There has been talk from time to time about levels of finishing, both external and internal, and about why certain makers’ instruments cost so much more than others’…about craftsmanship. Well, I happened to look into the bore of one of my flutes that plays quite well. It was fairly inexpensive, as handmade instruments go. It’s a Bb flute. Here’s the bottom end of the upper body section:
My goodness.
Yes, it needs to be oiled and all that, but…my goodness.
Interesting: I have a flute with nearly identical looking reamer umm… “marks”, however I thought mine was just a “second”, initially.
I have, from time to time, considered posting such photos here (without naming the maker(s) of course), because I’ve run across some really ugly stuff - things that should, in my opinion, never have been allowed to leave a maker’s shop. And I do believe that flute buyers are better off knowing what to look for, with regards to quality and craftsmanship.
However, I’ve skipped posting such photos because I always assumed a maker would recognize his own work, and being a maker myself, I’d be pissing off more people than I already do in a given day, which I don’t think I can fit into my schdule at the moment
Glad to see somone doing it, for whatever reason, as I think folks really ought to educate themselves more, particularly when investing hundreds, or thousands of dollars in an instrument, and seeing pictures of work, both good, and not so good, helps give a better idea of what to look for, and what to avoid.
Loren
Interesting that Jessie notes that the flute plays quite well. I actually had the brief thought that perhaps part of the bore was roughened on purpose, but on looking again at the photo, that wouldn’t be something I could convince myself of, much less anyone else.
I know that M&E flutes have a reputation for being roughly finished, but none of my flutes, inluding the M&E flutes, have anything as roughly finished as that.
Still, “fairly inexpensive” and “plays quite well” are a winning combo, in my book. If smoothing the bore out raised the price significantly, but didn’t really make the flute play any better…how much are you willing to pay for a picture-perfect polish on a part of the instrument that only you will ever see?
–James
“Interesting that Jessie notes that the flute plays quite well.”
Fair enough, but it would play better without the bore having been shredded like that.
“I actually had the brief thought that perhaps part of the bore was roughened on purpose, but on looking again at the photo, that wouldn’t be something I could convince myself of, much less anyone else.”
Glad we agree on this.
“I know that M&E flutes have a reputation for being roughly finished, but none of my flutes, inluding the M&E flutes, have anything as roughly finished as that.”
Yes, the photo Jessie posted is of something that is beyond what would normally be considered merely “rough”.
“Still, “fairly inexpensive” and “plays quite well” are a winning combo, in my book.”
Fair enough, and I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t buy a flute which is fairly inexpensive and plays well, certainly some lack of attention to details, and lack of refinement is to be expected and acceptable at lower price points.
“If smoothing the bore out raised the price significantly, but didn’t really make the flute play any better”
Stop right there. This isn’t a matter of a flute having a mildly rough bore and the maker has chosen not to spend the 10 minutes necessary doing a little sanding. (Certainly that 10 minutes wouldn’t add much to the cost.)
This is something entirely different: Either bad tooling - drill or reamer, more likely the latter, or it’s a bad process - reaming at too high a speed, etc. In either case, fixing the problem wouldn’t add a significant amount to the cost of the flutes.
“…how much are you willing to pay for a picture-perfect polish on a part of the instrument that only you will ever see?”
It’s not a question of appearance, it’s a question of performance, as having a properly finished bore will result in a better playing instrument. Even though this one plays “well” it would play/sound better if the bore wasn’t torn up like that. And again, fixing the problem wouldn’t be expensive - change your process, or make a new reamer, or whatever, none will cost much at all.
I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t buy an instrument that looks imperfect, I’m not even suggesting that this particular instrument, or one just like it, isn’t worth purchasing for some people. However, one should be aware of what they are buying and know that things like this can and do make a difference in how the instrument plays and sounds.
