Ahh! the dreaded twisting of words to facilitate a response
Copying someones work is not the same as altering it .
RORY
Ahh! the dreaded twisting of words to facilitate a response
Copying someones work is not the same as altering it .
The type of response you like to resort to isn’t it?
Anyhow, I tried to give you an example of how historically there are many chanters and whole sets that have us guessing at their maker. You threw in your quip about Taylors and I responded in similar vein that there are few Harringtons that remain in a state that could earn them the name and reputation that comes with the name. Good luck with it.
I think I see the misunderstanding, I didn’t mean that someone would alter a taylor set ,I meant that no one would bother copying the internal dimensions of a Taylor set.
RORY
ps. Thanks Peter for the great photos from the WCSS ,next best thing to being there.
Fair enough.
Its an interesting point that makers say they have made exact copies (tone wise )of famous chanters.
Has any maker ever achieved their claims?
I believe Joe Kennedy is making very good copies , do they sound the same as the originals ?
RORY
a first painted picture by a artist is called an Original, if the picture is copied by an different set of hands it is a copy, dosn’nt matter if the different set of hands uses the same brushes & paint or studio or even under the original artist tuition.
Sam, and as far as Adreas Rogge, it being common knowledge he dos’nt make all of his chanters, well I did’nt know that 
. even thow it dos’nt say it on his web site.
When Mr farari makes his cars, we all know that Mr Farari dos’nt make the cars, and that they made by other persons,
‘BUT’ when you go to Saville Row to have a suit made for your self you know the tailor measuring you,"his hands will be making the suit, thats what you are paying for,his personal talent and skills.
Is it now going to be when you order a set of pipes by a reputable maker that in the work shop, Billy, Paul, susan? will be making your pipes who have all train under the name of the reputable maker? with the reputable maker having no physical input to the making of the instrument?, so in that case basically you are only paying for the name, and you get what your given, a copy of a set, with a OK from the reputable maker of his approval to the instrument made, I’m not getting a personal dig here at any one, but stating a point, with what is an oringinal and what is a copy, I’m sure some folks will disagreeing & some agreeing.
Someone working in the workshop of a master is not making a copy. I would expect the master to use apprentices / employees for numerous tasks but to be accountable for the final quality of the instrument. If it’s made to Rogge’s design, in his workshop, with his oversight and participation, it’s a Rogge set.
This is the way musical instruments have been hand-made for centuries. It has the advantage of preserving the quality of manufacture and ensuring that the knowledge is not lost. Stradivarius worked as an apprentice to Amati and when he had gained enough knowledge, he made violins with his own label.
Before the rumor mill goes wild with this, let me state that I was a party to the conversation Peter refers to. I am not currently in doubt about this particular Taylor but the question has been raised. Its bores do not particularly resemble any Coyne, but it does seem to play best with “Coyne-style” reeds (i.e. reeds that play well in actual Coyne chanters and regulators), which in itself is unusual for concert pitch, to say the least.
In any case it is true that there are very, very few examples of any historic maker’s work that have not been meddled with. As Peter says this means that one is forced to judge a maker’s output by just one or two examples, or else include damaged instruments and instruments of uncertain attribution in the sample at the risk of drawing false conclusions. it certainly underscores the importance of these few unmolested sets, and of keeping them that way.
best regards
Bill
Hi folks
just to say the chanter has now been sold and is residing in Gloucestershire.
Mr Knight, there ain’nt no masters work shop, the work shop is in the apprentices home, the tools are from the masters work shop, but the master ain’t there.
A Masters apprentice
learnt by looking over the masters shoulders they were jointed at the hip,
“the master ran the workshop” nothing was done unless it was ordered by the Master, an apprentice or apprentices were not left alone to get with it,
they would be left certain jobs by the Master if he did have to leave his workshop for any giving time, when the Master had his ‘holiday’ the apprentice had his holiday.
And
no this ain’t the way all musical instruments have been hand made for centuries, If makers want to produce there instruments this way then they should stated it on there web sites, or when persons enquire about ordering a set, they should be informed, that the maker of there pipes may not be made by the person who’s name they sold under, as long as the buyer is fully informed of the manufacturing practices for there instruments then I have no problem with it, if it were me I know I would want to know what my £4000 was buying, thats two penny worth. all the best.
I’m please you got the chanter sold, ferris 
like to share who’s B set you have taken up on.
Stew,
unless you’re the personal caretaker of Peter’s or Sam’s gaff, a census man, or a dick (private investigator that is) you have zero idea of the daily interaction between Sam and Peter. Locating their pipe shop is the only thing you can say with any certainty in this instance e.g. discussing the goings on in their shop.
you were right about one thing…that post was about 2p worth.
I didn’t say all, but if you could be bothered to do some research you would find numerous examples of this over the centuries - Amati, Stradivarius; Almenraeder, Heckel; Kenna, Coyne (??).
