Just thought I’d let you all know.
It’s interesting how the Rudall post receives no attention but the Olwell interest grows daily. Does this suggest that most folks on this board would prefer a keyless Olwell over a keyed Rudall?
My real question is can anyone tell me definitively if this Rudall is a conical or cylindrical model? I’ve posted the seller, a purveyor in tobacco pipes if his past sales are any indication, but have received no repsonse. Mr. Migoya, are you out there?
Part of it is probably the eventual price . . . a keyed Rudall will usually cost in the $3500-$5000 range depending on the condition.
Stuart
Rudall made only conical flutes in the 8-key variety.
The cylindrical models came much later and found themselves under a different serial number system, as well as keyed systems such as Carte, Radcliffe or Boehm models.
The flute on eBay is formerly owned by a well-known California collector who kept his flutes in great shape. This one is quite good. He traded it up for a different model that was more suitable to his playing ability and techniques (also an antique flute). I have no part in this sale (although I do know the seller), merely tracking it for the catalogue.
Rudalls nowadays, good ones that is, are indeed commanding good prices, upwards of $5,000 US in the U.K., which is unusually higher than the American market, where it typically had been higher.
I think interest in Olwell (and other modern makers) is outdoing the classic flutes because of a fear that the old ones don’t play as well.
To me that pure nonesense.
I currently have 4 wonderful flutes of my own that I rotate and play often:
– Rudall & Rose 8-key in cocus (with a custom-made Olwell head joint to alleviate the original heavy Patent Head that was cramping my hands)
– Olwell keyless in cocus
– Clementi-Nicholson 8-key cocus (with custom-made McGee foot joint to defeat flat-foot syndrome from the origial foot piece on this 1815 flute)
– Pratten original 8-key (before Boosey) in cocus.
I’d put any of the antiques up against the Olwell any day or night.
But most people are afraid to buy an old one only to find it’s not to their liking.
Here’s a pretty good tip on Rudalls: The later they are (higher the serial number) the better they probably play at 440 on all notes. Some early ones are fantastic, but not all.
So, there it is. My 2 cents worth…flat or sharp is up to you 
Hmm, let’s see:
Brand new Olwell keyless = $1200 - $1300, includes 1 year warranty and adjustments if necessary.
Used 100+ year old Rudall with no warranty, no guarantee it’ll arrive without new cracks or leaking pads, may or may not play in tune to A440, and you have to find someone experienced and competant to work on the thing, plus pay for any repairs, tuning issues, and adjustments from day one. Cost = $3000 - $5000, eh?
Okay, I’d love to have a nice Rudall, but until I get rich a keyed or unkeyed flute, brand new, from a reliable modern maker is a far better investment, and more reliable shot at getting a good axe. I have no doubt that I could come close to doubling my money should I decide to sell my Olwell right now - no way that’s going to happen if I were to buy a $4000+ Rudall…
But hey, that’s just me, and I don’t have a lot of money to throw around.
Loren
The debate between Loren and Dave is insurmountable. We all still argue for our opinions–and that’s what boards like this are for.
And here’s mine: But you’re both right. For a great playing flute, you don’t have to spend the money or be worried about the care of an antique flute. You’ll have a great Olwell flute, and that’s pretty much all one needs in life.
But more expensive antique flutes really aren’t about need, right. They’re about antiques instruments, collectors’ pieces that represent the best-in-class instruments of the era; that do more than sit on a shelf or a wall. And the good ones are phenomenal instruments.
I wasn’t really debating what Dave had to say, rather I was giving my opinion in answer to the original question of why Olwells and the like seem to generate more interest around here than the older flutes.
I have no opinion regarding whether one is better than the other, I can however see why a new flute might be more appealing to a person who can only afford one flute, and that’s what I was getting at.
As I said, I’d love to have a good old Rudall, and I imagine I could easily come to love it as much or more than my Olwell. I simply don’t see one in my near future as they are out of my price range for the time being. Perhaps one day though.
