Hello all,
At the moment I am interested in acquiring another high D whistle.
I have a Feadog D, a Feadog Pro D and a Dixon Trad D. The Pro D is my absolute favorite at the moment, and, to be honest, I am rather dissapointed with the Dixon.
At the moment I am looking at both de Clarke and Shaw D whistle. To my, relatively new, eye they look very much alike in terms of construction.
On what levels do I need to seek the difference, and how do they compare?
In other terms, how do I decide?
You are disappointed with the Dixon Trad. Many folks will like them.
Everyone has different preferences, experience and requirements for their favorite whistles. Just because I may like one whistle or another is no reason to think that you would get on well with that same whistle. Shaw and Clarke will each have their own fans and they may each have some detractors as well. Each has their own endearing qualities.
You should buy one of each and decide for yourself. Both are reasonably inexpensive. The Clarke original is inexpensive enough as to be a “no brainer”. Buy that one first. Get the Shaw if the Clarke does not fulfill all of your your whistle dreams.
There are so many whistles from which to choose. You are just getting your toes wet.
Feadoggie
First off, I think almost anyone here will tell you that a) there are many very fine whistles to be blown at all nodes of construction and price point and b) that you already have some very nice whistles in your armamentarium. But there’s also c) not everyone’s favorite whistle will be everyone else’s favorite whistle as well, so you might as well get used to the idea of suffering from WHOAD, and just start your own collection of whistles now! 
To answer your question of construction technique, yes they are very alike. Both Shaw and Clarke are of the reverse conical body type, which means the body tapers somewhat from proximal to distal ends – the Clarke seems to taper consistently less than the Shaw by 2 to 3 mm; and both are also of the rolled metal & solder-joined variety of tube construction. This means a flat plate of metal is rolled round a mandrel in order to make a tube the seam of which is then soldered together. Both whistles are also of the wood block type, which means the block up in the head of the instrument is made of wood (rather than some other material, like metal or stone).
Two things stand out as differences between the Clarke and the Shaw: the Clarke has a “simple block”, which is a rhombus of wood shoved into the head of the instrument, while the Shaw has a more “complex block”: it too is a rhombus of wood, but has a channel carved into its superior aspect (which might possibly be there to protect the wind channel from being crushed by overly enthusiastic windway tweaking!, but also I think help to maintain the shape of the windway during the processes of block insertion and fixation) and its manner of insertion and fixation are radically different. The Clarke block is held in place by simple friction (as the wood ages, dries out and shrinks, the block may eventually fall out), while the Shaw is held in place by a dimpling process: he basically creates partial punches through the metal of either side of the head of the whistle that push into the wood block, thus acting like nails or screws. This prevents the block from shifting (or being removed intentionally). (This may make the block eventually more prone to splitting or cracking, but I don’t think any of his instruments are quite old enough to have suffered that sort of fate yet.) Note that on larger Shaw whistles, he makes metal sheathed wooden blocks which I believe are soldered in place, and of course the wood itself is also dimpled into place, like on his high d whistles.
One other key distinction is the profile of the whistle head itself: the Clarke is basically a “round profile” whereas the Shaw is basically a “square profile”. Clarkes are notoriously leaky – you can look through the tube of a Clarke and see daylight all round the block where the body does not actually meet the block. Shaw takes much more care to fit the square block into a squared off whistle head section.
Note: me, I don’t think this radically affects the tone of either instrument, even though some relatively small amount of air must be escaping through back through the whistle body. I think it’s much more of an aesthetic difference – to my eye, the Shaw looks much crisper and cleaner in manner of construction. On the other hand, Clarke have been making whistles in exactly this way for like 150 years, so there must be something to their method!
Other aesthetics to note: Clarkes are often painted, while Shaw is, I believe, either plated or highly buffed. Eventually you’ll end up chewing some of the paint off a Clarke, but it’s not lead based or anything, so no worries there! Also, of the Clarkes I have or have seen that have the maker’s mark actually stamped into the metal, the stamping quality is very weak. Shaw’s mark is very bold and always very well done. (I put that down to mass-produced vs. craftsman-made.)
Many other old cheapo or toy whistles were constructed after the way the Clarkes are made, some with wood blocks, some with plate metal still others with lead or pot metal. Some are nearly cylindrical, some are quite radically reverse conical. The basic shape seems to be very forgiving, and very plastic as regards tweaking to suit your own taste and sound requirements. And many of them sound absolutely lovely – one of my all time favorite d whistles is an old no-name steel bodied “Cooperman-esque” whistle that is easily the equal of any expensive handmade whistle I’ve ever tried. Perhaps a lucky find, you might say, but there is simply something charming in the now-chiffy, now-unchiffy, now-airy, now-clear, now-burbly, now-cracking sound of that old kind of whistle that the big names you’ll hear around here simply lack, for all their high technique, refined construction and beautifully consistent sound.
Not everyone here like Shaw, and not everyone likes Clarke; but I think it’s also fair to say that you can hardly go wrong with either one! As for how to decide: I would strongly recommend you buy both! You’re not going to bankrupt yourself by spending $30 for a Shaw and $10 for a Clarke (both in d) on Ebay (and as I say, you can contact Shaw himself and get one direct from the maker). They’re easy to tweak, and in all honesty, if you ruin one by overtweaking, you can always get another one! (Alternatively, you could ask here for advice on who does tweaking procedures – I think Jerry Freeman tweaks these kinds of whistles, but I’m not certain of that).