And none of those guys put it on their website. 
Unbelievable! totaly unbelievable!! well in that case anyone might as well buy a pakistani set, at least we know it an oringinal pakistani set, lets have a party lets guess who made your pipes in the workshop, was it pepsi or shirley, eddie or ally?, but hey! everythings OK 
your pipes are original because there master pipemaker pops in every couple of days for a chat and a cut of tea,
get a grit, “its the principle” 
there’s a big difference between a doctor & a surgeon. 
the apprentice may well have made parts for the instrument maker such as Stradivarius or Kenna but the Masters hands put it all together,he assembled the instrument, and if needed would altered or have replaced any work or pieces which were not to his standard when needed to assemble the finish instrument, if it was’nt perfect, he would not let the instrument leave “his workshop” which was sold under his name, I think there is also a difference here, between what is a workshop? and a production line which turns out more items which means “more money”,."the link to the whole “Scenario”. 
Stew - you should to read other people’s posts thoroughly.
Stew,
With respect, you’re view of what an apprentice does is incorrect. You give the impression that the role of the apprentice is permanently subsidiary and of a lower level to that of the master. It’s not the case with any apprenticeship I’ve ever heard of.
Sure, the apprentice starts off sweeping out the workshop, making the tea and seeing to the less important tasks. But gradually, as their skills improve, the master teaches them more and gives them more and more to do until eventually the apprentice has . The essence of a master/apprentice relationship is supervised learning a trade or profession with a view to mastering all of the elementary skills of a trade or profession.
Pipemaking doesn’t have any guild or professional association so the rules governing pipemakers’ apprentices are not set in stone.
By the way, I see from your signature that you yourself are a reedmaker and pipemaker. Who did you apprentice to and for how long? Did you spend all that time sweeping out the workshop or did your master teach you what he knew and gave you a chance to practice that knowledge in his workshop?
Hi PJ, No, my views of an apprentice is not low but the opposite,once the apprentice is train I would expect he or she to start producing there own instruments, I think Sam’s own work and skill is pure perfection, from what I’ve seen from his web site, I think his work is probably better than P.Hunter work, and I cannot understand why the pipes he makes are not in his name, it is quite plain to see that Sam is a very talented pipemaker of the highest grade, and I’d be very proud to own a set of pipes made by Sam, with his name on them, not someone elses, Sam in the future might become a more famous pipemaker than P.hunter, thats one reason I would want Sam’s name on my pipes, there’s no harm meant agaist Sam, it nothing personal, just my view.
Amen Curran, showed me how to make reeds, and told how to ream a chanter a long with some good tips from a friend Sean Dillion of Belfast a few years back, and also Chris Bayley has been very helpful with certain things, I could’nt find anyone who’m would train me, so I thought I’d learn how to wood turn first, so I did a two year course in woodturning and got my papers, I do most work on a wood lathe but also have a boxford metalwork lathe, a close friend showed me how to make flat tapered reamers, I have also had some tapered fluted reamers made to my personal measurements which were very expensive, I have a work shop well geared up for the job, I have made quite a few chanters and three half sets, an all Ireland pipe champion is playing one of latest concert D chanters at the moment, he loves it, he also teaches the Uillenn pipes, I don’t make pipes for a living, I give most of my chanters away to beginners or friends, along with reeds, I have know got orders for chanters and practice sets,as many as I handle for the moment, I do not want to be loaded with orders, maybe later in year I will start in full time production,but at the moment I’m happy with making for friends and helping beginners, but my hands make my instruments, I also like to see what other makers products are like, and been known to order the odd item from them just to see what there craftmanship is like and what I’ll be up against, there are a lot of good pipemakers out there.all the best.
Well what an interesting thread.
IMHO if you are making the complete instrument it should be your name that is on it e.g. SAM unless it is being made for a firm where instruments are made by several people - one specialist in charge of wooden parts, another specialst making the keys, another fitting them, another voicing etc. etc.
The thing that makers our instrument unique is the skills of the maker in doing all the operations woodwork, metalwork, leatherwork and not farming it out to others and becoming an assembler rather than a true maker with the exception of maybe bags and possibly bellows
Go for it and stamp them SAM so people will know that they are your instruments and not Hunters
John
…loads of armchair pipemakers w/not a spec of sawdust on their sleeves…
Peter and Sam ought to run their business the way they want.
…loads of armchair pipemakers w/not a spec of sawdust on their sleeves…
Peter and Sam ought to run their business the way they want.
Exactly. The pipes coming out of that workshop are some of the finest ever built, why not let Peter and Sam run things as they see fit?
As regards to brazenkaines helarious remarks 
I am certainly not a armchair pipemaker, as far as I’m concerned Peter and Sam can run there business as they like, Hunters pipes made by Sam, and no one has faulted the quality of there instruments, but I suspect they only use the great name to command the great prices for there instruments,
but if you like to pay? then hip hip horay!.