Loren.
Of course you weren’t debating, but that’s okay. I just love the debates and strong opinions. They’re more fun to read than balanced opinions like the one I just gave.
Actually, I don’t think you were compromising. What Dave said, to my reading, is that the Rudall’s are better flutes to play, any day of the week. He wasn’t saying anything about being a collectors item, or its worth on some museum scale, but rather its intrinsic value.
I think Loren’s right that a new flute, with the maker still about, carries a certain guarentee that neither Rudall nor Rose still carry. On the other hand, they’ve lasted well over a hundred years, and there’s always Fyfer Restorations to fix 'em if they break.
Me, I don’t have enough for an Olwell, let alone a Rudall. But, then, I much prefer my Hamilton to all the Olwell’s I’ve tried, so…
Well the Rudall barely broke $2000 and did not make the reseve price. Guess the seller will have to travel to the UK to make that mythical $5000. I remember the last Rudall I saw on ebay this summer with the low b extension. A frequent poster of this board did some bidding and that flute went for about $3200 as I recall. A bit shy of $5000. Seems to me like the market is speaking.
Good point. The market is speaking for sure. And for the investment of a Rudall, wouldn’t you really have to know and trust the seller, or even play the flute before you lay down 4 grand or more for the thing?
An Olwell’s an Olwell, and while handmade instuments naturally will have some variation–some better than others–Olwell is, at least as far as I know, pretty consistent with great instruments. So good bet that you’re getting a darn good flute.
I think what the eBay market is showing is an economic downturn, not the devalued state of the instrument.
Similarly, the Olwell on eBay went for $1,600, about half of what it did more than a year ago on eBay (where the market isn’t really speaking).
But it does drive an interesting questions:
Just what are they REALLY worth, new or antique?
I’ve been asked this question endlessly through the years, specifically to my own flutes. I’m sure some of you have had the same question posed by an onlooker at the pub: “What’s something like that worth?”
My response:
“It ain’t worth a thing if it’s not played.”
Perhaps that settles the question, which is better. As long as we love them and play them, they’re priceless to each of us.
Of course, with some of the finest flutes ever made, I still managed to purchase a pair of very nice Native American flutes this past weekend during a trip to Santa Fe and Taos.
Loren made an interesting point: Investment.
For the moment, I truly believe that Pat Olwell is underpricing his flutes. So with that, it makes sense to know your money is extended immediately.
The same with a Rudall or original Pratten? No. That’s because they’re dead. And they made only about 7,200 of the simple-system variety. There ain’t no more.
Pat’s got many good years of flute-making left in him (thank goodness!) and from a strict market perspective, the more he makes, the more devalued the ones he’s made become.
Of course, someone else can come along with a new model/design that outdoes Pat (some believe, rightfully from their perspective, that it’s already happened with makers such as McGee, Healy, Murray, and on and on…).
Suddenly, those are the must-have model and such goes the cycle.
The care of an antique flute is quite literally no different than a modern one. In fact, the seasoning of the wood in the antique is less a concern whereas the new ones have this consideration to a degree.
Loren was right in that a new flute has a guarantee if it cracks. That would be the fault of the maker, to some degree, if he used too young a cut of timber.
The antiques, unless cared for poorly or placed into a radical environment without aclimation, should not change at all from the way you received it. For the most part, a 100-year-old flute of good quality has done all the natural shrinking it’s gonna do.
Of course, I always do ask this question: If the new ones are so much better than the old ones, why do they keep measuring the old ones to copy?
An interesting point, for sure.
There are the Rudall models, the Pratten models, the Nicholson models and so forth.
Where are the newly-named models of today?
I’ve yet to see (and I use my own name merely as illustration so as not to use any current maker’s name) a “Migoya’s Pefectly Improved” model, or other such derivation.
I’m sure the maker’s of yesteryear copied each other’s work, even grabbing up each other’s employees!
