Stanesby Junior ivory traverso at auction in London 29:10:12

[jemtheflute]

Looking at other things online, I stumbled across this!!!

Stanesby Junior ivory traverso at auction in London 29:10:12!

Listing says it is from Frans Bruggen's collection.
Estimated Price: £15,000 - £20,000 (plus 20% buyer's premium plus 20% VAT on that).

The Aulos Stanesby ABS repros look amazingly like it - is it the one they were based on?

I'm partly posting this here (where I know baroque/HIP enthusiasts and flute-history anoraks are in a minority) to put in perspective what we pay for "our" flutes, even at the top end of both antique and new-made instruments.

[Steve Bliven]

Is ivory a particularly good material for flutes (or other "woodwinds") or is it just for show?

Best wishes.

Steve

[LorenzoFlute]

I'd be really surprised if it goes for the price they're expecting. The ivory one that was on ebay not long ago went for, uhm, £3000? Can't remember, but the price wasn't huge, and it had an engraved key (but not as fancy rings).
The highest price I've seen for an 8 key simple system flute was around £6000 ($10000), a R&R with engraved keys.

[LorenzoFlute]

Is ivory a particularly good material for flutes (or other "woodwinds") or is it just for show?

Just for show, though I would expect it to sound slightly different (arguable statement though)

[jemtheflute]

The one ivory period flute I ever got to try (a one-key Traverso) was absolutely glorious to play - and very nice to hold/touch too. Whether it would have sounded as good made identically in another substance, I really can't say. One material consideration is what other materials were available in the period? They were only just getting to know the various tropical hardwoods and the true ebonies from Africa had a bad rap for cracking. Modern ethical considerations were not culturally relevant at the time, however much we may regret or deprecate that now. The main competitor for woodwind construction in the earlier C18th was boxwood and ivory was probably at least perceived as having quite different properties at the time, whether or not we might agree now. I'm not qualified to speak to how they behave relatively on the lathe etc. which might affect perceptions of suitability for use in woodwinds, leave aside any supposed tonal qualities.

Of course it was a luxury and high status material too. "Show" is probably a significant element, but I don't think that a modern attitude of revulsion at the use of ivory is necessarily helpful to understanding period use. Nor is a non-experientially founded suggestion that it sounds no better than or is worse than other materials. I know Steve was asking, not stating. I have at least played one, but so long ago and so briefly and not in a comparative context that I can't pretend to a properly informed opinion - I just know it was very nice to play, but that could well be attributed to the quality of construction, not the material.

One factor affecting the predicted price level is of course that extant Baroque period instruments, let alone playable ones (and good playable ones at that), are far, far rarer than "our" mid and late C19th instruments and this one is by one of the best known makers and in very fine condition and has been used extensively as a model for modern reproductions. Also sales (and buyers) at top auction houses are rather different from eBay. We'll see in due course, naturally.

[Steve Bliven]

The one ivory period flute I ever got to try (a one-key Traverso) was absolutely glorious to play - and very nice to hold/touch too. Whether it would have sounded as good made identically in another substance, I really can't say. One material consideration is what other materials were available in the period? They were only just getting to know the various tropical hardwoods and the true ebonies from Africa had a bad rap for cracking. Modern ethical considerations were not culturally relevant at the time, however much we may regret or deprecate that now. The main competitor for woodwind construction in the earlier C18th was boxwood and ivory was probably at least perceived as having quite different properties at the time, whether or not we might agree now. I'm not qualified to speak to how they behave relatively on the lathe etc. which might affect perceptions of suitability for use in woodwinds, leave aside any supposed tonal qualities.

Of course it was a luxury and high status material too. "Show" is probably a significant element, but I don't think that a modern attitude of revulsion at the use of ivory is necessarily helpful to understanding period use. Nor is a non-experientially founded suggestion that it sounds no better than or is worse than other materials. I know Steve was asking, not stating. I have at least played one, but so long ago and so briefly and not in a comparative context that I can't pretend to a properly informed opinion - I just know it was very nice to play, but that could well be attributed to the quality of construction, not the material.

