Hello all,
Oxfam have asked me to sell a flute that was given to them at one of their shops. It is a very nice Rudall Rose Carte & Co 8-key in cocus with German silver (nickel) keywork. You can see it here: http://www.arthurhaswell.co.uk/Oxfam%20RRC.htm
The idea is to sell it fairly quickly, so a decent offer will secure it.
Anyone interested can contact me direct through my website.
Happy Tootling!
Arthur Haswell
Dear Flute Friends
rather than have it hang around I have put the Rudall Rose Carte & Co 8-key for auction on eBay, item number 251467016614. Proceeds to Oxfam.
Best to all
Arthur Haswell
This flute is also on E-bay now
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rudall-Rose-Carte-Co-8-key-vintage-wood-flute-/251467016614?pt=UK_Woodwind_Instruments&hash=item3a8c9a29a6
I am curious about antique flutes and wonder why this one has not attracted more interest–so far, at least. Are the late 8-key Rudalls just not in such high demand, Rudall fatigue has set in, or is it that particular flute? The head seems noticeably lighter in color than the rest of the flute, but maybe that is not uncommon. Any ideas?
I’m not sure, but maybe this 1870 R&C is a high pitched A=453 instrument?
A=439 was decided upon (England) in 1895. The R&C I have made in 1892 plays in tune at A=440 with the slide pulled out
“The Philharmonic Society finally adopted diapason normal in 1895, but by a rather devious sleight of hand at A439 rather than A435. It was commonly, though mistakenly, believed in England that the French decree had specified its standard at a temperature of 59°F (15°C), which the Philharmonic Society recalculated for the more typical UK concert room temperature of 68°F (20°C).” From this article: http://h2g2.com/approved_entry/A87766753
Very nice, I have one similar…
Steampacket, this is a “Rudall, Rose and Carte” I would think it would not have been made in 1870, as that was Rudall Carte, but rathere around 1860?
“Very nice, I have one similar…
Steampacket, this is a “Rudall, Rose and Carte” I would think it would not have been made in 1870, as that was Rudall Carte, but rathere around 1860?”
Yes, of course you’re right Jon. I just remembered the part of the description mentioning the R&C barrel
“This is an original unaltered Rudall Rose & Carte 8-key flute in excellent condition. Cocus wood with German silver keys. Pewter plugs for low C and C#. Made in 1870. Marked Rudall Rose Carte & co/20 Charing Cross/London/6530. The barrel is marked Rudall Carte & Co/London so is a slightly later replacement.”
Thanks for the insight Steampacket. I should read up on those 19th Century pitches. All I know is that my own #3415 plays pretty well in tune with the original head and even better with the Wilkes extra head. Seems embouchures really do go hand in hand with finger hole size and spacing in tuning a flute. As for the flute for sale, it may still turn out that the seller was wise to put it on Ebay and some may regret not buying at the original 1300 pounds price. We’ll see!
just a note: as far as I know, this is the last Rudall, Rose, Carte & Co. known before the firm change the name after mr. Rose’s death (1867?) Considering the production of 8 Keys flutes was about 100 pieces per year, we should be able date the flute around 1865-1867.
my catalogue work indicates this flute to be c.1871-2, closer to '72 since the batch of flutes coincides with the higher date (they are bunched with the German Silver keys/bands)
I appreciate that Arthur notes the flute barrel is a replacement … but the head is likely such, too, since they are fitted very distinctly together as a unit. And since the upper head is never stamped…it’s quite likely it is RC as well.
The flute should actually play quite nicely., though it is the beginning of the end for the 8key productions there.
racliffe makes a valid point except for one thing…
many of the flutes already in stock at the time of Mr. Rose’s demise were not thrown away or re-stamped.
They remained in the inventory and the new batches of stamps of RC&C appear in inventory later. Hence why this flute would carry a sale point of ~1871.
8key flutes of this period were not moving very quickly at all. In fact, a flute of serial # late 6xxx like this has a sale date by the firm of 1902! Simply a stock piece that remained around for some time.
I have #6745 (from Wylde’s workshop) which is marked RC&C but still at the Charing Cross address, same marks for #6736, perhaps a matter of months after this flute #6530 which is marked RR&C. I think mine was sold 1867 but I’ll check the record. That would match Radcliffe’s estimate. The firm was briefly RRC&Co before Rose was dropped and #6395 is marked that way. So this one looks very near to Mr Rose’s demise. Wonder where the barrel came from…
but take David’s point that they weren’t stamped at point of sale.
FWIW, Robert Bigio’s reference list of serial numbers from the extant record books would put #6350 firmly in 1870. Remember the serial numbers were recorded, if not actually allotted to items, at completion/accession to shop stock. The lowest number 8-keyer in the records for 1870 is #6514 and the lowest for 1871 is #6576. Short of getting the actual entry, that’s about as definitive as you’re likely to get on the date. (Yes, I’ve got Dr. Bigio’s lovely book.)
There’s a big hiatus in the records between 1876 (starts with #6714) and 1888 (starts with #6992).
Thanks Jem, yes I do have my digits confused, my #6745 was sold in November 1876 not in 1867, one of a dozen bought in from Wylde’s workshop in the summer
Haswell removed the flute from Ebay yesterday, so made someone made a direct offer and they got the £1300 they wanted for Oxfam.
I have relisted the RRC&co on eBay, restarting at £750 on a 3-day auction. I hope all who have shown interest - and patience - will transfer their attention here to item 251470021227
A slight flaw in the wording (use of the word ‘unaltered’) was pointed out by someone with a keen eye. EBay would not let me change or add to the description. To be on the safe side I thought it best to stop and start again from the same point.