You can also look into an old Schoha or Delta-K or American Fife or even an antique Clarke – they are all old mass produced whistle makes from the first half of the 20th century, and they work just as well as anything made two weeks ago by Shaw or Clarke! (Speaking of Cooperman, in general, I think most folks hereabouts would advise you to steer clear of their whistles – these are the generally extremely cheap whistles you can find in any American history tourist trap gift shop (Williamsburg, Philadelphia, any museum on The Mall) and are generally unplayable without a lot of work. At least with Shaw and Clarke, you’re getting a reasonably consistent product right out of the box and that can be easily tweaked to suit. Also with Shaw, at least you can communicate with the maker and possibly work something out with him in advance (e.g., I’m still hoping he will one day make one of those high g whistles he’s got the parts for…)
One last thing to note, especially since you’re comparing Clarke with Shaw: Clarke do make a line of whistles that are conical metal tubes, but have plastic heads. I’ve never tried one or even seen one in person, so can’t comment on how they sound in comparison with the traditional Clarke whistles. I think this is their Meg line of whistles. You can get one of those for a little less than $10.
Best of luck with whatever whistle(s) you choose!
The Shaws are a bit more solid in appearance and louder than the Clarkes. IME they’re quite inconsistently made though regarding intonation and octave balancing; however, all Shaws I’ve played do have a disproportionally loud upper end of the scale. Anyway, I second Feadoggie’s suggestion to just get the Clarke. If you like this type of whistle you can still consider getting a Shaw as well.
To what purpose? Especially as a beginner, de Salier will be happy with the Clarke for quite a while; and if not, the Shaw isn’t that much different anyway. I’d say immediately getting both is rather unnecessary. Just get the Carke.
As Feadoggie said, and I agree: “You should buy one of each and decide for yourself.” Frankly, the OP doesn’t actually have to BUY both – if he knows someone that has one or the other and can try, or if a local music shop has them to compare, that’s fine too! The point I think is obvious: to try different whistles out and feel & hear which one(s) you like best! There’s no harm in selling or giving away the ones you don’t like so well. And as I said, they’re inexpensive and so won’t break the bank. It’s not like I’m suggesting he buy a Thin Weasel AND a Copeland all in one go!
Yes, de Salier is a “beginner” but he’s not a fresh beginner! He’s not asking “I have no whistles and have never played a whistle before – which one should I get to start out with?” If that were the case, I’d be much less inclined to offer the advice I did. If that were the case, I’d more likely agree with you: get a Clarke (or a Feadog, or Generation) and stick with it for a while before trying something else.
But as you can see, he’s already got a small cache of whistles (I think four!), and is thus already familiar with the characteristics of several makes. I think a more elderly beginner is quite capable of handling the purchase and trial of two more whistles!
The Shaw is made of nickel silver. There is no ridge down the back where the rolled sheet metal is soldered. The Clarke is made of tin, has a ridge down the back where the original sheet metal is soldered and is the original tin whistle dating back to 1843. Clarke has a neat website, with lots of information about their whistles, including history about the founder, Robert Clarke. They do a great job of marketing their product. Robert Clarke became a wealthy man selling tin whistles! I have three Clarkes, one in D and two in C. They are great whistles, relatively quiet but capable of being heard with other instruments. They have a lovely sound. I also have a Shaw. I prefer the Clarkes. The Shaw is loud (not a value judgement, just a fact) and mine has twisted toneholes. It looks like the holes were drilled first and then when they rolled the sheet metal they didn’t line up straight on the tube. That doesn’t happen with all of them. The Clarke is cool from the historical perspective. I also prefer the sound.
Thank you all for your extensive and informative replies.
I think I’ll go for a Clarke first, as I have had my eye on one of those for a while, and if I am happy I’ll decide If I buy a Shaw as an extra or not.
As they look so similar (exluding the details of course) it is nice to learn something about their background and construction, many thanks for that.
As I said in the first post, I started with a Feadog D, quite happy with that one after some tweaks, more or less in tune all the way. Then bought a Feadog Pro D, after a few tweaks perfectly in tune all the way. The Feadog C is a disaster at the moment, but might be able to salvage it somehow. (Used my mother’s Walton’s once in a while over the years)
The Dixon Trad D is another story, the whistle head on the whistle when I received it had a construction error, it sounded disastrous, so that was not a good start. Contacted them, and they very kindly send me two replacements. Now it sounds a lot better, though still flat all the way, so might have to adjust something. I just expected a bit more from a Dixon Trad D, but over all not a bad whistle I think.
But, now I’ll go and order a Clarke, and see what a whistle can do without a plastic head…
Thanks again!
I am in the Clarke camp as well. I have owned both, but now only have a Clarke. It is one of my most played whistles. I consider it the truly classic, iconic whistle sound.
Also, I developed a nickel silver allergy after playing a flute with the head joint sheathed in nickel silver…I wouldn’t even consider playing a Shaw these days because of that.
Eric