Nothing new under the sun!
VINTAGE “LA CHROMATIQUE” NO. 36 WHISTLE BY P.J. PARIS
Probably a lead fipple, of course…
Interesting instrument. I see it has two thumb-holes. I assume for C and F natural.
Yes, I’d guess so. And without Bb/Eb/Ab it’s more like “La Chromatoïde”. 
Yes, the thumb holes are C and F nat, there is an Eb hole for R4 and I’d lay good odds the Bb and G# are readily cross-fingerable in both 8ves.
Really? You mean:
D xxx xxxx
Eb xxx xxxo
E xxx xxoo
I don’t think so, Jem, from the hole spacing. The R4 is more likely just a low C.
Also, with the usual hole sizes of R1 and R2 reversed, it has the “German recorder fingering” layout. So xxx xooo gives F-nat, and you lift the thumb for F#. Which means this is basically intended as a C-scale instrument.
I think you’re probably right about the F/F# thing - didn’t stop to think about the hole sizes. But I’m not so sure about the low C - spacing doesn’t look long enough to me, and you get those French and German fifes with the Eb hole… and it really would duck the “chromatic” test without an Eb!
Maybe the bottom note is C#.
Hmmm … Looking at the hole spacing, I reckon Jem’s right. In principle, at least, if you assume that the bell note (all fingers down) is D. However, it’s 11 3/4 inches long, which, given the short looking windway and the slightly tapered bore, would make it a C whistle rather than a D, by my reckoning.
If you look at the distance between the end of the whistle and the second tone hole from the bottom, that distance looks normal to me for a difference of one whole tone. I then struggle slightly because, in that case, why is what would then have to be the Db tone hole so close to the D tone hole (second one up, in my hypothesis). I don’t understand the whistle making principles or the science, but isn’t that in fact usually the case because of corrections that have to be made for the open end (basically a longer tube than you might expect)?
So, I reckon the notes go as follows, from the bottom up (call it thought-about guesswork 
). I’ve made up my own fingering pattern, borrowing from keyed flute fingering charts, so that, when a thumb is covering its hole, I show a comma. The mouthpice end is on the left:
X,XX X,XXX C
X,XX X,XXO C#/Db
X,XX X,XOO D
X,XX X,OOO D#/Eb
X,XX X OOO E
X,XX O OOO F
X,XO O OOO G
X,OO O OOO A
X OO O OOO A#/Bb
O OO O OOO B
Phew! I’m exhausted! It would be good to have the thing in one’s hands to be able to tell properly what it is and what it does.
Does the above make sense? Have I messed it up?
Your chart makes sense, though I’d take a gamble on it being “in D” (bell note D), though just possibly at diapason normal (A = 432-5 Hz) given its French provenance - though based on design style I’d also take a gamble on it being an inter-war artefact and therefore more likely to be concert pitch. I mean, my Swayne, my old Gen, my Parks Everywhistle D are all approx 11.75" long when tuned to 440 at the pressure I blow, and allowing +/- an 1/8th or so for differing beak/windway lengths.
I had a chat with a well-known whistle maker a few weeks ago and he mentioned that he was interested in making a chromatic whistle. His approach was to use lots of double holes (I have no idea if he’s built a prototype or was just playing with the idea). At first glance this one looks like it’s a traverso type of approach, with an Eb hole. Has anyone ever tried to use that approach to a chromatic whistle? It would seem like the natural thing to do.
Might be from the acoustical point of view, but doesn’t seem at all natural from the playing angle to substitute an open hole for a closed key. (Thumbholes possibly excepted, since they don’t disturb the fingering order for your basic diatonic scale.)
Looking at it in comparison with my “D+” whistle (D vented through a ‘low C’ hole reachable by the fourth finger) it has to be Eb (or whatever). Isn’t it where some people keep the fourth finger down all the time to stabilise the whistle ? The maker of my D+ recommended that rather than using the third finger for the ‘all fingers off’ note because that didn’t work in the second octave; it only took a day so to get into the habit. Isn’t it a finger that some flute players have down most of the time )
I think on the high whistle, because it is so short, an Eb hole wouldn’t be too unergonomic and, as david_h says, lots of people keep the little finger down all the time anyway. On bigger instruments it would be problematic - but you could always add a key.
Presumably the instrument would have to be conical to achieve good intonation over two octaves.
The extra holes, wit hthe exception of the e flat, are just that, extra. These whistles were designed to play the semi tones effortlessly (again with the exception of e flat), using cross fingering.
Killthemessenger mentioned double holes for a chromatic whistle. Has anyone ever tried this? They work pretty well for recorder.
Nice images, Mr. Gumby. From your own collection of instruments?
I wonder really what the point of a chromatic whistle would be, except to prove it can be done. Most of the instrument’s natural repertoire is diatonic. The recorder is already a chromatic whistle, after all, although it’s bloody hard to play in distant keys.
Double holes do work to some extent on baroque instruments, but at a price in tone, usually the half-holed note is weak compared to a normal note.
I’ve dabbled with it. It works as you would expect.
And that is as you expect as well. To get good, strong, even tones across the scale you want sufficiently large holes for each note. The recorder-ish double holes act in a manner similar to half holing, IMO. I personally prefer dedicated thumb and pinkie holes. Actually I prefer the simple diatonic whistle. YMMV.
That could be a chicken and egg thing though. I’d guess if the instrument were chromatic that it’d be used for a more chromatic repertoire.
Feadoggie