A few interesting points have been made about this flute while it has been on eBay. This flute is one of those lucky ones to have been recorded in the maker’s register, so we know for certain it was made in 1870. The barrel dates from 1873-1911 (as the markings show); perhaps the original cracked and was replaced. The head may also date from this time but since, as has been said, they are never marked it is hard to be sure. However the wider ferrule at the crown of the head is the same width as those along the flute, whereas the one on the barrel is significantly wider. The two thin adjoining ferrules at bottom of head and top of barrel which ought to be the same width are different. This suggests that the barrel alone was replaced. The tuning slide is a perfect fit.
Lastly, the flute was made by Henry Wylde, as indicated by an inscribed ‘W’ under one of the keys.
Now we shall let the auction run and see where we end up!
Best to all
Arthur Haswell
I would think our own Mr. McGee would opine about the “W” marked under a key doesn’t necessarily connote he manufactured anything other than the keys. (Assuming W is actually Wylde and not just his shop).
Dates of these flutes vary so much by their sale dates (hence the cross-over in addresses sometimes) b/c the stock moved along with them when they moved. They didn’t simply get rid of flutes.
And I would offer (as I’ve done so many times before) that serial number sequences that do cross over the change of address (where earlier address has a later serial number) is evidence (not proof, but pretty close) of serial numbers being recorded in the stock books on sale rather than on reception.
The same is true for the quattrefoil mark appearing after the certificates in the lids. There was simply stock that needed to be sold and hence why certificates show up much earlier — they were selling what they still had, but started to affix the papers to the lids anyway.
Anyways…thanks, Arthur, for the clarity of the new advertisement. I hope someone gets a nice flute here.
Regarding the stock books, I have not had opportunity to peruse the extant ones myself and of course we cannot make assumptions about the earlier practices of the firm in the lost records. However, from entries I have had quoted to me verbatim from the extant records it would seem that the normal but not uniform or consistent practice was to record the date of completion of an instrument (tantamount to stock accession) and then (more erratically) sometimes the date of sale. Given the conservatism of the firm in many other regards (contrasting with their willingness to pursue new flute designs!) we might guess (but no more) that recording completion was their long established practice, and clearly that was usually the latest in the overall process of manufacture-to-market that serial numbers were allocated. Equally obviously there must have been mistakes and anomalies from time to time.
The organisation of the flutemaking at Rudall & Rose, RR&C, RRC&co, and finally at Rudall Carte is a fascinating subject. It is easier to find out the working practices at Berners Street which seem to have remained unchanged all the time it was open 1878-1958. From talking to a couple of the old flutemakers who worked there in the 1940s and 1950s, it appears they were on piece-work. Each had a day book in which he wrote down his hours and the flute on which he was working.
The foreman would give him his job, the specifications of the required flute, the wooden body fresh from the turner, parts such as pillars and posts that were made in batches by apprentices, and he would make the keywork to fit. When he had finished he offered the flute to the foreman, who tested it and, if he approved, entered it into the register - i.e. wrote down that date and the maker’s name, and took it into stock. Some flutes, such as 1867-system and Monel flutes made during the 1920s & 30s, might sit on the stock shelf for several years before being bought.
The earlier records are not so fulsome. If you are lucky they give a date and perhaps the maker. Whether this date was that of its being taken into stock, as was the later practice, I do not know.
In the case of 8-key flutes I can’t help feeling the system worked in a similar way to the watchmaking industry that flourished nearby in the mid-nineteenth century, with outworkers sitting around a table making batches of gear wheels, of dials, of cases etc. I suspect there were a number of such cottage industries supplying all that was needed in various levels of quality for the London flute retailers. Whether they worked in small premises or large, or at Rudall’s workshop, I do not know but perhaps others do. In the case of the present flute Henry Wylde, who by 1870 was an important figure, may have been responsible for assembling the flute, or managing its assembly. One thing is certain: it was a very well organised industry!
These are my reflections, and no doubt others will know more or think differently, which is how we all learn.
But it is wonderful to feel the contemporary interest in these old flutes and the world into which they were made!
Jem, i can’t say as I disagree…or agree.
The only “evidence” (aside from the later stock books) of the placement of serial numbers can only be deduced from the physical information present.
The question becomes how to explain how a flute marked with, let’s say, 100 New Bond Street, has a serial number that preceeds an earlier address of the firm. They were typically several of them. And then the sequence would take up in serial number of the old address again, until it appears to have been exhausted and then solely the new address.
There are two possibilities, based on this information alone.
the outsourcing of the flutes was done in blocks (which we know to be true) and those manufacturies had the actual stamps to mark the flutes with the mark and address. Then, when they came into the shop, they were stamped with a serial number equal to the sequence and recorded into the inventory. The example above could be that an order was placed at one location using the old address stamp and another batch using the new address stamp at a different location (or even the same) and they simply were delivered at the same time just after the firm had moved.
the outsourcing was done in blocks (groups) as always, and when delivered to the firm, the maker’s mark was placed on to the instrument and it was recorded into the books. The serial number was not placed onto the flute until it was sold. This would explain how flutes with the older address could be sold after flutes with the newer address stamp had been delivered. They simply had not been sold yet, were carry-over stock and, once in the new address, were sold afterward.
I favor both for various reasons.
The difficulty is the catalogue shows these discrepancies to be in “blocks,” that is groups of about 10 or 20 flutes. Surely they didn’t sell carry-over stock in batches? How else to explain how a group of older flutes were to be sequential in the number sequence, but disparate in address?
Thoughts?