Me too… and I’ve let’em have it.
And how.
Speaking from first hand experience… I own and play both an older blackwood Copeland and a blackwood Copley. While there is nothing wrong with the marketing copy quoted by Jim, these two flutes are very different flutes in comparison to each other in size, shape, layout, bore, fit, finish, etc. They also ask to be played somewhat differently. They are very good flutes and are capable of both power and finesse in the right hands. I would heartily recommend either to any player. My advice to the OP is to get out and try these (and other maker’s) flutes and see what you bond with. See what your lip lines up with!
Feadoggie
Yes, I had better add that the Copley I had in mind was one of his earlier flutes,
I own it, in fact, from maybe seven years ago, with a brass lined head joint.
The sound of his flutes did change a fair amount after that. I actually compared
it with Micheal C’s flute at a St. Louis Tional. Michael was there and he and
I played both his flute and the Copley. He was pretty impressed.
The event stuck in my mind, you see.
I don’t think one can extrapolate to Dave C’s current flutes, though they
are indeed meant as hybrids.
Right, and I did not mean to criticize your observations, Jim. My point, poorly worded as it was, is that Copeland and Copley make different flutes and individuals seem to fit particular flutes better than others, regardless of their Rudall, Clementi, Nicholson, Prowse, Pratten, Boosey, Hawkes, Meyer, MacChud heritage. And the Burns FF ain’t bad in any case - “love the one you’re with”.
Feadoggie
A friend of mine plays an original Th. Prowse “Nicholson’s Improved”. It’s rather medium-holed (as compared to the big-holed Nichsolson’s Improved flutes).
The Prowse flutes did not vary too much in bore design until Thomas “the younger” got to it.
Daddy Prowse was with Clementi and made the Nicholson flutes which, for my money, were the best of the ones Th. Prowse made (and yes, do distinguish between Thomas Prowse and the Prowse of “Keith, Prowse & Co” who are different and unrelated).
The next generation of “Nicholson”-marked flutes were under Prowse’s own moniker. I’ve played several of them and most are “okay.” Why? The headpiece is thinned at the embouchure, reducing the chimney height and the grab of the tone. The thinning seemed to be more so than what had been done with the Clementi name for Nicholson flutes.
Plus they suffered severely from the “flat foot” syndrome of the day. Very flat. More so than the Clementi flutes.
Aesthetically they are quite beautiful flutes, if not a bit clunky looking, especially those with the very thick and ornate rings.
Not sure I’d characterize them as between a Rudall and a Pratten. They are certainly more Rudall-esque than Pratten-esque. They had the large hole design, but not the bore of a Pratten. Nevertheless, they are indeed “between” the two better-known models.
I have an Olwell Nicholson model and frankly prefer it over the other two he offers. But key, as has been noted earlier in this thread, is a good headpiece and Patrick’s are made to fit on any of his flutes. Consequently it’s then an issue of comfort – in the hands and the lungs.
For what it’s worth.
dm