I was looking at a very good flute website, for McGee flutes, which has a very interesting section on modern equivalents of original values of flutes, http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/OrigPrices.htm. Turns out that these days a Rudall Rose would go for about $305, this being their cheapest model: “THE ORDINARY EIGHT KEYED FLUTE, Boxwood, German Silver Keys and Mountings, Tuning Slide, Single Springs, without Case
[Note boxwood and nickel silver used for cheapest flutes].” How about their top of the line model, 13 keys, better wood, stronger springs, etc.: $1374. These are 2001 equivalent prices. The website they use to calculate these values has many options, but it wasn’t working at the time.
So…what about some prices for Union pipes? Very few original prices are known. Harrington sold an exhibition set for £50, for instance. And the Taylor Brothers built the “Beatty” set for $500, in the 1880s, according to O’Neill. So what is that in today’s prices?
I was told that around the turn of century a working man earned about a dollar a day, thus $365 a year. So if the modern equivalent of this is $12000, $500 in the 1880s would be $16320 today. You can factor in your own values, I’m just throwing that figure in.
But. According to http://www.users.mis.net/~chesnut/pages/value.htm $1 in 1991 would be $14.85. Thus, the “Beatty” set, which has a four keyed chanter, six keyed double chanter, double bass regulator, and tenor and baritone regulators with four bores in each, to control their notes’ tuning individually, with compound keys that operate hinges which open keys on the bottom of the regulator, all of this would cost, in 1991…drum roll please…
$7425.
It seems like the typical full set price then was $3500, and now is about $6000, thus almost double. So maybe $12000 now? You figure it out. Factor in the Riverdance inflationary index, etc.
Kevin, I am very curious about some of the features of historic sets you mention.
1). On the regs with multiple channels, what type of reeds did they have, single or double? I would guess that a single reed would work if it only had to supply one note. Also, a single reed would be smaller and easier to install on the head of the reg.
2). Do you know the diameter of these regs? They must have been pretty massive to accommodate multiple reeds in the head.
Re “a single reed would work if it only had to supply one note” …there’s a UP maker up in Scotland (I forget his name) who makes unorthodox pipes, perhaps based on the pastoral pipes, that makes drones with regulator keys attached. So, single reeds must work for a varity of notes, but I’m kind of guessing.
There are several sorts of pipes that use a single reed in their chanter, including the Swedish sackpipa and a number of the eastern European beasts. In fact, the drone and chanter reeds in my sackpipa are absolutely identical.
They weren’t much if any larger than normal, and used double reeds. The Taylors made many double chanters, and a few sets with double regulators; double bores and reeds for the baritone and tenor. Sean Folsom’s pipes are a Taylor copy, probably by Patrick Hennelly of Chicago, with double regulators. Again, baritone and tenor. They never tried this in the bass that I’m aware of; that was too much for even them, apparently.
The wide end was square in section, with rounded edges. The tenon end was round. Pretty amazing work. David Quinn’s article on the Taylor’s keywork describes very well how it all fits together, with some lovely sketches.
Average out these values and you get $9326.10. That’s what the above set of pipes would cost today. NOT!
How about the set Denis Harrington sold at an exhibition for £50? Very fancy, I imagine. Let’s assume this was in 1840, the Famine wiped out Harrington’s business. Again, in 2002 - £2409.09, equals $3,969.83 USD.
Kevin, I haven’t studied this stuff (socio-economics) for years, but as I recall, you can’t just do a dollar for dollar comparison like that. There are a whole bunch of cost of living things that have to be accounted for, plus styles of living, etc. to put this stuff into context.
I still don’t have a very good feel for the historicity of UPs despite all the good research many people have been doing. I still find it hard to believe that UPs were really all that prevalent at any time in Ireland owing to the cost of the instrument. As well, the people who were manufacturing them did not do so full time. I doubt there was sufficient market to allow that.
As well, one didn’t just walk into a bank and get a loan in those days like we might today to buy a car. One had to have substantial cash within reach to buy a set, or rock solid credit to cover the purchase, and how many people in Ireland could claim to have such in the 18th or 19th centuries? I would be really amazed if there were as many as 2000 sets ever in Ireland, and that includes what went overseas.
I think what we are seeing today is a totally modern phenomena, both in the number of makers, the number of sets or partial sets floating about, and the speed that these sets are being turned out. Naturally, one has to expect to pay for these improvements.
“Comparisons of purchasing power are only reliable over short periods. A typical computer in 2001 is a very different machine from its counterpart of 5 years ago. Indices of inflation fail to take proper account of improvements in quality. Even in the essentials of life there are significant changes over the years. A typical diet in most advanced countries will be rather different today from what it would have been before the refrigerator became a common household item. Therefore over long time spans, changes in prices give only the very roughest and most approximate idea of changes in the value of money.”
