Nice Rudall Rose & Carte on eBay

Irish Flute
21

the stamps by the firm were placed onto the flutes as they came into the door from the contractor. It was a die they used.
Possible even the contractor had it, though I find that unlikely.

the serial numbers were added as the flutes were sold later.

ergo, there are several “cross-overs” where an early address appears later in the sequence of a different address. They are hold-overs that sold later and got their numbers later.

the numbers were hand-stamped, one at a time, that’s why they are rarely done in as neat a fashion as the maker’s mark.

i trust this helps?

22

To go further, could it be that there are anonymous flutes out there that are really R&R seconds or prototypes?

yes, there are, but many were marked by those very makers supplying Rudall. Some even came across the ocean, though not many since the tariff at the time was a terrible 35%!

Camp, Wylde among the top names; Whitaker later. Their flutes were as good as any with the Rudall name.

Alexander Liddle worked some for the firm as well, though he made more a name with Boosey. My suspicion is he was more the smith for the keys, though he did make flutes.

The issue I was trying to make was that an anonymous flute – let’s presume it is very Rudallesque in every way – can only be sold as “sounds just like a Rudall.” What’s that mean? No mark, low sale.
Next step: Rudall mark, but no serial number.
It’s a Rudall…but no way to “really” tell.
Finally: It’s Rudall number (####). Bingo. No question. (usually; there are forgeries, though not many)

23

Well it is a nice theory, or do you have any written evidence of these practices? I would think if the flute was stamped with the registered brand, save forgeries, then it would be from that maker, and approved to be sold by that maker. The absence of a serial number is inconsequential.

24

anyone who has spent time investigating these practices…by observing and reviewing hundreds of photos and flutes…would know.

if the lack of a serial number is inconsequential…than why were so few of them that way, eh?

Seems to me that if the serial numbers meant nothing…they wouldn’t be so careful in the practice.

That the numbers are placed onto the flutes separately is clear indication that they were stamped with the maker’s mark first.

That the serial numbers on addresses overlap – an earlier address showing up with a high serial number when the firm had already moved – is clear evidence that the maker’s mark came first…and the serial number was added when sold. Otherwise there would be no overlap at all.

Even you, Jon, would have to agree with that very clear bit of evidence … of which there are several. It’s simple deductive reasoning.

Your assertion is that the theory is wrong…but you provide nothing to back that up other than an empty, baseless attack.

I can back up my theories – and yes, they are just theories – with very clear and concise information that I believe allows for that line of thinking.

What’s yours?

25

It was very clear that Rudall/Rose were no longer making their own 8key flutes – or very few of them – once the Boehm system patent was obtained and they moved into that direction.

It’s pretty much undisputed fact by researchers that this was the case. The firm just did not have the resources or desire to spend money doing this themselves.

That flutes were being made in batches – and this is quite clear in the analysis of the database I’ve compiled over the past decade that show the instruments of similar make and design being branded and marked together.

It’s narrow-minded thinking that serial numbers were missing from instruments just because a clerk screwed up and forgot. It doesn’t fit the general practice of the firm. Sales – all sales – were recorded with some degree of precision in the company books. Those that remain show this practice quite clearly.

How could you record the sale of a flute into a ledger that tracked inventory when there is no number assigned to it? Even a first-year accounting student with the most basic understanding of auditing practices in today’s society would laugh at the assertion.

Not every flute would have been perfect. There must have been imperfections that caused the firm, on inspection, to know a certain flute did not pass muster, as it were. It would be relegated to a “seconds” pile where those who could not afford the best instruments could purchase one. Perhaps they were reserved for the student purchase?

For now, there is little more available to think otherwise, at least based on clear and convincing evidence.

Simply opining out loud – or typing it – is insufficient.

I’m in a business that sources everything. Would think me so unprofessional that I’d toss out something as a fact without some degree of backing to the theory?

Until recently it wasn’t known – but my research cleared it up – that the four-petal stamp didn’t always exist and that it likely came to be at the same time as the certificates of authenticity.

which is another point: why have the certificates – which include the SERIAL NUMBERS (later) – if serial numbers were inconsequential??

smoke that one in your pipe for a bit.

This from my website and research:

The first certificates did not bear the serial number of the flutes, but appeared several years later (c.1842), between serial # 4795 and #4866. That makes it very difficult to determine whether the first cases with certificates and the flutes inside are indeed matched, or whether cases and flutes found each other years later.

By the time Rudall, Rose, Carte & Co. is in place, the certificate no longer bears the signatures of both men, displaced now by a generic signature of the firm. The serial number of the flute, however, remains within the cartouche.

26

Or maybe some didn’t get a serial number and recorded in the sales ledger not because they were seconds, but because they were stolen by workers. And maybe they stole particularly good ones.
Cheers
Graeme

27

That is a good theory too… :smiley: The three that I have seen and played so far, had no flaws, they were not fancy, made with nickel silver (like the recent disputed Wylde, haven’t seen the $100 :laughing: ) So I think that is as good a guess as any, that someone scooted them out the back door in a dust bin…
The point I was bringing up to you Dave, not that I think you are full of it, I was just pointing out, that it is a theory. Even well researched, it is still a theory that they are seconds. It doesn’t take away from your vast knowledge in any way, but it is always good to clarify fact from theory.

