Another Wylde up for bids on ebay. This one seems nice, no cracks or repairs, just a chipped crown adjuster.
“WYLDE / FROM / RUDALL & ROSE / 25 VILLIERS ST / STRAND / LONDON. Overall length 66.7cm. Sounding length 58.6cm. C#-D# 25.5cm.”
http://cgi.ebay.com/ANTIQUE-FLUTE-WYLDE-RUDALL-ROSE-/330426854314?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Woodwind_Instruments&hash=item4ceef9abaa#ht_500wt_1134
Item number: 330426854314
Item location: London, United Kingdom
yer stutterin’ dear… 
According to Mr. McGee’s website, that measurement would likely mean low pitch A=430.
My R&R has a sounding length of 587mm and a C#-Eb of 257mm - and it plays just fine at A=440 at between 1/3 to 1/2 opening of its tuning slide extension range depending on ambient conditions and embouchure with moderate flat-footedness. I think mid to high 580s SL is about right for a flat-foot era flute. This one should be fine for contemporary use, so far as one can ever try to estimate such things without actual play-testing. The vendor is a regular dealer who knows his stuff well enough, I believe.
??? I can’t quite get that interpretation out of Terry’s flute lengths page - he specifically does not mention pitches in Hz there in the charts, nor, so far as I can see, in the text in a way that leads to such a reading. Were you referring to something else elsewhere on Terry’s website, Kevin?
Thanks, Kevin. I’d forgotten that chart… However, Terry doesn’t explain there how (or if) he actually checked the playing pitch of each flute, nor at what kind of slide extension. I doubt they would have played so flat with their tuning slides fully closed (i.e. at the given sounding lengths). My own experience (of course much less than Terry’s) is that mid C19th English flutes with C#-Eb lengths and sounding lengths similar to my own R&R will normally play quite well at modern pitch somewhere near the middle of their available tuning range, though usually with a flat foot. One would have to have the tuning slides of most of them fully extended (c 3cm) to get anywhere near A=430 out of them!
Hi Jem
No, I haven’t checked the playing pitch of all those flutes (haven’t even seen some of them!), and yes, those with C#-D# lengths of 254 and more would need to be pulled out to the max to get them to play at 430Hz. That worried me at first until I realised that Rudall & Rose give us permission to pull way out, with their Patent Head flute, which extends about 30mm, enough to get down to that pitch.
It also makes sense in terms of what pitches could they be aiming for? The only options at the time being Low Pitch (430), Continental Pitch (435, but of no interest in England) and High Pitch (453 or so). Most flutes were bought by amateurs, as they are today. (If we all had to rely on selling flutes to professional flute players, our kids would be skinnier than theirs!) And the domestic players were far more likely to want to tune to their domestic pianos at 430 than to the new fangled high pitch used in the Philo movement. But their flutes needed to do both.
Keep in mind that this article was written some years back, and was the first attempt I’m aware of to try to bring some order to the chaos we had before us. Why were some flutes (eg Prattens) easy to play at modern pitch? Why did some (eg Rudalls) have very flat low notes? Why were earlier flutes (eg my Geo. Rudall Willis Fecit) really extremely hard to play in tune at modern pitch? Sounding length didn’t seem to help because it brought in the variability of the slide, so I needed a measure that was based on body scaling alone. Once we had that, we could make some sense of them. Not perfect, but at least some kind of grading tool.
You’ll notice I come to the same conclusion as you about flutes around 254mm being viable at modern pitch but with low notes tending flat:
Low pitch flutes include Nicholson Improved style flutes and some later types. These seem happier in the range around A430, the domestic standard for the period. They can be played in tune with some care at A440, lower notes tending a bit flat. They can benefit from retuning if that is thought appropriate.
The Wylde is a bit more than that, so I’d expect it to be playable at 440 but that you’d either need to employ the “firm blowing down” approach to ameliorate a flat foot, or she’d benefit from a little retuning.
Terry
“Why were some flutes (eg Prattens) easy to play at modern pitch? Why did some (eg Rudalls) have very flat low notes?” Terry McGee.
