I’ve been trying to find out about “Card’s System” or a “Card’s Improved” flute. All I’ve been able to discover on the web is a reference (and no more than that) to Card & Co. of London, 1845-76.
Can anyone here tell me what Card’s “improvements” were, and how significant they might have been in terms of flute development?
Gary,
Sure it’s not a typo? Rudall Carte had their own systems and improvements using that terminology.
Kevin Krell
Kevin, nope, not a typo.
I emailed the University of Edinburgh and received a reply from a splendid fellow by the name of Dr Arnold Myers, who is the Director,
Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments.
They have a Card’s Improved in their collection, and for posterity here’s what the good Dr had to say about what’s described in the museum catalogue as a D flute (conical bore) in C:
AN: (44)
EN: Flute.
Nominal pitch: C.
TS: Card’s system.
Maker: Card & Co.
PL: London.
DM: 1845-76.
FM: William Card was active as a player in London 1825 - 61, and had his instruments built by Whitaker who was formerly an employee of Rudall and Rose (Toff 1979, p.104). He was succeeded in business by his son Edward in 1861 (Waterhouse 1993, p.57).
Overall size: 652.
Bore: conical.
Technical description: Rosewood; 4 sections (body in one piece); silver keys; 5 chased silver ferrules plus cap; engraved silver embouchure-plate and bushes for L1, L2, L3 and R3 finger-holes; metal-lined head; tuning-slide; long screw-stopper; rectangular embouchure-hole; metal-tipped tenons; adjacent low C/C-sharp touches, with roller ends on shanks; rods down both sides of instrument; many duplicate touchpieces; D trill requires right hand to move from normal position.
L0: B-flat; C.
L1: T.
L2: T.
L3: T.
L4: G-sharp.
R1: F ring; dup G-sharp; D trill.
R2: E ring; dup C.
R3: T; dup B-flat.
R4: E-flat; low C-sharp; low C.
Keyhead type: Cylinder cup.
Keymount type: Rod/pillar; needle springs except for B-flat, duplicate C, D trill, low C/C-sharp (leaf).
IN: Engraved on silver plate on head “CARD’S / Improved” (in script) / “PATENT”.
CS: With case, containing maker’s card inscribed “Mr Card / Professor of the Flute / & Flute Manufacturer / 29, St. James Street” (all in script), also label printed with previous owner’s name and card inscribed with fingering charts for C-sharp-7 and D-7.
Usable pitch: A4 = c 458 Hz.
Performance characteristics: [Original range: C4 - D7]. Present range: E-flat4 - A6. With screw and head set at mean position, intonation uneven and bottom notes flat.
Specific literature references: G.S. (1968) No. 55.
Illustration references: Vol. 1 p.69.
Previous ownership: W. Hilder.
CA: (Rendall Collection).
Any of the standard books on the flute describe Card’s efforts at improving the Boehm flute.
Nobody seems to have found his efforts useful / interesting.
Look at Bate’s " The Flute " at p.136, for example. It describes a conical flute with an open F# closed by rings for the right first and second fingers only. A closed G#, a d"shake, and a B nat. shake for the right forefinger.
There is a reference to the Card made flute in the Dayton Miller collection
( 0236 ) with the three right hand rings similar to Siccama’s 1845 adaptation.
Ardal Powell has a few references as well. Of course anybody interested will already know this.
Thanks andrew. I’d assumed from a near complete lack of information on the web that Card’s system didn’t find much favour, or that his improvements simply fell by the wayside. My sudden interest in Card’s flute stems merely from the fact that I’m shortly to acquire a keyless flute the design of which is ‘based on Card’s system’, and I was wondering if it would be radically different from a flute I own that’s based on a Rudall & Rose.
I imagine I’ll find out when it arrives, and I can compare the two side by side. Card’s improvements seem to be all in the keywork, about which I’m not much concerned for obvious reasons.
You have me extremely puzzled, Card’s system as you say being key based.
Around the same time Siccama was doing his best to design advanced no- key and one- key flutes. Perhaps Card tried to jump on that bandwagon.
I hope you illustrate the little beastie when you get it.
If your flute is of recent manufacture you might get the maker to explain.
For a pretty ordinary Card flute (junior I expect) look at the illustrations of some of my cocus flutes Graham Farr kindly illustrated.