Which recent Rudall is closest to the originals?

[RudallRose]

jem
keep in mind your friend's #7695 is an Eb flute.
and by the look of the foot, it's a cylindrical bore (which makes sense since they were all that way at that point)

Jon...
how many RRC?
1,000 (from ~#5660 to ~#6620)

See....not so rare. that's about 1/7th of the production total for simple system flutes.

And at this point most if not nearly all the flutes weren't even made by the house, but contracted out. So the quality would be pretty suspect.

It would make great sense that "seconds" would be vended without recording in the book of serial numbers (that clearly existed once.....they all had them and the later ones still exist).

boxwood flutes were the cheapest available and, as such, likely got the least attention.

Too many factors not helping this flute, I'm sorry to say.
but that's okay.......someone out there is likely to pay for it.

I just acquired a nice new nearly-unplayed boxwood RRC flute of exceptional quality and.....tada!.....is stamped with serial number.

dm

[jemtheflute]

jem
keep in mind your friend's #7695 is an Eb flute.
and by the look of the foot, it's a cylindrical bore (which makes sense since they were all that way at that point)dm

It's an F flute, David, unless you are talking museum/orchestral naming, and it is definitely conoid bodied (as is the piccolo), though I don't have diameter measurements or any photos that show the fact better, nor access to it currently. I thought the pic Jon posted might more likely be Eb (folk/band terms) as it has the separate short foot joint which would seem rather pointless proportionwise on an F unless it was one with a "long" foot with the C#/C nat equivalent keys.

I think the shifting of the R1 & 2 tone hole sizes and placements, especially to the extreme seen on Jon's pic, is probably a "late" development and maybe more likely/prominent on band flutes which were probably less likely to be called upon to play in distant keys, so the intonation compromises could be relaxed somewhat in favour of big and even tone?

[rama]

here's my f-ing flute:
click on image to enalrge

[RudallRose]

r u sure jem?
the catalogue note, presumably from its owner, shows it as an Eb.
Or at the least that's how I noted it from its original sale.
It was extremely rare for RR (even more so for such a very late RCCo) to give a number to an F (band) flute unless it was part of a set. There are just 3 thus far noted in the catalogue that fit the sequence.....all very early.
That this one shows up at the very end of the simple system numbering sequence is a curiosity.....unless there was a parallel sequence, which they did do, that just happens to have matched up here.

I should ask the owner of the late-firm books to check it out.
I will let you know the result.

[jemtheflute]

r u sure jem?
the catalogue note, presumably from its owner, shows it as an Eb.
Or at the least that's how I noted it from its original sale.
It was extremely rare for RR (even more so for such a very late RCCo) to give a number to an F (band) flute unless it was part of a set. There are just 3 thus far noted in the catalogue that fit the sequence.....all very early.
That this one shows up at the very end of the simple system numbering sequence is a curiosity.....unless there was a parallel sequence, which they did do, that just happens to have matched up here.

I should ask the owner of the late-firm books to check it out.
I will let you know the result.

David, I sent you the (or at least a) description and photos of #7695, the F flute in question, last year (June, I think) together with ditto for my ebonite piccolo. I am very certain of what I wrote about it having dismantled and overhauled it, played it, tested it to a tuner and performed a duet with it on my own F flute (not an R&R). At the time you never mentioned already having that number in your lists or any earlier provenance for it (is it still in your "in tray"?) - it is of course quite possible that you have an earlier auction mention of it, which sale may have been a step towards it ending up in a Bethesda (N. Wales) junk shop! I think you did say that you were unsure whether band flutes like this were in the main run of Rudall simple system Serial No.s or a separate sequence as are the piccolos. If you previously had record of it from an auction catalogue, I believe many of the auction houses would be likely to use the museum/orchestral terminology?

I'd certainly be grateful for any further info you can dig up on it, as would be its owner, Andy Maclauchlin.

Here's a copy of the specs in R&R Catalogue format as I sent them:

Rudall Carte & Co Ltd: Flute in F #7695 (i.e. a “third flute”, “in Eb” by orchestral terminology)

Mark: on upper body; Crown, RUDALL CARTE & Co Ltd, 23 BERNERS STREET, OXFORD STREET, LONDON, 7695: on barrel and foot; Crown, RUDALL CARTE & Co Ltd, LONDON.
Approx. Date: ?
Pitch: plays A=440Hz with tuning slide open c9mm
Lowest Note: F
Owner: Andy MacLauchlin (Bethesda, Wales/Loughborough, England)
Provenance: via fellow musician Meg Browning - bought from a junk shop in Bethesda, North Wales in a box of assorted woodwind items during the 1990s.
Timber: Cocuswood – particularly beautiful grain markings and reddish mahogany colour, all joints very well matched.
Joints: 4 – Head, Tuning Barrel, Upper and Lower Bodies.
Headjoint: Regular slide, fully lined. Cork with screw adjuster to end cap.
Embouchure: regular Rudall style ovoid.
Body Keys: 5 – “Eb”, short “F”, “G#”, “Bb”, “C”, all in German Silver, flat pad cups. Steel leaf springs with strike plates on body, save “Eb” which has an offset touch on a short axle and a steel needle spring.
Rings: German Silver.
Mounts: pillars screwed direct into body.
Finger Holes: medium large; RH/ lower body 1 and 2 particularly large and 2 is rather “high” on tube compared to “normal”.
Unusual Features:
Other Notes: Generally excellent, playable condition, despite full length crack in head which bisects embouchure, but is little opened. Also has partial, unopened crack in barrel and another over socket in lower body.

