The Copeland Whistle design

[AngelicBeaver]

I'm curious if Mr. Copeland has considered passing his designs along to a new maker, or if anyone had thought of using his designs to make new whistles. It seems like they are highly valued, with a unique sound, but there's no way to get them without forking over some serious money for a used whistle. Eventually, you won't be able to get them at all.

[Steve Bliven]

Well, Mr. Copeland himself doesn't seem to be entirely out of the picture yet. From time to time he'll offer new whistles for sale on eBay—although the most recent one I find was August of 2014. As long has he's doing this, I suspect other makers might be loathe to begin making their versions based on his design.

But who knows, in a big business like whistle making with all that money as potential, maybe someone will jump in.

Best wishes.

Steve

[an seanduine]

The story goes that Copeland had a hand in the design of the head for the SweetoneTm.
I have an early high D Copeland.
I also have several Freeman tweaked Sweetones.
I rather like them all.
I'm not at all sure of it having a unique sound, but the Copeland has the potential for greater 'drive' and a bigger session 'presence' than the Sweetones.

Bob

[Sirchronique]

Well, Mr. Copeland himself doesn't seem to be entirely out of the picture yet. From time to time he'll offer new whistles for sale on eBay—although the most recent one I find was August of 2014. As long has he's doing this, I suspect other makers might be loathe to begin making their versions based on his design.

But who knows, in a big business like whistle making with all that money as potential, maybe someone will jump in.

Best wishes.

Steve

He has sold whistles on eBay much more recently than that.. as in, a few months ago or less. I remember seeing it, being sold as "newly made" by Mr. Copeland himself.

I have a nickel D and brass C, which I obtained pretty cheaply, and a low D that I got in a trade for my MK low D and F. They are all great whistles (particularly the low D) , but I have come to accept that these are probably the only ones I'll ever own, as I'm not willing to pay thousands to get them in other keys.


And the low keys do have a pretty unique sound. Or, at least, I've not played another low D that sounds and plays like the Copeland, and doubt I'll ever play a low D that I like more (though I'd be pleased to be proven wrong on this!) . The soprano whistles are nice, but nothing super unique, and not worth it to me for the price they are selling for (900 dollars or so!). You could get a box of several equally nice or better whistles for that price.

[pancelticpiper]

Anyone could borrow or buy a Copeland and start making copies. I wouldn't think there's a Patent. (I don't think he could get a Patent, or if he did I don't think it would hold up in court, due to his whistles having no new feature.)

Look at Sindt and Killarney.

Heck, you had at least three guys simultaneously making Overtons.

[Loren]

Copeland whistles are rather labor intensive, and more difficult to get right, when compared to most other whistle designs, and this is the reason you don't see people banging out Copeland Clones - a lot more work and skill required, and much lower profits to be had.

As to the issue of sound, conical bore whistles absolutely have a characteristic sound that is different than cylindrical bore whistles. Difficult to describe the conical bore sound, but easy to hear, it's almost a "hollowness" to the tone. Shawn, Sweetones, and Copelands all have the characteristic that I'm talking about, and in-person it is easy to identify with ones eyes closed. Well, if you don't have a tin ear that is

[tompipes]

That's a very interesting question in general.

I can only think of a few instances, in modern times, in the flute, uilleann pipes and whistle making world where the makers name continued on the instruments after the apprentice/student took over the making part of the business. That's when Sam Lawrence made Hunter pipes for Peter Hunter.

A few modern pipes makers, Rogge and O'Briain, had apprentices eventually went off on their own but never used the original makers name.

In the past the makers name would continue with the new makers as a brand name.
I mean, by a certain point in time Mr. Rudall and Mr. Rose didn't make any flutes themselves.
In fact I'm not sure if Mr. Rudall ever made any flutes! They were business men who hired skilled staff and contracted famous flutists to give their opinions. But the original name continued.

It's not the best example because they had a small factory but they made flutes for other 'makers' and they also had flutes made for them by makers like Henry Wylde.

So do you 1) make whistles for Copeland for a fee and he sells them and keeps the profit.
2) make 'Copeland by Angelic Beaver' whistles and give Michael a royalty
3) go to work for Copeland, earn a salary with the hopes of becoming a 'partner' and eventually inheriting the business
4) buy the company!

I'm sure Michael would appreciate the extra income in his retirement years and having more Copeland instruments available would only be a great thing!
Worst thing he can say is no.

It's a worthwhile proposition but do the math!
I also make whistles (and pipes and flutes) and Copeland whistles are complex buggers! That taper is tricky to manufacture at a profitable rate, but not impossible!



Best of luck


Tommy

[ytliek]

Go for it!

[pancelticpiper]

In the past the makers name would continue with the new makers as a brand name.

In the Highland pipe world that was the norm. RG Lawrie, Peter Henderson, and many other famous brands started out as a player who decided to get into pipemaking, and after his death the firm was continued, usually by his son(s) or son-in-law(s).

That's always been the way. What annoys me is the modern trend in Scottish pipemaking for some businessman/impresario to acquire the legal rights to the name of a long-dead maker, a firm which has been out of business for decades, and for him to hire anonymous maker(s) to turn out instruments which then have a this famous old name stamped on them. The people involved usually have no connexion whatever with the original family and firm, and the instruments may not have any similarity whatsoever to the originals.

So do you
1) make whistles for Copeland for a fee and he sells them and keeps the profit.
2) make 'Copeland by Angelic Beaver' whistles and give Michael a royalty
3) go to work for Copeland, earn a salary with the hopes of becoming a 'partner' and eventually inheriting the business
4) buy the company!

or
5) just copy the things, put your own name on them, and keep all the money (a la Sindt > Killarney).

[Cliff Steele]

What happened with Overton whistles?

When Bernard retired and Colin Goldie took over they were still known as Overton whistles for a while (or Overton - Goldie I think) then they became Goldie whistles, any reasons for this name change?

[Peter Duggan]

Guessing because 1. he prefers to use his own name and 2. they've evolved over his years of making them?

[Cliff Steele]

Guessing because 1. he prefers to use his own name and 2. they've evolved over his years of making them?

1. Probably more to do with Bernard's demise and licensing issues.

2. I think my wife's Ford Mondeo is considerably 'evolved' from the Ford Model T, still a called Ford however.

[Sirchronique]

Guessing because 1. he prefers to use his own name and 2. they've evolved over his years of making them?

And maybe had something to with Phil Hardy, as well?

[NicoMoreno]

Guessing because 1. he prefers to use his own name and 2. they've evolved over his years of making them?

Colin (or Brigitte) actually posted here when they introduced the name, and this is the reason. They are still legally allowed to use the Overton name but chose not to since their whistles are quite different now.

Editing to say that it doesn't seem I was completely correct:
http://www.colingoldie.de/news-reader.4 ... aunch.html

[Cliff Steele]

Really interesting, thanks for that Nico.