Patent Head Rudall/Rose on eBay

RudallRose · Post by **RudallRose** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:51 am

by the way....nice get on the eBay flute.....to whomever that may be .

I'm not a personal fan of the 3000-series flutes. I like them, but I have an affinity for the higher numbers because of their larger (generally....since RR made many different varieties) bores.

I own (as you know, DL) RR #1900, a boxwood variety with fairly large holes. What makes this flute tick, though, is the embouchure. A large cut unlike many rudalls. And it is a distinctive flute for its workmanship.
(by they way....why on earth say you've never come across a 1000-series flute when you yourself sold me one? Unless you read 1000 to mean 1000-1100? By 1000-series I mean the entirety of the thousand, from 1000-1999. Unless, of course, we wish to narrow it further, as I do below, by saying the 6200-series.....and that would be 6200-6299.)

I won't discount the 1000-series flutes at all, overall. I've even owned a lower-number flute (#810 that now resides in the southwest) that played very nicely. I also own (what is believed to be) #3......a very small holed flute with tiny bore.

I think the 3000 series flutes attrack Mr. Wilkes' attention (and this is my thought......and don't mean to ascribe anything to him that may not be right) because of their refined workmanship and perfection of lines and such.
The boxwood Rudall that I just sold from that series had that type of clarity. Perhaps it's when the firm was finally at its high point with 8key flutes and everything was in place? I don't know. But the flutes are indeed beautiful.

My favorite RR however is a 6200-series instrument that is hands down better than any I've played, heard or seen. But that's my preference. It's louder (when need be) than my Prattens and even my Olwell.

Rudalls are very very much in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps that's why so many people like them? Because they cover the gamit of instrument types and vagaries of the firm. You want large-holed? They have it. You want small? That too. Patent Head? No problem. Extended foot to B? Easy. Sweet, crisp tone in cocus? Yes, we have those. Buttery, creamy, warmth of boxwood? Yes sirree.

And, thankfully, there are many of them out there. They made about 7300 simple system flutes, most of them in D
I've always guessed that there are about 1500 left. That seems reasonable as I've only been able to catalogue and locate about 350 of them in the past 8 years.

dm

David Levine · Post by **David Levine** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:36 pm

David, I didn't say I'd never seen a Rudall 1,000 series. Or rather, that comment was embedded in a longer sentence. I did say: "I've never come across a Rudall from the 1,000 series (I've owned a half-dozen or so and played another dozen or so) that I thought evinced inferior work."
I agree with you about the later flutes. My 6,300 series Rudall/Carte is a wonderful flute.
The important thing to realize in the context of this discussion is that everything is a trade-off. You never get everything in one flute. I love playing my Hammy for reasons other than I love playing my Olwell or my Rudall/Carte. The Hammy has a great open sound and great character. The Murray is breathy but has a rough edge that I love on certain tunes. The Rudalls have a refined sound and are wonderful for those tricky tunes (Splendid Isolation, Gravel Walks, some of the technical 19th. C. hornpipes like The Hawk). I play all the flutes and love them all. The hard part is selling one when I feel pinched...

Jack Bradshaw · Post by **Jack Bradshaw** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:29 pm

....or sing Danny Boy if the money's right (that I have to hear !)

Anyway, can't fault the 1000-series....and switching heads (embouchure) can really make a volume difference. I know DM has tried it....DL ??

RudallRose · Post by **RudallRose** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:26 pm

ah
okay
remove the parenthetical and you're right on, DL.
I suppose "inferior" work is bad way to say it, too.
Perhaps "less-than-stellar" is better?

I guess there are all kinds of ways to see it, though, and I'd love to hear Chris Wilkes' take on it. I imagine that would settle a lot on the matter.

Bottom line: Different Rudalls for Different Strokes.
And beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder.

dm

David Levine · Post by **David Levine** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:23 am

Yes, I have tried different head joints on my Rudalls. I have one made by Olwell and one by Wilkes. In each case the improvement in volume was dramatic. I assume this is probably a result of the deeper chimney.

pandscarr · Post by **pandscarr** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:17 am

What makes this flute tick, though, is the embouchure. A large cut unlike many rudalls.

Interesting - my 5000 series medium hole / bore Rudall & Rose headjoint also has a large slightly oval embouchure hole, which I really believe accounts for the beauty of the sound. Neither the original headjoint that came on my Wylde, or a Wilkes headjoint I bought from someone on this board, produce a sound that compares. Since they are virtually interchangeable, I've taken to playing the Wylde with the Rudall headjoint, which is great as I don't have to change my embouchure to play a different flute.

Seems as though there are lots of Rudall's coming out of the woodwork these days...

RudallRose · Post by **RudallRose** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:10 pm

They come out in bunches, I've noticed.
I just recorded three others in the past two days (not from sales, but people approaching me). One is in the 1000-series we've been speaking about.

They are out there. As I say: All Rudalls come home eventually.
They like to congregate in the catalogue.

