How Many Jeffries?

Dave Prebble · February 13, 2006

Thanks for the info Wes

Certainly explains why pre WW1 Wheatstone Anglos are as rare as hens teeth

Such a shame Old Man Chidley didn't take early retirement :blink:

Dave

PeterT · February 13, 2006

My regular "instrument of torture" (to quote a well-known fiddle player who sat next to me at one festival session) is a 36 key Wheatstone Linota of 1918 vintage. It is amazingly quick, and quite loud. However, I acquired a 40 key Wheatstone Linota (no. 26250) of 1914 vintage, from Hobgoblin (£800 pre-restoration), at Sidmouth 1991. Colin and Rosalie Dipper did an excellent restoration job, and Colin commented on the difference in material quality compared with the post-war Wheatstone instruments.

Several months later, I took it along to a Downes on Tour Morris practice. Boy, was it loud! Several of the dancers came out of the kitchen (coffee was the priority after the previous night in the pub), just to see what I was playing. I can honestly say that I've never heard a louder instrument. Anyway, as I rarely play for the Morris nowadays, it went to a new home three years ago, where it is equally loved, but played very differently.

Back to the main topic thread - Jeffries Anglos. I love the sound; more mellow than a Wheatstone, and the general consensus seems to be that it was due to the quality of steel used in the reed manufacture. However, as any manufacturer will tell you, there are so many variables which contribute towards the overall sound; depth of reed-pan, size of reed chambers, wood or metal ends, even bone or metal buttons. In a recent conversation with Colin Dipper, he commented that bone-button Jeffries sounded more mellow than metal-button. Last week, I played a bone-button Jeffries, and, guess what, Colin was right.

Peter.

DDF · February 14, 2006

Hi Peter,Just out of curiosity do you have any pictures of your " instrument of torture".I also have a 36 button 1918 Linota (27489).Mine sounds as if it is pretty similar to yours, very loud very fast.It would be interesting to make a visual comparison.Iv'e had mine 26years and still love it as much as the first time I held it. I only noticed the serial number two years ago and was interested to find it should come from such an historic year.Regards David.

Jeff H · February 14, 2006

A similar question comes up about the guitars made by the famous Santos Hernandez ( who was reputed to have been the actual maker of Segovias first Ramirez, made while in Ramirez employ)

I believe it was Contreras who said of Santos guitars " Of the 100 made, only 1000 are known to exist"

Jeff

I have owned one Jeffries and had the privelege of the loaner of another some years back...

and have played one hammered unit locally... so I have had my hands on 3

PeterT · February 14, 2006

Hi David,

Unfortunately no photos (I still work in black & white!). However, the description is as follows:

Number: 27835.

Tuned: C/G.

Metal end plates inset, rather than overlapping the ends. Left-hand end fretted to accommodate a drone button, but the instrument was never fitted with one.

Metal buttons.

Ends are Ebony finish.

This instrument also came from Hobgoblin, early in 1982, when the late (and very talented) Nigel Chippindale worked there. Cost then; £375. A lot of money, which I could not afford, but it was too good an instrument to leave on the shelf, and I was in urgent need of a good instrument.

Where our instruments will (almost certainly) differ, is that the last major overhaul (1990) saw the fitting of replacement dark blue 6 fold bellows and handstraps by Rosalie Dipper. I can't remember the name for this shade of blue, but until then, it had only been used for new Dipper instruments for the US market. So, at the time it was unique in UK, and might still be.

Regards,

Peter.

PS - Picking up Jeff's point, on the Jeffries count, I've owned four over the years. From what I've seen and heard, at least three are in regular use, and I believe that the fourth gets the occasional Band Gig outing (I'll have to check when I next see the current owner). Some players might question why I play Wheatstone rather than Jeffries; simple answer is that I learnt the keyboard layout of the 36 Wheatstone, and the Jeffries keyboard has significant differences outside the "home" keys. It seemed a shame to have the Jeffries layout changed to Wheatstone, so I didn't.

I remember that the late Paul Davies always had about four or five Jeffries at home (plus at least two Wheatstones), all good/superb instruments. I visited him when he lived initially in Worthing, then in York. As well as dealing in concertinas, Paul also busked for a living, and I remember him telling me that he had paid for the purchase of his Worthing house (which he then refurbished himself) through his busking. He was good; I first met him busking in Crawley (wonderful Jeffries, in old pitch), back in 1983, and parted with 50 pence.

I remember Paul telling me that the widow of a friend contacted him, to say that he had been left her husband's collection of concertinas; 15 Jeffries. Now, it might just be one of Paul's stories, but I know of two Forum members who might be able to confirm this. So, the number of Jeffries in circulation is probably much higher than the initial estimates.

