Here’s something on ebay that might interest some of you early Rudall & Rose enthusiasts. Serial no. 463 and address of 1, Tavistock Street, probably puts this one between 1838-47, although I think it may be possible that with such an early serial no. it could be that the number 1 in 11 may have been omitted/worn putting it in the 1820’s ? Thoughts anyone ?
It’s always good to see a flute by the master makers on eBay. I think TWO TOOTS is right with a second digit being ommitted, it looks like an early 1820s example to me.
The seller says that the address is 7 Tavistock Street, not 1. That would make it a very early Rudall and Rose. I don’t think there’s a digit missing.
I was under the impression that the company worked at no. 11 in the very early days, and later moved to no.1.
It’s possible that the vendor mistook the no 1. for a 7.
This has been discussed here before. When it has, one early address has always been cited as 7 Tavistock Street. That’s what the seller is saying here, and I think he’s right. I don’t know for sure, of course.
… having said which, 7 Tavistock is not on Terry McGee’s list of addresses. Does anyone have Robert Bigio’s book and could look it up?
Here we go. Anthony Baines. This would suggest that Terry simply has the early address wrong on his website, and it was in fact 7 Tavistock Street, not 11.
One last quick thought before I head off to bed: I’ve just remembered that all the street addresses in Tavistock Street were renumbered at some point. Robert Bigio put up pictures of some old maps showing the renumbering. This means that that early address might well have been 7 at one point and 11 at another. I’m not sure of that, but I do know the renumbering thing is right and that 7 Tavistock Street was an early address of the firm, at least as stated in various reputable publications.
You may well be right. There is certainly a fair amount of conflicting information on the web regarding these Tavistock Street numbers; 1,7, & 11. 
The vendor of this flute was kind enough to send two close ups of the address stamp. It is DEFINITELY no. 7 
Langwill’s has 11 Tavistock for 1821; 15 Piazza for 1824-37; Then back to 1 Tavistock for 1838-47.
The expert sources ( books/webpages ) we can quote seem to disagree with each other. It may be possible that the renumbering of Tavistock Street that Ben mentions has thrown things ( historically ) into disarray, but make no mistake this flute clearly depicts a number 7.
I don’t suppose a misconstrued number stamp in this case will have any bearing on it’s quality or authenticity
Would it ? The Plot Thickens. 
It hasn’t thickened much. It’s still stamped 7 Tavistock Street, as the vendor said, and that puts it in the 1820s.
Thanks for the heads upp Owen. A nasty crack through the embouchure, but fixable. Surprised to see a salt spoon Eb key on this flute. I’d have expected a pewter Eb with a square strike plate on a serial number as low as 463. This is perhaps the earliest Rudall equipped with a salt spoon Eb-key we know of?
Looking closer the wooden seating for the Eb-key looks a bit rough, perhaps the original pewter Eb key and strike plate have been removed and this key and modified seating is a later addition?
Ciaran’s Rudall & Rose 509 isn’t the earliest Rudall then with six salt spoon keys, as previously claimed.
Anytime Thomas. I haven’t had much time to give this one a good looking over. I shall certainly pay attention to the Eb key and seating now that you have pointed it out. As you say, the crack in the head looks clean and straightforward enough for repair. The gaping crack in the barrel may be a bit trickier. A lot depends on the age of the crack, and how long it has had to settle in this new unwanted profile. Bringing long standing wide cracks together can sometimes induce stress and further cracking elsewhere in the repaired section. I suppose this is why some restorers have used thin slivers or fillets of wood to bridge the gap incurring no further stress when making these repairs.
Oh Dear ! Forgot the Smiley. O.K. just try imagining that phrase with this 
at the end instead of that
I find this fascinating. It surely has to be right what you say that closing the gap, one would think, would cause further stress. I’ve also heard that said by repairers. But I’ve heard other repairers say the opposite - that you need to bring the crack together and get the wood back to its original shape in order to reduce stress. It doesn’t sound right, but it’s been said (to me) by people much more knowledgeable than I am in such things. Is this what you meant by it depending on the length of time it’s been in the cracked state, Owen? Just guessing on my part, but would it be - long standing crack = creates more stresses when brought back into shape; recent crack = not so much? I’m probably over-simplifying … Any repairer thoughts on this?
Shame about the crack - it’s a lovely looking flute.
Just an aside regarding cracks: On the advice of Chris Wilkes I was able to close a cracked head joint by placing the head joint in a closed plastic container for a few days together with a moist sponge. This worked for me. I did the same with a couple of Rudall head joints. The Rudall head joints had lain dormant for tens of years. The cracks closed up completely after a few days in the container. Of course they had to go back in again after a time as the cracks would reopen slightly. A temporary fix anyway, but it enabled the head joints to function without major surgery, and no other cracks have developed so far.
Only going from my own experience with the repairs I’ve made in the past. The older the crack, the more time the wood has to shrink, making the gap larger. The larger the gap, the further you have to physically move the wood back into shape and meet up for the glue repair. The older the gap, the greater the propensity for the two sides to warp out of line, making a flush, neat repair much harder. The further you have to alter the shape in this case back into place, the more stress is induced in the overall structure. You may have made an excellent original repair, only to find another hairline one appear elsewhere shortly after. This is not always the case, but from what I’ve noticed, there is more chance of this unwanted outcome when gluing a chasm. A fresh relatively new crack repair, by contrast, is a walk in the park
I wonder if Steampacket’s moistening trick, before doing a repair, would help to mitigate the effects of stresses in relation to those long standing cracks?
As Thomas indicated, the wood shrinks back again once the moisture evaporates. For the professional makers and repairers it is often less time consuming and more rewarding for them to make a completely new head when things go " Beyond Redemption. "