Boxwood Rudall & Rose on auction June 17
http://www.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/Catalogues/mi170611/lot0137-0.jpg
I will not be bidding against you.
That’s a truly beautiful Flute Kev … I wonder how much it will go for ? Any guesses ?
wow !! …so beautiful
whowheeeeee!!
The estimate is 2500 to 3500 (pounds, I assume)
Absolutely gorgeous. I really hope it goes for more than that.
Looks like someone has had a go at renovating the flute. Seems to have a glossy finish (could be the photo), and the rings are they original? Is the head joint original? It looks like a patent head, but there seems to be a missing ring between the patent head and the wood of the headjoint? The barrel doesn’t seem to be stamped, but maybe the stamp is on the other side? Interesting that all the keys seem to have pewter plugs
Hmmm … Can’t tell from the photo, but it doesn’t look like a patent head to me. Only the footjoint keys seem to be pewter plugs - the rest look like pads to me.
Actually, they are odd keys, aren’t they? Maybe they are pewters … but where are the receiving plates then?
The photo isn’t that sharp or clear, but the head joint doesn’t look to be original. It has a different grain compared with the rest of the flute, but prehaps that’s normal. I wonder why they don’t show the stamp on the barrel
1 Tavistock St would date the flute 1838-1847 which prehaps explains the “unusual” pewter type keys.
No serial number either which, I believe, is unusual, right for a boxwood and silver Rudall Rose? Perhaps the barrel is a replacement, but I thought the number would appear on the left-hand section.
inside the wood, small ones.
Looks to be a custom model.
the head seems original to me.
nice engraved work on the crown and bottom … as far as I can see from this picture.
I don’t really like the rings style.
Imho I won’t consider this one as a session flute, but more as collector’s item.
and also no serial no.
I would expect no more than £2000…
Boxwood, pewter plugs on all the keys and fancy old style on the C#/C keywork…
remainds me of richard potter flutes: maybe a special order for an old flute player??
That address on the foot looks more like 7 Tavistock not 1. Which would make this a very early Rudall Rose. And that would tend to fit more with the pewter plug keys, the early style C/C# touches (no claw as seen on the later silver keys). And then there’s the length of the foot which scaling up the photo seems to be 150mm or even more, again fitting in with an early one. See Terry’s pages here http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Rudall_Development.htm
and here http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/conclusions.html
And the rings are just like my Monzani in keeping with Rose’s pre Rudall flute???
Plus there’s more…
Of course if we could properly read the address we’d know.
Cheers
Graeme
And here’s the text I just found on the auction site.
Early 19th century boxwood and silver mounted flute by and stamped Rudall & Rose 7 Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London, with silver keys on wooden blocks, case Estimate: 2500-3500 [pounds]
Cheers
Graeme
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.
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
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.
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.
£2900. Lucky somebody! 
http://www.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/Catalogues/mi170611/page4.html