Question: How small are the holes on P. Olwell’s Rudall?
How do they compare to the holes on what would be considered a small-holed Rudall?
Anybody have this info? Thanks
Jim, have you checked your post count lately? I cannot believe that, given the amount of flute talk you’ve participated in, that you would ask this. I would have thought that between you and Jessie that you had bought and sold a few of these by now. More power to ya, that after 10 years or so you’re still going strong with flute acquisition disorder. 
Jim is a philosopher
Jessie was a collector
much different things really 
Yes, a philosopher. I drool, therefore I am.
But mostly I’m interested in learning more about flutes. The size-question of Olwell Rudall holes came up in another
thread and I’m interested. Never seen one of these. I think P. Olwell’s rudalls are uncommon, as nobody here
seems to have the info. No complaint; i don’t either. I have an Olwell hj, you know, and I’m interested
in small-holed rudalls, in fact, and when I wake in the night, thinking about flutes beats reviewing my sins.
But I haven’t bought a flute in years…
I quite enjoyed a few of me sins…
'course I’m a bit more pragmatic’n you 
…have been known to drool though 
These are the measurements of the big holes on my Olwell Rudall, based on the Chris Norman R&R:
LH2: 8.0 mm/0.315"
RH2: 9.1 mm/0.358"
Bleazey Rudall, based on a flute from 1837:
LH2: 7.0 mm/0.275"
RH2: 8.0 mm/0.313"
And, for good measure, Olwell Nicholson:
LH2: 8.8 mm/0.348"
RH2: 9.6 mm/0.38"
Bigger holes than the small-holed Bleazey, smaller than the medium-holed Olwell. Whether it’s small- or medium-holed is in the eye of the beholder.
Thank you!