There’s a RUDALL, ROSE, CARTE & CO / 20 CHARING CROSS ROAD. for sale at Just flutes, South End, Croydon. Has a noticeable repairs (sleeves) but has been serviced and is in playing condition
http://www.justflutes.com/pre-owned-rudall-andamp-rose-cocus-8-key-flute-productC120242.html
570mm sounding length, is that high pitch?
From what I understand 23.5 inches or 596.90 mm sounding length from the middle of the embouchure to the end of the foot joint is 440. So 570 mm should be alright if you have a tuning slide to make adjustments? Although in this case it looks from the photos that the head joint could be in a fixed position? Jem, Jon, David or Terry will probably chime in with the facts
Here’s the description from Gardiner & Houlgate of the Rudall Carte I bought in September, 2012. It plays in tune with it self with A=440 without problem with the tuning slide out about 3/4 in. I haven’t bothered to accurately measure the sounding length myself as it plays so easily in tune.
“Early 20th century English rosewood and nickel mounted flute by and stamped Rudall Carte & Co. 23 Berners Street Oxford Street London, no. 7103, with eight keys on wooden blocks, fitted rosewood case
Condition Report
Overall length 65cm, sound length 56.5cm, Appears to be in good general condition although cannot guarantee playing condition or pads”
(Interesting - the Rudall #7103, Lot 215, has disappeared from G&H’s listing. Lot 215 is now the Monzani flute which was Lot 214 on 14th september 2012)
Guys, guys! Check your info and what you are looking at! This flute at Just Flutes is a conoid simple system. I don’t know about the figure Steampacket quotes - I doubt that every conoid flute with whatever bore configuration will be in tune at 440 at that, even leaving aside the issue of blowing style. But a 570mm SL for a later conoid Rudall is a safe bet for 440 playability. Even earlier ones are mostly under 580mm. And, as always, remember their scale tuning was not predicated on a slide closed, shortest SL, or on any specific pitch but on something like a middle extension of the slide with modifications to try to allow for the extremes. Later flutes which were in competition with Bohm flutes have this aspect reduced (less flat foot, especially, so shorter SLs), but were still conservatively built.
This is NOT a cylinder bodied flute where 580mm or less signifies the extremes of HP and where the scaling was much more precisely designed for a specific pitch and you can’t tune them in or out more than 3 or 4mm without fatal distortion of the intonation, so the minimum viable SL for CP use is 597 and the maximum 603, with 600 being ideal.
This looks to be a decent flute, and unusually reasonably priced from that source!
Kevin just to say that the Rudall Carte I have is 565.5 millimeters from the middle of the embouchure hole to the end of the foot joint with the slide fully closed. That’s the shortest sounding length. The cork face is 20 mm from the middle of the embouchure hole. I play with the sliding head joint out 15 millimeters, sounding length is now 580.5 and the flute plays easily in tune with A=440 over the two octaves I need for hardcore Irish traditional tunes. When I say easily, I mean it plays as easy as my Olwell Pratten. I play with the head slightly turned in. I wasn’t expecting this old flute to be so easy to blow and have such a strong, rich tone. I was expecting flat, possibly weak, bottom notes.
So if the head joint on Just flutes Rudall is moveable it should be fine
“I don’t know about the figure Steampacket quotes - I doubt that every conoid flute with whatever bore configuration will be in tune at 440 at that, even leaving aside the issue of blowing style. But a 570mm SL for a later conoid Rudall is a safe bet for 440 playability. Even earlier ones are mostly under 580mm.” Jem.
Jem I got the figure from a reply to a question in the LouisLot group so it probably does refer to a cylindrical bore and not a conical 8-key?
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/LouisLot/message/403
Yup, looks that way. Thought so. It really matters to be talking about the right things in the right terms on these issues!
“It really matters to be talking about the right things in the right terms on these issues!” Jem.
Yeah, right Jem, I mean what’s “conoid” got to do with these issues? 
“Conoid” - meaning similar to or sharing some of the properties of a cone - is the correct term to describe in a general way the complex tapers of the body bores of baroque and simple system flutes. They are not strictly “conical”, so that word is inappropriate.
Like Cone Heads! 
Yes, I see what you mean Jem, although I think “conical” is a more user friendly term to describe, in a general way, a tapered bore. Conoid is too geeky even though I do own an anorak from my mod period. Jesting aside thanks for the info. Jon I would never use the derogatory term “Cone Head” The correct term is I believe, truncated parabolic conoid head 
. 2013 has started with a bang for old flute fans, three Rudalls and two Booseys on offer
has anyone gotten a serial number to this flute? i’ve asked and gotten no reply.