PeterT · February 14, 2006

Since posting the message above, I've found the posting from Stephen Chambers (Concertina History - Fred Kilroy thread), which gives a more complete version of the last Paul Davies story.

DDF · February 14, 2006

PeterT · February 15, 2006

wes williams · February 15, 2006

Not first hand, but I chatted with Chris Algar a few years back, and he had seen enough 'fake' instruments to convince him that the story was true. You can see the price of Jeffries relative to Lachenal/Wheatstone etc from this Vickers price list which I'd suggest is nearer 1925 than 1935.

But I also wonder if some of the CJ Jnr instruments from the 1920s, with their very rough letter stampings, could have been interpreted as fakes.

DDF · February 15, 2006

Hi Peter,They sound like twins.I bought mine via an ad in Cecil Sharp House from a seller in the midlands.Colin Dipper had given it a refurbishment during the mid seventies.But by the new millenium it was time for some more attention.Andrew Norman at this point gave it a lovely new set of (black) bellows and a few other minor tweeks.When I bought mine I was earning £37/ week and it was a big commitment at £300.One that I am always very happy I made.Regards David.

Hi David,

Looking at the photograph of your instrument, I can confirm that they look identical except that mine does not have a baffle, or magpie attached to the left hand end! How on earth did you manage that? I was in the Cotswolds, and managed to attract a horse with my playing - it seemed to appreciate the music more than the people I was with.

I've looked at the Wheatstone ledgers; your instrument is dated 1917. Mine came from a batch of 6, yours from a batch of 4. They are to the same specification.

Regards,

Peter.

Hi Peter,I must have misread the ledgers when I looked at them.I saw the 1917 at the top of the page and then the 1918 in the margin which I assumed was the dispatch date.When I've got time I must try again to interpret what I was looking at.

Regards,David.

PS The magpie was one of those magical happenings.I was sat in the garden playing to my usual audience(Dorset Wildlife) and the magpie just flew in.After about half an hour it got more confident and ended up where you see it.The next few days it became even more friendly and we had a lot of fun testing out the various magpie cliches.From the start it was pretty obviously hand reared and probably missed.I was fortunate to be able to return it to its home.I found out since that it now says quite a few words maybe some of them are "hey don't peck the buttons","you do anything other than sit on my head".

PPS, Sorry this has wondered off topic.

PeterT · February 15, 2006

Hi Peter,I must have misread the ledgers when I looked at them.I saw the 1917 at the top of the page and then the 1918 in the margin which I assumed was the dispatch date.When I've got time I must try again to interpret what I was looking at.

Regards,David.

Hi David,

I've copied the ledger page below. I see what you mean about margin notes. I would interpret the ledger as being 1917, with numbers pre-allocated.

I recall reading, somewhere, that Wheatstone did not initially use all numbers on a page. Where there is a year as well as month/day in the margin, I believe that this is a later "fill in" to utilise a spare number, and the year would relate just to that specific instrument. Happily, yours seems to be covered by the page year of 1917.

Regards,

Peter.

richard · February 20, 2006

Hello DDF

Not to change the subject...But who is your avian fan and how did she end up appreciating your music?

Richard

DDF · February 20, 2006

Hi Richard,I would like to say the magpie had great taste but the truth is I think it was lonely and was maybe attracted by either the music,thelarge wild garden,the need for food or just human company.I have mentioned a bit about it a couple of posts back.Regards David.

Geoffrey Crabb · March 3, 2006

Hi all,

I thought that I would offer some comments or ramblings with reference to the content of this topic subject. Although I cannot answer the original question I hope what I offer is of some interest and will not necessarily terminate(kill) the topic prematurely. I have tried to comment on some points that particularly come to my mind and where indicated, are my personal beliefs or feelings.

Since certain things are included randomly in the various posts, I have not tried to comment in any particular order or used the quote option in a bid to save my time.

So bear with me and I invite you to read on.

Number Estimates. Whilst it is of obvious interest for some to know the number of instruments produced by a particular maker, without records it will always be a matter of guesswork and rarely provide anything like a true answer. Unfortunately guestimates very often become fact and until actual evidence appears, I personally, feel little time should be devoted to, as yet, an answerless quest.

Quotes. Occasionally, my late father (Henry Joseph) and late brother (Henry Neville) are quoted from articles published by others and these quotations, usually from interviews, on occasion reflect what was wanted or expected to be heard. They were no doubt tailored to satisfy a required need at the time or to fall into line with the comments of other respected contempories.

This may not be acceptable to many of today’s concertina fraternity and obviously as more factual information is found some things that were said are no longer entirely accurate and sometimes, if related to, can flaw today’s thoughts on certain subjects that arise.

