I have my beloved Hudson Pratten flute with Jon C. at the moment getting an overhaul. Jon wrote to me the following:
This flute is more of a Hawkes design then a Pratten, I wonder if Hawkes & Sons copied Hudson? The embouchure is close to Wylde’s design, the rounded oval, my favorite!
It really gets honking, when everything is dialed it!
Jon
I’m wondering if anyone has some more information about this?
Thanks, Arbo.
I presume you’ve read this page and the others on Terry’s website:
http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Hudson.htm
Cheers
Graeme
Hmm… I have a Wylde.
I better get up there before Jon sends it back… if you don’t mind Arbo?
That was my first impression, when I first started playing it. The thing that struck me, was how un-Prattenish it was. On the Pratten, you will find the C# and the C keys on the foot the same diameter, on the HUdson and the Hawkes, they are similar to the R&R with the C seat is smaller diameter. So I checked the measurements of the tone hole placement, and tone hole size, very close. The bore is the same diameter. The big difference is the Hawkes, took care of the flat foot, by shortening the foot. When you look at the embouchure hole, it doesn’t resemble the Prattens large oval, but rather, closer to a R&R or Wylde shape. The Hawkes has the same shape embouchure slightly smallerThe Hawkes, 12.1x10.6mm and the Hudson 12.4x10.8mm. I would say that design reflected more in a Hawkes & Sons then any RS Pratten I have played.
It has more control, to play softly or loud, richer tone, and the tuning is more of a Rudall then a Pratten, if you know what I mean.
So since Hudson was in the picture from 1853-57 nd Hawkes & sons started making the above mentioned flute in 1889, it could have been an influtence in his design. I know hs earlier attempts with Riviere, were small holed french flutes, so it kind of makes you wonder?
Just some un-scientific blather… 
No, I don’t mind, but I am hoping Jon will post it today. So, you had better make it a ‘breakfast’ visit.
Arbo
Thanks for the input Jon.
Arbo
Interesting, Jon
Do you feel that Arbo’s flute resembles first-half 19th century flutes such as Rudalls etc, in terms of bore and holes, or lies somewhere between them and the more common Pratten’s we are familiar with?
What’s the c#-Eb distance incidentally? We’ve noted at least two Hudsons with the earlier (circa 255mm) length, but most fall into the typical Pratten’s circa 245 mm length.
My guess is that the shorter length suited professional musicians needing to play up to 455 High Pitch, and the longer scale suited domestic musicians playing A430. Maybe that is the case here?
Terry
Hi,
It seems to be right on the cusp, with the Pratten style bore, but with the slightly smaller embouchure and tone holes, also with smaller key cups, then the Boosey Pratten. I wouldn’t identify it with a Pratten, or a R&R, but rather a Nickolson’s Improved, or some hybrid of Pratten and Rudall, like the Hawkes, later came up with. It has the earlier tuning with the 255mm c#-Eb measurement. One thing interesting about the Hudson, the tone holes on R1-R3 are drilled offset to the upper tone holes, kind of Nickolson’s arrangement? Maybe a missing link?
I restored a Hawkes and Sons this weekend to compare it. (what a life…) The Hawkes is a later version 440 htz design “Superior Class”. this Hawkes is leaning more toward the Pratten, but there are some similar aspects. Notice the the Hudson foot, looks more like a Rudall foot then a Pratten. I love the keys on the Hawkes foot, where they zip right around that post!
do remember that Hudson was the primary force of the Pratten’s Perfected flute from its inception and into Boosey, where he worked until his retirement. Sadly the man went deaf at about age 90.
The very initial boosey-pratten flutes, of which Hudson was the foreman and maker on many, were near identical to the Hudson-Prattens. The only key difference was that the tone holes lined up with Boosey and the Hudson holes were offset.
Great flute.
Beautiful condition too.
Clean lines with a very robust design.
Jon wouldn’t let me take it home! 
The new pads needed to seat a bit and new cocus barrel liner needed to settle in (crazy good work Jon does by the way) but what a real player that is.
The forward offset RH holes and the position of the F block was a little funky for my but I got over it.
Was that Nicolson’s idea?
I keep my holes offset in the opposite direction.
I don’t like my elbows up in the air like that.
Makes feel like a dufus… note that doesn’t mean I’m not one.
Its NOT a Pratten’s in fact the I was surprised at the size of the tone holes are more like a medium holed Rudal.
Much more tonal color and complexity in the sound that what I get from a Pratten’s… but hey, what do I know.
LOTS of sound though.
You can really bear down on it.
Arbo’s got a real keeper.
I was glad to get a chance to see it.
Thanx Arbo!
A visit to the Cochran workshop is always a good time.
Jon makes a mean latte too. 
Got the flute honking and sealing and fitting properly, and sadly sent off on i’s way… You missed the Hawkes & Sons I restored yesterday, another fine flute!
Thanks for the input on the history from Dave Migoya and Terry’s always useful site. Interesting about the development of the Pratten, I guess there was some evolution of the design, before Pratten "perfected " it? Like Annvil said, the flute has quite a bit of tonal color to it, more then most Prattens I have played. (I am a true blue Rudall man!) The problem with the R1 to close to the long F block, has been a problem on some Boosey Pratten’s also. I had one in the shop that you had to use the tip of your finger to close the giant tone hole, to clear the sharp block that was actually partally drilled threw with the placement of the tone hole! The offset arrangement doesn’t bother me, as I am not a dufus… 
I do make a mean Latte!