Research shows narry a credit, until the “systems” started to show up and everyone had a patent to file. Ergo the Siccama system (which I believe is a pirated thing), Radcliffe, Carte, Clinton, Pratten (yes, he did have one!), Boehm, etc, etc, etc.
They even started to use “car”-like names, such as the Excelsior Class, to outshine the opposition.
today, instead of perfection of play, we’re swayed by length of waiting time. That’s why new makers with a decent flute are a find, only to be bombarded into the same long-wait situation as other makers.
Sooner or later, the market becomes saturated and there’s an excess of instruments. How do you think Dayton Miller and others of his time collected so many flutes, apart from the Boehm model displacing most of them?
I love my Olwell, make no mistake. It’s one of the best-playing flutes I own. But apart from being such a good-playing instrument, it increases in value on a resale not because of its intrinsic quality, but because of its lack of immediate availability, something that changes percentagely with each new one that’s made.
It’s still worth just $1,200 according to Pat.
A Rudall was only about $100 or so back when it was made (roughly of course…McGee is studying at all this in today’s American dollars). What makes it sell today for $5,000 in the U.K. and $3,000 or so in the USA?
Think about it.
Many interesting points David, lots of stuff that would be interesting to kick around, although I’m too tired for that so I’ll just pick out one thing:
You threw out a number of around 7200 for total number of Rudall and Prattens. Did you mean 7200 Rudalls and about the same number of Prattens, or did you mean 7200 between them? I’m assuming you mean the former.
My Olwell is stamped #632, and Pat has been making flutes how many years now? I don’t think he’s ever going to reach 7000, likewise with most of the other current makers, because they don’t run flute factories like Rudall etc. So, while Olwell and the other current “big name” makers will continue to turn out flutes, hopefully for many years to come, although one never knows for certain, the number of flutes they produce will be less than the total out put of Prattens and Rudalls.
I’d also say that the old flutes are selling as high as they do as much because they are antiques, as for how they play - not everyone agrees an old flute is the best thing going: Plenty of top players who can afford whatever they want, choose flutes made by modern makers rather than and old Rudall or Pratten. Why is that? Because the new makers HAVE made changes and improved upon the old designs.
Loren
yes, Loren, I meant the number of simple-system Rudalls.
And that was between 1821 and 1876, a 55-year history.
That’s roughly 130 a year average, which obviously peaks in the 1830-50 timeframe and falls off on the ends. I think We’ve figured their peak was about 300 or so flutes a year. Their factory wasn’t all that huge like some other instrument makers.
Still, if Pat is doing about 50-100 flutes a year, over 50 years, that’s 5,000 flutes on the top side (he does have help these days in the hands of his son and another worker).
Of the @7,200 Rudalls that were made, I’ve calculated (best available guess) that perhaps 1,000-2,000 still exist in some shape or form.
And not every one of them is a worthy player. I don’t mean its condition, but its worth on today’s musical scale. Some were quite out of tune in today’s standards, so not many would be played. Those that do meet the standard (and there are a few) are incredible players.
I don’t know how many Pratten flutes were made. My own Pratten was by the original maker, John Hudson, and made c.1852, the first year R.S. Pratten worked with Hudson on the design of a new flute. At serial #49, it’s one of the first made and, to my knowledge, the earliest still known to exist.
I do know the Hudson-Pratten flute at Edinburgh Univ. collection is #515, and that would be before Hudson was hired by Boosey & Co. in 1856 to begin producing the Pratten flute for them exclusively.
I have no idea how many simple-system Pratten flutes were made before Boosey took it up, and then how many Boosey made.
Other makers, such as Hawkes, also made Pratten models, but I suspect that was in the late 1800s, certainly before Hawkes & Son was purchased by Boosey.
I did find a listing in a catalogue yesterday for a Pratten model made by Boose, a french maker who worked for a time with Boosey.
