J Fentum - eBay flute.....

[jemtheflute]

I wonder if any Langwill holders can help out with this.....Terry, David M, Jon? Some of you may already know I stuck my neck out (financially) on this one last night - going for a reasonable Buy It Now price, getting significant interest from Best Offerers, and so far as the pics show (could be hidden disasters, I realise!), seems to be all there and in decent condition - just gungy and neglected - so , knowing that several folk here rate Fentums (OK, F or H Fentums rather than J, hence my query for info.....), I couldn't resist. I know we need the full stamp wording for proper research, so as soon as it arrives I'll add that. In the mean time, any info gratefully received - and opinions!

FWIW, it looks to me like silver fittings (no verdigris apparent in the corrosion deposits and a tendency to black tarnish.....) and either quite pale cocus or just possibly stained boxwood, very Rudall-esque keys (VERY similar to my own R&R), probably broad hockey-stick C/C# touches, though a claw is possible - I couldn't determine that from the photos even when I tried manipulating them. I think there may be some engraving on the rings at the barrel/head junction, but the picture resolution is too poor to tell.

Thoughts, guys?

[Sillydill]

Hey Jem,

CONGRATS!

I believe the J stands for JEM, it being preordained that this should be your Fentum.

[jemtheflute]

[sponge]

Hi Jem,

has it arrived yet??? I am intrigued by this flute, it looks like its been boxed up and untouched
for years, it appears to have a band around the embouchure, or is it missing the band as I can see the shape of it, or is the silver that tarnished, let us know what its like when you get a moment.

sponge

[jemtheflute]

Right, here goes, a full run down on my recent eBay mysterious flute:

The flute is of very stripy cocuswood with sterling silver rings and embouchure band and keys and brass head and barrel liner tubes. The rings are chased. It has pewter plug low C#/C “grasshopper” keys with square receiving plates. No parts are missing. There is a crack to the below-the band segment of the head joint but the barrel and all sockets are intact. There is an old repair to both sides of the G# block. Apart from a few scratches and wood knot marks, there are no other blemishes. The metal is all very tarnished, but all the brass leaf springs are functioning and the very old white leather pads also function. The thread lapping to the middle joint is insufficient and I have temporarily applied some PTFE tape just to try the flute out. The upper body was stuck in the barrel socket on receipt due to dried out thread lapping no longer gripping in its bed, but I was able to separate the joi9nt without too much trouble. The crown/stopper adjuster has pulled out of the rather friable cork, but that is still in position. There are dusty, cobwebby deposits in bore, tone-holes and embouchure, but for all that the flute is actually playable as is - though not of course to its potential! The general underlying condition is excellent and it promises to be a thing of beauty once restored.

Now to the technical stuff:
The head, barrel and both body joints are all stamped “EASTES CAMBRIDGE”. The foot joint is stamped “J FENTUM LONDON” at its lower end. I have absolutely no doubt from the matching timber and fittings that this is one integral instrument, not one with a swapped foot, so presumably one stamp indicates the maker and the other a retailer? But which way around?
The underside of the touch of the grasshopper C# key is stamped “H&J”. I can’t as yet see any other stamps on keys.

The following measurements are all taken with the tuning slide closed
Overall length (excluding stopper finial) 666mm
Sounding length 588mm
C#-Eb length 258mm
Embouchure to C# length 217mm.

With tuning slide closed and a slightly more open embouchure than my current norm, against a tuner the G in both 1st and 2nd octave is tolerably on-mark for A=440 tuning, as is the middle D, and the low D is only a little flat (normal “flat foot”) but the A and B are significantly sharp. The scale-length/intonation subjectively seems better to me with the tuning slide open a bout 1/3rd of its length, as one expects from flutes of this kind…..which means its design pitch is probably somewhat flat of A-440. It may be that once de-gunked and overhauled the pitch may come up a little, but as this is quite a slender and narrow bored flute, at present I doubt whether it will ever really be suitable for modern pitch use, especially with a flattening Nicholsonian/ITM embouchure technique. The video clip shows what a sweet player it will likely be, however!

