William Prowse 8-keyed blackwood flute on eBay: #7418075375

[Booseyflute]

For anyone who might be interested I just put my 8-keyed William Prowse blackwood flute (ca. 1832-1846) on eBay as #7418075375 with no reserve.

Please direct any questions to me via eBay rather than this forum.

[RudallRose]

remember William and Thomas Prowse are not related

added: whether they are related is unclear, but they clearly are not the same person.

[Jon C.]

remember William and Thomas Prowse are not related

A question from Andrew:
Could you ask [Mr.] Migoya why he says that William and Thomas Prowse were not related?

[RudallRose]

I should have correctly said that William and Thomas Prowse are not of the same shop or maker.

Even Langwill's suggests that any inter-relationship of the Four (Thomas Sr., Jr. Joseph and William) is unclear. (save for Jr. and Sr, of course, and a Joseph flute with Nicholson model name) I have no insight that would suggest any differently.

Good catch Andrew (as if that's any surprise!)
Always glad you are policing the airways....even though not allowed to speak with your own fingers. Posh.

the point was to ensure that no one mistook the name William Prowse, of Keith Prowse & Co to be the other fellow.
The seller didn't suggest it, making clear it was William.

[Jon C.]

I should have correctly said that William and Thomas Prowse are not of the same shop or maker.

Even Langwill's suggests that any inter-relationship of the Four (Thomas Sr., Jr. Joseph and William) is unclear. (save for Jr. and Sr, of course, and a Joseph flute with Nicholson model name) I have no insight that would suggest any differently.

Good catch Andrew (as if that's any surprise!)
Always glad you are policing the airways....even though not allowed to speak with your own fingers. Posh.

the point was to ensure that no one mistook the name William Prowse, of Keith Prowse & Co to be the other fellow.
The seller didn't suggest it, making clear it was William.

Message from Andrew:

If you can ever be bothered you might say that I rather suspect, from
reports of similar workmanship in the detail,
that William and Thomas II might well have worked together, and if
so could have been related.
I guess Keith Prowse and Co flutes, which seem well made, would be
better for ITM
than T Prowse one, which, uncorrected, usually conflict with any
modern ideas of tuning.
I doubt if there ever was a J Prowse.
It may be that the elaborate T of Thomas may have fooled people,
looking as it does like a ' J '
and his address was simply another shop outlet.
His supposed dates seem to coincide with an absence of Thomas for a
couple of years.

[RudallRose]

jon
don't be a parrot to a fool
it only makes you a trained idiot.

As for Andrew.....
<sigh>
with his typically inciting language, as...."if you can ever be bothered....."
Always putting down your adversary's opinion rather than bolstering your own. You are passionate, but you do not persuade.

Since we're not wasting away, alone, sickly and cranky and caustic.....you're right....we can't be bothered.....as we have many other more important things to do.

More importantly.....if you wish to correct Langwill's, Mr. KIA.....
kindly take it up with its publisher....your friend.....Mr. Bingham, whose entry in the text is quite clear, authoratitive (I seem to recall you challenging my own one-time assertion that there was no J Prowse at all, that it was the ellaborate stamp.....but I could not find it in the archive....obviously removed or edited out.....but then I cannot be bothered to search for it.)

Please remember: there is a reason you were banned from the board, old friend.
Don't ensure that your parrots will be tossed as well for allowing you to move their misguided lips.

[jim stone]

'If you can ever be bothered you might say' may
have been meant for Jon--a request for him to
post A's message.

This business is sad, no question, but I think it's plain
that dealing with Andrew's shade through a medium
is likely to be even more difficult than dealing
with Andrew.

Been there, done that. Please let's not go back.
Please, everybody, let's not instigate it.

[Jon C.]

jon
don't be a parrot to a fool
it only makes you a trained idiot.

As for Andrew.....
<sigh>
with his typically inciting language, as...."if you can ever be bothered....."
Always putting down your adversary's opinion rather than bolstering your own. You are passionate, but you do not persuade.

Since we're not wasting away, alone, sickly and cranky and caustic.....you're right....we can't be bothered.....as we have many other more important things to do.

