I have an old flute as my “go to” flute.
I quite like it.
I’m playing it right now as a matter of fact.
Seems in tune enough.
My first flute and I were both pretty lousy. One of us needed to be good, and that’s how I became a “flute tourist”. I traded a few times and ended up with something that suits me. I could have soldiered on, but I’m glad I didn’t, and I’m becoming a better player for it. I’ve had a Burns Standard for a couple of years now, and I’m very satisfied.
I may trade again if I feel it will help me advance, or even just for the fun of it. No shame here. My vows don’t extend to sticks of wood! 
Wish I could, but I don’t own an antique flute; mine’s a modern flute (by Bryan Byrne) based loosely on a Rudall Carte but it’s really Bryan’s own design so not quite what you’re looking for.
But I do think you’re on to something with your harmonics theory – in my experience most old flutes or flutes based on older designs sound more in tune when you focus your embouchure and hit the first-octave notes in the zone that’s near the breaking point between the first and second octaves. There must be lots of harmonics going on in that region. I certainly am not doing a lot of gymnastics to get my flute to play in tune, with the exception of the second-octave a and the first-octave D, and I play frequently with a couple of friends who play fairly dry-tuned accordions so I think I’d notice if any notes were seriously out.
Misunderstanding me only a bit, Barry. While I fervently believe a person can never know too much, sometimes too much input (rather than information) is not a good thing, especially for and from the newer players just joining us. It’s a bit like 24 hour news cycles, where pundits and spin-doctors argue ad-nauseum to fill time; few minds are changed, little is accomplished, but the time is filled.
But this is my gripe to deal with it, I often disappear from C&F for a few days, weeks or longer to decompress. My only point was that - IMO - a lot more is learned from sticking with one decent flute, rather than looking through many flutes for the perfect match.
Best,
Gordon
Don’t want to re-write Brad’s post, Terry, but this is true for me, as well. The only antique I’ve ever owned was/is the German flute I learned on, with quirky tuning I’d still argue is not too difficult to overcome, and an embouchure cut more akin to a Boehm flute than either of the two moderns I own. I spent the better part of the past ten years with a Hamilton and only recently switched to a Hernon Rudall, due more to ergonomic issues than sonic preference. Both flutes are easy to fill and play in tune - no gymnastics on my part, either. The Hernon takes a bit more focus, but working harder to get a really rewarding sound is not something I consider problematic. Still, it’s enough of Hernon’s own design to make this flute a modern maker’s flute, and not the sort of example you seem to be looking for.
That said, in spite of some of my passionate posts regarding old-tuning, etc., I do deeply appreciate and respect the sort of research and experimentation that makers such as yourself, Casey and others put into their work, and I am not too stubborn to be convinced some day. Still, to date, taking into account the players I’ve been influenced by, the sound I’m after, and all the flutes I’ve tried over the year, I’ve yet to hear or feel any particular tonal advantage in them over modern flutes made in a more traditional vein.
Basically I see two schools of thought in this case.
On one hand, there are the players who value the quirkiness and originality of the antique instruments and exact copies of them. They find their joy in working hard to get the naturally awkward tuning spot-on and see a specific quality in the resulting, very unique sound. They accept that those flutes are somewhat more cumbersome and peculiar regarding the approaches needed to get them driving, but enjoy the result when they found the sweet spot eventually. That is perfectly okay.
On the other hand, there are the players who see their flutes as workhorses, or tools, that need to be as easiest to use as possible. They prefer purpose-optimized tuning and ease of playing over historical, but also sometimes unproven intentions of the old makers. They find their joy in playing the music without having to think about tone production, up-/down-lipping or tuning anomalies. That is perfectly okay as well.
An analogy could be: I have a lathe. I paid for it as much as a good eight-keyer would cost. It works perfectly and is very precise and easy to work on. I could have bought one for a tenth of it’s price which would have worked as well, and I would have been able to produce the same results, just with more work and time to invest. You can obviously see that I see my flute as a tool.
That said, there are also players who like to own an antique flute which brings it’s own history, has been played by many people before and will be played by many people after, but the players also value an “easy” flute. The logical consequence for those players is to have a skillful maker alter the flute in a way which makes the flute a better one for it’s owner. In the very most cases, this involves a bit of tuning work on the holes and maybe some re-reaming as the bore possibly shrunk with time. In most cases, a good embouchure doesn’t have to be touched at all, nor wood has to be cut off. In those players opinion, this approach is perfectly okay if it works for them. After all, they bought the flute to play it.
