old rudall on Craigslist

[Steampacket]

"Here we go: an answer from the seller "The number looks to be 1418 or maybe 1413. It is also stamped with the address 15 Piazza Covent Garden in one place along with multiple Rudall&Rose, London stamps." Radcliff

Good work, I have 1415? in my register, I'll update it tonight. This was the problem with the 13 key Rudall in the recent Melbourne auction, hard to tell if it was 1713 or 1718. Was the stamped carelessly applied, or is it due to wear and tear, prehaps both.

[jemtheflute]

Well, the address certainly makes better sense for the serial number. So much for trying to read duff photos!

[RudallRose]

Can you explain this David? If Catherine's flutes headjoint was from a Boehm it would have a Boehm taper in the headjoint the so called parabola. As far as I'm aware this is not the case. If anything this Craigslist flute supports Catherine's take on it that her flute may have originally had two heads.

Not a problem.
I agree that it seems to support the theory.....but you have to ask the question: why have a second headpiece for a flute when it is identical to the first, offering no specific benefit?

The parabolic head is hardly accurate, more closely to a slight taper from a cylindrical body.

I must admit not having measured McEvoy's headpiece.

But I don't doubt that Rudall heads used could be from any number of the different models, not just Boehm flutes they made. Carte's perhaps? Or Radcliffe?
Either way....the idea here is not that they are of a certain design or not as far as its taper, but rather that these head pieces were not specifically made for these flutes, instead being a cross-over partnering.

Again, just a theory......but I would have say it would likely be expensive for RR to make a special cut/work of a headpiece ... unless they had a bunch laying about from other flutes, wouldn't it?

I hope that helps a little.

dm

[RudallRose]

I have been looking closely at Helen Valenza's #594, shown in Robert Bigio's book.

Indeed, Martin, i had forgotten about Helen's acanthus leaf flutes (including the ivory one)....which must use the pads in order to accommodate the design pattern.

Very good catch. It's not unprecedented........but those were very expensive custom flutes. Why do a "regular" flute that way? That makes little sense. And please, no random notes on "they'd do whatever you wanted if you were willing to pay." That's too easy.

I took another look at my own cocus 15xx that has pewter plugs on the foot joint that sit into metal tubes (and is not boxwood, which was a practice of that timber), and there are indeed square shapes for where there could have been plates inserted.
Why would they have chosen tubes instead? I have no idea.

[jemtheflute]

David, Helen Valenza's acanthus pattern flutes both have pewters under the C#/C keys, as Martin noted above from Robert's illustrations. On square plates. Presumably your flute with tube-bushed holes for the pewters in Potter style was using established technology for some reason (bought in from an outworker, we might speculate?), or it could even be an old repair for lost plates? I think most of the R&R boxwood flutes have standard R&R hardware?

[RudallRose]

i'm flummoxed now.
this is what i get for writing a response based on bad memory and w/o looking back over photos!
oky. enough of that!

i wondered on the lost plate idea......but then you'd have to retool the plug itself for the thinner linkage.

brought in from outside? always possible, I'd say, but in the 15xx series? I wonder if that's too soon for them yet.

I can't conceive of lost plates (both lost all 4 screws?) or why.....simply reinsert plates.

Standard hardware? as in plates, etc? If that's what you mean, then, no. Many of the boxwood flutes used the Potter-style keys. One of the earliest models that I have indeed used it on all 8 keys.

[dunnp]

"I agree that it seems to support the theory.....but you have to ask the question: why have a second headpiece for a flute when it is identical to the first, offering no specific benefit?"

The same reason that modern makers also make unlined headjoints. Some players perceive a difference and prefer an unlined to a lined head.


"But I don't doubt that Rudall heads used could be from any number of the different models, not just Boehm flutes they made. Carte's perhaps? Or Radcliffe?"

Carte headjoints and most Radcliffe headjoints (some Radcliffe's were conical) would have been the same design as Boehm.

"Again, just a theory......but I would have say it would likely be expensive for RR to make a special cut/work of a headpiece ... unless they had a bunch laying about from other flutes, wouldn't it?"

