Just an idle question, and “R&R” could be replaced by “Blackman” or “Wylde” or your favorite flute maker…
I was wondering if, in the earlier parts of the 19th C, R&R offered more than one kind of D simple system flute at the same time. More specifically, I am thinking of the “guts” of the instrument (bore profile, hole size, spacing etc.), not extraneous details like key touch shapes, embellishments etc.
If they were following the “modern” industrial production practices of the time, such as was used in the British gun trade, I would imagine that much of the basic production would have been parted out to various craftsmen, including the person who takes all the parts, assembles the flute, and then makes the magic happen with the voicing. I envision someone like Wylde assembling and voicing flutes from bins of already made parts. If it was a “best” flute (using gun trade analogy) perhaps there would be more care in selecting the wood to match, and fancier key work, engraving etc, but the basic underlying flute would be fundamentally the same as a less expensive model.
Clinton
(edited to change 18th Century to 19th Century 'cause I’m apparently an idiot archaeologist…)
I think the flute maker mostly did the work of roughing, boring contour, block cutting, and finishing. They probably contracted out the silversmithing; key making, rings and lip plate. I imagine the flute maker installed the keys and rings, and then did the final voicing. He would have had the apprentice do the grunt work, roughing the blank drilling and boring, with the master flute maker supervising. Interesting to note that the Rudall reamers that Mr Bigio still has, that were aquired from Rudall Carte, used two straight taper reamers in combination to produce the bore. They were probably made by the local blacksmith.
Sorry to be nit-picky, but R&R weren’t around as flute makers any time in the C18th - they are firmly C19th.
Jon C has pretty much answered your Q on the workshop practice front, though I think there is evidence in the corpus of R&R instruments that they simultaneously offered different designs within the 8-key range and that different craftsmen had slightly different style within the house requirements. The same likely applies to other prolific firms like Prowse or Monzani or Clementi etc. Your thought/point about the degree of bespoke work and trim level is a sound one, but is only one aspect, ditto the practices of out-sourcing and cottage industry piece work which were certainly a feature of Industrial Revolution Britain; but, as Jon says, such evidence as I have seen rather suggests that most of the work (on what were not significantly volume produced items such as flutes, where early “mass-production” and “production line” methodology was not really in use) was seen through by one main craftsman, whether in house or home-working.
That’s how furniture manufacturing worked at every level below the top end. At the top end, pieces would mostly be made by a single cabinet-maker and the apprentices/journeymen in his shop. Some specialist tasks - like french polishing or installing, stamping & gilding leather tops for leather-topped tables and desks - were done by outside specialists. From the sounds of things, this was the model in the flutemaking trade. I expect that other fields like clock or scientific instrument making were more like instrument makers than furniture makers.
One of my daughters is nearing the end of her apprenticeship making whistles & flutes for a Saville Row firm. She started off making a specific part of a whistle & flute and when the master tailor was satisfied with the result she was allowed to make another part. So now after nearly four years she is entrusted to do a fitting, and make a complete whistle & flute by herself.