Re: A Copeland? Another mystery low d whistle please?
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:10 am
Thanks DrPhill.
http://forums.chiffandfipple.com/
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!Mikethebook wrote:Is there a reason you say Eb rather than D#?
Unless you write it D#, E#, Fx, G#, A#, B#, Cx, D#, which is technically possible but pretty confusing...awildman wrote:E flat because circle of 5ths. There is no d#.
Me too but i like this thread a lot!Mikethebook wrote:Thanks guys! But that all went way over my head. My music theory I realise is lacking.
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.whistlecollector wrote:though I could wish hole 6 were offset just a bit!
I'd suggest that a statement like that does warrant some further explanation...Loren wrote:There's no way Michael made that whistle.
With the exception of one technical detail, the walls around the window, nothing about this whistle conforms to Micheal's commonly known work.Steve Bliven wrote:I'd suggest that a statement like that does warrant some further explanation...Loren wrote:There's no way Michael made that whistle.
Best wishes.
Steve
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...Steve Bliven wrote:I'd suggest that a statement like that does warrant some further explanation...Loren wrote:There's no way Michael made that whistle.
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.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.
Yes. And a very broad cylindrical bore at that: 15/16".1. Cylindrical bore rather than Copeland's trademark conical bore.
I've certainly never seen a fipple plug like this one.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.
They are present on many Indian make whistles, though.5. Slide and foot decorative rings, not present on any Copelands most (all?) of us have ever seen.
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.6. Engraving, design unlike any known Copeland.
I could be misremembering, but I believe there was once a discussion here on CnF about Copelands without markings. Maybe relatively early ones?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.....
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.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.
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.(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.)
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?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.
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".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.