Terry why are Prattens easy to play at modern pitch? Is it just because of the bore being larger or are the headjoints a different length?
No, simply that the scale length (the spacing between the frets, oops, holes) is much closer to suitable for modern pitch. 245mm C#-D# rather than a typical Rudall 254mm.
The change appeared to be in Siccama’s time (Remember Pratten took up the Siccama for a while before developing his Perfected with the Siccama as a starting point, and with Siccama’s workman Hudson as his helper). Siccama produced Siccama 10-key flutes with the old hole spacing and the new, and not just in serial order - he was clearly responding to the differing needs of differing parts of his client base. After Rockstro completely destroyed Siccama’s reputation in his book, it became typical to regard Siccama as an insignificant low achiever. For my money, he’s one of the heroes of the revolution. Unfortunately, no one seems to have noticed any of this until now.
Terry
Thanks, Terry - a lesson in the (potential) misinterpretation of data there, then! You compile speculative charts with obvious gaps due to absent/inaccessible data and with parameter limitations both stated and not (but perhaps apparent) and they then get (mis-) used as substantive/definitive reference works!
They are VERY useful, mind, (perhaps the most useful thing on your website IMO) and I am very grateful for them and do refer folk to them. They are a very helpful guide if properly understood and recognised for what they are, for what deductions or extrapolations one can legitimately make from them. It would be nice to update them and fill in some of those gaps…
Just to clarify, I interpret the Hz pitches Terry gives on the chart on the page Kevin refers to as his speculations about the probable most likely playing-pitch target for (optimum?) regular use of flutes with those dimension sets, (i.e. not as experimentally measured observations from sound-testing the instruments), with an eye towards what is known of actual performance practice at the period of manufacture of the instruments in question.
Indeed. I do intend to get back to that stuff and work on it some more. We now have far better tools - particularly RTTA - that will enable us to work far more objectively. But we have also advanced our understanding of factors like offset blowing (blowing toward the centre of the flute) that were clearly a vital part of the 19th century approach. None of this stuff lives in isolation, and that makes it all the harder - we have to get every stone in place if the construction is to be reliable!
Terry
Just one bid on the Wylde 1500 GBP, so I don’t think it sold.
Seems to be this Wylde from the G&H auction on the 19th of March 2010 which sold for 1800 GBP:
Cocuswood flute stamped Wylde From Rudall & Rose, 25 Villiers St, Strand, London, with eight silver salt spoon keys on wooden blocks, within an oak case_- Lot 180 - Estimate: 1000-1400 – Sol for 1800 – 19th March 2010.
Sure, it sold for the 1500 GBP - one bid is all it takes to win. There was no reserve.
Decent price for very decent flute IMHO.
Aye a very decent price 1500, but the seller paid 1800 for the flute a month or so ago. Win some lose some
??? IF this is the same flute (#180 in the GH catalogue for the March 2010 sale), it is shown as having sold for £1100 (not £1800) - so even with the premium and VAT and maybe even allowing for eBay fees, it should have been at least a break even result, if not a small profit. I don’t think we can be sure this is the same flute, though.
There was another Wylde (catalogue #181) in the same sale with an interesting semi-claw variant C/C# touch set-up - which is not listed as having sold (is that what the lack of a listed hammer price implies?).
http://www.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/Catalogues/mi190310/page5.html & http://www.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/Catalogues/mi190310/page6.html
Price paid for Auction item #180 would have been just under 1300 GBP. eBay fees would be just under 50 GBP. Payment fees (if any) would be depending on method of payment (“PayPal, interbank wire transfer or UK personal cheque only”).
Yes, if no hammer price, then the item was not sold. It may have been withdrawn, sold under other circumstances prior to sale (not likely), or received no bids during this auction, and may be held for the next.
Aye, you’re right, Kevin & Jem, sold for 1100 GBP. I was wrong. I’d written down 1800 GBP in my Rudall serial number list by mistake. I’m sure it is the same Wylde, and yes, the unsold Lot 181 will probably turn up later in a later auction. So the seller made around 150 GBP profit at the end of the day, fair enough 