Any comments, thoughts or further information would be very welcome. Likewise, I’ll try to answer any requests for more detail if anyone makes any.


"As received” demo video.

[Jon C.]

Hey Jem,
Better get buffing!
I noticed the flute has double springs, interesting. You may need to replace the springs on the keys. I have noticed when the flute was subjected to a lot of moisture, the springs may get brittle.
Haven't found anything on the Eastes stamp. All I can think is that it was a local instrument dealer, that Jonathan Fentum contracted with. Nothing in Langwill, or Dayton Miller. There was one listing for Easter/Cambridge on google, could be that this was actually Eastes/Cambridge...
Is there any engine design on the rings, is this what you mean by Chased? I like the look of the keys and rings. The flute looks like a classic Rudall design, even Wylde's style embouchure hole. The tuning is classic Rudall, try pushing in the slide and blowing more into the emb. hole, this will bring the flute in better tuning.
I love the flutes that haven't been molested by early repairman!
Buff, buff!!!

[Terry McGee]

Looks great, Jem, just a little spit & polish!

I'd be confident that Eastes would have been a music store in Cambridge - you might be able to track down a Cambridge business directory of the time that would confirm that. Only reference to Cambridge I could find in NLI is a dealer in Brass instruments, J Gifford. No reference to H&J, but if we could guess who H and J were, there might be references to them separately.

Pretty long scale at 258mm, takes back to Nicholson's flutes era. Yet J(Jonathon) Fentum was listed as a "flute maker" from 1850-56 (about when Pratten and Hudson were knocking out Pratten's at 245mm, pre Boosey). Seems once more to support my contention that domestic and professional flute players worked to dramatically different standards. (The ratio 258 to 245 implies about pitches about 90 cents apart, the difference between 453 and 430.)

The Fentums (um, Fenta?) were:

Jonathan - 1784-c1821, publishers and music engravers. Jonathan was a flautist. Strand London. Also includes John and Mary-Ann Fentum over that period. Also sold masquerade gear.
Francis - 1837-1845, Queens' Row Walworth, listed as "Flute Manufacturer" from 1844-45
Henry - 1840-1859, Surrey St, Strand, maker, repairer, teacher, dealer, and finally
Jonathan - 1850-1856, 105 Fenchurch St, "flute maker".

There is a reference to a bio of Jonathan F by Smith in Grove 5, and Humphries and Smith "Music Publishing in the British Isles" 1970.

Terry

[radcliff]

Nice sound! nice photos too, (please be careful with that R&R! )
remember to show up new photos when it'll be completly cleaned!

ps
what about the other flute you get from ebay recently??
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 0331902736
seems a large holes one!

[jemtheflute]

Thanks for all the info, Jon & Terry - it's much appreciated. I've been doing 11 hour night shifts in work over the weekend, hence no response.... and no time for more right now - I'll get back to this in the next few days....

[jemtheflute]

Right - a bit more time now! Points arising.....

Jon:
I'm not sure what you mean by "double springs" - the springs are normal single brass leaf springs - they aren't "plied" and they don't have steel counter-springs on the body like some of the ones on my R&R, just little inset blued steel slip-plates. Until all is cleaned and adjusted, of course I won't know if they are in good order or have become brittle, but there is no sign of moisture damage - the flute is pretty dry, especially for one that has been in long-term storage in SW Wales!

I'm already blowing pretty much as you suggest - Nicholsonian embouchure style does bring the flat low-end notes up and the sharp top-end ones down, but it also flattens the mean intonation of the scale..... I daresay cleaning out the bore, tone-holes and embouchure will bring things up a little generally, however.

The decoration on the rings is just simple parallel grooves around them - as might be done say with a scriber on a lathe? No fancy engine engraving here.