And there are the players who want a modern exact copy of an antique flute since they might want to combine today’s accuracy regarding machinery with historical correctness. This approach is also fine if it works for the player.
After all, you see that opinions vary, as players do. So everyone has to accept other players’ opinions. It is wrong to say that “this and that has to be done that way and not different” because you think it should. There’s this quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I think whoever said this, is spot-on with it.
My own everyday workhorse is a modern Prattenish flute. C# flat, A slightly sharp, bad low C, third octave very difficult (needs tons of keys), difficult embouchure. Few people I know can really play that beast. But I’m used to it and altering it would change other aspects as well, so I don’t alter it, easy as that. But every flute owner should be allowed to have someone address the issues they have with it, if they wish to do so.
PS: The argument that many professional players use antique instruments is a bit single-sided, as many professional players use modern instruments as well. Thinking of Matt Molloy (Olwell), Kev Crawford, Mike McGoldrick, Alan Doherty (Grinter), Seamus Egan (Olwell and now Morvan, I’ve been told). There are many others as well. Every medal has two sides…
Best wishes,
G
Edit: I see that this reply might seem to be directed to Gordon. It isn’t, it’s rather meant as a general accumulation of my thoughts regarding this topic.
On one hand, there are the players who value the quirkiness and originality of the antique instruments and exact copies of them. They find their joy in working hard to get the naturally awkward tuning spot-on and see a specific quality in the resulting, very unique sound. They accept that those flutes are somewhat more cumbersome and peculiar regarding the approaches needed to get them driving, but enjoy the result when they found the sweet spot eventually. That is perfectly okay.
On the other hand, there are the players who see their flutes as workhorses, or tools, that need to be as easiest to use as possible. They prefer purpose-optimized tuning and ease of playing over historical, but also sometimes unproven intentions of the old makers. They find their joy in playing the music without having to think about tone production, up-/down-lipping or tuning anomalies. That is perfectly okay as well.
I don’t think it’s as black & white as this. I see an instrument as a workhorse and want it to do the things I want it to do. However easy and in tune isn’t the end all of flutes, I accept that to achieve particular sounds, responsiveness and tone colour compromises in the design will have to be made. Compromises by the way that don’t mean ‘hard work’ but just paying attention and adjusting as you go along.
I play a modern flute, a Sam Murray. I accept that to achieve some of it’s full potential for example the Ds will be flat when not blown correctly. It may take a while to understand how to tackle that but the reward is a flute that sounds wonderful, an instrument that vibrates under your fingers, projecting an almost physical presence of sound.
Hi Peter,
you’re right. I thought that cumulating all the different factors that define a flute shouldn’t be necessary. I would like to point out that my “two schools theory” is meant to show certain tendencies. Of course it’s not like “black and white”.
You can also see from the description of my own flute that our thoughts regarding the optimal instrument don’t differ that much.
Best,
G
I hadn’t thought this was directed at me… But Peter’s reply to you was very much along the lines of what I was thinking.
As an aside, I don’t recall anyone saying that professional players (and by that, you seem to mean famous professionals) use antiques - although they undoubtedly own a few. I do know of many that do play antiques, or did at various points in their careers/life, although more probably use modern instruments now, as you say, hand picked or even custom-made by a maker they particularly like (or endorse). Be interesting to see how far afield from their antiques’ characteristics their moderns are… or aren’t.
I had the luck and pleasure this weekend to have short chat with Kevin Crawford and Jon C (well I talk to Jon all the time so thats not the impressive bit. 
) after the Lunasa gig at Caltech in Pasadena.
Mr. Crawford was relating a story regarding the Lancewood Bb Grinter he currently plays. It seems Kevin came across a fellow (Perhaps Jon remembers who that was) that had a “box of Rudal & Rose Bb’s… a box I say! A box of about ten and each about as good as the next!”. I thought… no wonder I’ve yet to see one, this fellow has most of the surviving ones I figure.
Kevin said he asked to borrow this favorite from the bunch and Michael Grinter flew out and they sat about taking all measurements they could before it was returned.
The point being is that I seem to recall that Grinter flutes follow originals rather closely. That’s his method.
I’ll tell you, there didn’t seem to be any problem getting that flute play properly. Quite impressive.
Great show too.
Kevin and Cillian have a fresh CD out of just them both.
Its been getting good play since Sunday morning. 
