Also the #2414 should be from the address:RUDALL & ROSE/No. 15 PIAZZA/COVENT GARDEN/LONDON (As per Migoya’s Rudall&Rose website) *Not: Rudall & Rose/No 1 Tavistock Street/Covent Garden/LONDON as listed in the item description.
Judging from the photos, the Barrel and 3 of the rings appear not to be original. Who knows what this means about the rest of the instrument. Definitely buyer beware.
Ive got a few major problems with this flute, yes the foot-joint and the lower body section does resemble the RR, but the barelll and the main body of this flute is certainly not RR work as far as im concerned, also im not getting a clear view of the head- joint to determine whether it is or os not from the RR shop. The seller also mentions Rudall Rose & Carte as the makers, and then mentions Rudall & Rose as the name on the flute.
What we have here is a couple of sections of a RR flute and sections from another flute or rebuilt sections.
The C natural and the F keys are not RR work,
I would sugest that if one should bid on this flute, hope they are bidding on it for parts and not for a RR flute.
You are probably right. I wonder where the makers mark is located? If it is on the first section, my guess is that the first, second and foot section is a R&R And maybe the head joint. But the keywork has been modified on the first and second section. The barrel looks French, by the shape and French style slide. The Cnat looks like it is retrofit from a German or French flute. A frankinflute!
A little early yet to build a fire, but the evenings are starting to get cold…
Now that the oil prices are dropping somewhat coming up to the election,
we wont be paying much for firewood,
i can’t see this piece of firewood going anyplace.
The Eb key is badly bent.
The C is a replacement key made of nickel. Probably adapted from some other instrument.
A block on the G# key is missing.
A block for the long F key has been knocked off.
The HJ is from the same flute as the tuning barrel and is not original.
The seller did his homework, yes, but that says nothing about the provenance or the authenticity of the flute. An auction house would not present it as A Rudal Rose flute, but rather as a flute stamped Rudall Rose.
Would that eBay sellers were as scrupulous.
Jon makes a great point.
The first recorded flute with legitimate Tavistock address (No. 1, that is..) is serial number 3884.
This one is said to be 2414?
Also a problem. The quattrefoil mark does not first appear until between #3230 and #3246. The seller’s photo shows it has the quattrefoil.
Cocusflute notes well that it could be a flute that says Rudall Rose…but I’ve not yet seen a forgery with the Quattrefoil mark. Not to say it doesn’t exist, but I’ve not seen one (and not heard of one from anyone else).
It’s POSSIBLE that this flute serial number is actually 4414 or 5414 (though I doubt it…the holes are too small for the higher number).
The foot joint has overlapped C-C# keys, which goes out of vogue at about #2928 (though it reappears on occasion).
This is certainly a strange Rudall, though I don’t doubt the left hand piece is for real. The barrel is a replacement as is the lower ring of the upper headjoint.
The right hand looks fine from the short-F touch. The long-F and long-C are retro somehow, though perhaps fixed for someone way back?
One thing is sure to me: it is NOT #2414. The flute just doesn’t fit properly into that frame.
I tryed to see what google will find about the flute so i found this forum of yours. So i was surprised to read all your comments. Obviosly you understand much more then me, and as in my life and as ebay seller i never make scams and never have any intention. This flute was brought in my antique shop like many other items, since i buy of things from people. Like many other items and as far i understnad in some fields i always buy and sell authentic things. The man who brought it explaind as much as he could, but not much. So like always before any item i sell i make some research and that was what i came up with. I wouldnt see any reason and in my expirience never saw any forgery what you sugges. Im sure people here dont know how and what is RR and for sure wont forge flute like this. In my work so far, we got many items from all around the world very valuable and iteresting items, that were brought in this regions by very welthy men, for them or their families, and somethimes they end up with people like me. I dont want to make any unnecesary dust in your heads, so i would ask you all to point out things about RR flutes so we can all be clear is this original, is it partly original, or anything else. I already did an update on my ebay listing explaing few things about the 2414 number, and how it could be wrong adress, so you can check it out. Also about things that ive heard, that some pieces are from some other maker, i tryed to see very hard, there seem to be no difference between any of the four pieces, the wood the work on it, identical inside the wood as outside on all 4 pieces. Im going to take few more pictures in the morning on the day light it will be better visible, and i will update them on the ebay listing, you can see more then. There is only one thing i can say maybe is not original, the closing cork on the mouth piece. Its not metal with the logo of the company as i saw on flutes catalogued on the net. Maybe it was lost and this is a replacemant, maybe not.
