Interesting "Siccama" sold today....really Boehm?

So a very interesting flute properly stamped “Siccama/patentee” sold today on eBay after a great bit of bidder interest for >$1,000US

http://www.ebay.com/itm/rare-antique-siccama-rosewood-flute-/270886443971?pt=UK_Woodwind_Instruments&hash=item3f12171bc3

What’s interesting is it nearly resembles a Boehm variant.
But if it’s that, then why is it marked “Patentee”?
Bate’s book on the flute apparently references one of Siccama’s many patents as using the ring system of Boehm as a baseline. I don’t have the book so perhaps someone here can reference?

Hi Dave

Most interesting! It certainly looks like a version of the 1832 Boehm! Some differences - a closed G# (like on our flutes) while Boehm was trying to popularise the Open G#; the L3 hole has a plate rather than an open hole, and there are some differences in the trill keys.

It’s not the same as any of the 4 drawings in the Patent, but it shares the Boehm ring-key arrangement with Fiendish Plan No 3 - A ring key chromatic flute, see just over halfway down:

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Siccama%20Patent.html

So I think it would be most accurate to call it Siccama’s take on the 1832 Ring-key Boehm. It’s also different to the Rudall & Rose version.

Boehm never patented the 1832 design. I’d guess the “Patentee” refers to Siccama and not the flute.

But the interesting thing it tells us is that Siccama did manufacture flutes other than his own system. I’m not sure that we knew that before. (If anyone knows of any others, let me know!)

Terry

Yes I was following that one (went waaaay over my budget). Very interesting. Being made my Siccama, maybe it has more power than Boehm’s 1832.

you’re right, Terry. Rockstro mentions that none of the other flutes made it past the theoretical model stage. I’d read a different writing (can’t recall whom just now) who said Siccama had made some variant on the Boehm design, which could well be this one.

Yet the “1xx” series interests me, like you, to show he’d been making other flutes.

It could be that he used a single serial number system like Boosey (and Hudson) did on the Pratten model, where every variant was included. Rudall, as you know, separate their numbering systems according to the variety model of the instrument (though there are instances of mix-ups).

Siccama might well have started at #1…I have #27 in the Siccama…a flute that strangely is only stamped on the foot…and I couldn’t fathom why.