R&R alert!
looks like a nice flute, I wish I still had money… 
7384936935
But what is it really? Besides, Jon, you can make your own. Just need to get that key thing going.
Kevin Krell
Ah, perhaps this is the flute DM has written about on C&F previously.
Actually I think it is this flute… The picture is exatly the same as on David’s website. And it does not look like a scam: rudall-n-rose seems serious, with a good EBay feedback. Maybe it’s David Migoya himself?
EBay:
Dave Migoya:
Very nice flute… I love small holed Rudalls, and I don’t like pewter plugs.
(BTW it’s quite easy to create a short link to an ebay item with its number:
http://search.ebay.com/7384936935
)
There can be only one Rudall-n-Rose, living in Colorado…
based on the description found on ebay, the flute is not a ‘rudall&rose’.
it says it is an ‘atwill’ flute.
be certain of what you are bidding on.
very misleading title of this thread - not fair to seller or buyer.
I definantly saw this Flute for sale on David’s site. I remember seeing the name “Atwill” because it was unfamilliar.
Well, it still looks like a nice flute…
I never said it didn’t. 
Very very observant!
Yes, it is the same flute, and I am the same one.
Thought it best to eBay the flute since i’ve got a couple others coming and need to make room!
Why called a “R&R model?”
Read the description It is very very near identical to R&R #810 that I once had. Measures and all.
The embouchure is like Chris Norman’s flute. Small and vertical.
Anyway…the Atwill flute and the history behind it is quite interesting. Too bad there isn’t more out there!
I’d love to know who actually made this flute, but sadly, that went with the years.
enjoy
dm
My thought is that this may well be a Rudall & Rose flute, although there is no way of documenting this, and that would be important for resale value. The reserve price on this auction is $1,200. I’m curious as to what this flute is actually worth in terms of the way in which it is advertised, without a known maker.
I might add that many instrument makers sell their instruments under a different name. They do this to increase the volume of their sales. This is also true for all kinds of things, such as appliances. Sears routinely sells their Kenmore appliances, which in reality are made by Whirlpool or other manufactures that also sell under their own name. With violins it is common practice to change the name of an instrument when it is imported and offered by a dealer in the USA. Southwest Strings in Tucson, Arizona is a large volume dealer of stringed instruments. I am aware that the names of the makers attributed to their instruments are purely ficticious. They have Klaus Mueller violins, Hans Kroger violins, and Franz Werner violins, all names that they have invented. The Franz Werner professional violin sells for $5,000, by the way. I’m guessing that this violin is made by a master violin maker at a factory in Mittenwald, Germany.
Doug
There are several issues on the flute that allows the Rudall distinction (without actually saying it…)
First, the measurements are quite literally exact to RR #810 that I owned (and is now in New Mexico). In nearly every respect.
Second, Atwill was not a music instrument maker. It was a music house of mostly publications.
Third, the style and make of the keys is very very English, not American of the period at all.
Fourth, the wood is cocus, not rosewood, as would most American flutes of the period have been.
Fifth, American importers of the period, if they obtained flutes from overseas, typically stamped them there with their own mark in order to avoid the very high tariffs (35% at the time) for imported musical instruments. Plus the Atwill stamp is in the typical English locations on the flute, not the typical locations where American-made flutes were marked.
Sixth, the keys and rings are sterling. Not many American-made flutes were thus.
But again, a lot is built on this conjecture.
Could it be just a good American-made copy? Perhaps, but not that likely.
The resaleability could be on these matters alone, but also that there were very very few Atwill-stamped flutes located around today. Plus the firm, best as I can figure, was not in NYC all that long before it finally moved off to California. (gee, wonder if that’s where the tune comes from?)
