Anyone care to identify these pipes?

Actually I was referring to the fact that, at least what I can tell from the photos, the actual physical condition is impressive. All the photos I’ve seen of Taylor sets, even all cleaned and polished, show sets that look their age. Even if none of the mounts are cracked or such, they just look “older” and more worn. This thing looks like it just came out of the workshop.

If this thing was found in a trash can, as Johnson reports, it must not have been there long, and it must have been kept well protected and never used in a sealed vault!! Or maybe it’s original owner (s) were as anal retentive as I am about instrument husbandry. :smiley:

Funny…Sniff and Nipple at its best!!! :tomato:

C’mon Kevin we all the rest of humble people need your and any ceratain contribution.

[quote=“meemtp”]Actually I was referring to the fact that, at least what I can tell from the photos, the actual physical condition is impressive. All the photos I’ve seen of Taylor sets, even all cleaned and polished, show sets that look their age. Even if none of the mounts are cracked or such, they just look “older” and more worn. This thing looks like it just came out of the workshop.

If this thing was found in a trash can, as Johnson reports, it must not have been there long, and it must have been kept well protected and never used in a sealed vault!! Or maybe it’s original owner (s) were as anal retentive as I am about instrument husbandry. :D[/quote]



It is possible to make a new set look like an old one, apart from an historical angle/point, I see no point in spending large amounts of money on old rubish, to which there is a lot of it out there, when you can have a set made in the ways the old sets were and be in modern pitch.

Not many if any are untouched and actually work perfectly, there is a saying, that if an old set is perfect condition it has never been played and for a very good reason too, it never did in the first place, hence its good condition.

Yes, but I don’t take that saying literally. It’s true that some great sets have been played to pieces, but sometimes they just end up getting forgotten (owner dies, etc. and family is not persuaded to part with them).

On the other hand, troublesome sets usually get savagely “repaired” along the way.

Has anyone been able to find out the provenance of this particular set beyond that it was found in a trash can? That might shed some light on the matter.

George noticed the pipe case in a trash heap, IIRC. Think he wrote something about it here a couple years back.

New photo I received from the seller - I assume of the main stock? Could be of the pipe case of course - but I asked specifically for shots of the stock and the chanter.

S White, not N(ed) White. Huh! Years ago I heard about a primo Taylor copy that had “White” stamped all over it. Talented fellow, and nary a mention from O’Neill.

What the heck does it say below? Roy Something.

Are you sure that doesn’t say E(dward) White?

the N could be turned 90 degrees
or it is a Z

It’s clear as day:

E White
Roxbury Mass.

Anyone could see that

:wink:

Ack, you guys are right - E White
Roxbury

O’Neill confirms that White indeed lived in Roxbury. Also that he ran a dance hall - maybe he needed something a little louder to play?

In an An Piobarie of about 1994 Robert Van Dijk wrote a little history of White along with an analysis of a White 3/4 set he owns. This is a set in the manner of the old flat pipe makers; Geoff Wooff said that the set seemed to combine features of the earlier makers in turning, metalwork, and sound. Robert also checked the phonebooks for details of an E White. He appears in the 1860 directory (and well may have been there earlier - records from before that have been destroyed), and disappears in 1880, with a widow being listed at the same address, suggesting this year or the year before was when he died. Looking at this set this is altogether remarkable, since the Taylors only arrived in America in 1872, meaning he was making picture perfect copies of their work right at the end of his career.

If you want to read Robert’s article and don’t have that particular An Piobarie (Vol 3 No 20, September 1994), it’s available for NPU members at their website, file is PIOB0320b. PJ’s link includes a picture of the White chanter, and Robert playing his set.

Well now we know (probably) who made the stock :wink:

I agree. From the photos on eBay it looks to me like there are at least 2 sets of pipes mixed up here. I see 2 H bends - one brass and one nickle.

Again, the fact that the chanter doesn’t have ribbon keys makes me wonder. I’ve not seen any other old chanters copying the Taylor “key-block” chanters.

The regs and drones seem to be in poor shape. The bass and bari regs seem to be broken off. Does that make them unrepairable?

I don’t see any reeds. I’ve heard that Taylor pipes are difficult to reed.

Here’s a chanter reported to be a Taylor (photo from uilleannobsession):

Looks similar to the one in the auction.

Robert also checked the phonebooks for details of an E White. He appears in the 1860 directory

Ned White had a phone?

I see 2 H bends - one brass and one nickle.

I think one is the return for the Bass Regulator.


I’ve heard that Taylor pipes are difficult to reed.

Not really but they weren’t designed to be played in A 440. Maybe thats what you mean.


Tommy

Quote:
I see 2 H bends - one brass and one nickle.

I think one is the return for the Bass Regulator.

I know very little about Taylor pipes, but it looks like the return for the bass reg is on the stock, and intact. It looks to me like that expra piece is the old broken H bend for the bass drone; the one on the set right now is brass, and looks to be a replacement after the silver one was broken (note its missing a strut). Seems like its one set to me; I count one chanter, 3 regs, components for 3 drones, and a few extra bits of metal and ivory, which could be chanter keys knocked off, or mounts that have come loose. Whether or not these components are from one maker, I don’t have the authority to say so or not, but seems probable.

my gut tells me this is a patsy brown set… looks an AWFUL lot like one I saw on ebay a few years back…same quirks and condition as well as location.Maybe if DMQ was surfing he could help us. How long las tagua nut been used as an alternative ivory? this set/auction strikes me as somewhat odd… it appears to have a relatively nice bag from l&M. The seller claims it’s been in the family for a long time…how long? again..odd that the bag is an l&M (albeit likely an older one). had soemone at some time tried to restore the set? or…? the bass drone is badly damaged. the reed seat/stock is likely stuck in the mainstock or lost entirely. again, an odd claim that it’s been in the family for a long time…the fellow has a rather substantial ebay bid history.

Sorry, don’t mean to be a negative nelly…it’s just my spidey sense is tingling…

Possible Answers to some of these questions here.

Who says they didn’t have phones in 1860? Man, I’m not exactly batting 1000 on this thread.

The basic patents for the telephone were filed in the 1870s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone

City directories for most major American cities were available in the 1860s, and gave the name, occupation, and address of the occupants of most homes and businesses. These were often updated annually, and are nowadays available in the special collections section or local history section of major municipal libraries.