just listed, would I be correct that the bits in the photos don’t quite add up?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110481761452
or maybe I’m wrong?
Who cares: it’s air-cooled, after all!
Looks reasonable to me. The only bit that falls to my attention is that the wood colours don’t match up so well. Nothing special. Or do I miss something?
shame about the barrel bein’ stuck to the left hand
it was the wood colours I was noticing but maybe that’s just as it is.
Is that a serial number on the upper section? 1? 2? ? ?
ya, I was on about the
This Irish Flute comes appart in four different pieces.
you have a color monitor?!?
ah, I kinda do…it isn’t good enough to see much, although the foot looks a bit red
Not sure the colour is a good indication, I have an old Prowse made of cocus wood that changes colour as you look along it, I also have a set af Naill ghb’s that to some eyes may look odd because of the grain/natural look of the wood but they are african blackwood.
If in doubt buy a tin of auto gloss black and get to work. 
I think Iain Beag is on to somethin’. . .
Wood ID at this late date is problematic. You need a microtome and the will to give up a goodly slice and the two or three months it takes to get a positive ID from the US Forestry Wood Products Division. The service is free, but S-L-O-WW.
Cheers,
Bob
I think some of you guys are fretting for the wrong reasons!
I don’t think the vendor has given quite enough of the right info - serial number and decent photos of the stamps on every joint would settle the issue… but this looks fine to me at face value. The colour variation thing is not a problem - it is commonly seen in old flutes in my experience - yes, ones where on other grounds there is no question of mix-n-match parts. It seems that C19th makers were not always assiduous about ensuring/able to ensure all the parts of one flute were made from the same baulk of timber, and I think it is fairly well established that cocus wood in particular colour-seasons differentially, even pieces from the same log but from different areas of it. Pieces that were well-matched at time of manufacture may not remain so 150-odd years later. My own R&R’s lower body joint is significantly lighter/redder than the rest of the flute, but is indubitably original to it. And then there are simple technical issues of photography and lighting which may affect appearance in these not terribly good photos. (I haven’t as yet taken time to download and manipulate the pictures to see if I can learn any more from them thus.) The keys and general style of this flute look consistent to me and there are Rudall-typical features like block-reinforcement pins visible on the upper body, for example. I agree the box is very unlikely to be Rudall original/original to this flute.
I have eBay-queried the vendor for some more info but no response has yet been forthcoming. I am a little concerned by the general tone of the advert and the failure to mention serial number and address stamp, about which I have asked, but see no surface reasons in the pictures to significantly doubt the integrity of the actual instrument illustrated. I’m a little more concerned about it possibly being a scam listing. We shall see!
yes, I had the same thoughts. It would be handy to see the stamps and serial number. Unfortunately, ‘StuffUSell’ is a big national trading agent not the individual seller. They collect your stuff, research it for you, photograph it, put it on Ebay…and charge you for the privilege of course. They may or may not enter in questions, I’m not sure?
I’m sure you’re right, I don’t have the expertise to tell from what’s there.
Right, I’ve tackled the photos. Looks fine to me. The serial number appears possibly to be something like 42?4 (? could be another 4???), though I can’t get a really good view of it and I don’t have picture editing that can “sharpen” an image. Unfortunately none of the pictures show the upper body address stamp or the stamp on the barrel, though the quatrefoil below the address stamp is visible above the serial no. The lower body joint stamp is present and correct, as is the foot stamp. General condition looks excellent and all parts seem consistent. There are some reflections on the wood of the (clearly recently polished) silver work that at first glance might appear to be pinning - careful examination reveals their true nature.
Looking good!
good stuff, I was seeing 1 rather than 4 at the beginning but I haven’t tried messing with it to get a proper view. Best I can guess is still 1 2 ? 4 (but it could be anything, I certainly wouldn’t put any money on it)
Looks quite all right to me.
I still think its a
I’ve now had a look at the enhanced photos produced by Jem (and shared with special people 
) and the number looks like 1248 to me. It definitely looks to me like a 1 at the beginning. btw, the four-petalled rose - it looks different from the ones I’ve seen - fancier. Would that be in keeping with a lower serial number? Pre-stylisation perhaps?
1248 is an interesting number, eh?
I think is #1298 (or at least 1288)
if nobody is going to bid on it, I can effort the 999 Gbp bid…
so please simply don’t bid… 
Just tried to access David Migoya’s R&R Catalogue to check up on when the quatrefoil stamps were introduced - vague recollection says it was later than the end of the #1000s… BTW, that quatrefoil looks like the normal ones to me.
Anyway, although I haven’t spent ages hunting around, it looks like the Catalogue is off-line at present. David???
@ radcliffe—Sorry, I WILL bid!
What are the three circular divots in the barrel at far right?
The far right piece is the lower body. So, those would be the right hand tone holes, then. No, I must have misunderstood …
… there are some reflections in the wood of the barrel. They’re just from the keys, aren’t they?
Mind you … it could be my eyesight … it’s not great these days …
Yeah, you’ve got me puzzled there, s1m0n - not sure what you mean - I can’t see any “divots” in the actual barrel, either to its R as the picture stands or to its R-hand end in playing position… to what are you referring? I can see what might be a zig-zag scratch across the barrel, but it isn’t at all clear and could be,as Ben says, just a photographic illusion.
I have noticed a splinter of wood missing over the reinforcing pin on the G# block - that’s the only real “fault” I’ve spotted so far - not a big one nor seriously devaluing.
Has anyone got a decent photo-editor with a “sharpen” function? (I only have Microsoft Picture Manager - does a good enough job on brightness etc but no sharpening). If so, could they (pretty please) crop, enlarge and sharpen up the image of the serial number and post it?
Short of a better pic, I still don’t think the first digit is a “1” - doesn’t look like the R&R toolkit 1s I’ve seen - looks to me like a (as usual) poorly applied “4” where the back-elbow L-hand side of the 4 hasn’t been properly impressed…
Not that this subjective comment is worth all that much, but that flute looks typical mid-period style to me, not relatively early as a #1000 range would be. I’m not sure that the “claw” C/C# touches appeared before the #2000s…
We need David M’s input here!