I haven’t seen a Rudall like this before – post mounted keys, Boehm style foot keys, unusual G# key, very late serial number etc. I’m looking forward to hearing what you have to say about this one. 
It wouldn’t be of interest to me, because of the post mounted keys. Plus GS (I think) - I prefer silver. I don’t like the look of those cracks. Nice to have the whole kit though, with cleaning rod, grease pot and everything.
That is one of the latest RC’s I have seen, love the foot keys! The G# key is an interesting shape to… You know, I always wondered what that slot was for in the boxes, I have them on several cases, it is for the cleaning rod!
I would love to measure this one… I wonder who made it for them?
Yes, the foot keys do look nice. Simple system ones are so awkward. I like them too, though, despite that.
Hard to tell from the photos, but is that head unlined?
Imo it is lined, you can see the metal edge by the end of the embouchure…
quite usual french design as the other lastes RC&Co.
Price could be quite high as it is still in its complete original kit.
Btw less interesting than the other one just ended(#6409)
65cm is shorter that usual.
Just thought of something else about it. I am very very far from being any kind of expert on this, but it looks to me like the keys and rings are GS, but that all joints have silver inserts and silver rings on the tenons. Those joints look really nice to me.
And I tend to agree with your other comment, radcliff.
Wow, and I called my McG# key “bent and twisted”!
Compare it to this flute:
Terry
The key caps look like my German flute.
Any guesses on how much $$ it’ll fetch?
I was wildly out last time, but I like this game. 
So I’ll guess at $1,800.
I asked the seller what the sounding length is, and he replied “565mm” - high pitch. So it will not be a player’s flute…maybe still catches a lot of dosh because it’s the youngest conical simple system Rudall known. But I don’t know. I like the footjoint, though.
Hmm. Interesting.
Lorenzo, the style of the keys (with the “pointed arm” going almost right across the cup) is a) typically French and b) typical late Rudall Carte - when their key style was heavily influenced by the French and Belgian craftsmen they imported). Calum Stewart’s (#7548, made 1933 - picture here) and Ronnie Bracke’s (HP) cylindrical 8-keyers have the same style, so does my 1922-made piccolo (picture here), so does my 8-key F flute #4724 with Bohm foot mechanism, (note straight G#)
etc. etc… e.g.
Two more RC&Co band flutes (HP, #8807 & 8816) - with straight G#s - (sorry about the fuzzy pic!)
Looking at that kinky G# key on the current Canadian eBay RC&Co #7232, I do rather wonder whether it was bent like that originally or if that is an adaptation - it appears to extend rather far head-wards even shortened as it is by the kink in the shank, and would do so even more if straightened and both get in the way of L3 on the A hole and be hard to operate with L4 rather tucked under L3; but then, it looks rather low on the side of the flute to me as-is… I wonder why they didn’t go for the French lateral G# - by far the best design and present on some late RC&Co flutes I’ve seen, e.g. Calum’s #7548 and F flute #7695 (picture here) (N.B. the band flutes had a different serial # sequence from the 8-key concert flutes, as did other design types such as Bohm, Radcliff, etc.).
The metal-bound tenon ends are also a typically French detail, and may suggest that all the sockets are lined - the barrel and foot ones certainly are, but the pics don’t show the lower body socket at all.
Dimensions: overall length at 650mm doesn’t reliably tell us all that much. Last week’s #6409 (which I went to see/measure/test) has the same overall length and plays just fine at 440 with the slide open c20mm (just beyond the barrel part of the slide). It is the sounding length and C#-Eb lengths we need, + maybe the emb-C# length, to establish the probable scaling and whether or not this flute is truly an HP one (quite probable) or just, as #6409 seems to be, one with basically the old scaling, just a slightly shortened foot and head (so less flat foot and a need to pull the slide further open, but good 440 intonation…). FWIW, #6409 has a SL of 569mm, a C#-Eb of 255mm, an Eb-foot of 100mm and an emb-C# of 213mm. Put along side my own 8-10 year earlier #4683, the scaling of the main 6 open tone-holes is near-as-dammit identical, for all #6409 has rather larger (not the largest) holes - the length differences are in the head, where the embouchure is cut and in a slightly shortened lower end of the lower body and a shorter foot. For comparison, #4683 has an OL of 661mm, a SL of 578mm, a C#-Eb of 258mm, an Eb-foot of 102mm an emb-C# of 218mm and plays for me at 440 with c 10mm slide extension.
