Chiff and Fipple Forums

Thanks DrPhill.

E flat because circle of 5ths. There is no d#.

Mikethebook wrote:Is there a reason you say Eb rather than D#?

Just convention, like we normally talk about Bb whistles rather than A#. I suppose because they're normal, common keys whereas you'd need some double sharps to be playing in the enharmonically equivalent D# or A# majors!

awildman wrote:E flat because circle of 5ths. There is no d#.

Unless you write it D#, E#, Fx, G#, A#, B#, Cx, D#, which is technically possible but pretty confusing...

Let's say you started in C# major (seven sharps) and modulated to the dominant, you'd be in G# major (needing six sharps and a double sharp). Then to the dominant of that, you'd be there. But think I'd have changed the key signature by that time!

Thanks guys! But that all went way over my head. My music theory I realise is lacking.

Mikethebook wrote:Thanks guys! But that all went way over my head. My music theory I realise is lacking.

Me too but i like this thread a lot!

UPDATE:

So, Mike was very kind to pass this mystery whistle on to me:



I can't find any maker's mark anywhere, but I do think it's a well made whistle with well done engraving work. It's about the same size and dimension as an Asarkar low D (for anyone familiar with that make) but is tunable and has the Dolmetsch wheelbarrow over the window. The finger holes and window are well cut with no burs or sharp edges, the bore is nicely polished and clean, the solder joints were well done. I did have to resolder the tuning slide tenon to the head joint, as it had come off before Mike got it.

The tape that was on the upper end when Mike got it was clearly to protect the player's lips from the little brass nicks and sharp corners in that region. That was the worst aspect of the whistle, and could have been avoided in the maker's shop very easily. A few minutes with hammer, anvil and files have smoothed all that out and it can now be played properly without fear of laceration.

The block is of a very interesting design. It is wood with a kind of gouged out chamber inside, the side walls of which nearly enclose it. The windway is curved and nicely carved.

It has a nice chiffy organ pipe tone quality, though I could wish hole 6 were offset just a bit!

Looks nice now that you've cleaning it and put it back together!!

whistlecollector wrote:though I could wish hole 6 were offset just a bit!

Each to his/her own, I suppose. I must admit that I really struggle with offset holes. If they're not inline - no matter how big the whistle - I can't play it.

Looks nice. Still a mystery then ...

Any way to have Michael Copeland take a look at it and verify one way or another whether by him. I'm not a low whistler, however, the curiosity is appealing to the mystery.

There's no way Michael made that whistle.

Loren wrote:There's no way Michael made that whistle.

I'd suggest that a statement like that does warrant some further explanation...

Best wishes.

Steve

Steve Bliven wrote:

Loren wrote:There's no way Michael made that whistle.

I'd suggest that a statement like that does warrant some further explanation...

Best wishes.

Steve

With the exception of one technical detail, the walls around the window, nothing about this whistle conforms to Micheal's commonly known work.

1. Cylindrical bore rather than Copeland's trademark conical bore.

2. Fipple plug shape, different from known

3. Fipple plug design/construction, different from known Copelands.

4. Fipple plug fixing method, different from Copeland's through pinned method.

5. Slide and foot decorative rings, not present on any Copelands most (all?) of us have ever seen.

6. Engraving, design unlike any known Copeland.

7. Lack of Copeland name or mark anywhere on whistle. Again, has anyone ever seen a Copeland whistle that wasn't stamped with the makers name? Aside from at his shop while before completion, smart alecs.....

8. Workmanship. The slide came unsoldered and look at that mouth piece. Michael is a MUCH better craftsman. Even his early whistles from decades ago were very well made.

(Note: I'm not convinced the whistle in question left the makers shop with the mouthpiece looking so rough, I would guess that happened sometime after it was sold. Looks like the whistle was dropped and the top of the brass windway was bent down, which likely would have caused fit problems with glued in plug. This may have led someone with poor skills to mess with things.....or not, we'll probably never know.)

There are potentially some other workmanship deficiencies that seem to be present in the photos, but Some or all of these may be optical illusions- the window "wings appear to be different lengths, one or more of the tone holes appear not perfectly round, one in particular having a sharp spot, and so forth.

Inevitably there will be people here who disagree with my assessment, but I think once you've worked at a professional level on these things (wood and brasswinds), certain things become rather obvious, and this just doesn't have the features or execution of Michael's work.