There was some debate in the 1800s about the large embouchure holes. Critics said it caused poor habits since the strength of embouchure was less taxed. Proponents believed it allowed anyone the chance to play the instrument with reasonable tone.
That's probably why you see smallish holes and larger ones. The small ones really need the lip.
My favorite embouchure (more than any Rudall or Olwell or Pratten or what not that I've got) is the large round embouchure on my Clementi-Nicholson. Marvelous. But that's my preference, I suppose.

ImNotIrish · Post by **ImNotIrish** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:51 pm

Just curious, I have a 4000 series R&R (4117) which I absolutely love. I am anxiously awaiting a new HJ from Partick Olwell (ordered mostly to adjust the tuning down somewhat), but what I really want to know is what people might have to say about the flutes in this series. Any comments would be welcome. Thanks, Arbo.

glinjack · Post by **glinjack** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:51 pm

Arbo,
the rudall & rose flutes were designed and built by the best makers of the 19th c and each section made to exact measurement for each flute so that the flute is in tune with itself on each octave, rudall & rose flutes have a distinctive rudall & rose sound with some
r&r flutes varing a little bit this way or that ( large hole versus medium hole)
If you get a headjoint made for your flute, it is going to sound just like that makers flutes with a little difference because of the r & r bore, but it will certainly not sound like a r & r flute, you may really like the new sound and not want to go back to the original headjoint, I would be very interested in how it sounds with the new head,

ImNotIrish · Post by **ImNotIrish** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:09 pm

Glinjack,
it's been over two years since I ordered the HJ. At that time I had one of Patrick's hj's and played it on my R&R for almost a month. You are correct that the sound was very different. In fact, I did much prefer the tonal qualities of the original hj at that time. I decided to go ahead with the new hj because of the sharpness of the instrument and the fact that I needed to pull the hj out so far to play at A=440. Two years ago I was playing a hj that Patrick had lying around his shop and happened to work with my flute. The new hj has been adjusted and fit to the flute. I know it will drastically change the sound of the instrument (louder, flatter, etc.). This is fine for sessions. Should I ever record with the instrument I plan on using the patent head, most likely pushed in to a comfortable position (albeit sharp...). I'll keep you posted.

Arbo

rama · Post by **rama** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:24 pm

ImNotIrish wrote:Just curious, I have a 4000 series R&R (4117) which I absolutely love. I am anxiously awaiting a new HJ from Partick Olwell (ordered mostly to adjust the tuning down somewhat), but what I really want to know is what people might have to say about the flutes in this series. Any comments would be welcome. Thanks, Arbo.

i own two r&r's in the 4xxx series. both play at a440. one is small holed and the other more like medium holes and has a bigger embouchure and the tuning slide has to be pulled out a little further for me, almost to the end of outersleeve. but it still maintains solid tone.
wilkes hj and olwell hj both work well on it, both bring a little more depth to the two octaves and also make it a little easier to play in tune. personally, i like the original hj better. i like the tonal colors from it, how it plays and responds - maybe i am just biased.
i have not tried any other hj on the smaller holed flute. the socket/tenon is different size and not as easy to fit. that embouchure is really nice and tight so i don't care to try anything else on it.

hope that helps.

if i were you, i would try to find a hawkes and sons pratten perfected, pinned mounted keys. i bet that would be a dynamite flute. unfortuantely for me, i can't afford one right now.

eilam · Post by **eilam** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:09 pm

Arbo, the flute you got on ebay looked really nice, it was a great price for it as well, i'm really happy the auction is over

i have a R&R in the 4K series (4932), and Peter Not made a second head for it.
i like the original, but i asked Peter for a deeper chimney and his modern cut embouchure (a bit smaller in size then his usual), he also added his cutaway and insert.
i love that flute with the Noy head, it has such a tight and complex tone, it sounds like an oboe, or some other double reed instrument.
eilam.

ImNotIrish · Post by **ImNotIrish** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:16 pm

Eilam,
I've had the new Olwell hj for a few days now. Played it at a session the other night and several people came over to me and commented on the flute
(not necessarily my playing-what's up with that?). Anyway, I haven't put the original hj back on yet-thought I'd play the Olwell for a while and get used to it. The flute is definately louder, very in tune, and plays easily. It's funny- I played a couple of slow airs on the flute and happenened to use some vibrato, and a piper.flute player friend commented that I shouldn't use the vibrato as the flute had such a nice tone when played straight. Okay, so everyone's got an opinion... I'm sure I'll have one shortly!

Arbo

RudallRose · Post by **RudallRose** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:18 pm

i had a chance to visit last week with Frank Claudy, who plays a 4700-series Rudall that is outstanding.
It's a patent head with a plug Eb. But it's a large hole flute that plays very well.
dm

treeshark · Post by **treeshark** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:12 am

... and here's another one.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RUDDALL-ROSE-ANTI ... dZViewItem

Chiff and Fipple Forums

Patent Head Rudall/Rose on eBay

Rudalls-- re never seen 1,000 series

Different heads...