Terry:
I'd already thought of the business directories angle, but haven't yet had time to pursue it on-line. If that draws a blank, I have a young acquaintance who is a student at Cambridge who may just possibly be willing to do some library leg-work for me.......

As for the stamps, I wonder whether a retailer would have stamped most of the joints and the maker only the foot, or whether the reverse situation is more likely? My gut feeling at present favours Eastes as makers and J Fentum (perhaps the earlier one) as music retailer. On a side note, I never cease to be amazed with English C19th flutes at how cavalier the stampers often seem to have been on instruments so carefully made up to that point - wonky alignment etc.! The continentals seem to have been more careful. Mind you, I also keep seeing some very crude embouchures that are clearly original.......

I think the long scale length and seemingly narrow bore (I haven't taken any measurements) argue for an earlier origin, but the broad hockey-stick foot key touches suggest later.... if it had the classic very narrow ones, well! The keys in general, though nicely made, aren't quite as refined as my R&R to my eye.

Radcliffe:
Don't worry about my R&R! The clack was only the foot keys rolling onto the piano keys when I put it down! Big noise, small deal! It has survived 25+ of its c166 years in my hands.....

The other flute you ask about (watching me, huh?!!! ) has been the subject of a little discussion on Facebook after I put some photos of it there, which you may find if you seek me out thereon. It is very like a Boosey Pratten, save for one or two details of key style (which don't preclude that source) - Jon thinks it might be one from their workshop left unstamped for military supply purposes, although as the military had plenty of stamped instruments, I don't know that that explains it. Could be Hawkes too..... certainly a Pratten style/rip-off of that general ilk anyway, and mid-late C19th. It needs a fair bit of work, but at the price I paid for it I can afford to keep it for myself - which means it won't be high on the work priorities list, alas!


Now then, some comparative photos of the Eastes/Fentum against some known Continental later C19th LP flutes and also the Wylde I have and my own R&R. The flutes in all of the following pictures are set with their tuning slides fully closed and are, (in the same order in all the pics) from left to right:
Rampone (not the A=440 one I play; another, later but LP one) with B foot,LP (Italian);
Couesnon & Cie with C foot, LP (French);
V Kohlert with C foot - actually stamped "D, L.P." (Czech/Austrian);
Eastes/Fentum;
Wylde ("from Rudall & Rose") (incidentally, there is an "F" stamped on the underside of the C# foot key touch on this....);
Rudall & Rose.

All three known LP flutes have significant amounts of undercutting and angled drilling of tone-holes, especially the E.

Laid out with C# tone-holes aligned (there is, of course, some fish-eye effect curvature in these photos!):




Laid out with C# tone-holes aligned, closer-in shot:

.........Rampone..........Couesnon..........Kohlert......Eastes/Fentum......Wylde............R&R



Laid out with embouchures aligned:




Laid out with feet aligned (C tonehole for B foot):




Hmmmm. Compromises, compromises!

[jemtheflute]

I've been on the non-subscription, open access part of Ancestry.co.uk and have gleaned the following:

A J Eastes is listed in a mid C19th Directory (date/source not revealed without subscription) as resident at 65 Trumpington Street, Cambridge. This address is in the heart of Cambridge and the University, near St Catharine's College (and by 1900 was occupied by a Mr W Crouch, another bit of surfing has discovered).



The 1851 Census lists a "Tom" (misread?) Eastes (b c1825) and his wife Harriott (b c1826) as resident in Cambridge.

It also lists a John N Eastes (b c1846) - ? their son?

The 1861 census lists a John Eastes (b Kent c1825) and his wife Harriott (b Kent c1827) as resident in Cambridge - presumably the same couple as in 1851.

Entries from Births, Deaths & Marriages etc. list the following - ? offspring of John & Harriott? - don't know without subscription access to the full records.......

