And then something special turns up!
Have a look at the boxwood Rudall and Rose up for sale on Arthur Haswell’s website. Apparently it had been left in a cupboard for many years.
Happy drooling!
Very nice! Here is the link.
Looks to be in excellent condition, no warping, ready to play, original box. I wonder who has owned it. R&R 5035 lay at the bottom of a wardrobe in a house in Putney
a lovely rudall indeed!
the serial number is later than its manufacture, though, as at this point the quatrefoil mark was beginning to appear on the newer cocus flutes.
the previous batch of boxwood flutes were in the late 29xx series and earlier.
the crescent foot key and the silver foot plates confirm this as well.
the next boxwood flute serial numbered is in the 34xx series in which the batch were all 3 pewter plugs to the foot.
most of the boxwood flutes actually used the silver tube inserts rather than the plates, so this one is rare in that respect…
of flute of this time frame should play quite nicely.
dm
The flute is now showing as sold.
The photos are still there for those who admire quality.
“a lovely rudall indeed! the serial number is later than its manufacture, though, as at this point the quatrefoil mark was beginning to appear on the newer cocus flutes. the previous batch of boxwood flutes were in the late 29xx series and earlier.” RudallRose.
No David, Unless it also was made completed earlier and stamped later, I have Goretti’s boxwood 3101 in the register:
Rudall & Rose no. 3101
G. A. Hornchurch, owner:
Rudall & Rose, 15 Piazza, Covent Garden, London 3101 - boxwood, ivory bands, silver embouchure plate, silver keys, claw type C/C-sharp touches. Jem Hammond “I’d reckon #3101 was probably made in 1835 +/-1”.
Who bought R&R 3203 and for how much, anyone here?
clearly you’re not reading clearly.
th previous batch of flutes.
3101 would be the previous serial numbered boxwood…but would be of the very same batch of flutes…the 29xx series.
and jem has a fair guess
but 3101 was SOLD in 1836
likely made a year earlier…or two.
How do you know it was sold in 1836, David? It’d be very helpful to have any evidence you have.
Another thought. How likely is it that a flute with near-Potter-style plug receivers for low C# and C (#3101) would be in the same putative batch as one with the familiar square plate receivers? Moreover, whilst such a thing could certainly have been added to an existing stock item, the silver-lined embouchure chimney integral with a lip-plate is certainly an unusual bespoke feature.
Besides, we know for sure from the extant records that later on the normal (though not wholly consistent) practice of the firm was to allocate serial numbers at completion/transfer from workshop to shop stock. It seems to me highly likely this was long-established, though of course there is no proof.
your point precisely, Jem, no proof.
But when you sit with the body of work of serial numbers and the types of flutes they are and their specific constructions, you see the patterns quite clearly of flutes being constructed in batches … which is very much how makers do this. Very like the assembly line. Otherwise there are ridiculous inefficiencies that ultimately cost moneyy.
And, as we have seen by the available public records, the firm did not employ individuals to do more than a singe task on that line.
Installation of keys, or the cutting of embouchures, or the placement of rings, etc…
apparently the desire was to ensure no one person could make an entire RR flute well enough and cause problems.
nevertheless…the stock of instruments that came into the shop were not stamped with serial numbers. The body of evidence from the flutes themselves bear this out. That’s something worthy of discussion over tunes and a pint rather than here.
The dating, while ultimately guesswork, is again, the body of evidence from th eflutes themselves. After 25 years of cataloguing the instruments extant, of which new ones always seem to appear, that guessing has been pretty good by now.
Then again, I could be wrong…which seems to be ultimately what you all seem to want.
whatever.
David I doubt anyone here wishes you, or anyone else for that matter, to be wrong? All information regarding Rudall flutes is surely welcomed, and appreciated. Anyway 3101 could be a bespoke instrument, and nowt to do with the alleged 29++ batch. Prehaps the silver embouchure plate complete with chimney was for a customer who’d had an earlier allergic reaction to cocus wood. I don’t know how much was known regarding causes of allergic reactions back in the 1830’s. Prehaps they thought that even boxwood could trigger an allergic reaction. Or maybe the silver was added at a later date for the same reason, or just because somethought it was decorative, or improved the sound, who knows? I wonder if the silver plate was hallmarked on the underside, that would possibly give a date?
Terry M. names, Camp, Imlay, Ingram, Payne, H. Whitaker, Wylde as some of the craftsmen/women working for Rudall, and even making flutes for Rudall after starting their own businesses. I’d have thought that when working in the Rudall shop they would have made the whole of the flute’s wooden body don’t you think? Even cut the embouchure and voiced the flute. Or would Rose have done the final voicing and any necessary tweaking? Rose passed away in 1866, he would have been 72-73 years old. I wonder when he retired from making flutes?
wouldn’t simply be possible that the flute was prettier that way?
the ridiculous battle over information becomes a dopey slugfest, rather than a scholarly discourse.
rather than shoot down opinions, or challenge them simply to sound important, it’s a better approach to review and understand an approach.
