Boxwood Rudall & Rose on auction June 17

[radcliff]

yep, far early than I tought, even if the holes looks quite big for that age.
be such an early one explain why there is no the serial no.

[Jay]

There is a noticible line at the base of the long F and long C pivot blocks. These blocks are also missing their reinforcing pins seen on some of the other blocks (like the base of G#). I'm only looking at the photo, so I'm not claiming anything definitive. Possibe repairs? Or could this have been a 6-key (Bb, G#, S-F, Eb, C#, C) with the two new keys added later on? I also notice that many of the blocks are lined (S-F, G#, Eb, C#, C), but not the long C (can't see the long F well enough).

Jay

[jemtheflute]

Mmm. Nice. I agree the pivot blocks of the long and C are repairs - and one can see what is probably the end of the reinforcing pin peeping from under the replacement C block. If they are repairs as it seems, that might account for the lack of the key-way liners. One cannot see if the low C and C# keys are in lined key-ways either - the lower parts of the "grasshopper" mechanisms - the short sections - are..... It may be that the long F and long C weren't lined because, with the guide lugs as well, they do not suffer from lateral play as much as the shorter keys, so linings were perhaps deemed unnecessary.

[RudallRose]

this is actually a very early Rudall/Rose that can be seen in two distinct areas:
the structure of the foot key mechanism, overlapping the plug at the C#. I've never seen this before;
the other is the shape of the short-F key touch. It is very much in the early John M. Rose style and nearly identical to another Rudall/Rose that's arguably oldest (it's made of ebony) and whose key flaps are flat and square.

The tube inserts that are the seats to the pewter plugs on all but the foot keys is a Potter trait and one that RR used on a few boxwood flutes. Jimmy Noonan played on one for a long time. There are no plates as with the foot keys in part because of the noise, but also because the keys were in a closed position and already seated/shaped. I have a boxwood Rudall that uses this on a couple keys and it's quite effective.

The matched silver crown and foot cap is beautiful, but is not the Patent Head. Two tells: first, there is no embossed head stamp; second, it is at least 10 years before the firm patented the head design mechanism. The lathe work on the crown, though, is very nice.

The address of 7.Tavistock (note the "." which is critical to authenticating the early ones) was their first actual address. The catalogue now has 5 of these flutes -- none of them serial numbered -- from the earliest days of the firm. Two boxwood, one ebony and two cocus.

The matching crown/foot is in the style of the ebony one I have whose crown and foot were matching Ivory using the same milled silver and of medium holes. This large-hole variety is quite interesting and might well be the firm's first effort at that idea.

All in all, it's a very important Rudall/Rose flute that is either the earliest or among the earliest the firm produced.

The repairs to the blocks are not that out of kilter, though it's the long-F that I want to see closer since several flutes of that era had that key retrofitted. I have a very early Clementi-Nicholson that had that key added later.

The pitch can be either right at 440 or close to it; just can't really tell with these flutes.

Not a session flute? I wouldn't say yes or no. I play a small-holed boxwood Rudall on occassion at sessions that are smaller, so it fits into the mix better.

[Cathy Wilde]

£2900. Lucky somebody!

http://www.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/Catal ... page4.html

[jemtheflute]

That seems like a pretty sensible result, IMO.

Scanning the catalogue, I note this:

Item 121 English rosewood flute by and stamped Rudall Rose Carte & Co 20 Charing Cross London, no.7711, case; together with a Buffet crampon metal flute, no. 609185, case. Estimate: 100-200 Hammer price: 340

I wonder what that was? Presumably not an 8-key as the #7000s were, SFAIK, well after Rose's name was dropped - unless the inclusion of Rose's name is a catalogue error, as I very much doubt any of the other types of flute the firm made got into the 7000s before the post-Rose era. No picture, unfortunately.

There was also this:

Item 136 19th century English rosewood flute by and stamped Wylde London (a.f)
Estimate: 100-200 Hammer price: 320

Not many flutes at this particular auction!

[radcliff]

I wonder what that was?

[jemtheflute]

I wonder what that was?

Cryptic! You trying to tell us summat?

[RudallRose]

indeed, Jem, the 77xx was a system flute not of the 8key variety.
i don't recall which, but i think Boehm.

2900 (and don't forget the commissions and VAT...darn them!) is only sensible to the point of its playability.

embochure in the photo is a smallish one....very much like the ones Wilkes would make.

[kkrell]

indeed, Jem, the 77xx was a system flute not of the 8key variety.
i don't recall which, but i think Boehm.

2900 (and don't forget the commissions and VAT...darn them!) is only sensible to the point of its playability.

embochure in the photo is a smallish one....very much like the ones Wilkes would make.

15% Buyer's Premium, no VAT on that one, according to the catalog.

I wish there had been details about the Wylde, and kept hoping they'd post pictures.

[radcliff]

Cryptic! You trying to tell us summat?

No, I was just quoting you.
A serial# 77## with Rudall,Rose & Carte...
there is nothing that I know that can match those data.
I wonder if Mr Bigio have some info about it.