Rudall & Rose #2414 on Ebay

[Pekkos]

To me the headjoint looks unlined, is that a feature that existed on RR flutes of this period?

/Anders

[Starreacher Antiques]

I did an update on the pictures.
However like i said i dont understand your turms. What most probably is not original is the barrel and that closing cork, or endcap as you call it. All other pieces are made out of the same wood, obviosly the same work on them. About the keys they all seem made identicaly and nothing appers new made recentrly. So i can say for sure the body of the flute is original as well as most of the keys if not all of them. There is no way some of the four pieces of the wood are from different flute, they are perfect match.
If you want to point some other things, go ahead but not with turmes like "The foot joint, Cnat, the Eb..." i dont understand any of those turms. And have some reserve of what you are saying since ive heard so many different commnets on this, some of them dont make any sence. Certainly don't expect some of your evaluations to be posted on the eBay listings, people esspecially those who understand can for sure make an evaluation looking at the pictures.
Thank you all for your pionts, i really appreciate, and as you find this flute so valuable i want to make sure who ever gets it or catalogue it, be sure of what he/she have, it's sure a piece of history and deserves all respect.
Salute!!

[Starreacher Antiques]

I did a final update, thank you for your opinions.
Cheers

[Loren]

The Eb key is badly bent.
The C is a replacement key made of nickel. Probably adapted from some other instrument.

Yup, obviously that C key doesn't belong to this flute. And, in addition to being bent, the Eb key seems to have been broken and then poorly solidered - that's just one huge ugly looking lump of silver where I nice relatively flat piece of flute key should be. (I'm just looking at the supersize pictures for the first time)



Loren

[Loren]

Also, picture number 11 shows what appears to be a crack running along the right side of the long F key - looks as if the crack goes right through the edge of the socket.

I also see what appears to be a second crack in the edge of the socket, just to the left of the other.


Loren

[RudallRose]

sorry, but I just don't buy the explanation of "old stock, new address"

the seller's argument is flawed.

A flute on the shelf would have reflected a serial number in line with the others, but an EARLIER address.

For you to believe him.....the serial number came first....THEN the later address when it sold.

See how it doesn't fly?

If anything there is evidence of an OLD address (let's say No. 15 Piazza) showing up with a serial number amid the first few flutes of No 1 Tavistock AFTER the firm "moved" from one to another.

Not the other way around, as the seller says.

That's why I say it MUST be a higher number.

my 2-cents (but a fairly logical one right now)

dm[/b]

[Loren]

Crap, an hour wasted....

I just typed up a long post explaining a number of (valid) ways this unusual Maker's mark/address/serial number combination could end up on an authentic R&R, and then it got dumped when I went to post

I don't have the time to rewrite, so here's the short end of it: The maker's mark/address would have, in all liklihood, been separate stamps - that is to say, one or two for the the makers mark and address, and then another separate stamp for the serial number, used in a different process, and therefore at a different point in production. Once this is understood, along with the typical flow of production when doing 50- 100+ instruments at a time, as R&R no doubt did, then a number of viable scenarios for the markings in question come to light. Not the least of which is that the guy doing the stamping of the serial numbers made a mistake - which can easily happen. And, once a number is stamped in wood, you're more or less stuck with it.

I'm not trying to authenticate the instrument in question, particularly in this case where there are multiple anomalies, I'm simply saying there are valid ways this sort of maker's mark/address/serial number could occur on an authentic instruement.

Sadly, the picture provided by the seller doesn't really show the serial number all that well, and what we can see shows one digit appearing to be significantly chipped out, and two other digits not really legible at all, at least on my screen. Interesting case though.


Loren

[cocusflute]

I suggested that we buy the flute together.
Then I regained my senses.
I told you not to read this post.

[RudallRose]

Loren wrote:I'm not trying to authenticate the instrument in question, particularly in this case where there are multiple anomalies, I'm simply saying there are valid ways this sort of maker's mark/address/serial number could occur on an authentic instruement.


Here's my point, Loren.