More importantly.....if you wish to correct Langwill's, Mr. KIA.....
kindly take it up with its publisher....your friend.....Mr. Bingham, whose entry in the text is quite clear, authoratitive (I seem to recall you challenging my own one-time assertion that there was no J Prowse at all, that it was the ellaborate stamp.....but I could not find it in the archive....obviously removed or edited out.....but then I cannot be bothered to search for it.)

Please remember: there is a reason you were banned from the board, old friend.
Don't ensure that your parrots will be tossed as well for allowing you to move their misguided lips.

As far as Parroting I was just relaying a message. I thought it would be interesting to the group. I am personally sorry that you took it the wrong way, Dave.
As far as falling in the trap of arguing and calling other people on the board names and such, I don't intend to go there.
Fools argue and wise men discuss, so lets keep it to a discussion, please.
I value your ideas and comments, but that is what they are, ideas and comments, nothing more. If there are other ideas that might counterdict yours, they could be false, or true, it is all just speculation, and most important- trivia.

I find it is quite interesting to hear of all the different makers that made flutes in early England, especially when they have the same last name. What Andrew stated may be true, but it is just his speculation. We really have so little to go on, when it comes to the early makers, it is good to get all sides of speculation.

I do like the idea that Andrew has of the J being a stylized T, of course that is speculation, but interesting.
His Banana desert sounds tasty too.[/i]
Take care,
Jon (his own words)

[BMFW]

Since we're not wasting away, alone, sickly and cranky and caustic.....you're right....we can't be bothered.....as we have many other more important things to do.

That was totally uncalled for and in very poor taste.

[jim stone]

jon
don't be a parrot to a fool
it only makes you a trained idiot.

As for Andrew.....
<sigh>
with his typically inciting language, as...."if you can ever be bothered....."
Always putting down your adversary's opinion rather than bolstering your own. You are passionate, but you do not persuade.

Since we're not wasting away, alone, sickly and cranky and caustic.....you're right....we can't be bothered.....as we have many other more important things to do.

More importantly.....if you wish to correct Langwill's, Mr. KIA.....
kindly take it up with its publisher....your friend.....Mr. Bingham, whose entry in the text is quite clear, authoratitive (I seem to recall you challenging my own one-time assertion that there was no J Prowse at all, that it was the ellaborate stamp.....but I could not find it in the archive....obviously removed or edited out.....but then I cannot be bothered to search for it.)

Please remember: there is a reason you were banned from the board, old friend.
Don't ensure that your parrots will be tossed as well for allowing you to move their misguided lips.

As far as Parroting I was just relaying a message. I thought it would be interesting to the group. I am personally sorry that you took it the wrong way, Dave.
As far as falling in the trap of arguing and calling other people on the board names and such, I don't intend to go there.
Fools argue and wise men discuss, so lets keep it to a discussion, please.
I value your ideas and comments, but that is what they are, ideas and comments, nothing more. If there are other ideas that might counterdict yours, they could be false, or true, it is all just speculation, and most important- trivia.

I find it is quite interesting to hear of all the different makers that made flutes in early England, especially when they have the same last name. What Andrew stated may be true, but it is just his speculation. We really have so little to go on, when it comes to the early makers, it is good to get all sides of speculation.

I do like the idea that Andrew has of the J being a stylized T, of course that is speculation, but interesting.
His Banana desert sounds tasty too.[/i]
Take care,
Jon (his own words)

Well said. No question that you meant well.
And I do hope you will stop relaying these messages.
It's really asking for trouble, IMO.
Banned is banned, end runs around banned
are likely to produce something very complicated.

[Dale]

Since we're not wasting away, alone, sickly and cranky and caustic.....you're right....we can't be bothered.....as we have many other more important things to do.

I've intervened in this matter.

[Dale]

remember William and Thomas Prowse are not related

A question from Andrew:
Could you ask [Mr.] Migoya why he says that William and Thomas Prowse were not related?

Andrew was banned from the board. Do not relay his messages on this board.

Thanks,


Dale