Jump to content


Photo

Lachenal Maccann duet with Chidley layout?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 felix castro

felix castro

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ourense - galiza - spain

Posted 30 December 2011 - 10:08 AM

Dear all, I finally bought another rosewood duet concertina with 56 buttons, this time a lachenal, and from a live auction.
It was in "working condition", and it is true, all the buttons work, bellows in well shape, but some reeds don't work, and it is in old pitch.
I put the links to the photographs.
http://www.invaluabl...-1-p-939cc3327b

It comes with original wood case (without key and broken ) and another leather case over the wood case a bit damaged.
It has the hand straps gold stamped with the letters and the number of the patent of Maccann "Lachenal & Co. Patent nº. 4752 london"
It puts in the oval paper "Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds"
It has the L Lachenal bellows papers
The full description was"A late 19th century Lachenal rosewood concertina, in rosewood and leather cases, the instrument with 56 metal buttons, bears label 'Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds', the outer leather case 21cm (8.25 in.) high"

But the layout is almost the same than the chidley layout
The layout is different than the maccann layout (and not the 4752 patent), and much closer to the Chidley layout. It has the same distribution than in the 42 page of Robert Gaskins method but without the lower row of the right hand and without the upper notes C3 and Bb2 (it is a 56 keys concertina, really a 55 plus air button).
It has the same Chidley layout but with two main differences, because it is a 55 button concertina, I think.
It has the eb buttons one octave higher than in the Robert Gaskins 67 buttons Chidley diagram, page 45. In the place of the eb, it has the eb1, the same position than in the patent design of Maccann 1884 and the typical maccann.
In the eb1 button it has the eb2 and curiousily instead of the eb2 button of the chidley variant it has the c3 button, and it is more useful than a eb note (and it hasn't any button more for placing it).
In the left hand it has the same distribution.

Does it mean that it was retuned and changed during the XXieth century and converted to the Chidley layout or could it be previous to the Chidley invention?
(But it is in old pitch, a bit higher than 440)
Could be reconverted a typical maccann layout to a Chidley layout easily? (I say it because of the reed chambers, etc.)
Anybody knows who was R. Edmonds?
The reference of R.Edmonds is it related to the special layout of the concertina?
It had inside of the box also a list of the tunes that played its previous owner (written with ballpen, what means that it was played until not many years ago).

I didn't open it by now, but I shall do it soon searching any serial number, etc.
Regards
Félix Castro

#2 felix castro

felix castro

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ourense - galiza - spain

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:36 AM

Hello, I made some photographs more detailed.
It seems a good quality model because it has metal rounded buttons, wooden rosewood ends but not plain, and the golden detail in bellows and hand straps, the patent number 4752 appears in the hand strap and the wooden palm rest.
The number inside the right side is 3853, but I don't know if it has any sense with the lachenal serial numbers as they are much higher. The reed shoes has the letter of each note, Bb, G, C, etc. etc.
In the next message, bellows details and label details.
I'll do more photographs soon.

Félix Castro

Dear all, I finally bought another rosewood duet concertina with 56 buttons, this time a lachenal, and from a live auction.
It was in "working condition", and it is true, all the buttons work, bellows in well shape, but some reeds don't work, and it is in old pitch.
I put the links to the photographs.
http://www.invaluabl...-1-p-939cc3327b

It comes with original wood case (without key and broken ) and another leather case over the wood case a bit damaged.
It has the hand straps gold stamped with the letters and the number of the patent of Maccann "Lachenal & Co. Patent nº. 4752 london"
It puts in the oval paper "Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds"
It has the L Lachenal bellows papers
The full description was"A late 19th century Lachenal rosewood concertina, in rosewood and leather cases, the instrument with 56 metal buttons, bears label 'Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds', the outer leather case 21cm (8.25 in.) high"

But the layout is almost the same than the chidley layout
The layout is different than the maccann layout (and not the 4752 patent), and much closer to the Chidley layout. It has the same distribution than in the 42 page of Robert Gaskins method but without the lower row of the right hand and without the upper notes C3 and Bb2 (it is a 56 keys concertina, really a 55 plus air button).
It has the same Chidley layout but with two main differences, because it is a 55 button concertina, I think.
It has the eb buttons one octave higher than in the Robert Gaskins 67 buttons Chidley diagram, page 45. In the place of the eb, it has the eb1, the same position than in the patent design of Maccann 1884 and the typical maccann.
In the eb1 button it has the eb2 and curiousily instead of the eb2 button of the chidley variant it has the c3 button, and it is more useful than a eb note (and it hasn't any button more for placing it).
In the left hand it has the same distribution.

