Nice looking large-holed flute.
I’m not interested, but someone here may be.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7358770475&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1
Looks like it would be nice after some repair. I will have to watch that.
another basket case, cracks, missing keys and rings etc, if it were worth repairing it would be already repaired and in playing condition, plus the seller knows rudall & rose flutes very well.
This flute seems to need a new headjoint and a repair on one block. No big deal. It will probably be a good oportunity to find a Rudall at a good price.
IMHO ALL Rudall & Rose that are not completely ruined are worth repairing. Of course not if you prefer Pratten styled flutes.
3K basket case…
Someone seems to believe it’s worth repairing… And it’s not exactly what I call a good price 
probably got the price because it’s a 3000-series Rudall, which many consider their best production.
Another one here:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rudall-Rose-Flute_W0QQitemZ7359791689QQcategoryZ10183QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
another rudall…but not the same kind
this one is a 1000-series…note nearly the same quality, although it’s still a rudall
Some would disagree. Jimmy Noonan and Chris Norman both play smaller hole Rudalls from that vintage. The smaller hole flutes don’t have the booming voice or the power but they do have a suppleness and flexibility that the larger holed flutes don’t always have.
Nice, that is what I will be looking for in a flute.
And when you come right down to it, does anybody really NEED more volume than Chris Norman gets from his small-medium-holed Rudall? I saw him (playing his Cameron) during a power outage with his band, and he gets plenty of volume from it. I’ve heard his Rudall unamplified, too, with the BC, and he can fill a several-hundred seat hall just fine with it. I don’t think big- or small-holed flutes are better, just different.
Levine, I totally agree.
I think I was speaking of the caliber and quality of the workmanship, not necessarily the quality of the tone/sound of the flute itself.
Medium-holed Rudall flutes are of the best of their kind and easily compare in sound quality as the large-holed models, more so in some instances.
But the workmanship and care/precision in the crafting of the 3000-series flutes for the most part easily surpass those of the others before it…and most of the ones after (but not all…I’m still sold that the flutes from 38 Southampton Street are the nicest in workmanship).
Chris Wilkes has long estolled the virtues of the quality behind the 3000-series Rudalls, many of which are large-holed, but several are medium.
His point isn’t the booming sound or not…but the precision in the work and its elegance.
That’s what I meant and am sorry I wasn’t clear enough on that point.
I think we’re on the same page now, though.
dm
Interesting points you make. I’d have to look at it on a flute-by-flute basis. I’ve never come across a Rudall from the 1,000 series (I’ve owned a half-dozen or so and played another dozen or so) that I thought evinced inferior work-- tho’ in fairness you didn’t say “inferior,” just :“Not as good as 3,000 series).” The earlier flutes have in general slim elegance that I find very appealing.
I have had some later flutes that I thought were in rough shape, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t gems when new. Certain 3,000 and later flutes did have fancy key-work and rings – more elegant silver work – and some had lined (French-influenced?) sockets and rollers on some keys as well as low Bb keys. But this isn’t necesarily indicative of better workmanship-- just more features. More features means more intensive work perhaps, but not nec work of a higher quality.
Do you think the later flutes had, for instance, cleaner bores or better-cut embouchure holes? In what way do you think they had better workmanship?
I think this thread has interest for the general reader of the list, which is why I continue to post rather than send private emails.
…and this lurker agrees…
Ditto.
by the way…nice get on the eBay flute…to whomever that may be .
I’m not a personal fan of the 3000-series flutes. I like them, but I have an affinity for the higher numbers because of their larger (generally…since RR made many different varieties) bores.
I own (as you know, DL) RR #1900, a boxwood variety with fairly large holes. What makes this flute tick, though, is the embouchure. A large cut unlike many rudalls. And it is a distinctive flute for its workmanship.
(by they way…why on earth say you’ve never come across a 1000-series flute when you yourself sold me one? Unless you read 1000 to mean 1000-1100? By 1000-series I mean the entirety of the thousand, from 1000-1999. Unless, of course, we wish to narrow it further, as I do below, by saying the 6200-series…and that would be 6200-6299.)
I won’t discount the 1000-series flutes at all, overall. I’ve even owned a lower-number flute (#810 that now resides in the southwest) that played very nicely. I also own (what is believed to be) #3…a very small holed flute with tiny bore.
I think the 3000 series flutes attrack Mr. Wilkes’ attention (and this is my thought…and don’t mean to ascribe anything to him that may not be right) because of their refined workmanship and perfection of lines and such.
The boxwood Rudall that I just sold from that series had that type of clarity. Perhaps it’s when the firm was finally at its high point with 8key flutes and everything was in place? I don’t know. But the flutes are indeed beautiful.
My favorite RR however is a 6200-series instrument that is hands down better than any I’ve played, heard or seen. But that’s my preference. It’s louder (when need be) than my Prattens and even my Olwell.
Rudalls are very very much in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps that’s why so many people like them? Because they cover the gamit of instrument types and vagaries of the firm. You want large-holed? They have it. You want small? That too. Patent Head? No problem. Extended foot to B? Easy. Sweet, crisp tone in cocus? Yes, we have those. Buttery, creamy, warmth of boxwood? Yes sirree.
And, thankfully, there are many of them out there. They made about 7300 simple system flutes, most of them in D
I’ve always guessed that there are about 1500 left. That seems reasonable as I’ve only been able to catalogue and locate about 350 of them in the past 8 years.
dm
David, I didn’t say I’d never seen a Rudall 1,000 series. Or rather, that comment was embedded in a longer sentence. I did say: “I’ve never come across a Rudall from the 1,000 series (I’ve owned a half-dozen or so and played another dozen or so) that I thought evinced inferior work.”
I agree with you about the later flutes. My 6,300 series Rudall/Carte is a wonderful flute.
The important thing to realize in the context of this discussion is that everything is a trade-off. You never get everything in one flute. I love playing my Hammy for reasons other than I love playing my Olwell or my Rudall/Carte. The Hammy has a great open sound and great character. The Murray is breathy but has a rough edge that I love on certain tunes. The Rudalls have a refined sound and are wonderful for those tricky tunes (Splendid Isolation, Gravel Walks, some of the technical 19th. C. hornpipes like The Hawk). I play all the flutes and love them all. The hard part is selling one when I feel pinched…
…or sing Danny Boy if the money’s right (that I have to hear !)
Anyway, can’t fault the 1000-series…and switching heads (embouchure) can really make a volume difference. I know DM has tried it…DL ??
ah
okay
remove the parenthetical and you’re right on, DL.
I suppose “inferior” work is bad way to say it, too.
Perhaps “less-than-stellar” is better?
I guess there are all kinds of ways to see it, though, and I’d love to hear Chris Wilkes’ take on it. I imagine that would settle a lot on the matter.
Bottom line: Different Rudalls for Different Strokes.
And beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
dm
Yes, I have tried different head joints on my Rudalls. I have one made by Olwell and one by Wilkes. In each case the improvement in volume was dramatic. I assume this is probably a result of the deeper chimney.