Harriott or Harriett, b Dec 1847, father John (from baptismal records).
Julian D, b Dec 1849, father John (from baptismal records).
Courtenay, b Mar 1852
Eugenie Maria, b Sep 1853
Louis William Darius, b Sep 1856, d Mar 1859
Nicholas Percy Marmion, b Jun 1858

Also a presumably unconnected Duke Augustus Leopold Eastes died in Cambridge in 1860....

The 1901 census has another John P Eastes residing in Cambridge - also born in Kent c1856 and married to Esther, b Kent c1858......

The last mentioned is rather late for present purposes, though I suppose cousins from the Kentish root clan (Eastes seem to have been big in/originated from Kent) coming to join family/business in Cambridge is not unlikely.

None of which gets us much further on its own.... but may link in in due course. What I probably need most is access to those County/City and Trade Directories from the C19th. I now know there's a good range of them available, but access is another matter!

[jemtheflute]

More progress!
I put a query on the Ancestry message boards while I was on there earlier, and have already received this VERY helpful response:

From [url]http://www.historical%20directories.org[/url].

Gardner's Gazeteer & Directory of Cambridge 1851
The following entry under Music & Musical Instrument Seller,
John Eastes, 65 Trumpington Street, Cambridge.
It says he is also a Music Teacher and has a Musical Circulating Library.

Looks like our man - and ties with the stuff I found. Now to try to find out a bit more about him - if possible the period of his business activity at least.

This isn't conclusive yet as he could still have been a maker and we aren't sure which Fentum we're dealing with or if he actually made flutes, but the balance of probabilities is swinging to Terry's hunch rather than mine!

ADDITION:
After doing some Cambridge directory checking on the site linked above, I can add the following:

Pigot's Directory of 1830-1 lists a John Gifford as a Music and Musical Instrument Seller in (no No. given) Trumpington Street, Cambridge - could just be coincidence in what it appears is still today at least partially a shopping street - or this could perhaps be where young John took up his trade and/or (maybe later) took over the business? That is a wild speculation!

No Eastes appears in Pigot's - not surprising as on the face of what we have so far our man John would only have been about 6 years old and presumably neither making nor playing music/flutes and still living in Kent where he would meet his wife before moving to Cambridge.....

The Births, Deaths and Marriages registry records have two Cambridge born Children, Harriott or Harriett (b Dec 1847) and Julian D (b Dec 1849), and Baptismal records give their father as John - these seem to be the earliest probable records I've traced of the Eastes in the town.

An 1851 Census Cambridge resident is listed as "Tom" Eastes, (that has to be an 1851 Censor clerk's error or a misreading by a modern transcriber), spouse Harriott.

The 1851 Census also records a putative son John Newport Eastes as residing in Cambridge, shown by BMD Registration as born in Canterbury in Dec 1845 when our John would have been 20 and his wife Harriott 18 but John N could belong to another Eastes family (unlikely - the 1851 Census seems to have no other Eastes resident in Cambridge, so far as I can tell) - would need to pursue the birth record..... as indeed for the other Eastes Cambridge births I've traced, to see if there is more detail on their parents........ The spacing of the births is consistent with the potential fertility of one woman. (Incidentally, BMD also gives a John Edward Eastes born in Canterbury in Mar 1843 - could just possibly be an early and perhaps short-lived first child for our couple? Again, would need further checking, and Eastes is a very common name in C19th Kent, it seems!)

Harriott the younger and Julian are also in the 1851 Census

Then we have the 1851 Gardner's Directory entry already quoted.

Chronologically there follow the BMD records for the other Cambridge born children already quoted above, who may or may not be of the right parentage, including Louis who only lived 2.5 years.

Next is the 1861 Census which has John and Harriott, Harriott jnr, Julian, Courtenay, Eugenie and Nicholas as one would expect.