Its NOT a Pratten’s in fact the I was surprised at the size of the tone holes are more like a medium holed Rudal.
huh?
you don’t mean the Hudson, do you?
it’s marked “Pratten’s Perfected”
Too…this flute (which was mine before I sold it to Arbo) was the only one in near-pristine unplayed condition. The stamp was even still rough on the finger.
The best Pratten’s have, in my opinion, always been better from Hudson than when Boosey took the charge, though the difference is pretty small. the first 100 Boosey-marked Pratten flutes play near the same as the Hudsons. I’ve had a few of them.
And currently I own Hudson #49 and #27. Both play remarkably well.
Not bad for a flute model of which only 6 or 7 exist still.
dm
No, David.
You read it right.
Yes, I saw the stamping.
I should have said its very different from the other real Pratten’s I played and what I “think” many people may expect.
I certainly don’t have the width and depth of experience you do David but I was able to tell the difference.
No wasted pearls tossed before this guy… not this time anyway 
You must have a crazy good collection… or so I’ve been lead to believe.
Love to see it someday!
Hmmm, so pulling this together …
Arbo’s flute is clearly made by Hudson, and named an R.S. Pratten’s Perfected, but is not what we generally regard as a “Pratten”. While the generality of “Prattens” made by both Hudson and later Boosey have a significantly shorter scale, larger holes and larger bore than flutes of the first half 19th century, this is a flute that continues in the earlier tradition. Yet it has some of the visual characteristics of the later flutes - the rounded cap, the rounded tip of the foot going beyond the ring - whereas the earlier flutes stopped abruptly at each end.
It’s not alone - Rudall & Carte conical flutes continued in the older style (visually and in acoustical matters) till high pitch crashed near the end of the century, while their Boehm-based flutes followed the new high pitch standard to the same point. Clinton made some of his flutes to the old standard, and some to the new standard. Siccama did the same, and some in between.
This is all good stuff - we’re assembling clear proof that change in environment (the introduction of high pitch) was making for change in instruments, but not just as a takeover bid - the old was continuing alongside the new. There remained more than one market. The flute history books don’t reveal that - you would assume that high pitch took over the world, but I think we can safely say it only took over the professional world. Wouldn’t be the first or last time more common folk were proved smarter than the big end of town!
Terry
Hmmmm. Great thread! So, to digress somewhat, what the hell is going on in the USA of recent times with a trend (seemingly gradually infecting the rest of the world) in orchestral music of building (Bohm) flutes (and I presume other winds) to A=442Hz or, so I’ve recently been told, even 443-444 ( 
) - with the implication that strings and pianos are being tuned similarly sharp? I’m aware that quite a lot of British pro orchestral fluters use 442 instruments, but are their orchestras tuning to 440 still? And if so, what does that say about all the fuss about “accurate” intonation in flute-making and over scale length etc…? I’ve long suspected that much of that is over-sensitive hype as even the very best modern Bohm flute will still require lipping in contextually. Is it the old thing of tuning a tad sharp for more “brilliance” and penetration? Or have we once again a general creep towards HP? So much for the C20th 440 consensus! Wind players must be going back to carrying a kit of differently tuned/built instruments around instead of one standard one! Hey, maybe all those superbly made late C19th HP cylinder flutes by RC&Co etc. will start to find a players’ market again in a year or two when they crank it up to 450! (There have been quite a lot - various systems - on eBay lately…) For some reason the Period Instrument movement don’t seem to have investigated late C19th British HP much, despite the ready availability of brass and woodwinds from the era (extra tension scaring the strings?) - they’ll do stuff like Verdi and Mahler at 435, but not Sullivan or Elgar at 450! 
Tee-hee! 
Have we any orchestral players aboard who can comment? (Perhaps I should have put this in a new thread???)
I understand that at least most Boehm flute makers (and maybe all) do not actually make different A440 and A442 models, they simply chop a bit off the head so that the flute can definitely reach A442.
But perhaps more alarming, I note that some concertina and accordeon makers are providing their instruments tuned to 442. That’s kind of permanent!
Fortunately a combination of two narrowly tuned boxes, one at 440 and the other at 442, would probably sound like a broadly tuned box. Two broadly tuned boxes at the different pitches might start to sound a bit wild!
Still 442 to 440 is only an 8 cent difference, so we flute players better keep our mouths shut. Metaphorically at least.
Terry
You must have a crazy good collection… or so I’ve been lead to believe.
Love to see it someday!
Anytime you’d like!
Drop a note when you’re in town.
Crazy good? Shrug. Dunno. I like it. It’s smaller now. Tough economy and all.
Been on the heavy metals again, Aanvil? Erodes the brain, so I’ve been led to believe. That’s probably what comes of hanging out in flute workshops. Or did Jon cosh you with a lump of it? These flute makers will lead you to perdition!
Damn you Jem and your nefarious editor’ing ways!
Yul darn near lean sum englishin’ to this Yank yet I rekon!
I think its your Welsh that makes you this way.
You can’t help it.
Well, as I understand it, if you loose one letter out of those twenty letter words it might start a riot… or get you married.
I’d be on edge too.
Ond dwy ddim yn siarad Cymraeg! (But I don’t speak Welsh!)
Maybe it’s because I’m English (with antiquarian tendencies to boot - see above) that I’m so sharp? No, wait, that’s probably just because I play the flute…
Mind you, I did marry a Welsh girl… 