Loren
(And yes, I realize some makers say they like to leave the bores of their instruments a bit rough, which I can respect, although I disagree with their reasoning. In this case we are talking about something far more extreme)
It’s good to know things didn’t always go to plan in the good old days too - check out this from a Potter d’amore flute I saw at the MFA in Boston (it’s the end of the body where it goes into the foot):
Bit hard to imagine what went wrong here - I’ve always assumed all makers do their bores first then turn the outside concentric with the bore. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Terry
Loren wrote:
I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t buy an instrument that looks imperfect, I’m not even suggesting that this particular instrument, or one just like it, isn’t worth purchasing for some people. However, one should be aware of what they are buying and know that things like this can and do make a difference in how the instrument plays and sounds.
Point taken.
And I’m glad you note that an instrument like this can be worth purchasing for some people. Because prices of flutes, while reasonable compared to other woodwinds, are already high enough that, for some people, they are simply not attainable.
I personally would love to see some very rough flutes sold at even lower price points, as long as they played reasonably well.
Maybe it’s just the part of the country I live in, but for many of my friends and neighbors, if it costs four digits, it had better have either a roof or a license plate. I think it’s easy to overlook that those folks can also love the music and can also be powerfully motivated to learn it, while never having the means or opportunity to do so.
So, for whoever the unnamed maker is, my hat is off to you, sir, for having your emphasis be fixed (very properly) on making flutes that play well and are relatively inexpensive.
Forgive the strength of my response–this is, as I’m sure you know, a subject I am quite passionate about.
–James
I appreciate your passion, and I agree with your convictions with regards to less expensive but still decent playing instruments, but perhaps you’ve missed the point I was trying to make? The maker of this instrument could have made a better instrument with no increase in price, so I can’t see why you’d be tipping your hat here. Particularly when there’s really no way you could have an insight into what the maker’s motivations are - although you have made an assumption on that point, which I think may be both unfair, and unwise. However I do understand where you’re coming from, and I agree, in principal, if you see what I mean.
Loren
Sadly we still see this a surprising amount today, I have some examples in my possesion from modern makers, but again, I won’t post pictures.
With regards to what went wrong: It could be that even though the bore was drilled and reamed first, part of the tooling that does the holding during the turning process was not centered - either human error, faulty parts (an imperfect mandrel), or a lathe with too much run out, or mis-aligned headstock/tailstock, twisted bed, etc. I’ve seen examples of most of these causing the same result.
Loren
P.S. Was the other end just as eccentric? Might give a clue as to what the issue was…
Loren
Loren, I do take the point, but I also remember Jessie saying that the flute plays quite well.
That’s not coming from a beginner and it’s not coming from someone who doesn’t know flutes.
It plays quite well…like it is, right now.
Maybe it could be better…maybe any instrument can always be better.
But “plays quite well” is worth a lot in its own right…don’t overlook that. We’re not talking about a flute that just “plays decently” or even one that “plays reasonably well.”
–James
Linguistic epiphany! Somehow I have used the word “eccentric” for years and years without associating it as “off center.” Of course! Thanks for the enlightenment. I love word origins that just suddenly make sense like that. My dictionary (I only have a French one with me) says it’s from Latin, and showed up in the French language in 1361.
I have often thought of myself as eccentric. Maybe I’d better work on better posture.
Jennie
That is a special looking bore…wouldn’t mind knowing who made it and wouldn’t refuse a PM sent me way…
For all the rough exterior finish on my M&E, the bore is really nice and smooth.
Eric
Mine is too, for the most part.
OTOH in a few spots the drill press (I assume that’s what made the tone holes) made contact with the far side of the flute, leaving an imprinted suggestion of another tone hole!
It’s still far more capable of producing sounds than I am of playing it.
Okay - I am the culprit! I made that flute!
Some of what is visible on Jessie’s flute is due to the normal ageing of the wood - and raising of the grain due to moisture. Sometimes a flute needs to go back to the maker 2-3 times to have this rebuffed and in some instances rereamed. But it is hardly shocking! Sometimes the flute plays fine with this, and nothing is to be gained by polishing the bore.