I would think 25 years of data gathering and study would amount to very reasonable opinion based on information and, quite importantly, common sense, of which so few seem to use though appear to have.
now…
the boxwood flutes without ivory fittings very often (and that doesn’t mean always, though someone is likely to want to read it that way and suddenly begin a dopey challenge) had silver tubes rather than plates on the foot keys. Those of silver fittings (and those are rings for those unfamiliar with how the Brits call them) typically had the plates. I imagine (and again, that’s opinion…using common sense…) the use of tubes was to not draw away attention from the ivory…and I back this up opinion with the fact that typically (again…don’t read “always” here) the tuning slide was wood-covered and not showing the silver we normally see on a slide. Again…common sense working here.
The flute batches appear quite together when the database indicates flutes of like-construction being sold closely together.
the creation of dissimilar flutes, one at a time, to match customer demand is wholly inefficient and quite costly. Again, common sense here.
Thus…using common sense…that would strongly indicate the flutes were made in “batches” to accomodate inventory demands.
Though there is a likelihood there are custom-ordered instruments…those would be the anomalies in the serial number series. Flutes that very closely mattch each other would be the batches.
In this case…the flutes in the 29xx series that are boxwood are very much of the same type as the flute Haswell just sold. Silver rings, metal plates on the foot. There are three other boxwood flutes just after that have the tubes…and all three are of the ivory-fitting design.
it would be quite likely that the boxwood flutes were all made together…again, common sense here…because the measurements used to drill them ought to be somewhat different to accommodate the difference in the timber.
Boxwood was the lower-end of the catalogue for RR. Thusly, boxwood flutes are unlikely to be sold at nearly the pace as the cocus. Left-over inventory stock would be held and sold as demand dictated. That would indicate the flutes are numbered as they went out the door…because it makes little common sense to spend any time making a lower-priced flute in piecemeal or on spec. You make the batch, then sell them as orders occur. You make custom adjustments as orders occur…such as a lip-plate, etc.
If the flutes were serial-numbered in the consecutive order they enter the shop from the maker (whether in-house or by contract), then there would be no separation between the flutes of like-construction or timber. But that does not appear to be the case.
Too…those flutes whose serial numbers are consecutive but whose addresses differ back and forth between locations, is the clearest evidence that flutes are not stamped with a serial number before a sale. Otherwise there would be no gap, no repetitions and all the flutes of one address would stop at a specific serial number and the flutes stamped with the newest address would begin.
As well…there are a number of flutes without serial numbers sprinkled throughout the sequences. A number of people opine this to be merely an oversight, that RR couldn’t be bothered to be careful. That’s purely ridiculous thinking …from a common-sense point of view, not to mention a business point of view. But either way, it falls in the face of those who say thhe flutes were marked with numbers as they came into the inventory. If that were so, and these were merely oversight, how , then, would they record the sale? that’s why my opinion…again, common sense…is these were deemed “seconds,” or flutes that simply were discounted and for some reason did not measure up.
I trust this long missive helps the rest of you understand the theories i’ve compiled over a quarter century of doing this – and not to the exclusion of information from others who study this as well, without naming anyone specific for fear of leaving o ne out. Suffice to say…there are several more than the rest of you know, scholars and collectors alike around the world.
now…if you have your own theories, then please submit and back up with sound thinking. But please, dont attempt to bolster your own position by trouncing on those of others. That simply makes for a bully pulpit that takes away from the real issue, which is attempting to answer unanswerable questions.
regarding th others “from Rudall and Rose” who went o n their own…
you are presuming theyy could make – and did make – an entire flute of their own.
assuming so…they appear to have left the firm very early in its existence.
To wit…it’s quite possible they did so to meet the needs of the firm, who may not have wanted to spend too much resource any longer on 8key flutes in-house, so they workers went off on their own to contract for RR (we certainly know Wylde did this for years) as well as begin their own offerring.
Did they have the other employyees who knew how to do the parts?
having any one person able to make an entire flute start to finish was rare b/c that would easily be competition. And since so many frauds seemed to exist – and there is adequate evidence this occured – why feed into that?
Remember, Rose was introduced to Rudall c.1821 as someone who could make a flute from start to finish. Apparently that ws quite a novelty. Why else make a point of noting it?
Goodland is a prime example of someone who set up a union of workers, their efforts to fulfill the various bits of work from the various locations wanting orders. It’s too detailed to go into here, but if you spend some research time on this, you’ll make the same discoveries.
But the nventory of flutes from Whitaker, Ingram and the like are very very few, indicating their attempts to go solo failed.
I doubt very much is was their choice since they did so poorly. It was likely their effort at getting in on the market while working to fulfill RR work…or those of other flutemakers.
Trial transcripts of thefts from RR by workers show cleearly they had specified jobs that prevented them from making an entire flute on their own.
