Are there major differences between Michael Cronolly’s newer and older style of flutes? I know the current style is Rudall and Rose, but what doest that mean in terms of playing?
I found this on a search here, and it might help:
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?p=16112
I’ve had both, and like both. The original had smaller holes, possibly a larger diameter (and heavier), and a smaller embouchure hole, with an option of a cut away on the far side. The converse is true for the R&R, and no cut away (called the split embouchure) was done on them.
By far, the R&R was more popular, and most agreed it had more volume (better for sessions), a nicer tone overall, and was why Michael Cronnolly discontinued the original version, because he said everyone was ordering the R&R.
The original was my first conical bore flute after a Tipple, and I liked it a lot. I didn’t have need of a session cannon, and I thought it had a very pleasing tone, and it was pretty easy to play. It was heavy, but it wasn’t a hardship after I got used to it. But if you switch back and forth between it and another flute, or a fife, you will definitely feel like you are weight lifting, besides the larger diameter too.
At the right price on the used market, (maybe approx. $225-$250 with no rings or $275-$300 with the wide, flat stainless rings in average used condition), I still think the original is a nice polymer flute. It’s just that there are others that are probably a better choice now, but at a higher cost. Though, it would be hard to beat a new Copley Delrin with no rings for about $360, or a new Burns Folk Flute in Boxwood at $375 for a wooden flute-and I would choose either over the original M&E (or even the R&R at $499 new), given the price difference.
Just some of my thoughts on them, for what it’s worth.