Well, until just the last few years Catherine McEvoy was playing only the antique Rudall and Rose flute she was given as a teenager - a unique instrument, BTW, with an unlined headjoint and no tuning slide. That’s the flute she played on her first solo recording and the duet recording she did with her brother John called The Kilmore Fancy. Then she got a nice keyed flute with a C corps de rechange from Mike Grinter. I wouldn’t venture to speak for her, but I think a big reason for that was not because she didn’t like the way the old flute played but because it was getting harder and harder to count on it when the chips are down due to the many problems that are always around when you’re playing an instrument that’s a century and a half old. At any rate, on her latest recording The Home Ruler I believe she plays a few tracks on each of her flutes, including the Grinter in all its variations. So if you want a comparison of how old and new flutes sound in the hands of the same player, you could have a listen to her recordings and reach all kinds of conclusions.
Or, if you want a much more amateurish version of the same, in the box of on-line recordings available via the link in my sig line are a couple tracks of me playing my Olwell Pratten model (circa 1992) and a couple of me on my Rudall and Rose (circa 1840, restored by the good Mr. Olwell). If you can’t really tell which are which, ask me and I’ll tell you. Don’t ask me what I’m doing differently on the two, though, because I really don’t know. I just play 'em!
The various opinions on “flat foot” syndrome make more sense if you consider that not all feet were equally flat.
Some early-to-mid 1800’s flutes had a bottom D which comes out around 40 cents flat (give or take 10 cents) if you blow it uniformly with the other notes. I have three such flutes (a William Bark, a Henry Potter, and a Harris), and I (as well as most others who have tried) find it very difficult to get the D up to pitch even with major effort. The three flutes have similar dimensions, with the spacing between the “E” and the “D” tone holes at around 93 mm. I use this spacing as a rough indication of the flatness of the “D”, recognizing that it is only approximate since it ignores the effect of hole size and bore taper.
Some other flutes from the same period are closer to modern tuning. The bottom D is around 15 to 20 cents flat, and you can get a really nice strong and in-tune bottom D by adjusting your embouchure and pushing the note. I have a Metzler flute which is like that (though I can’t guarantee that someone did not shorten the foot in the last 150 years). The “D to E” hole spacing is around 87 mm. I have drawings of two Rudall and Rose flutes (Serial Numbers 655 and 5047) from the Edinburgh University collection, and these have a D to E spacing of 87 and 86mm. So I would expect those two R&R flutes to fit nicely in this intermediate category. The majority of Rudall Rose designs from modern makers also fit this category in hole spacing and in playing characteristics.
The third catergory would be the late 1800’s and early 1900’s Pratten and Hawkes flutes, where the bottom D will be pretty much in tune if you blow evenly down the scale. On my Hawkes flute, the D to E spacing is 78 mm, and you have to be a little careful not to blow the low D too sharp.
So if someone brings me a flute from the second category (slightly flat) and wants help because they cannot get the low D up to pitch, my advice is to spend some more time working on embouchure and getting to know the flute. However, if they bring one of the very flat flutes, I am certainly prepared to modify it by shortening the foot joint, since it would otherwise not be playable by the owner or anyone else. I agree with the comments that flutes of real historical value should not be altered, and that has to be considered. I also think it appropriate to provide the owner with a document describing what modifications were made, and asking them to pass the document on to future owners of the flute.
Dave Copley
Loveland, Ohio
Well, until just the last few years Catherine McEvoy was playing only the antique Rudall and Rose flute she was given as a teenager - a unique instrument, BTW, with an unlined headjoint and no tuning slide. That’s the flute she played on her first solo recording and the duet recording she did with her brother John called The Kilmore Fancy. Then she got a nice keyed flute with a C corps de rechange from Mike Grinter. I wouldn’t venture to speak for her, but I think a big reason for that was not because she didn’t like the way the old flute played but because it was getting harder and harder to count on it when the chips are down due to the many problems that are always around when you’re playing an instrument that’s a century and a half old.
I saw her play, what was it, two years ago on the Music Network tour with Caoimhin O Raghallaigh and Micháel O’ Raghallaigh. She was on stage there with at least three flutes (she had three there at one time but there may have been additional changes). During the last Willie week she was in with the usual crowd and my impression was she was using her regular flute, I can’t find any pics of her from last summer to confirm that impression (I do have a number from the concert mentioned above).
Maybe she just doesn’t want to travel abroad with the old flute.
No, she’s had it with her on every trip to America I’ve seen her on, which is at least six times now in the past 10 or so years. Once she had the Grinter, she brought it with her as well. A whole bag full of flutes. She plays them all from time to time. Not sure exactly how she decides which one to use at any given moment.
