http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=261054264012
Seller read its serial no. as 4180
and the pictures show up a nice, bit unusual, RR flute.
I have the feeling that this flute has been reworked (by R&R or by someone else?)
the embouchure looks renewed (or it can be origianly made like this?).
the lip plate band is shorter than the other ones I saw until now.
Barell has both male tennons… the LH piece has a flat extra ring before the head joint.
(maybe the LH tennon was broken and so they fixit this way?).
the Stamp with the Serial no. looks quite hand made…(but pictures are quite low in quality).
the RH piece looks bit brighter than the other parts.
long keys are both very banded… (customed or damaged?)…
Original rudall obviously (?) a good fake or a frank-flute?
The Tenon stuck in the barrel is a replacement tenon, when they broke off, they would make a socket in the upper section and install a double tenon, also a ring to prevent the new socket from cracking.
The keys are just bent up some, but look standard.
That is an odd embouchure plate, but it is hard to put those on after the fact, as usually the head joint is in two pieces, with the continuous emb plates..
Stamp looks authentic, the flute is just beat to hell… Makes me thankful for my pristine Rudall… 
that is an interesting repair if indeed that’s what they did.
Just seems that to cut the tenon and re-seat a new socket wouldn’t leave as much of the shoulder as is shown.
And if a ring was to shore-up the shoulder strength of the socket, why not use the beaded band (McGee calls them the D shape) used on the other sockets rather than the flat one, which is totally out of sync with the rest of the instrument. And the tenon into the barrel is simply glued into place?
Too, the shank connection to the cups on the long-C and Bb seem to sit higher than the others, or is it just bad perspective? The close-up photo indicates the same thing. Weird.
I’ve seen disparate wood before among parts of the same Rudall, but never quite as much as this one for a 4xxx series instrument, when much greater care seemed to be given to their construction. And for such a goofed-up serial stamp?
Well, i suspect the proof is in the restoration and playing. We’ll learn, I hope, from whomever purchased it.
Apart from the (classically! - but easily straightened) bent long keys and the missing foot end ring, I thought it looked in pretty good condition (in need of some tlc and a good clean, but not battered at all), apart from the come-unstuck old upper body tenon repair - and so far as one could see, that wasn’t damaged, just needed refixing. I think the flush ring to reinforce the tenon inset makes good stylistic sense - Rudalls didn’t have/do adjacent D-section rings save at the tuning slide, where they used narrow ones - and the American flutes I’ve seen pics of with pairs of broad rings like that look clunky for it. The flush, flat ring retains the original body profile and looks tidy.
I think someone has got a decent bargain at that price. Oh, and David, I don’t think the joint colour discrepancy is much more than my own (c 2 years later?) #4683 (of which you have photos 
)
Here’s the next one!
i suspect you’re right, Jem, though the discrepancy is often a matter of light in the photo than in reality.
Nevertheless…
I don’t disagree on the usefulness of the flat band…just not something I’d seen on a Rudall fix.
That “next one” is that same from before, with differing photos, I believe.
It didn’t sell last time, as I recall.
about “next one”, it has been -virtually- mine for 15 minutes as winner of the buy it now.
not enough money to get it this time so… no comment.
Rudall may have not done the repair, I have had other flutes with the same repair, including a William Henry Potter with a ivory repair ring… Well I have seen flutes in worse shape, so I guess it will come out shinning in the end…
This one or another?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Beautiful-Antique-Rudall-Rose-Flute-circa-1842-/200793050920
yep trees, the “next one” was at the end of Jem’s post
Ah gettin old…
‘2 fine cracks from mouthpiece to first joint - we have been told is repairable.’
Have to say I’d have expected photo(s) showing said cracks!
i wrote the seller requesting photos of cracks (all of them) and photos of the lower toneholes which seem hidden in current photos and asked for the serial no. as well…no reply so far
Looks like a sweet flute!
btw serial is 4664…
thanks, confirmed by seller: ‘…The serial number on the flute is quite faint but appears to be 4664. I will try later today to take a few more photos & upload them…’.
I wonder if the seller intends to fulfill the latest sale, either. I guess it wasn’t possible to leave a NEGATIVE feedback - International sale or some such?
I can still leave a feedback over that last auction, but it’s fine for me not to do that: Seller is genuine, price was low, and she got informations that she can sell the flute to a better price. She refused the money and send them back. She explained the situation and I cannot really disagree with what she said.
Imo ebay is just an agreement between seller and buyer, if the seller is a PRO then I don’t bother about “how much” he is gaining with buying and reselling a certain object, if the seller is selling something from her/his own house then I can understand that they need to get more money (and I have nothing to regret except my desire to get the flute itself for my own pure absolute pleasure).
Very well said and played, Francesco. 
You know Jem, I already had “flute luck” both with navie professional sellers and with a genuine but arrogant one… 
The 4180’s one was a professional with more than a thousend feedback (whom gave me a nice buy it now) price but I ended up not to be convinced by the flute itself for my playing purposes.
I would not regreted that buy it now on this 4664… that I guess it would suite me anyhow! 
… but things went as you know and it is somehow ok.