"Modern attitude of revulstion"???? Where'd that come from? Certainly not me!

My question was, as stated, simply whether ivory is good as a material or whether such things were made just for show. I've seen a number of Northumbrian bagpipes out of ivory and was never sure whether that was a status symbol or an integral part of a "better set of pipes".

I think your comments on the availability of tonewoods at the time of this flute's manufacture may be much more to the point. I really have no idea when the woods that are now favorable (except for those with allergies) became available in sufficient quantities to become part of instrument manufacture. Again with bagpipes, locally grown fruitwoods were often used (apple, pear, etc.). I just didn't know about flutes.

And, for the record, I'm not revulsed by modernity....

Best wishes.

Steve

[jemtheflute]

No Steve - wasn't imputing such to you, but we've had it in other recent-ish threads.

[jim stone]

The general reputation I've heard for ivory as a flutestuff is that its sound is unexceptional.
The one I played did not sound particularly good. Jem's experience was considerably better.
That seems to sum up our acoustic info so far in this thread, FWIW.

[Tonehole]

The Aulos Stanesby ABS repros look amazingly like it - is it the one they were based on?

I'm partly posting this here (where I know baroque/HIP enthusiasts and flute-history anoraks are in a minority) to put in perspective what we pay for "our" flutes, even at the top end of both antique and new-made instruments.

I can't speak on behalf of anoraks, although there are only single digit working copies of the Aulos Stanesby.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89727

The Aulos Stanesby is based on the original Stanesby owned by Masahiro Akita in his own private collection. Here's Aulos' definitive statement:

http://www.aulos.jp/en/products/traverso.html

The auction one you've listed is very similar: perhaps some discrepancy about tuning I've been using the Aulos Stanesby replica and it is very good baroque traverso. If the original ivory one is good enough for Masahiro Arita, there isn't much for the rest of us to complain about. Aulos have responsibility used modern methods, rather than apeing traditional materials; the intonation of the Stanesby design is rather exceptional though. It is very different from a Grenser or a Rottenburgh 'sound' for the same pitch.

[megapop]

Is ivory a particularly good material for flutes (or other "woodwinds") or is it just for show?

Mammoth ivory has always been a preferred material for flutes, just as well as vulture bones...

[I.D.10-t]

Was there a norm for the markings on the flute? I would have thought they would have been more top dead center when assembled to play.

As for ivory, it would depend on how you define "good". Availability, machinability, playability, durability, etc.

Hard (harder than most plastics), dense (~1.7g/cm3 for elephant tusk ), and not having some of the problems with grain like wood, it was a good material for somewhat durable at the time, although it can have problems with cracking with changes in humidity. Availability has changed for various reasons and currently it would be a pain to transport.

Before more modern materials, it probably was one of the better things out there.

[Tonehole]

This one does have a very eccentric embouchure position. It differs from the Arita original (which the Aulos Stanesby replica is based).

Even by baroque playing standards, this kind of eccentric embouchure position is rather unusual. Quantz does talk of rotating the embouchure for positioning; whatever norms existed in 1730, they haven't been passed down as norms for us today.

[jemtheflute]

Um, the embouchure "position" (i.e. rotation relative to the line of the tone-holes) is, of course, fully adjustable to whatever alignment suits the player. The only odd thing is the position of the maker's stamp on the head, and yes, if one aligns that with the other stamps on the other joints then the embouchure is at an extreme 60-70 degree rotation - rather awkward for almost anyone to play...... Whilst it does seem odd to misplace a stamp so far, I don't think its position can be taken as some kind of index marking suggesting someone's idea of a "correct" rotational position for the embouchure.

[I.D.10-t]

Just seems like on something that I'd think was a premium flute at the time would have what I perceive as an odd asymmetry.

It is interesting to note that the stamp is offset on both the head joint (normal) and the foot joint (less common).

...but I guess that is how it was done.

[LorenzoFlute]

I've met a couple of flute players that play with such an angle, so it is possible... It's strange though.
Maybe the flute was made for a specifc player that had this unusual approach. I can't think of any other reason for having the stamp so far on the side. Why would a maker do this otherwise?