But Pratten spent much more time working on devising a wood flute in the cylindrical bore profile that used the old flute fingerings on a keyed system such as Boehm. I’m not sure whether he got it as perfectly as he liked when he died at age 38.
Every time I find myself believing that Rudall/Rose got it right at the end of their careers, mostly through the work of Mr. Wylde, then I run into an early Rudall that is a beautifully wonderful player in every respect. I think so much was changing at the time that they kept retooling just to keep up with demand and popularity, not to mention ever-fluctuating tunings across the continent.
Loren you make a good point about the best players in the world opting for modern makers. True enough. But many of those players will tell you that finding a good, in-tune Rudall or Pratten is difficult, not because they don’t exist, but they’re just too hard to find available.
But Molloy still plays his Boosey Pratten, Tansey still only plays his Rudall, and I’m sure I can rattle off a list of others.
Again, it’s preference for sure. Some never even played a good Rudall or Pratten. I not long ago played with a fellow in Milwaukee that easily could afford a Rudall or Olwell or whatever. His preference: A flute made by Binyon, a Rudall contemporary.
I guess it’s longwinded way of saying that today’s makers are great makers, but please, please don’t blanket discount the old flutes just because they’re old. In some cases, they’re honestly and truly better. In many others they’re not.
Nah, I don’t blanket discount the old flutes or makers, but like you say, the good ones are hard to find, and expensive. Hell, I may never even get to try a good one!
But you do make many good points, and thanks so much for the historical info, very interesting indeed.
As for Pat making 50-100 flutes a year…I don’t think so. As I said, my flute is #632, just turned out a few months ago, and Pat has been making flutes for what, 15 years or more? I’d guess 50 flutes in a high production year with very few of those being keyed. But I’m just guessing, perhaps you got that number strait from Pat?
Loren
Probably right, Loren. A couple of years ago, Pat told me that he could make more flutes if he spent more time at it. But he wants a certain lifestyle. When you as good as he is at his game, you can make those choices. And of course, they allow his instruments to fetch 50% premiums in ebay spot buys.
Not many better investments than an Olwell flute. Order several.
Right you are G., and let me clarify before someone jumps on me: I’m quite sure that Patrick is capabable of turning out a hundred flutes a year - I mean he does have help there at the shop, from time to time - I just don’t think he does anywhere near that number, cause he doesn’t feel like it. More power to him, it’s a wonderful thing to have the choice not to work 40, 50, or 60+ hours a week.
Loren
good point, Loren. I thought Pat was doing about 50 a year or more (which he might, I don’t really know).
His production number may actually go up as time wears on. Remember, Rudall/Rose made about 50 in their first year and only got to 150 a year by year 5 or so.
Too, there is a delay for keyed flutes and I’m sure that slows his keyless production (he does recycle them, remember, on trade ins, so perhaps those should be counted with each resale?) when he’s doing keyed bodies.
Nonetheless, he’s more like a Strad, taking his sweet time doing the best he can.
I have been hearing, too, that Eamonn Cotter, whose flutes I really like, has been making some more this year. That’s great since he’s one of the hidden gems, much like Peter Noy is.
Hey, maybe we’ll see a “Chris Norman’s Phenomenally Bettered Than All Others” model of flute some day.
There’s a trick…what kind of cool “Improved” names can we come up with in the vein of “Pratten’s Perfected”?
Extra points for alliteration!
David Migoya
Fyfer Restorations
http://www.fyfer-restorations.com
Home of the Rudall & Rose Catalogue Project
http://www.RudallRose.com
“Bringing Yesterday’s Flutes to Today’s Players”
[ This Message was edited by: David Migoya on 2002-10-25 20:14 ]
I want to try one of those Cotter flutes, Dave! Maybe you can send one for me to play for a while?
As for the Peter Noy…right you are indeed. Imagine that contemporary headjoint with the amber blowedge on my Rudall body. Sounds freaking fabulous! Looks even better…but Loren would call this a FRANKENFLUTE.