I haven't been able to search any directories online for the 1860s, but the next directory I can access, a Postal one for 1869, has no Eastes in Cambridge either as private or trade listees that I can find. Nor am I getting any hits for Eastes in Cambridge in the 1871 Census. Kelly's directory for 1883 is also a blank on Eastes in Cambridge. There are earlier Kelly's for at least 1858 and 1864 (and I suspect they were an annual publication) and a Cassey's for 1865, but not that I can access on-line (so far). Getting at those would be good.

By c1900, 65 Trumpington Street was occupied by Mr Crouch as noted previously, and in a 1916 Kelly's it had become A Shears, confectioners!

The death of a John Eastes who may be our man (born Kent, 1825) is recorded in Cuckfield, W. Sussex for March 1903.

Summary thus far - John Eastes and his wife, with at least one son, move to Cambridge from Canterbury sometime between Dec 1845 and Dec 1847, he was in business under his own name in 1850-1, still in town in 1861, but seemingly gone by 1869. That gives a time-window for our flute of c1846-c1870, always assuming we have found the correct Eastes.

Ho hum - that's all for now, folks! Gotta eat!

[Jon C.]

Right - a bit more time now! Points arising.....

Jon:
I'm not sure what you mean by "double springs" - the springs are normal single brass leaf springs - they aren't "plied" and they don't have steel counter-springs on the body like some of the ones on my R&R, just little inset blued steel slip-plates. Until all is cleaned and adjusted, of course I won't know if they are in good order or have become brittle, but there is no sign of moisture damage - the flute is pretty dry, especially for one that has been in long-term storage in SW Wales!

The double spring, blued steel, is screwed or nailed into the flute body, and recessed into the flute below the small keys on the upper section, and sometimes on the short F. The spring splits the difference on the spring attached to the key, giving the key a smoother action. What usually happens when the spring gets old, it will be laid flat, and look like a strike plate. I have worked on flutes, where the spring is still functioning and the second spring does help. I am replacing the double springs on the Pask flute that I am currently restoring.

I'm already blowing pretty much as you suggest - Nicholsonian embouchure style does bring the flat low-end notes up and the sharp top-end ones down, but it also flattens the mean intonation of the scale..... I daresay cleaning out the bore, tone-holes and embouchure will bring things up a little generally, however.

It would probably help to polish the bore.

The decoration on the rings is just simple parallel grooves around them - as might be done say with a scriber on a lathe? No fancy engine engraving here.

It looked like something fancier when all the muck was on it... I have a couple of flutes with rings like that, my Butler has them.

[Jon C.]

More progress!
I put a query on the Ancestry message boards while I was on there earlier, and have already received this VERY helpful response:

From [url]http://www.historical%20directories.org[/url].

Gardner's Gazeteer & Directory of Cambridge 1851
The following entry under Music & Musical Instrument Seller,
John Eastes, 65 Trumpington Street, Cambridge.
It says he is also a Music Teacher and has a Musical Circulating Library.

Looks like our man - and ties with the stuff I found. Now to try to find out a bit more about him - if possible the period of his business activity at least.

This isn't conclusive yet as he could still have been a maker and we aren't sure which Fentum we're dealing with or if he actually made flutes, but the balance of probabilities is swinging to Terry's hunch rather than mine!

ADDITION:
After doing some Cambridge directory checking on the site linked above, I can add the following:

Pigot's Directory of 1830-1 lists a John Gifford as a Music and Musical Instrument Seller in (no No. given) Trumpington Street, Cambridge - could just be coincidence in what it appears is still today at least partially a shopping street - or this could perhaps be where young John took up his trade and/or (maybe later) took over the business? That is a wild speculation!

No Eastes appears in Pigot's - not surprising as on the face of what we have so far our man John would only have been about 6 years old and presumably neither making nor playing music/flutes and still living in Kent where he would meet his wife before moving to Cambridge.....

The Births, Deaths and Marriages registry records have two Cambridge born Children, Harriott or Harriett (b Dec 1847) and Julian D (b Dec 1849), and Baptismal records give their father as John - these seem to be the earliest probable records I've traced of the Eastes in the town.

