Accession No

1148

Brief Description

solar calculator (azimuth dial), purportedly by Erasmus Habermehl, 1581, but actually a c. 1920 fake

Origin

Netherlands; Amsterdam [possible, see Price 1956]

Maker

fake, unknown maker Habermehl, Erasmus [purported]

Class

dials

Earliest Date

1911

Latest Date

1925

Inscription Date

Material

metal (electroplated gilt copper)

Dimensions

length 119mm; breadth 119mm

Special Collection

Provenance

Derek de Solla Price, as part of his research into possible fakes in the Whipple collection published in 1956, asserts that this is a copy of the original solar calculator sold in sale of Strozzi Collection, 1911. Donated by Robert S. Whipple in 06/1952. Purchased by Robert S. Whipple from Antique Art Galleries, Grafton Street, London, in 06/1952.

Inscription

‘Erasmüs Habermehl . fec. 1581’

Description Notes

Solar calculator, fake, c. 1920, (purports to be by Erasmus Habermehl, 1581).

Brass square. Hour circle divided IIII - XII, I - VIII. Strange projection with the names of the zodiac and a table of figures. Lower index with sliding alidade; upper rotating index with two arms. All engraved with leaf scrolls.
U-shaped fasten on reverse.

Copy after the original in the Strozzi collection.

[NOTE: On 15/04/2015 XRF analysis was conducted on this instrument. Results and analysis are given in the ‘Notes’ field.]

References

Events

Description
Erasmus Habermel (1538-1606) was a much celebrated craftsman and engraver. He worked for Emperor Rudolph II in Prague, and is reputed to have made the finest instruments of his time. His instruments have been much sought after and numerous forgeries have turned up in collections around the world.

Here, the signature “Erasmüs Habermehl” is suspicious. While he used various different spellings of his name, he is unlikely to have used an umlaut (ü), which would change the pronunciation.

Furthermore, the calculator is only engraved on one side, whereas most objects of this kind have dials on both the front and reverse. Rather than being a direct copy of an object, this imitation has the same dimensions as a photograph taken in 1911 of an object and subsequently published in an auction sales catalogue. This explains why it is only engraved on one side.

Ironically, the object it is copying has also been determined to be a forgery.

FM:43126