Rudall Rose Carte #6264

[paddler]

In a funny juxtaposition, I'm currently fixing up a US-made William Hall flute which I hope will fill a hole in my experience. Haven't measured it up properly yet, but the bore seems to lie a little bigger than the Firth, Pond & Co that gave rise to my Grey Larsen Preferred model, but a bit smaller than the bore of my Rudall Refined model, similar to the flute featured by Chris Norman. The holes are probably a little bigger again, so it seems to have a bigger holes-to-bore ratio than the smaller English flutes. Which is of course the definition of "better vented". It seems easy and willing at this stage. It will be interesting to see where it fits in when I get it fully working.

Your description of your Hall flute sounds similar to this Firth Son & Co flute I used to own:

http://jonathanwalpole.com/firth-son-co-8-key

I've worked on a lot of different William Hall flutes, and they have all been pretty good, but generally have slightly smaller holes and bore than the above Firth Son & Co. The flute linked below would be more typical of the William Hall flutes I've worked on, but I know they too occupy a spectrum of designs.

http://jonathanwalpole.com/william-hall-son-6-key

I just sent off two restored William Hall flutes to the Irish Flute Store, and they should appear on the site shortly (one 4 key and one 6-key). They are both toward the smaller tone-hole, narrower bore, end of the spectrum for William Hall flutes -- responsive, easy players with a beautifully sweet high end, that work for ITM, but are not session blasters. Players looking for a flute with low breath requirements, more responsive (easier to be crisp) ornaments and a sweet top end, at the expense of some volume and power, tend to like them.

But to bring this back to the R&R discussion, it is clear that just as Rudall and Rose flutes represented a fairly wide spectrum on design choices, bore profiles and tone hole sizes, over the lifespan of the company, the same is true of most of the main American flute makers of that period.

[Terry McGee]

Indeed. And it makes sense that on both sides of the pond, makers back then could see that one size doesn't fit all. And if it didn't then, why should it now?

And I reckon I'd get bored if I only made one kind of flute!

Looking forward to hearing what the new acquisition has to tell you...

[Jon C.]

Thanks for the detailed response Flutern! That makes much more sense, and is quite well in line with what I would expect. The tuning behavior you describe is quite common for English flutes of that period. At least based on my experience, these flutes are usually best in tune with themselves with a significant amount of tuning slide extension (usually more than the 12 mm you mentioned for yours), and the tuning balance can still center not far from A=440 hz. It is as if the head has been shortened to allow for playing at higher pitches, but the scale length of the body and bore profile was for a lower pitch. So given what you describe, I would definitely not refer to this SL as being an HP flute. My use of that term, at least, refers to a flute whose scale length is too short, and whose tuning is such that it is best in tune with itself at a higher pitch.

But having said that, it would not surprise me if the head length was a little shorter than ideal. This is why these antique flutes often play better with a new, longer head. Acoustically, everything is the same, apart from the lack of such a large bore cavity around the extended tuning slide, which of course influences the tuning of notes whose pressure nodes or antinodes fall in that location. That is just one factor among many that can influence things, and most modern makers who use these flutes as the basis for their own models compensate in various ways for the idiosyncrasies of their particular original.

Anyway, based on your new info and that from Blayne, it sounds to me as though these flutes (yours and the eBay one) probably are scaled (in terms of SL and scale length, at least) around a target that is quite close to A=440 and typical of later Rudalls. It is not uncommon for the low D to be pitched slightly low, even for flutes that don't have the flat foot syndrome (which usually results in foot notes that are VERY low).

By the way, I noticed on steampacket's R&R register site that the eBay flute here (#6264) is very close in serial number to the one owned by Hammy Hamilton for the past 40+ years (#6315). I assume that he has hung on to that one for so long because it is a good one.

Well, anyway, I'll eventually find out the truth about this eBay flute because I was the fool who bought it! And at that point I'll let you all know. My surprise at the final sale price was based on a history of bidding on these for more than a decade, and never actually winning any of the auctions. Too cheap, I suppose. Or at least not fully committed. I did have the dubious honor of managing to set the winning price on numerous past auctions, by virtue of having made the second highest bid.


So, when I eventually get my hands on it I'll share the details. My goal, assuming it is a good one, is to use it as the starting point for a Rudall model of my own making. I already have a Pratten..ish design that I'm very happy with, and a small holed, small bored, American model, so I've been looking for a medium-holed, relatively recent, Rudall for a while. I have similar flutes by Wylde, Fentum, Imlay and others, but not an actual Rudall, and I'd like to do a detailed comparison. So, I hope this one ends up being good. I'll be doing all the restoration myself, and likely make a new (additional) head for it too, so there will be time involved there, but no real expense. Labor of love, I suppose.

Hi, looks like a nice RC! I have a #6919 RC that is a total sleeper, as it is missing the foot! Looks just like this flute. The slide needs to come out 3 cm or 5/8" for my playing. I have a new foot turned, just need to make the keys...

[Dubpuff]

Hi Paddler. Been reading about Rudall on Ebay. I have one close to that era. It’s 6668 and I just checked the sounding length from middle of embouchure to end of flute and it’s 22 5/8 inches or 574 mm. When I play it I have it pulled out just about one inch
[/b]

Yes, I was curious about the sounding length too. Given the relatively late date associated with the serial number and maker's mark, it should fall into the period where the flat foot problems had been addressed, which would shorten the SL without shortening the scale length. Also, depending on the amount of tuning slide extension for the flute to play best in tune with itself, it could still be close to A=440 hz and in tune with itself, even though it has a measured SL around 575 mm with the slide completely closed. There are a few unknowns here.

Terry McGee's website shows an SL range of 567-578 for "Perfected style" flutes (and by this I assume we are talking about flutes with flat foot mostly corrected for). Since this RRC flute's 575 mm SL is close to the upper end of that range, I would assume that this si in the zone for modern pitch "Perfected style" flutes, and the the 567mm end of the range is for those at HP. But that is just my interpretation of what Terry posted. Again, there is quite a bit unspecified.

Terry's Guide to the Length of Flutes

Also, Terry's Rudall and Rose study shows flutes around this range of serial numbers (#6264) generally being close to modern pitch, and the HP ones being of significantly different design. See the "estimated best pitch" graph here:

Terry's RR Study Conclusions

So, it seems to be an open question about whether this one will be HP or good at modern pitch. I'd be interested to hear from owners of later model Rudall Rose Carte (or Rudall Carte) flutes, what the SL (with slide fully closed) is for flutes that play well at modern pitch.