I for one don’t equate a polished bore with quality. Quite the opposite. I prefer some tooth to a bore as it gives some resistance and other qualities that work well for my flutes. Similarly, when some joints turn out eccentric, as in Terry’s Potter example, the final criteria for me is still - does the thing work?
Its even more extreme for other instruments. Italian bagpipes for instance, have bores that look roughed out with garden tools or whatever dull piece of metal was was laying around (These were and still are roughed out with such tools). Yet the damn things work when made this way, and have for centuries. Attempts to duplicate them by naieve modern makers and “correct” what are mistaken as errors (instead of a fundamentally important element intentionally wrought this way by the maker) usually fail.
Similarly, outside finish has nothing to do with tone. If one looks at my flutes under a microscope or in strong sunlight one sees all sorts of scratches from sanding. Horrors!!! On the other hand, I have seen some violin makers artificially “age” their instruments by shaking them in cloth sacks with truck chains until they develop a nice worn “patina”. For flutes, oiling heavily followed by a short session of “catch” with one’s dog works wonders!
What about warping? I recently had a client tell me in reference to a boxwood flute that he couldn’t have a warped instrument - as if straightness was a measure of quality and virtue. I still wonder why he originally ordered a boxwood flute! Soon he’ll get a blackwood flute - which will also eventually warp.
I frequently observe that some warping actually improves the response and other tonal qualities of an instrument. This is why I prefer to make my flutes out of wood, as opposed to a lifeless material such as Delrin, which will never warp.
Sometime this year I plan to make a boxwood flute with some small diameter branch wood I have - the thing with still have its bark on, literally. I am planning to send this one around the world as my “Ambassador Flute” finally - and require everyone who tries it out to carefully carve their initials into it! Stay tuned…
What fundamentally determines if an instrument is of quality is how it works for the player. I have yet to find some sort of authoritative rule book or law that states that for a flute to be high quality, it has to be polished up inside and out, straight as an arrow, everything perfectly concentric, etc. If such a book exists, someone please show me and I’ll consider if it matches my philosophy of making, which I seriously doubt.
My flutes are what they are, despite their “wabi sabi” characteristics.
Cheers!
Casey
Good on ya, CB! 
My gut reaction: $750?
Next (more rational?) reaction: French horns. The hand-hammering on hand-made horns introduces ‘imperfections’ that allow them to be played with greater flexibility of pitch and tone, while sacrificing little of the ‘presence’ of other well-designed (though machine made) horns.
You’re not paying for the craftsman’s hands; you’re paying for his ears.
BTW: To the guy making my next flute: all things being equal, I want a smooth bore, please.
20 minutes of sanding and polishing, not a problem, I’m on it… 
Heh heh, if warping presented a serious acoustical problem, the French Horn players would certainly be in trouble!
“And the music goes round and round …
and, ummm, doesn’t seem to come out!”
Some time back I asked Prof. Neville Fletcher why Cooktown Ironwood, which often doesn’t take a high finish, seems always to make a very lively flute. He discounted the dimples on the golfball theory (which relies on breaking up laminar flow and the drag it creates), and suggested it might be due to less thermal loss to friction. About 1% of the pneumatic energy we put into our flutes comes out as sound, most of the rest goes to heating the flute (not to be confused with the actual heat of our breath heating the flute). So you wouldn’t need to make much dent in 99% to make a significant improvement in the remaining 1%.
Now that’s not to say making the bore purposefully and indiscriminately rough is a good idea (there’s presumably good rough and bad rough), but it is to say that there are a number of principles at work and they are not all pulling in the same direction. As someone mentioned previously, the ear remains the final arbiter.
Terry
Really great posts from all, especially Casey!
This has been one of the better threads we’ve had on the board for a long time, in my opinion.
–James