Thats why im here asking you, point to me any things that we can identify it and i will give you information back. Just try asking more clearly what is that we are looking for, since i have no knowlage of music instruments.
Cheers
Hi,
The things that were noticed were already mentioned above, but to re-cap: The foot joint is original, the second section is probably original, if the upper section is the one with the stamp then that is probably original also. The key, Cnat on the upper joint is not original, probably German or French. The barrel joint, bellow the head joint is not original, probably French. The head joint is probably the same as the barrel, and does not look original. Even if the pieces fit together, it does not mean that they were originally the same flute. You might also mention theat the Eb is damaged and will need repair.
You might mention this in your revised discription. Hope you didn’t pay much for it..
Take care,
Jon
Dear Starreacher,
You shoud certainly correct the statement that you made regarding condition (sic):
As i said before > the flute is in excelent condition> , i will up-date you with more pictures soon. All parts and piecess are original, no parts had been replaced or repaired. > The flute has few minor scratches, but about its age is in superbe condition> ,
To let this statement stand would be very misleading. It is not in excellent condition and it is not in superb condition. Aside from the non-original pieces the flute is in only fair condition, at best.
This is what I was referring to, and I agree. The headjoint and the body sections do appear to be made from cocus, while the barrel clearly is made from something nearly completely black, most likely grenadilla or even ebony. I can’t say for certain if the Headjoint is, or is not original, but it does match the rest of the flute in terms of the color of the wood, as well as the top ring. As David pointed out, the bottom ring on the headjoint is a replacement, and it matches the rings on barrel perfectly, but it does not match top ring, which does appear original.
I have thoughts about the body, but I am only commenting on that which I am sure of, based on my restoration experience. I will say however, once simply can’t rule out authenticity of an instrument or section solely based on unusual keywork form or placement as custom work (done at the point of original manufacture) can take on some very unusual forms - I’ve seen this first hand on numerous occasions, stuff that at first glance one would not attribute to the original maker, when in fact that was the case.
There is also always the strong possibility of an original body section with a modified replacement key(s) done after the fact by either the original maker or another maker.
Loren
P.S. The endcap appears to be a replacement as well.
I did an update on the pictures.
However like i said i dont understand your turms. What most probably is not original is the barrel and that closing cork, or endcap as you call it. All other pieces are made out of the same wood, obviosly the same work on them. About the keys they all seem made identicaly and nothing appers new made recentrly. So i can say for sure the body of the flute is original as well as most of the keys if not all of them. There is no way some of the four pieces of the wood are from different flute, they are perfect match.
If you want to point some other things, go ahead but not with turmes like “The foot joint, Cnat, the Eb…” i dont understand any of those turms. And have some reserve of what you are saying since ive heard so many different commnets on this, some of them dont make any sence. Certainly don’t expect some of your evaluations to be posted on the eBay listings, people esspecially those who understand can for sure make an evaluation looking at the pictures.
Thank you all for your pionts, i really appreciate, and as you find this flute so valuable i want to make sure who ever gets it or catalogue it, be sure of what he/she have, it’s sure a piece of history and deserves all respect.
Salute!!
Yup, obviously that C key doesn’t belong to this flute. And, in addition to being bent, the Eb key seems to have been broken and then poorly solidered - that’s just one huge ugly looking lump of silver where I nice relatively flat piece of flute key should be. (I’m just looking at the supersize pictures for the first time)
Also, picture number 11 shows what appears to be a crack running along the right side of the long F key - looks as if the crack goes right through the edge of the socket.
I also see what appears to be a second crack in the edge of the socket, just to the left of the other.