Who voiced them? That’s a good question. But doubtful it was as Pratten did (or supposedly did), and perhaps simply someone with tuner (vibration measurements) who made adjustments.
my 2c
“wouldn’t simply be possible that the flute was prettier that way?” RudallRose.
Yes, that’s what I suggested too.
“the ridiculous battle over information becomes a dopey slugfest, rather than a scholarly discourse.” RudallRose.
There is no “battle over information” going on here. Why not stop being so aggressive and take a scholarly stance.
“rather than shoot down opinions, or challenge them simply to sound important, it’s a better approach to review and understand an approach.” RudallRose
Yes, you would do well to heed your own advice as you’re giving the impression that no one other than yourself is allowed to have an opinion regarding Rudall flutes.
I would think 25 years of data gathering and study would amount to very reasonable opinion based on information and, quite
importantly, common sense, of which so few seem to use though appear to have. RudallRose
Your modesty is overwhelming.
“I trust this long missive helps the rest of you understand the theories i’ve compiled over a quarter century of doing this – and not to the exclusion of information from others who study this as well, without naming anyone specific for fear of leaving o ne out. Suffice to say…there are several more than the rest of you know, scholars and collectors alike around the world.” RudallRose.
now…if you have your own theories, then please submit and back up with sound thinking. But please, dont attempt to bolster your own position by trouncing on those of others. That simply makes for a bully pulpit that takes away from the real issue, which is attempting to answer unanswerable questions. RudallRose
Again, no one is attacking your opinions, imaginings, theories, or attempting to bolster their positions. I suggest you calm down because if you read what you’ve written here you’ll see that it’s you who are coming across as the pompous bully.
Flutesoftheforest kindly draws our attention to something truly wonderful, which we can all admire. Then paddler helpfully gives us the link to said beauty for everyone’s convenience, and who knows they may have even prompted a lucky member to buy it. Then sadly this thread quickly goes downhill. It is my understanding that in the complete absence of any records from the makers Rudall & Rose, all that follows are speculative theories and guesswork. Let’s be grateful that it’s just the records that were lost, and not the instruments.
I’ve seen David come and go over the years. Taking the huff, threatening to leave forever coming back, because others have wanted to discuss Rudalls as well. Others who may not have had the access or knowledge.
We all value your knowledge, it’s only fair to have questions however.
I don’t have the Bigio book or what’s left of the ledgers though I have a friend whom I can ask.
So here’s my question without challenging what David has said above why in the later records are the instruments listed as made by an individual
Such as:
The D piccolo… is # 7887 Made 16 Mar 28by Morley, sold 20 Mar 28 to H. Braham, London.
Now I understand this is nearly a century later but what had changed.
why is a single craftsman listed.
I have seen other entries where it lists who they have bought the flute in from (Stark etc.)
When do the Rudall Carte records begin?
Long after the eight key was a professional instrument I’m sure but were the top (Boehm/ Carte/ Radcliffe) flutes of the day made by a single craftsman or does made by simply mean ‘final assembly?’
In Robert Bigio’s book he explains (p151, based SFAIK on verbal testimony from the likes of Albert Cooper, Charles Morley et al) that the normal RC practice was for the wooden parts (of Böhm flutes) to be supplied more-or-less finished by a wood-turning department and for everything else to be done by an individual craftsman from raw materials - all the mechanism and other metal parts. It is unclear whether these makers drilled the holes or whether that was done in the turning department. Presumably all-metal flutes were entirely fabricated by the same man. These men were paid a piece rate and it is their names recorded on finishing. They were not all equally gifted or meticulous, so styles within a recognisable house style vary, as does quality. Whether they were individually responsible for embouchure voicing is unclear, but it seems likely there was a final inspector/finisher, perhaps the foreman. How relevant all that is to earlier times is of course an unknown, though a culture of workshop conservatism in contrast to the entrepreneurial openness to design innovation seems probable. The mechanism and fittings of a Böhm flute are of a different order of complexity and skill-requirement (and thus cost element) from simple system fittings, so a different production system may have pertained, perhaps along the lines of David’s suggestions. We do know from the records that as the firm’s own production emphasis switched to Böhm type flutes, they switched to buying in simple system flutes in batches of a dozen from Wylde and others - and we know Wylde employed a fairly large staff.
Robert has said to me he does not believe, based on the availability locally of the specialist skills and equipment which it would not have been economical to bring in-house, that the firm made the innards of the Patent Head themselves but bought them in.
Why not stop being so aggressive and take a scholarly stance. <<
from your point of view perhaps.
but of course, it’s not I who challenged the other, was it.
posit the theory and move on. Don’t say “No”…which is hardly scholarly. It’s hackish.
easy
piccolos were not of the same serial number series as the 8key concert flutes.
And piccolos, so small, unlikely would need more than one or two hands to construct…
and woudn’t “28” in that date mean 1928? if so,…then hardly the same frauds were perpetrating then as were a century earlier, no?
and i’ll try not to huff quite so much for your ears.
pissing…however…different story…protect your shoes.