Here’s a famous professional playing an antique flute (and say what you will,
the fellow can really play). I believe he bought it from a chiffandfippler, in fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gjxxt4kRws
Joe Burke on Tailor’s Choice.
Famously Chris Norman, whose boxwood rudall is semi-retired, apparently due to age, not acoustics,
and been semi-replaced by a Rod Cameron copy.
How horribly out of tune! 
Nobody mentioned curiosity as a motive to get and play different flutes. I find it very astonishing how different flutes can be while playing. Since I started playing flute I sought to get to know different types and makes of flute.
Also, I think different flutes can teach you different things. I have one flute that is fairly easy to blow, with a very nice tone. Could have stayed with it. But another one, demanding much more precise embouchure, taught/forced/seduced me to give more atention and dedication to develop. Now playing again the first one is a real delight. Sometimes you need some heavier weights to train your muscles.
Just my few cents.
Cheers, Moritz
I’ve read this whole thread now, and it was interesting although I’m afraid it raised a huge dilemma on my part.
I have this one of a kind antique 8-key flute as some of you may know. It’s a Firth, Pond & Co. 8-key in cocuswood which isn’t all that unusual. But it is a left handed instrument from the mid 1800’s which is extremely uncommon. It’s one of the only surviving left handed keyed flutes from the period (anyone have an estimate of how many others there are?).
The reason I got it however, was not because of it’s rarity. I play lefty and I got it as a players flute. I have some issues with the tuning which is hard to overcome. The F# and A are pretty off, but not too far to be lipped into tune (D is well in tune). But I do play other flutes, and I want to keep playing other flutes which are better in tune, and I want this one to play as easily as the others. I’m not interested in the “gymnastics” as the OP called it.
A few days ago, I felt there was no problem sending it off to have the tuning adjusted to my needs, but now I’m starting to have doubts. Should I let the flute be optimized to my needs and the needs of most other modern players? This would make it more valuable to me as a players instrument, which it was intended to be. I don’t think they created it in the 1850s or so as a curiosity. Or should I leave the tuning alone, try to learn to live with it, maybe sometime in the future learn to play it as well anyway but probably having difficulties switching between flutes, all for the sake of preserving it in the original condition because it is a rare historical flute? A true moral dilemma arising…
I better mull this over with a few drams of
whisky 
Henke am I right in guessing that the A is too high in pitch and the F# too low? Why not use wax in the leading edge of the L3 hole to lower the pitch of the A and use the F natural key on any long F#s to bring the pitch up on those notes. Another option which might help with the A is to not push the LH section tenon fully into the barrel socket - leave a couple of mm gap, which will lower the first octave note that’s 2x this distance from the embouchure hole, usually B or A but it could be G depending on your actual flute - while it raises the 2nd octave.
There are other options as well with physically altering the flute really a last resort.
Cheers
Graeme
Henke, I’m with Graeme here - he beat me to it… I bet he’s right about the specific tuning issues? They’re much the same on my R&R - I have waxed the down-tube side of my A (T3) tone-hole (on the advice of Chris Wilkes) to good effect, and I have in any case always vented an F key for F# in the vast majority of circumstances - not all ornaments or in fast passages where it is very awkward to do so, but mostly - you can see so on my YouTube videos. Like venting the Eb key routinely, (also most likely necessary on your flute?) it is a habit quite quickly acquired with a little effort that then ceases to be much of an issue. You soon work out a system for knowing which key, long or short, to apply in which kind of passing context. Doing so then makes it much easier to deal with using the F keys for F naturals in tunes that demand them. It IS how the flute was intended to be used and need not be (save while learning it) an impedance to ITM style. (The F# played without venting a key is NOT “flat” - it is not being correctly fingered! Play it as designed for, venting an F key and it will probably be pretty close to proper pitch.)
BTW, I don’t find having the habit of venting keys where available causes me much difficulty when playing instruments without the keys - I switch to keyless whistles perfectly happily. I prefer not to play keyless flutes, and miss having the keys when I do so, but don’t get badly tripped up by their absence (mostly!).
Of course, there are plenty of genuine trad Irish players playing antique flutes or close copies of them who play without bothering with the keys or the intonation issues - whether Terry’s RTTA analysis would show that they lip them in consistently… I doubt! But they don’t sound bad to us lesser mortals listening, for the most part! I don’t think most of our ears are that fussy, though I’m not intending to present an argument for sloppiness!
I would say, even if your FH&P wasn’t of special interest, that it would be very unwise to tinker with the tone-holes or bore to change the tuning in any permanent fashion. Don’t!