Does it mean that it was retuned and changed during the XXieth century and converted to the Chidley layout or could it be previous to the Chidley invention?
(But it is in old pitch, a bit higher than 440)
Could be reconverted a typical maccann layout to a Chidley layout easily? (I say it because of the reed chambers, etc.)
Anybody knows who was R. Edmonds?
The reference of R.Edmonds is it related to the special layout of the concertina?
It had inside of the box also a list of the tunes that played its previous owner (written with ballpen, what means that it was played until not many years ago).

I didn't open it by now, but I shall do it soon searching any serial number, etc.
Regards
Félix Castro

Attached Thumbnails

  • lachenal maccann1.jpg
  • right side inside1.jpg
  • lachenal maccann2.jpg


#3 felix castro

felix castro

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ourense - galiza - spain

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:43 AM

The bellows have six folds.

Hello, I made some photographs more detailed.
It seems a good quality model because it has metal rounded buttons, wooden rosewood ends but not plain, and the golden detail in bellows and hand straps, the patent number 4752 appears in the hand strap and the wooden palm rest.
The number inside the right side is 3853, but I don't know if it has any sense with the lachenal serial numbers as they are much higher. The reed shoes has the letter of each note, Bb, G, C, etc. etc.
In the next message, bellows details and label details.
I'll do more photographs soon.

Félix Castro


Dear all, I finally bought another rosewood duet concertina with 56 buttons, this time a lachenal, and from a live auction.
It was in "working condition", and it is true, all the buttons work, bellows in well shape, but some reeds don't work, and it is in old pitch.
I put the links to the photographs.
http://www.invaluabl...-1-p-939cc3327b

It comes with original wood case (without key and broken ) and another leather case over the wood case a bit damaged.
It has the hand straps gold stamped with the letters and the number of the patent of Maccann "Lachenal & Co. Patent nº. 4752 london"
It puts in the oval paper "Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds"
It has the L Lachenal bellows papers
The full description was"A late 19th century Lachenal rosewood concertina, in rosewood and leather cases, the instrument with 56 metal buttons, bears label 'Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds', the outer leather case 21cm (8.25 in.) high"

But the layout is almost the same than the chidley layout
The layout is different than the maccann layout (and not the 4752 patent), and much closer to the Chidley layout. It has the same distribution than in the 42 page of Robert Gaskins method but without the lower row of the right hand and without the upper notes C3 and Bb2 (it is a 56 keys concertina, really a 55 plus air button).
It has the same Chidley layout but with two main differences, because it is a 55 button concertina, I think.
It has the eb buttons one octave higher than in the Robert Gaskins 67 buttons Chidley diagram, page 45. In the place of the eb, it has the eb1, the same position than in the patent design of Maccann 1884 and the typical maccann.
In the eb1 button it has the eb2 and curiousily instead of the eb2 button of the chidley variant it has the c3 button, and it is more useful than a eb note (and it hasn't any button more for placing it).
In the left hand it has the same distribution.

Does it mean that it was retuned and changed during the XXieth century and converted to the Chidley layout or could it be previous to the Chidley invention?
(But it is in old pitch, a bit higher than 440)
Could be reconverted a typical maccann layout to a Chidley layout easily? (I say it because of the reed chambers, etc.)
Anybody knows who was R. Edmonds?
The reference of R.Edmonds is it related to the special layout of the concertina?
It had inside of the box also a list of the tunes that played its previous owner (written with ballpen, what means that it was played until not many years ago).

I didn't open it by now, but I shall do it soon searching any serial number, etc.
Regards
Félix Castro

Attached Thumbnails

  • bellows paper.jpg
  • detail.jpg
  • H0328-L25393549 concertina nova.jpg


#4 Geoff Wooff

Geoff Wooff

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:35 AM

Looks nice Felix!

Lachenal did use a seperate numbering system for the different types of concertina which is why you number is not very high.

There are Anglo's with numbers in the 100,000's and Englishes go up to about 60,000 but the Duets are usually Four figure numbers.
Good luck with it,
Geoff.

#5 felix castro

felix castro

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ourense - galiza - spain

Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:03 AM

Thankyou very much for the advice, Geoff.
Consulting www.concertina.com, and the works of Stephen Chambers about Lachenal production, he doesn't mention the numbers of duets, only anglo and english, and that the label "Lachenal & Co." would be from 1873 to 1933, (and being a duet, from 1884 to 1933)

But Robert Gaskins in his article comparing hayden and duets mentions a lachenal duet maccann concertina with the serial number
Lachenal Maccann Duet 46-buttons, serial #1746 (c.1900)
If it is true, mine would be after 1900, and nearer to the chidley invention.