Loren—

Thanks for the clarification. Makes the argument much more convincing.

Best wishes.

Steve

I thought the fipple plug was interesting enough to examine further:





I looked under high magnification and am convinced that it is wood. There is (scant) evidence of it having been glued in place at some point in time.

Steve Bliven wrote:

Loren wrote:There's no way Michael made that whistle.

I'd suggest that a statement like that does warrant some further explanation...

I knew it wasn't right away. If you recall from my Museum images, you know I have the advantage of pleasant ownership of a (relatively) early Michael Copeland low D. There are no substantial points of comparison. I've also seen many on Ebay. This looks like no Copeland whistle I've ever seen. Unless it's some kind of experimental model...

Loren wrote:With the exception of one technical detail, the walls around the window, nothing about this whistle conforms to Micheal's commonly known work.

The walls aren't diagnostic of Mr Copeland's work either, as the device was described nearly a century ago in the recorder world. And is older than that in the organ building world.

One thing to add to your list: you can't tell from the pictures, but the metal tubing is very thin; Mr Copeland's is a hefty whistle indeed. Maybe 1.5x as heavy as the mystery whistle. The mystery whistle tubing reminds me very much of the old B & S / Dulcet whistles of the late 19th & early 20th century.

1. Cylindrical bore rather than Copeland's trademark conical bore.

Yes. And a very broad cylindrical bore at that: 15/16".

2. Fipple plug shape, different from known

3. Fipple plug design/construction, different from known Copelands.

4. Fipple plug fixing method, different from Copeland's through pinned method.

I've certainly never seen a fipple plug like this one.

5. Slide and foot decorative rings, not present on any Copelands most (all?) of us have ever seen.

They are present on many Indian make whistles, though.

6. Engraving, design unlike any known Copeland.

I believe the engraving (seems done by hand) is original to the whistle maker. Nicely done. I don't know if Mr Copeland has ever engraved a whistle or not.

7. Lack of Copeland name or mark anywhere on whistle. Again, has anyone ever seen a Copeland whistle that wasn't stamped with the makers name? Aside from at his shop while before completion, smart alecs.....

I could be misremembering, but I believe there was once a discussion here on CnF about Copelands without markings. Maybe relatively early ones?

8. Workmanship. The slide came unsoldered and look at that mouth piece. Michael is a MUCH better craftsman. Even his early whistles from decades ago were very well made.

While anyone can have a bad day (I wouldn't necessarily chalk the solder joint coming undone to poor workmanship); I would agree that, overall, the workmanship on the Copeland is far superior.

(Note: I'm not convinced the whistle in question left the makers shop with the mouthpiece looking so rough, I would guess that happened sometime after it was sold. Looks like the whistle was dropped and the top of the brass windway was bent down, which likely would have caused fit problems with glued in plug. This may have led someone with poor skills to mess with things.....or not, we'll probably never know.)

I concur re the slight bending down of the windway roof (probably dropped); but I disagree about the whistle not leaving the shop looking so rough.

1. I actually believe those little metal spurs that I had to flatten out were intentional. Probably to help hold the block in place. There were two such spurs, equidistantly spaced from one another.

2. The sharp corners of brass that I rounded originally conformed with the reasonably sharp angle of the block below the windway.

I didn't like all that sharp metal, so took care of it.

There are potentially some other workmanship deficiencies that seem to be present in the photos, but Some or all of these may be optical illusions- the window "wings appear to be different lengths, one or more of the tone holes appear not perfectly round, one in particular having a sharp spot, and so forth.

Well spotted. The "wing" lengths differ by about 2/16". Under magnification I don't notice a sharp spot or out-of-circle tone holes. Is there a particular one you have in mind?

I should note: the edges of the tone holes are nicely buffed --- no sharp edges or anything.

Inevitably there will be people here who disagree with my assessment, but I think once you've worked at a professional level on these things (wood and brasswinds), certain things become rather obvious, and this just doesn't have the features or execution of Michael's work.

I agree on almost all points. I don't work with such instruments professionally, but as a hobby only, and also obviously as a collector. But yes, some things leap right out at one. What leaps out at me, even on first look, is "this looks an awful lot like a well crafted made in India whistle".