Hope this helps.
dm
hi folks,
why on earth would one of the most prestigous firms, in existence, a firm who goes to great lengths to preserve and protect their good name and authenticate all their flutes with stamps and certificates with signatures etc. , decide to make flutes for some other lesser known outfit without having their own name on it? that goes against their known practice. in all likelihood, they had no need to do that. they had no need to make atwill flutes. makes no sense at all. even if it were true, we would know this fact by now, simply by the caliber of atwill flutes that have been collected, played and talked about throughout the years.
that does not mean the flute in question is a bad flute. many flutes were made and are being made by makers and apprentices who are not well established and are in need of assistance to market their flutes. rudall & rose certainly does not fit this category, they were well established and actually took measures to protect their flutes from fraud and rip-offs.
‘rudall&rose model’ - is using ‘the good name’ to sell, it’s just marketing hype
retracted… 
There were many workman who came/went at RR, including much of their work being contracted out.
Not everyone was “inside” and don’t think for a minute that people in London of any considerable trade experience wouldn’t rip off the design to make a sale in the USA in a minute.
By that, Wylde made flutes with his name, as well as delivered flutes to the firm that were stamped “Rudall & Rose.” As did Mr. Camp.
Same flutes? Pretty much.
But the certificates guarded against flutes that were fraudulently marked “Rudall & Rose” and sold as Rudalls, not against copying a flute, which was a very prevalent practice at the time.
I trust that explains your concern.
If not, a few other Rudall “experts” such as Tony Bingham, Robert Bigio, Terry McGee, Andrew Kirby, Chris Wilkes, John McAuliff, etc, may likely offer reasonable opinions of the same take.
I wanted to also note Rama’s good point: that someone wanted to get established at the time.
How did one do it? By making their own model of flute when no one knew you? Or did you copy flutes for sale overseas in order to pay you bills?
Think of today’s makers. They copy the existing models first, then consider improvements.
So I am clear: This is not a Rudall. It is an Atwill.
But it’s measurements are precise to that 810 flute (photo on the Rudall website if you’d like to look.)
Does it have the Rudall finish? Frankly, it ain’t a bad replica if that’s what it is to be.
And it’s pretty clear that it came from England.
The rest is up to the player/owner to decide.
Too…not a bad way to have a “Rudall-like” period instrument for not-a-Rudall price!
Then again, that’s just me.
here you go:
Rudall #810
and
Atwill “replica”
At least visually you can see.
Pewter plugs, which were not the vogue at least for Nicholson, were more expensive, so the cups on the foot.
Hope this helps.
dm
Dave – the Rudall #810 looks an awful lot like blackwood. Is it just cocus that has darkened a lot more than that of the Atwill, or the lighting or something?
i totally agree! looks like a good opportunity for a good deal.
Here’s a better line up on the flutes.
Cheers,
Nicely done, Jon!
I like that. Best way to see it. Thanks!!
Chas, blackwood (as we call it now…but it encompasses so many)…
was not in use then.
Back then the “best” flutes, then basically all, were in cocus, which wears almost black with use and age.
I’ve actually seen it in a pair or more varieties of colors, such as the chocolate brown from the Atwill, to the black-like of the Rudall.
I actually have the earliest existing Rudall and it is, in fact, ebony. Rudalls seem to run in those blocks of colors, with certain series of flutes closely resembling each other in color and quality of wood. Interesting, no?
The theory is that only those well-to-do firms were actually using cocus since it was coming from the colonial areas of Jamaica and nearby islands, such as Cuba/Haiti (i believe…but am not sure Cuba had such wood…and of course it was not called Cuba at the time, I don’t believe.)
So firms such as RR which were not yet prominent were doing a lot in boxwood, some in ebony. Then when they had the money or the prominence, they had the access to cocus. Of course this changed pretty quickly by the 1830s.
But I don’t believe any of the very early American-made flutes, of the 1830s era, were made of cocus. I think they were either boxwood or rosewood (which was a pretty good substitute to cocus, at least visually) for the most part. That’s why I think the Atwill was clearly made in England, since it is cocus.
Then again…
There is so much to this, but it is fun, huh?