Can anyone help me out on this - isn’t there is a thread comparing the
M & E ‘Rudall’ and Seery ‘Pratten’ (keyless-es)? I didn’t think they were
similar but a friend suggested they might be. Checking James’ website,
the photos a bit hard to compare for all I’m trying to see - comparing
the embouchure, tone hole sizes, diameters at the top hand grip, and
tone hole placement. No need to compare the sound of these flutes, just
the physical layouts.
I thought this was already on the board but I can’t find it! If not, could
any players of both offer some comparisons?
I’m just a player of one. The M&E Rudall and Rose. I’d recomend it to anybody. Lovely flute. The M&E and Seery is not the same flute, quite different acctually. Two different makers and two different modells. The M&E is a Rudall style, medium tone holes, and the Seery is a Pratten, large toneholes. There is a lot more to be said, but I hope someone with experience of both flutes will reply.
The Seery is slightly longer than the M&E R&R. The outer diameter of both flutes appears to be about the same at any given point, perhaps the M&E is just a hair wider. The embouchure for the Seery seems more steeply undercut at the blowing edge.
Both flutes have oval embouchures of approximately the same length. The M&E is a bit wider oval, but it’s also very close.
The Seery has a wider inner bore diameter, including the headjoint.
The tone holes for the left hand appear to be of identical size and reach. The tone holes for the right hand are slightly smaller on the M&E than on the Seery, and the reach is also a bit less…I would class both flutes as “medium-large” tone holes compared to my Hamilton or to the McGee I once tried. The M&E R&R has a five-piece body (headjoint, barrel, heartpiece, body, foot), where the Seery has the Pratten-style four piece (headjoint, barrel, body, foot). The 6th tone hole on the M&E R&R is slightly offset towards the player on my flute, whereas on the Seery they are in a straight line. The toneholes on the M&E R&R have no undercutting; the toneholes on the Seery have some undercutting, particularly the first tonehole.
My M&E R&R doesn’t have rings; however, this flute is available with rings. My Seery has rings and its appearance is very similar to the Hamilton flute: from several feet away you’d be hard pressed to tell them apart unless they were in direct sunlight.
Both these are fairly light flutes in weight, the Hamilton is lighter but the German 8-key is much heavier, as is the original model M&E 6-key and also my Boehm flute.
I hope you find this information to be of assistance. Please post any questions and I’ll do my best to answer them.
Thank you folks. ok I’ll confess up for my weird query. I have this 3rd
hand Seery, its not working (ever try to put an oval slide in a round
barrel.. nevermind.. I’m going to see about having it fixed..)
Meanwhile this idea about the M&E Rudall came up. I really want
a “Pratten in plastic” which I can knock about and have it be more
difficult to play but somewhat similar to my main flute (an Olwell
Pratten-style). The Seery fit the bill except its broken.
However I have always been really taken by Michael Cronnolly’s
workmanship, my first flute was his and excellent. Hmm if only
he might build something like a Pratten..
Well, heck, it shouldn’t be much to fix it. Any band instrument repair person should be able to deal with this. Probably much cheaper & easier then sending back to Desi.
Lesl, I think that the M&E R&R model is not that far in size (bore and tone holes) from Olwell’s big hole model. I really like the M&E and am going to have it keyed.
I agree the if it’s only the slide, it will take two minute with a repair person that has the right tool, and probably worth doing even if you decide not to keep it (better resale value).
best wishes, eilam.
Um, this escaped me the first time through. I don’t get it. Why would you want it to be “more difficult to play”? The only way you might manage that is if you leave it broken. Weird, weird, weird.
I agree with Kevin, the Seery is not particularly difficult to play. It can take a ton of wind so you can really thrash it, but that doesn’t make it difficult in my opinion.
While physically the Seery and the M&E R&R are not that different, the sound they produce, and the feel of the flute when playing, is more than a bit different.
No matter what else you do, you oughta get that Seery fixed, because it’s a quick, easy, and should be a very inexpensive repair.
I would recommend (if it’s possible) that you try the M&E R&R before buying one: it’s not in the Pratten-based family of flutes, and it plays quite differently.
I’d recommend you try the standard (non "Rudall) M&E too. The “Rudall” has a nice sound but also some intonation quirks. Depending on your personality, these may charm or irritate you.
I haven’t had the pleasure of talking with Michael Cronolly for a while now, but he used to offer a 30-day money-back guarantee, as long as you returned the flute undamaged. Of all the flute makers i’ve dealt with, he was the easiest one, and the most trusting. Great guy.
Thanks all again. and thank you James, you are too kind.
Yes the M&E was my first flute and I was really fond of it. Sold it to a
friend only because it was quite different to the Pratten-style. In
particular I’ve always been impressed with Michael Cronnolly’s work and
business manner, and especially his meticulous tuning slide and bore.
That cut-away embouchure and even the original headjoint also give a
great sound.
Compared to an olwell, and since this thread is about M&E’s too, the seery
requires more exacting control with a smaller sweet spot - seems it builds
embouchure.
Of course playing with a badly leaking barrel is like trying to blow up a
balloon with a hole in it. The local flute tech here who handles the kid’s
band instruments wouldn’t touch it after a suck test (‘what? sh**,
nothing!’, he said). I wish of course that I’d noticed before deciding to
keep it (a 3rd-hand seery). But a couple friends have recommended 2
makers who are not far from me, so I’ll get it fixed.
Just so you know, any band instrument repair shop should be able to fix that tuning slide for you in a matter of minutes, probably while you wait.
By the way, I think your comments on the Seery building embouchure are spot on. In the month before my Hamilton arrived, I worked heavily with the Seery and on tone building, and I think that’s one reason the Hamilton has responded so well since the very first day I played it.
I too am one of the “lunatic few” who think that the best flute may not actually be the easiest player.
Lesl - have you tried calling Desi? James said he was nice and easy to work with when he sent his flute back to Desi for a repair.
I’m also really surprised the band-tech guy won’t touch it since getting your slide back in the round, barring a crack in the delrin, should be quite easy. Is the guy perhaps only used to working on metal instruments? Any chance there is a woodwind repairman around who has worked on clarinets or oboes?
My McGee is a sure bet, really easy and comfortable to play, huge clear sound, perfect intonation…
The flute I like playing the most is a restored Nicholson type flute, not as easy to play, the intonation is not as good as the McGee, oval embouchure, and for some reason, hurts my right hand, but I love that flute.
That’s what I’d hoped, but mine wouldn’t. I’ll try for better luck at one of
the semi-local Irish flute-makers. This is veering off the thread, but I
wonder how its made, since when I replaced its cork I found it wouldn’t fit
in from the slide end (a conical slide?). This aside from the flattened oval
shape of the slide tenon. Apparently that can come from yanking the
barrel off a lot, no wonder I was told to never do that.
Maybe someday Michael Cronnolly will decide to make a Hawkes copy,
but meanwhile if I get this Seery fixed I’m keeping it.
