's for example, but people like Thibaud, Busch, Stern, Spalding, and then Heifetz - then wow - the difference is clear.
I think that in the end Heifetz, like Oistrakh, or any other convincing performer had that energy that makes performances special.
Cheers!
I always wondered how we would percieve Heifetz today if David Oistrach started is career during the early 30 s in the U.S.A. Oistrach was a splendid and complete violinist at the time.He would have been a more than serious challenger to Heifetz. During the 30s, Kreisler was still a star and Oistrach a kind of spiritual son...When Oistrach made his debut in the U.S., Heifetz was at the end of his career.
Marc
Marc,When Oistrakh first appeared in the US, Heifetz was still touring. In fact, sometimes they appeared in the same city within a few weeks of each other. The audiences,and orchestra members were able to make comparisons on a live first hand basis.I`ve always felt that Kogan came the closest to Heifetz with regard to technique,selctions,and sound.
Thanks Edwin,
Heifetz was in America since he was a teenager and made a lot of recordings...He and David Oistrach (1908) were about the same age.Very few know about the career of Oistrach before 1955...and judging from what I heard, he was a suprême violinist, more than Kogan and closer to Kreisler in my opinion...And Oistrach kept his wonderful qualities until the end...
Oistrakh recorded with the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1955. I doubt it was his 1st record in the U.S. but don't know that.
It is that same year that he first appeared in the U.S.
Marc,how would you compare Oistrakh and Stern? They seemed very friendly on tours of the US and USSR.
IMHO,to compare 0istrakh with Stern is as compare
a Ferrari with a Fiat. Not in the same category.
Stern was a very succsessful manager who used to
play the violin.
Greetings,
Stern at his absolute best was -just- up there for me. In chamber music he was the business!!!
Oddly enough I wa slistenign to his Beethoven with Bremboim last night. I could find much to admire in the richness of sound and muscinaship but a lot of the intonation was so awful I had to take it of fbefore the end of the firts movement.
Cheers,
Buri
Carlos, I strongly disagree about Stern. Listen to some of his early recordings, they're fantastic.
IMHO Buri is correct that Stern's strong point was chamber music. Listen to his recordings of Beethoven's Archduke and Ghost trios, or of Copland's sonata. He was very good but not in Oistrakh's league as a soloist.
I never compared Oistrach to Stern...Read me again...I am just wondering about the perception of Oistrach vs Heifetz in America... Heifetz started to record in U.S.A. in 1917...If Oistrach started out there in 1925, he would have been a great challenger, I am sure...Because it is my opinion that teachers in America did not follow Kreisler...We lost that kind of sound, maybe for ever...Oistrach was a true follower of Kreisler ( lightness of the bow and unforced tone)...And Kreisler had the supreme tone on the violin, the first to play with a full , quick and continuous vibrato...His innovations remain unmatched by any violinist ...Kreisler is the father of modern violin playing...Heifetz, followed and made substancial changes in the violin repertoire and programming, but still, Kreisler is the one that changed everything...Listen to his recordings between 1910 and 1920...compare with those of Heifetz of the same period...And it must be mentionned that Kreisler was the idol of all the great violinists of his era, including Heifetz.
Marc
Marc--
I think that you've hit the point exactly. The narrow, slightly acerbic sound of Kogan and all of the other Heifetz followers point out the difference from Oistrakh and for me show what we've lost as part of the present day culture of violin playing.
Well fine, Stern wasn't Oistrakh OR Heifetz, I still like him.
Speaking of Stern, check him out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loENg1AVasw.
Thanks Jay,
I felt so much lonely with my opinions...not that I do not have any consideration for Heifetz or Stern...But I believe that Kreisler was a great influence in violin playing...
Marc
And besides, Fritz had an unique personal style
who IMO is inimitable, and a Wienn flavor who
remains his and his only. There are many recordings
dozens of it,of K.pieces, some very good. But nobody plays Kreisler's as Kreisler. And he was one of the first on records.
If I'm understanding Marc correctly, I agree with him. If you listen to Heifetz's early recordings (20s-30s), you can distinctly hear the Kreisler influence. It is more slidy and romantic in a way. It kind of sounds like Kreisler on steroids (not that it wasn't unique), but later, he sounded more like himself. This is just what it sounds like to me.
Anybody hear the Jan Kubelik influence in Heifetz's earliest recordings?
Many of Heifetz's selections from those albums were done by Kubelik 10-20 years earlier. At that point, Kubelik was an internationally famous superstar who was one of the first violinists to record in the acoustic medium. It sounds to me as if Heifetz is actively competing with Kubelik for speed and accuracy.
Kubelik was one of the most prominent violinists of his day, and he regularly concertized in St. Petersburg. I'd imagine that Ruvin Heifetz and little Jascha went to see Kubelik when he performed, just as many of the other Auer pupils like Milstein did.
The funny thing about Kubelik, at least in the recordings I've heard, is he really doesn't play all that fast. He sometimes has a reputation as a speed demon, but when I heard him I was struck by the measured tempos he takes. It's just so damn CLEAN, it ends up sounding faster. Rock on Jan. :)
Actully....
Kubelik was NOT a speed demon. He believed entirely in the Sevcik motto - Clean and with precision. They both thought that speed ruin the piece.
There are several nice interviews with Kubelik from between the wars where he speaks openly about tempos and playing philosophy.
I didn't say he WAS a speed demon...
The only knock anybody can have on Kubelik is the only thing nobody ever criticized him for: his pitch.
By late 19th century and 20th century standards, Kubelik had one of the best techniques around. He raised the technical bar so high that hardly anybody back then could compete. That said, he still wasn't a note-perfect violinist. Throughout all of his recordings from 1902-1913, there are lots of notes that are out of tune. Today Kubelik wouldn't be allowed into a community orchestra, let alone a competition or a conservatory.
The thing is that I love Kubelik's playing, pitch and all. It's so musical and so entertaining that I'd rather him play out of tune with great feeling than in tune without expression. I hear the out-of-tune notes but enjoy them anyway. In fact, I prefer the rustic and multicolored charm of Kubelik's out-of-tune playing over Heifetz's in-tune acoustic fireworks.
Wow, the Kubelik recordings I heard were spot-on intonation....
I'm sure he'd be able to get into a good music school.
And DEFINITELY a community orchestra. I've played in community orchestras, and let me tell you, although the enthusiasm of the players is often without equal, technical issues can sometimes leave something to be desired....Jan K. would have, shall we mildly put it, no trouble at all. :)
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
International Violin Competition of Indianapolis
Violinist.com Holiday Gift Guide
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
April 8, 2005 at 03:30 PM · I fell in love with a Lamy that Heifetz used to own. Wonderful bow!
Preston