Looks nice Felix!

Lachenal did use a seperate numbering system for the different types of concertina which is why you number is not very high.

There are Anglo's with numbers in the 100,000's and Englishes go up to about 60,000 but the Duets are usually Four figure numbers.
Good luck with it,
Geoff.



#6 Dowright

Dowright

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:27 AM

FYI:
I will be writing an article about the dating of Lachenal concertinas, including Lachenal duets (possibly as a separate piece).
The highest numbered Lachanals that I have encountered are:
Anglo: No. 201089
English: No. 60498
Maccann duet: No. 4850
Crane/Triumph: No. 4960

There were three serial number series for Lachenal duets:
1. Maccann duet series up to advent of the Crane duet
2. Crane duet series
3. Maccann/Crane series. The Crane series was merged into the Maccann series in about 1910, when the Butterworth patent for the Crane duet had expired, and the Triumph was about to be introduced. Thus, in my database for Cranes (130 instruments), there are none in the serial number range betweeen No. 1172 and No. 2060.
[Note that there is also a separate below-5000 serial number series for early Lachenal Anglos.]

Tentative dating for yours: "The late war years": circa 1915-1917.

Edited by Dowright, 04 January 2012 - 09:27 AM.


#7 wes williams

wes williams

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Location:Somerset,UK

Posted 04 January 2012 - 04:27 PM

There were three serial number series for Lachenal duets:
1. Maccann duet series up to advent of the Crane duet
2. Crane duet series
3. Maccann/Crane series. The Crane series was merged into the Maccann series in about 1910, when the Butterworth patent for the Crane duet had expired, and the Triumph was about to be introduced. Thus, in my database for Cranes (130 instruments), there are none in the serial number range betweeen No. 1172 and No. 2060.
[Note that there is also a separate below-5000 serial number series for early Lachenal Anglos.]

Tentative dating for yours: "The late war years": circa 1915-1917.

I agree on all Randy's points, but my tentative date would be circa 1922 based on my way of working this out. I eagerly await Randy's latest dating article.

#8 ceemonster

ceemonster

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1015 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:06 PM

.....so, what maker could we convince to start making chidleys???

#9 felix castro

felix castro

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ourense - galiza - spain

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:59 AM

Thankyou very much for all the information.
The mistery is the label "Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds"
Suttons could be buttons?
Could it be possible that R. Edmonds made an arrangement of the buttons of the concertina converting it from Maccann to Chidley after the 50s and the Chidley invention?




There were three serial number series for Lachenal duets:
1. Maccann duet series up to advent of the Crane duet
2. Crane duet series
3. Maccann/Crane series. The Crane series was merged into the Maccann series in about 1910, when the Butterworth patent for the Crane duet had expired, and the Triumph was about to be introduced. Thus, in my database for Cranes (130 instruments), there are none in the serial number range betweeen No. 1172 and No. 2060.
[Note that there is also a separate below-5000 serial number series for early Lachenal Anglos.]

Tentative dating for yours: "The late war years": circa 1915-1917.

I agree on all Randy's points, but my tentative date would be circa 1922 based on my way of working this out. I eagerly await Randy's latest dating article.



#10 felix castro

felix castro

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ourense - galiza - spain

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:17 AM

When I send this concertina to retune and adjust I shall tell you if the layout would be original form the 1920s or was done, retuned after.
I suppose that a experienced repairer/retuner can tell it.
Regards


Thankyou very much for all the information.
The mistery is the label "Converted Suttons Arrangement by R. Edmonds"
Suttons could be buttons?
Could it be possible that R. Edmonds made an arrangement of the buttons of the concertina converting it from Maccann to Chidley after the 50s and the Chidley invention?




There were three serial number series for Lachenal duets:
1. Maccann duet series up to advent of the Crane duet
2. Crane duet series
3. Maccann/Crane series. The Crane series was merged into the Maccann series in about 1910, when the Butterworth patent for the Crane duet had expired, and the Triumph was about to be introduced. Thus, in my database for Cranes (130 instruments), there are none in the serial number range betweeen No. 1172 and No. 2060.
[Note that there is also a separate below-5000 serial number series for early Lachenal Anglos.]

Tentative dating for yours: "The late war years": circa 1915-1917.

I agree on all Randy's points, but my tentative date would be circa 1922 based on my way of working this out. I eagerly await Randy's latest dating article.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users