Which recent Rudall is closest to the originals?

[Jon C.]

I agree, that there is very little change in the playability of the flute. To say that a Rudall is no longer a Rudall, because the wood has shrunk a little, or the bore has ovelated, is kind of a stretch. I think that the playability of the flutes are still quite good, ask players like Catherine Macavoy or our glittery friend Michael Flatley. I think that you would find very little difference in the playability of a new R&R versus it's present state. Most of the bore ovalation probably happened shortly after the flute as made. Shrinkage is minimal, in the playability of the flute. Maybe you should get back into recorders Loren, that bunch gets all picky like that...

(By the way Aanvil, I have your un-branded Wylde flute keys fixed, and it plays great!)

[Rob Sharer]

What of wood that moves less like Cocus?

Cocus moves quite a bit, actually. He goes to the gym, takes long walks, etc. I've seen him do this.

Rob

[Jon C.]

What of wood that moves less like Cocus?

Cocus moves quite a bit, actually. He goes to the gym, takes long walks, etc. I've seen him do this.

Rob

I hear he is getting about even better these days... But does he play the same, or is he loosing his tone?

[Rob Sharer]

No fear of him! Playing like a champ.

ob

[Loren]

Thats an interesting point Loren.

I would wonder how much wood will move once cut, made stable then re-reamed.

Well, here's what I saw: batches of 50-100 instruments, various woods throughout most batches (Boxwood, Rosewood, Blackwood, Tulipwood, Kingwood, Pink Ivory, Maple and so on) all turned, bored and then reamed to spec. are left to sit for 1 month in the same controlled climate. Re-ream 1 month later. Lots of shrinkage. Re-ream 6 months later lots of shrinkage. Re-ream another 1-3 months later, still shrinkage but less. Re- ream 1-5 years about the same as prior ream. 5-15 years later (same stage of production, not fully completed instruments) still some significant shrinkage, but not a ton. More warpage in the box instruments than the others over time.

It seems to me that brought back to reasonable humidity levels the wood would be within tolerances very close to the original makers intentions.

Nope, as wood dries over time, irreversible cellular structure changes take place. Wood can re-absorb a certain amount of moisture, but the wood's structure and dimensions have forever changed.

Now different woods move are more stable than others. I need not tell you that, I know.

True, but stability is vague: Some woods are stable longitudinally, yet shrink in other dimensions, for example my old Dogwood Olwell was straight as an arrow, but swells up and like crazy when it's played. Boxwood warps far more but doesn't swell or shrink as much, and so on. Regardless, I've yet to meet a wood that doesn't significantly change dimension over long periods of time.

It would seem that since it can but a few thousandths of an inch in movement to create a crack in a lined head and perhaps only a bit more to stick a key those surviving examples that are complete and functional would be perhaps very close to the original dimensions? No?

No. Most of the lined heads from years past have cracked. and even if they haven't it doesn't mean the wood hasn't shrunk considerably - it just means the stress hasn't gotten to the point of splitting the wood of the head yet.

As for keywork, most working block mounted keyed flutes would have had maintenance done over the life of the instrument, and that would have involved truing of any keyways and keys as needed over time. I saw plenty of modern makers flutes in the shop where I worked - flutes that had sticky keys which needed work because the wood had moved. I won't name names of makers and players, because people often feel they don't want the original maker to know that someone else had to work on their instrument, but I can name some rather famous players and virtually every modern maker whos work came into our shop in need of key/block adjustment due to dimensional changes. And this of instruments less than 10-20 years old, some far younger!

I seem to remember a study Terry did

in regards to deviation in bore profile to measured response. I think there was in fact a rather wide margin for movment. Perhaps I misunderstood his findings.

Not familiar with it, so I can't comment.

[quote}I guess the point I'm trying to make is that... well... I don't think you've got it right. [/quote]

You are welcome to your viewpoint, of course, I'd simply ask what experince is it based on? I'm simply putting out there what I observed at a shop where they've been making and restoring Historic Woodwinds for 40 years. For whatever that's worth.

Of course. I haven't done the science yet so I may well be talking out my arse.

Well, you said it, not me!

However, I do think that many of the surviving R&R are perhaps quite close still, if not undetectably different, to the original sound.

Original reamers still exist.

If they are verifiably the originals, and we know what instruments (serial numbrs) they were originally used for, then I'm all for tracking down those flutes and getting down to some re-reaming! The differences in sound can be astonishing when you re-ream a flute that's been out in the world for even a few years let alone 100+

Then the next problem though is, exactly how large were the tone holes and embouchure originally, because they shrink too you know. Just try fitting the same drill bit you used to drill a tone hole initially, back into a tone hole years later........

Not sure it that is in the realm of possibility.

Best be packing a nuclear powered ice chest on your trip to hell I'm thinking.

