Chanter review - Narrow bore D by David Boisvert

billh · Post by **billh** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:56 am

Royce wrote: In the other thread we all agreed that the so-called C# sets were really more like flatter versions of concert D,

Utter nonsense. Coyne C#s have throats of well under 4mm, in general, and at least one Coyne C# has a throat that's considerably smaller.

I can't speak to the C#s which you personally have handled or heard up-close, but there is nothing wide about the C# bores based closely on Coyne.

Bill

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:58 am

Hey Royce,

I think that possibly the photo is posing an optical illusion. The bottom of the chanter and the door frame are almost the same colour and in the same position in the photo giving the chanter bottom mount a larger appearance. Can anyone else see that?

Patrick.

djm · Post by **djm** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:18 pm

Nope. I can barely see any projection at all below the bottom mount. That part seems more to blend with his raised thigh. The thing is, we can't see how much foreshortening caused by the angle is going on in the photo. There isn't enough contrast to be sure of what we're looking at. The only thing I agree with in Royce's post above is that this is all pretty speculative.

djm

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:33 pm

Good man djm,

I am only speculating... I'm not declaring it to be so. This is called discussion.

Here's a blown up version of the pic for you to speculate over:

Patrick.

djm · Post by **djm** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:36 pm

Sorry, Pat. I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong. Your zoom just confirms what I was saying, though. There doesn't seem to be any extension of the chanter below the bottom mount (past your red lines). But also, the chanter seems to be tilted back away from the camera, so it is difficult if at all possible to gauge the total length of the chanter.

djm

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:47 pm

I was talknig about width not length djm. Sure it could end right there, I wouldn't argue with you about that. I was trying to show that the chanter diameter isn't 1.5" at the base as Royce stated earlier, it is merely an optical illusion due to the door frame being confused with the mount on the chanter.

I know you won't get what I'm saying and will disagree with me just for the sake of it. I'm used to it from you by now.

Patrick.

djm · Post by **djm** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:51 pm

Ah! Sorry, I didn't understand. And that's pretty unfair. Got somethin' against kitty cats?

Besides, a more telling argument would be that a visual inspection of the external measure of the chanter's diameter is no way at all for measuring the internal diameter of the bore.

djm

AlanB · Post by **AlanB** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:10 pm

Pat,

The bottom of the chanter is obscured by a fold in his trousers, apply xray filter and you will know the truth.

Alan

Royce · Post by **Royce** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:12 pm

Wow, that does look a lot narrower in the closeup. Still pretty fat though for being a narrow bore, but maybe not for a wide bore.

Royce

tompipes · Post by **tompipes** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:04 pm

Wasn't Jem Byrne 7 feet tall?

Seriously,
The chanter could have been one of those "broomstick" chanters, so called because of their thickness.
Imagine a C chanter but with the finger hole spacings of a D chanter. The difference in tone colum lenght was made up by the thickness of the wall of the chanter.

tommy

By the way, any ideas on who made that set?

Jim McGuire · Post by **Jim McGuire** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:36 pm

Could be a double chanter.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:12 pm

It's an illsutration, not a photo. Certainly an illustration will be distorted size wise?

Jim McGuire · Post by **Jim McGuire** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:27 pm

Looks like a photo to me; they used to color in old b&w photos to 'improve' them.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:30 pm

...you're right, I had the wrong picture in mind. I guess that is what happens when there are more than one thread on the same topic going at once.

Royce · Post by **Royce** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:46 pm

tompipes wrote:Wasn't Jem Byrne 7 feet tall?

Imagine a C chanter but with the finger hole spacings of a D chanter. The difference in tone colum lenght was made up by the thickness of the wall of the chanter.

tommy

That would probably work pretty slick, and account for the really fat lower walls, which would really help shorten the fingerspace down there.

We get so few chanters over here in the states, even going back a hundred and more years, other than the modern Taylor/Rowsome bore types, even the flatter C/C# versions. The only broomstick chanters I've seen are those like Willie Clancy's, which don't quite live up to the name as well as the one in the photo.

Royce