A a flute marked No. 1 Tavistock to have a serial number 2414 would mean RR had a flute c. 1840 and marked it with a serial number from c.1834. They'd have to go backward. I doubt that would have happened.

It's more likely for an early address, such as No. 15 Piazza, to be stamped with a serial number that should appear with a later address, ie when they were at No. 1 Tavistock.

That's why I don't agree with the seller's assertion that it's 2414, no his explanation of the possibility.
It's just not logical.

I hope this makes sense now.

dm

[daveogden]

My Rudall #3801 has the No. 1 Tavistock St. address, and has very similar hole sizes to this flute on ebay. It's got the typical interlocking foot keys from this Tavistock St. period though, unlike this ebay flute. Do you know around what serial number they switched to the interlocking foot keys, David?

Rudall & Rose were very careful with their stampings in this period, they were dealing with fakes on the market and the cases of their instruments came with certificates signed by both Rudall and Rose testifying to the originality of the instrument. It seems unlikely to me that they would have allowed a flute to be shipped with a serial number from 6 or 8 years earlier.

So it seems more likely that this ebay flute is cobbled together from different flutes. Maybe the seller is misreading the serial number, and it's #4414 or something. That's circa 1841 or 1842, and the Tavistock St. address would be correct. But this flute doesn't have the correct footjoint for that period, it's got one without interlocking keywork. The Tavistock St. stamp is visible in the ebay photo, at least, definitely calling the #2414 serial number the seller gives into question since that serial number is impossible for that address.

So the foot joint is wrong, the barrel is wrong, the headcap is wrong, one of the rings on the head is wrong, the C natural key (the long one played by the right hand index finger) is wrong, and several other keys have been badly soldered and changed. Plus there are chipped blocks and who knows how many cracks to repair. There's no way you could hire a competant repairman to put this flute right and not be WAY upside down financially. It might be good for a few parts if you do restorations. Otherwise, Glinjack's firewood call is on the money. What a shame to see a Rudall in this condition.

[Loren]

Loren wrote:I'm not trying to authenticate the instrument in question, particularly in this case where there are multiple anomalies, I'm simply saying there are valid ways this sort of maker's mark/address/serial number could occur on an authentic instruement.


Here's my point, Loren.

A a flute marked No. 1 Tavistock to have a serial number 2414 would mean RR had a flute c. 1840 and marked it with a serial number from c.1834. They'd have to go backward. I doubt that would have happened.

It's more likely for an early address, such as No. 15 Piazza, to be stamped with a serial number that should appear with a later address, ie when they were at No. 1 Tavistock.

That's why I don't agree with the seller's assertion that it's 2414, no his explanation of the possibility.
It's just not logical.

I hope this makes sense now.

dm

It made sense the first time David, I understand what you're saying.

Still, having worked in a similar production environment to that of R&R, I am familiar with a number of different scenarios that can lead to what appear to be back dated serial numbers on authentic instruments, and in fact this happened on a number of occasions at VH, for different reasons.

In addition to the very plausible mis-stamp scenario, I explained a number of pthere scenarios in detail in my original post that was lost, but so goes it. At any rate, my experience tells me it's quite possible, although unlikely, and I do imagine that there is a different explanation for what we are seeing here.



Loren

[RudallRose]

The interlocking foot joint (or whatever name we settled on with Terry McGee.....we don't wish to restart that debate!)......
first appears ~#2928 (though it reappears on occasion....)

As I recall, the flutes from William Camp were more likely overlap foot keys and the flutes from Wylde were interlocks. Tho I think there are some Wyldes with the overlaps.

Loren, I have seen one Rudall with the very early serial number misput on the body.
Its a very late Rudall Carte, c. 1910, with the serial number of 3706, which is plain wrong.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/kenrcktts/page3.html
quite clearly I think this RudallCarte 8key flute was mistakenly given the serial number of a different number system (boehm perhaps??)

Perhaps the cross mistake occurred with the ebay 2414? That they gave it the serial number of a different style of flute by accident and meant to make it an 8key number series?

perhaps

[Jon C.]

Well someone got a partial R&R for $900. I wonder who???