Then as now it would have been less expensive (and less work) to make a solid unlined head. Solid unlined heads continued to be offered by most firms on cheaper/ military flutes.
I'm sure the workers at Rudall were aware that it makes no sense to have a tapered headjoint on a conical body.

In the not too distant past from this craigslit flute all headjoints were solid and unlined.

I know some good flute makers have looked at Catherine's flute. None have suggested it was not original to that flute. But you never know?

[radcliff]

"I know some good flute makers have looked at Catherine's flute. None have suggested it was not original to that flute. But you never know?

mmm, it may be my own bad memory, but I remember that headjoint a bit odd in style respect the rest of the flute.
I should have pictures to check somewhere in my archive.
Even so, I agree flute players may have asked for a second head piece unlined. Actually I'm surprised we know just very few of them. the very same brand made much more often a second head for boehm flutes (and we have many box with the space made for a second head). I think it is more wierd that we have R&R flutes with standard head plus Patent head, as they should sound more or less the same (and also because it should be much more expensive than a solid unlined one) but the easy guess is that people (and makers) were looking for a more clean, brilliant sound rather than a wooden warm one.

[dunnp]

Solid unlined heads do look weird to the eye accustomed to seeing a barrell.

Here are some photos of a recent ebay Simpson flute with this type of head:

https://plus.google.com/100854682319124 ... BoZaoW72f3

This flute is a four keyed lower price model flute.

[dunnp]

While we are on the subject of solid unlined heads.
I love boxwood:

http://m.ebay.com/itm/291329260416

[radcliff]

Ok, right: the only strange thing on that flute is that the head piece miss one of the decorative wooden ring,
so looking at that seems like the head doesn't fit very well, but it is just because of the missing piece of wood.

At the same time someone replace one of those decorative wooden rings with a silver one on the foot (so she now have a doouble ring where it should be just one). All consider, it is 100% original of that flute as the rudall style of siver rings+wooden rings it's quite rare, and having an unlined head that randomly have the very same style....just impossible.

[Flutesoftheforest]

On the topic of tube lined C# and C holes my own research shows the following:-

My flute #3632 is of a relatively unusual design for Rudall and Rose. It is cocuswood with ivory rings and cap and 8 silver keys. See “Flute photos” Page 49, posted Jan17th 2012.

I can find details of four other flutes made in this style and materials.

#1456 An 8 key flute in low Bb at the RNCM Manchester UK
#2259 An 8 key flute in F which was owned by the late Andrew Kirkby
#2707 A 6 key flute in Bb at the RNCM Manchester UK
#3555 A left hand 8 key flute at the DCMiller collection (DCM0956)

Although these flutes span a range of just over 2000 serial nos. which I suspect could be a period of around 10 years, perhaps 1828 to 1837, they share the same profile of ivory rings, tube lined C# and C holes and high quality of making.

Are they of the same hand? Were they made as a sample set, as I have not found two of the same specification, but were then sold over a period of time hence the span of serial Nos.?

Just adding to our knowledge or to the confusion!

Cheers

Martin

[Jon C.]

Having two head joints were common with Monzani flutes, along with the square case, head joints secured in the lid. Maybe the customer wanted one like that?
Catherine's head joint looked like it fit the flute very well, as. I Recall...

[Steampacket]

"My flute #3632 is of a relatively unusual design for Rudall and Rose. It is cocuswood with ivory rings and cap and 8 silver keys. See “Flute photos” Page 49, posted Jan17th 2012. I can find details of four other flutes made in this style and materials." Martin

I have this one in the list also with ivory bands, not sure if there is an ivory head joint cap and it has strike plates
Rudall & Rose, 15 Piazza, Covent Garden, London 1535 - Cocus wood, eight silver keys (early type saltspoon), broad ivory bands as ferrules, small holes, C/C-sharp overlapping, square C/C-sharp strike plates, Eb padded. On sale at one point by Just Flutes, London

[Steampacket]

R&R nr 2982 - a boxwood Rudall here with ivory ferrules, end and head joint cap with pewter C#/C keys & bushed holes

http://collections.ed.ac.uk/mimed/recor ... highlight=*:*