Ah, I see I’m cross-posting with Steffen - OK, if this one’s SL is 565mm, then it would probably need a slide extension of c 25mm for 440 - not impossible, but pushing things… but that isn’t the whole story - we still need some of the other dimensions to determine the actual scaling. If the C#-Eb is still c255mm, the Eb-foot no less than 98mm and the “extra” shortening is all in the head (embouchure cut further down-tube) then it may well still be a viable 440 flute, maybe with a replacement longer head; but if the scaling (rather than the SL) also suggests HP, it wouldn’t be worth it as, although you could get a 440 A with a longer head, the scaling/intonation would probably be distorted.
I’m not going to guess a price until we know a bit more… 
$2,650 is my guess. 
I’d be confident it was intended like that. Firstly, we have seen other RC flutes with at least assymetric G#, like this one from my Unusual Rudalls page:
Secondly, as you point out, straightening the shaft would put the touch too far up the flute, and that is really annoying.
Thirdly, straightening the shaft would put it in the way of L3 accessing its hole. With it bent like that, it’s really wrapping neatly around the end of L3 and providing a well positioned landing place for L4.
Fianlly, look at the rivet position, shown here as a little dot at the top edge of the touch. It’s definitely off-centre to the touch. You can just make out the spring too following the curve of the bent shaft.
Some scoff at these late RC flutes as the cheap beginners instrument, made out-of-house using cheap metals, and they certainly don’t have the visual appeal of the heyday RR flutes. But details like this I think remind us that the maker was trying his best to make a flute that worked as well as it could.
Dimensions: overall length at 650mm doesn’t reliably tell us all that much. Last week’s #6409 (which I went to see/measure/test) has the same overall length and plays just fine at 440 with the slide open c20mm (just beyond the barrel part of the slide). It is the sounding length and C#-Eb lengths we need, + maybe the emb-C# length, to establish the probable scaling and whether or not this flute is truly an HP one (quite probable) or just, as #6409 seems to be, one with basically the old scaling, just a slightly shortened foot and head (so less flat foot and a need to pull the slide further open, but good 440 intonation…).
I’ve asked the vendor for the C#-D# length, so hopefully we can answer this question. Given the late serial number, I was expecting the flute to be aimed at modern pitch, unless it happened to be an Eb. Ah, he has just this minute got back to me with the figure 248mm, which supports modern pitch. It is interestingly the same as my 7120, which was build around 1898, just after High Pitch crashed in favour of modern pitch.
Terry
no that unusual a find for such a late R/C. The serial numbers reach to the 76xx.
they did make a few of the “old style” flutes at this period, which was starting to be dominated by the “French” slide and the solid-body and the boehm-style foot keys.
Notice, too, how the stamps changed location…they are above the G hole at the RH joint rather than between the G and F# holes.
Not sure it will even get $1,000, quite honestly. In part b/c it’s likely >440, it’s GS keys and such a late flute in pillar mounts.
but i hope i’m wrong.
so why do you figure the seller posts it as Rudall ROSE Carte when it’s a Rudall Carte (NO rose)?
geeze
Quite! I was wondering… probably the dangers of a little well intentioned but inadequate research?
Terry, Yeah - you’re right about the G# on #7232, I reckon… I hadn’t thought to look at the spring and the “show” of the screw on the touch surface (they will be screws, not rivets, I’m sure - another Frenchification! [which will put Ben off even more ])
OK, I’ll take a price-punt now: I really don’t know where to aim, mind - no confidence in this prediction - could go for as little as £800, unlikely to go above £1800… OK, that’s too broad/vague (though I will quote it later…). I’ll plump for between £1250-1500.
I was interested that Jem included an embouchure-to-hole (specifically the c# hole) measurement in the following:
I’ve been wondering about such a measurement to augment the C#-D# “flute-scale” measurement system (which seems to be gaining some traction). Whereas the flute-scale measurement suggests at which pitch a flute will be best tuned, an emb-to-specified-hole measurement will give us an idea of what the highest pitch can be, or, to put it in reverse, how far will you need to extend the slide to get to what pitch.
Questions include:
- do we need such a measurement?
- what hole should we measure to? Theoretically any hole could be a candidate, as long as we are consistent.
Thoughts, anyone?
Terry