Hope that clears things up from my end - I doubt I'll have access to it in the short term, but when I do I'll try to remember to get some measurements off it too.

[Rob Sharer]

Ol' crystal ball's clouding up!

Rob

[jemtheflute]

here's my f-ing flute:

Tell us more, Rama! What is it? Info please.

[rama]

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.?

[rama]

sorry for mentioning pratten in a rudall thread.
let me redeem myself. the first rudall&rose i had (4999) apparently spent some time in a one those junk shops, according to the previous owner where he found it.
there, back onto rudalls.. .

[Loren]

Hey Rama, does this whole Eb/F flute thing remind you of anything?

It's easy enough to answer the question once and for all, but I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut since, as Jon made clear earlier, I don't know an F'ing thing about Rudalls.

Funny that "Expert" Jon doesn't have the answer though.......




Loren

[Casey Burns]

Something to remember about many of these specimens is that we can't really be sure what is "original" about these vs. what has been altered or timkered with over time. It makes it frustrating when trying to make a copy of these same instruments. and come up with a definitive "Rudall" copy etc.

Not only that, what are the original dimensions? Perhaps the flute makers of the 22nd century will have an easier time with this centuries' Delrin flutes.

I gave up trying to be a copyist years ago, though I have one Rudall-ish derived flute that I still market. Frankly, I want to drop it since the playing qualities of Casey Burns flutes are better known than the qualities of a Rudall, at least in the markets I am aiming for.

There are few people who I would consider authorities on the subject of what makes a Rudall a Rudall. There is so much subjective nonsense in this type of discussion. Why don't we give the dead makers the rest they deserve and talk more about the living makers instead?

Casey

[Jon C.]

Hey Rama, does this whole Eb/F flute thing remind you of anything?

It's easy enough to answer the question once and for all, but I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut since, as Jon made clear earlier, I don't know an F'ing thing about Rudalls.

Funny that "Expert" Jon doesn't have the answer though.......




Loren

What was the question, I forgot?

[Loren]

Well said Casey, I'm with you, and I'd add:

Pay respect where respect is due (to the work done by those who came before), but let's move forward for cryin' out loud.

My experience at vH showed me that wood changes dimensions so much over time, that when we measure an older instrument today, we don't really know much at all about what the actual dimensions were at the time of manufacture. At vH we had the actual reamers for shop instruments that were made 30 years ago. Some of those instruments would make their way back to the shop all those years later, and when I'd go to re-ream them to spec, it was shocking how much the bores had shrunk. So hey, guess what, in all liklihood, those "Close" copies being made today have significantly narrower bores than the orginals. And, a bore doesn't shrink equally at each point along it's length, so our copies based on measurements today, really are not accurate, no matter how accurately we measure.

Truth be told, even original Rudalls no longer play the way they were originally intended to, because the bore profiles have changed so much over the years that a Rudall is no longer a Rudall.


Loren

[Jon C.]

Something to remember about many of these specimens is that we can't really be sure what is "original" about these vs. what has been altered or timkered with over time. It makes it frustrating when trying to make a copy of these same instruments. and come up with a definitive "Rudall" copy etc.

Good point, sometimes it is pretty obvious, when the embouchure, has been modified with a pocket knife. You can tell with the prestine antiques, that look as though they haven't been played before.

Not only that, what are the original dimensions? Perhaps the flute makers of the 22nd century will have an easier time with this centuries' Delrin flutes.

baring a nucleur attack, the delrin flute should be around until then, and will still be as round as the day it was made. But they will find a couple of those very rare but coveted Casey Burn's Folk flutes, they will scratch there heads, and say "They made these out of wood, not the usual Delrin?

I gave up trying to be a copyist years ago, though I have one Rudall-ish derived flute that I still market. Frankly, I want to drop it since the playing qualities of Casey Burns flutes are better known than the qualities of a Rudall, at least in the markets I am aiming for.

I have been tempted in the past to give up on the R&R, for the Pratten style. It is much easier to make, tune and easier to play, and louder also, but I always pick up the Rudall over the Pratten, as I just get bored with the tone of the Pratten. Maybe R&R are more of a challenge to play, but well worth it.

There are few people who I would consider authorities on the subject of what makes a Rudall a Rudall. There is so much subjective nonsense in this type of discussion. Why don't we give the dead makers the rest they deserve and talk more about the living makers instead?

Casey

And Rudall and Rose were sitting in there office most of the time, while there workers like Wylde made the flutes, anyway! The dead makers are more interesting, as we can speculate on there comings and goings...

[Aanvil]

Thats an interesting point Loren.

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

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

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

Boxwood is practically alive. We have all seen what happens to it when subjected to unsavory conditions. Still we have surviving examples of boxwood that are unsplit and have keys that seat and are not seized at the blocks and rings still in place.

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?

What of wood that moves less like Cocus?

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.

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

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

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 one could match the reamer to the flute then we would have a better idea.

Not sure it that is in the realm of possibility.


Not trying to be purposely contrary.

I'm just thinking aloud.

What say ye?