Loren

[Loren]

Maybe you should get back into recorders Loren, that bunch gets all picky like that...

Yes, simple system flutes are really quite easy by comparison, a bit of a bore really.....

Or perhaps I should have taken one of the two flute making jobs I was offered at Verne Q. Powell and gone on to make "Real" flutes.

Too many choices really, it's all starting to seem too much like choosing between Prattens and Rudalls.


Loren

[Jon C.]

If they are verifiably the originals, and we know what instruments (serial numbrs) they were originally used for, then I'm all for tracking down those flutes and getting down to some re-reaming! The differences in sound can be astonishing when you re-ream a flute that's been out in the world for even a few years let alone 100+

What I understand from Robert Bigio's article that he wrote on the original reamers. He recieved them from Rudall Carte when they went out of buisness. They were straight tapers, with markings to indicate how far to ream into the flute. There were two different tapers used, in combination with each other. Not like the current way we make reamers, with a fixed contour.

Then the next problem though is, exactly how large were the tone holes and embouchure originally, because they shrink too you know. Just try fitting the same drill bit you used to drill a tone hole initially, back into a tone hole years later........

How much shrinkage do you think will happen laterally in wood when it dries, that make the tone holes shrink? I think about a micron or two... Plus, they will shrink uniformly, so no biggy... The flutes with lip plates and ferrels, solves this problem, as they are the same size as the day they were made.

[Aanvil]

40 years?

If your avatar is recent I'd say you must have been birthed on the bench with a reamer in your hand.

Myself... I claim red wine and red meat for my youthful exterior.


You re-reamed all those flutes yourself?

Sounds like a fun job. Seriously.

[Jon C.]

Maybe you should get back into recorders Loren, that bunch gets all picky like that...

Yes, simple system flutes are really quite easy by comparison, a bit of a bore really.....

Or perhaps I should have taken one of the two flute making jobs I was offered at Verne Q. Powell and gone on to make "Real" flutes.

Too many choices really, it's all starting to seem too much like choosing between Prattens and Rudalls.


Loren

I was hoping that Eilam would chime in there on the recorder making, he still has a bunch of half finished Recorders in hs shop, just walked away!
Well, you are right about that, but if I were you, I would go work with Terry, in the beautiful warm tropics of Australia!

[johnkerr]

significant shrinkage

Man, that's one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes.

[Loren]

significant shrinkage

Man, that's one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes.

Absolutely! A Classic!!


Loren

[RudallRose]

Rama
your 4999 had gone through several hands by the time you got it. I show 4 owners since 1992 at least. None a junk shop.

And I can't figure for the life of me Jem why I have this one misnoted!
I found your original paperwork in my files and sure enough.
Hmmm.
Not a problem. Fixed!

dm

[jemtheflute]

David, Rama meant his F flute was from a junk shop, not his R&R#4999

i also found mine in a junk shop! (in brighton, ma. usa). it's "boosey&co pratten perfected etc." looks like serial no. 11915 but hard to read. needed some work, once up and running, plays like a smaller version of the D pratten perfected.
makes you wonder where do many good flutes end up? undiscovered sitting in some shop or attic etc.?

I think you need a holiday!

[RudallRose]

I totally need a break. Ha!

Loren makes a good point about re-reaming, but the Rudalls not only went through a variety of redesigns for the bore profile so it's likely what remains may not have been but from the very late years. After all, why keep reamers that aren't in use.....

And, rereaming wouldn't take into account the "chambering" Rudalls were so well known for before 1851.

I don't think we'll ever know.

[Loren]

I totally need a break. Ha!

Loren makes a good point about re-reaming, but the Rudalls not only went through a variety of redesigns for the bore profile so it's likely what remains may not have been but from the very late years. After all, why keep reamers that aren't in use.....

And, rereaming wouldn't take into account the "chambering" Rudalls were so well known for before 1851.

I don't think we'll ever know.

I agree, too many variables, we likely won't ever know unless additional shop records turn up some day.

I had the same thought about the reamers - too many changes along the way, would be difficult to know what serial numbers the reamers were used for without shop records.

As for keeping old reamers around, it does make sense when you have a lot of instruments out there and you've been making changes, this is why we kept old reamers at vH, when those old instruments came back for maintenance 20-30 years later, we could break out the old (original) reamers and restore the instrument's bore to spec., where as using the newest version of the reamers on hand would yield a different bore profile and dimensions, because improvements had been made over the years.

We kept and Opus book of instrument serial numbers over the years detailing the type of instrument, type of wood, any special adornments and so forth. The information in the Opus book allowed us to know which reamers to use when an older instrument came back. This is fairly handy when you have over 10,000 hand made instruments out in the world and coming back from time to time for a tune up.

Nope, we'll likely never know exactly how a new Rudall played and sounded. What a shame!


Loren