28

Another possible explanation of the ones without serial number stamps, one that, given human nature, seems quite probable, could be this:- if David’s thesis that flutes were only given serial numbers on sale/despatch, I’d think that there’s quite a good chance the occasional one may have been paid for, wrapped and walked out the door before some poor shop sales person remembered they were meant to stamp it first! They might have got a rollicking for their omission, but it would be too late to amend unless the customer brought the flute back for some reason (such retrospective stamping might account for the address sequence to number sequence inconsistencies too…). So we can see that various possible and plausible explanations (including simple human error) may be extrapolated for these unstamped or seemingly mis-sequenced flutes, even if we were certain of the firm’s policies and practice, which we are not!

ln logic, David’s comment about the use of serial numbering as an aid to book-keeping surely makes it more likely that instruments would at least have been assigned (though probably would not have been actually stamped with) a number early in their production process to enable traceability - though of course his interpretation of the address/date/number sequence evidence suggests on-sale stamping - an inconsistency there? What do we know of demonstrable practice in this matter from the C20th period of the firm, where, as I believe Robert Bigio might maintain, their practices were apparently very conservative of established patterns?

On the other hand, if many of the instruments were brought in by out-workers, those would be unlikely to have serial numbers until delivered and absorbed to stock, which would be the most logical time to stamp them as they’d be arriving in finished or nearly so condition.

29

precisely the point, Jem.
These are flutes marked for the firm on delivery (or perhaps prior to…my theory on that resides with the few flutes produced with Patent Heads…and whose crowns varied in design from the milled those with merely engraving) and the serial numbers added later.

There is evidence of at least one flute whose serial number was mismarked, placing it way too early for its time…again, the theory there is that either the worker/clerk transposed the first two numbers (which I believe is possible…but less likely) or that the serial number used was of the wrong sequence, that it was for Boehm flutes for instance rather than the 8key ones.

Nevertheless, the idea of stolen flute stock isn’t one that came to me and it surely is one worth floating. I’m not at all sure how much difficulty I have with that one, except that it’s probable the flutes were delivered and posted to inventory. That one would disappear should show up in the books as lost/stolen and w/o serial number. But I just don’t recollect that happening.

Boosey’s books were very concise, with flutes receiving serial numbers in the manufactury, logged as stock…and then relogged in the sale books. So it’s quite easy to tell when a flute was made and when it sold.

I can’t say as I’d agree with Jem’s theory on the absent-minded clerk and the ambitious purchaser heading out the door. We’d have to know how the shop operated in those days and recall that no computers, adding machines or the like existed so it’s extremely likely that, like hotels of the day, you didn’t walk off until your purchase was logged.

Of course, how did these unserial-numbered flutes get logged? I don’t know.

Flaws in the craftsmanship, Jon, might not be the right thing to be looking for in a “second.” It could be a bad stamp; a bit of unmatched grain; a socket slightly out of round or a tenon too loose; a ring off-center. Perhaps it was just the tuning. Who knows. The objective here is to determine somehow why there is no number on the flute.

I can understand the first 400 or so (assuming that’s a hard number), but not the intermitent few.

I suspect we’ll never know.

But I will say this…if it’s got a number on it, it’s worth more money.
Say what you like about playability, but collectibility will typically win out when it comes to just that.

30

I originally suggested the ones without serial numbers had been stolen, as a joke, but the more I think about it the more I like it. Or Jem’s idea that the sales clerk forgot. Both these ideas seem to me to have more merit than that they were 2nds and left with no serial number on purpose. All speculation in any case.

Here’s a fact: my Hill/Monzani has a serial number of 24xx and the keys hallmarked for 1832. Rick Wilson has one with serial number 3xxx and hallmarked for 1830. One explanation is that the serial number was not added until it was finished and sold, another is that keys were made in batches and often earlier made keys might not get used to much later. Or both practices could happen. But it’s not unlike R&R.

David you suggested the tuning could be a cause for it not being given a serial number - do you mean the few that were in tune weren’t given numbers? :smiley:

Anyone want to swap my RR&C flute with serial number for one without?

Cheers
Graeme

31

amusing Graeme.

Monzani was the first to serial number flutes.

The silversmithing mark (HH and TM) is typically found on their bands (those wonderfully clunky sockets of silver!).

The keys were hallmarked according to that registered with the crown. Silver at the time when made had to be hallmarked and dated so it was common to find the flute serial number different of age than the keys.

My Monzani (which I’ve since sold) was # 13xx and dated 1815, but hallmarked at 1812.

The next to serial number flutes, I think, was Clementi, though I think the only ones he did were the Nicholson models.

Funny enough, it was Siccama who was first to mark the flute with serial number on all parts – head, body and foot – to show a matching set. This was picked up by Hudson and the Pratten Perfected he was making. Makes sense since it was Hudson making the Siccama flutes.
Then Boosey took on the practice with the PRatten when that firm bought out Hudson and he went to work there.

Rudall, however, never took on the practice. Serial numbers only appear on the 8key flutes at the mark above the C# hole at the upper shoulder.

On the theories presented, I’m not against the stolen flute idea…but the careless clerk isn’t one I’m thrilled with. Possible? Of course; anything is. But doesn’t listen too good, as they say.