For those interested in flute history of one of its best-known makers:
I have just acquired what I believe to be the earliest extant Rudall & Rose flute, an instrument stamped with the address of “7.Tavistock Street” which we know to be the second of the firm’s addresses (according to Rockstro, who notes that II Tavistock…presumably to be 11…to be the first). There may or may not be a serial number on the flute. I will discuss that below.
The earliest serial number yet recorded in my catalogue work is # 434, a boxwood 8key flute, from 7.Tavistock Street (yes, the “.” is intended as it appears clearly on the stamp) that was sold at Sotheby’s in the early 1980s.
Thus far, I have recorded/located just four serial number flutes from the 7.Tavistock address, a range of flutes that go from 434 to @500.
It’s been presumed that no earlier serial number exists because the firm may have (it’s not clear that they did) begun using the number system after a few years in business and simply chose a number arbitrarily (much like Boosey did with the Pratten’s Perfected flute, beginning with number 4517, according to the firm’s ledgers currently in possession of the Horniman Museum and written about by Mr. Arnold Myers and Kelly J. White for the Galpin Society).
This seemed to make sense for Rudall & Rose as I have located and recorded extant models covering each 100-series of number from 400 through 7400 (the highest of which is #7426, and still unclear how high the 8key models went in number, but that seems to be at the reaches).
Again, that was the common thinking.
Until now, although I am not positive.
The flute I have in possession is a 7key, small-holed flute. The keys are square flaps. There is little or no undercutting to the tone holes. The barrel is stamped “Rudall & Rose/London” as expected, same with the right hand piece. The foot, interestingly, is stamped with the firm name and address 7.Tavistock Street, a very uncommon thing for the firm. They typically stamped the foot as the barrel and right-hand parts.
More importantly, there is a small area beneath the main maker’s stamp, below the word “London” where precisely centered and in the appropriate location is what appears to be a number: " 3 "
I should note this is a concert flute, not a No. 3 (or 3/4 or F) flute.
The number 3 is small and faint. Very very difficult to see.
There is a small checked area of wood there, so it is entirely possible…even likely…that this is just wood marks.
But it is unmistakably a number 3. Whether intentional or not is what is likely to be debated.
Going against the possibility that this is indeed number 3 flute (which would be a huge discovery to the history of this firm) is that no other flute numbered before 434, a very high number compared to 3, has been discovered as yet.
While this is likely one of the first flutes the firm made, even without a serial number, until a flute is discovered and verified with the 11 Tavistock address, it is easily the oldest extant model of Rudall & Rose (we know of course several examples of Geo. Rudall/Willis fecit flutes, as well as the well-known pair of John Mitchell Rose flutes).
This flute looks much more like the ones made by John Mitchell Rose (although it has silver rings, not ivory) and appears more Potter-like than Rudall) than it does the ones made by Mr. Willis for Mr. Rudall.
Too, interestingly, the first tone hole (the c# hole) is off-set toward the player. Too, the stamp is centered to this first hole than to the remaining tone holes which are in line, but to the right (audience) of the first hole. Is it possible the stamp had a guide that used the first tone hole as its centering point?
Other interesting things about this flute:
All the key holes are beveled somewhat to allow the flat key flaps to sit onto a flat surface…except for the short F key, which is curved to the body.
All the block channels are lined in silver and the counter springs are part of a silver channel as well.
There is no long-F key, which is typical of the 1822 flutes favored by Nicholson.
There is a bevel, slight, for the right hand thumb. I cannot tell if this is from heavy use, which this flute most definitely experienced, or intentional. If intentional, then the flute is very much likely of 1822, which was the year the excavated bodies favored by Nicholson were the rage, according to Rockstro.
There are other interesting things about this flute that I will provide and describe on the Rudall & Rose Catalogue website, which is undergoing some construction at the time.
The flute, I should note, does not play. There are no leathers to the keys and the original (likely ivory) crown mechanism is missing.