An 1851 Census Cambridge resident is listed as "Tom" Eastes, (that has to be an 1851 Censor clerk's error or a misreading by a modern transcriber), spouse Harriott.

The 1851 Census also records a putative son John Newport Eastes as residing in Cambridge, shown by BMD Registration as born in Canterbury in Dec 1845 when our John would have been 20 and his wife Harriott 18 but John N could belong to another Eastes family (unlikely - the 1851 Census seems to have no other Eastes resident in Cambridge, so far as I can tell) - would need to pursue the birth record..... as indeed for the other Eastes Cambridge births I've traced, to see if there is more detail on their parents........ The spacing of the births is consistent with the potential fertility of one woman. (Incidentally, BMD also gives a John Edward Eastes born in Canterbury in Mar 1843 - could just possibly be an early and perhaps short-lived first child for our couple? Again, would need further checking, and Eastes is a very common name in C19th Kent, it seems!)

Harriott the younger and Julian are also in the 1851 Census

Then we have the 1851 Gardner's Directory entry already quoted.

Chronologically there follow the BMD records for the other Cambridge born children already quoted above, who may or may not be of the right parentage, including Louis who only lived 2.5 years.

Next is the 1861 Census which has John and Harriott, Harriott jnr, Julian, Courtenay, Eugenie and Nicholas as one would expect.

I haven't been able to search any directories online for the 1860s, but the next directory I can access, a Postal one for 1869, has no Eastes in Cambridge either as private or trade listees that I can find. Nor am I getting any hits for Eastes in Cambridge in the 1871 Census. Kelly's directory for 1883 is also a blank on Eastes in Cambridge. There are earlier Kelly's for at least 1858 and 1864 (and I suspect they were an annual publication) and a Cassey's for 1865, but not that I can access on-line (so far). Getting at those would be good.

By c1900, 65 Trumpington Street was occupied by Mr Crouch as noted previously, and in a 1916 Kelly's it had become A Shears, confectioners!

The death of a John Eastes who may be our man (born Kent, 1825) is recorded in Cuckfield, W. Sussex for March 1903.

Summary thus far - John Eastes and his wife, with at least one son, move to Cambridge from Canterbury sometime between Dec 1845 and Dec 1847, he was in business under his own name in 1850-1, still in town in 1861, but seemingly gone by 1869. That gives a time-window for our flute of c1846-c1870, always assuming we have found the correct Eastes.

Ho hum - that's all for now, folks! Gotta eat!

Kind of fun chasing these people down! Good job, we got our man!

[jemtheflute]

A little update - I'm gradually doing bits of work on this flute in between other stuff. I've been cleaning up the keys, ferrules etc. Coincidentally, other matters in hand have brought up the question of stamps on keys (cf new thread on that) and it seemed a good idea to report that this flute has the following stamps:

On the Eb key, a clear "F"
On the low C# and the Bb clear "H&I" (I now think it is an "I",not a "J"),
On the long F a weak, partial "H&I"
On the G# what could be an poor "H&I" (most likely) but which also looks a bit like it could be "AL" -though I suspect that is down to some casting irregularities and other work marks.

(Pictures on the Key Stamps thread.)

I have found the keys and rings rather difficult to clean - they seem not simply to be coated with normal black silver tarnish nor green cooper verdigris, but to have been deliberately painted with some brown substance - doesn't look like oil residue. Odd! Anyway, it is a bit stubborn about coming off, but I'm getting there. I do think the metal fittings are silver, not German Silver, but there was some verdigris in places (e.g. under the plug receiving plates on the foot) and although far whiter than German Silver cupro-nickel alloys ever are, there is a slight yellowy cast to the colour and I suspect the silver has a relatively high copper content and may not qualify as "sterling" silver. (The Wylde from R&R I have awaiting attention has similarly slightly yellowy silver, and the K Prowse I am working on for iainbeg also, at least pre polishing.....)