When questioning why certain things were said, one has to consider the circumstances prevailing at the time. Prior to the resurgence of interest in concertinas (1960’s) the requirement of Henry and when Neville joined him, was primarily to make and repair concertinas, to provide a living income in times when there was very little call for the instrument and to ensure continuance of the craft. Consequently, ‘history’ was of little importance to them. When the instrument started to become popular again, their time was fully committed to fulfilling the influx of repair jobs and orders for new instruments. Requests for what they considered unimportant information was an imposition on their time and what was said was often ‘off the cuff’. One of my fathers responses to frequent and persistent enquirers was;

Talk does not put bread on the table!”.

This probably still applies to those who are solely and personally engaged in concertina making/repair today and understandably have little spare time, if any, to contribute to these forums.

Jeffries. With ‘Jeffries’ marked instruments, an added difficulty in estimating numbers made is the various marks that appear i.e. C Jeffries, W Jeffries, Jeffries Brothers etc. all of which were responsible for instruments becoming available to the public. I can only comment for a known part period during the Crabb association with C Jeffries (Senior)

Crabb Records. Since ‘retirement’ I have had the opportunity to study the Crabb records that I possess for the period 1889 –1895 when, quote “3 instruments a week were made”.

Inspection reveals that this was not the case. Only on some weeks were 3 new instruments recorded. In fact, the records, which I believe only show contracted work, indicate for that period 300 instruments were made, the yearly outputs being as follows:

1889 19 (from September 6th).

1890 49

1891 47

1892 63

1893 55

1894 35

1895 32 (to October 1st)

Of these 300 instruments, 217 were metal ended Anglos of the style commonly now referred to as ‘Jeffries’. These instruments would have been supplied to then dealers such as Jeffries, Ball Beavon and others. In the case of the first two, the instruments would have no external cartouche for a name stamp included in the fretwork. Instruments for other dealers e.g. T Bostock, would occasionally be required, at their request, to be name stamped before leaving the workshop, a suitable cartouche being included in the fretwork pattern. The name stamp would be supplied by the dealer. All instruments would, however, originally have a pencilled* Crabb identity number (usually 8***) or a J Crabb ink stamp within the instrument.

Instruments made and sold direct retail would have ‘J Crabb – Maker’ stamped externally in the normal place.

*After 1895 or so, the ID number would be impressed into the woodwork internally as a result of the frequent ‘disappearance’ of many of the earlier pencilled numbers in an attempt to remove any reference to the actual maker.

It will be noticed that after 1892 the numbers produced seem to fall, probably due to C Jeffries growing actual involvement in assembly and manufacture.

The low output numbers for the years above may be of some surprise to readers but only John Crabb and his son Henry Thomas (my grandfather), working together, were producing the instruments and also a lot of ‘other work’, both concertina related or not. ( It is possible that outworkers were also occasionally used to produced minor parts.)

Existing Instruments. A question that often arises is “If Crabb were making at the same time as Jeffries were supplying/making, why are their far more of the latter about?” The answer, I hope, is now self-evident in that output to dealers was greater than direct sales in the early days 1860 - 1900.

Fake, Copy or Rebuild? Personally I would consider a fake to be an instrument built or changed and marked intentionally to represent the work of another primarily in an attempt to increase its monetary value or to enhance it’s saleability.

It is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to decide whether an instrument is a fake because it’s history is probably not known. For example, some early Crabb/Jeffries Anglo instruments with the finer fretwork pattern and fitted metal handrests suffered damage where the metal tops failed due to the forces exerted on the handrests. This damage was often irreparable and depending on the repairer/mender, new tops would have to be cut and fitted or sometimes tops transferred from a ‘scrap’ instrument, with adjustment if the donor instrument was of different make. This may account why any maker markings or fretwork style do not appear to be normal.

Again, construction e.g. components or pan layout, may not be what is expected of a particular maker but unless the components can be positively identified as of other make or until all variations of construction used by the maker are known then indecision will continue. Of course it is also possible that C Jeffries initially procured instruments from makers other than Crabb.

Copies, on the other hand, were generally instruments that were made either wholly or externally to the same proven design as earlier makers but marked honestly with the actual makers identity.

A constant frustration to me is to read or hear reference to

‘Crabb made copies of Jeffries Anglos’.

John Crabb was making the metal topped Anglo in the style now attributed to ‘Jeffries’ for some years before C Jeffries became involved initially in dealing and later manufacture of concertinas. Most of ‘Jeffries’ construction methods were based or were direct copies of those of others, only the Jeffries Duet keyboard arrangement can be accredited to them, being the first to use it. It is a fact that copies of this keyboard arrangement, both standard and enhanced up to 71 keys, were used as requested on Crabb instruments made to order after the demise of the Jeffries businesses.

A Rebuild was an instrument constructed using salvaged parts of an irreparable or unrestorable damaged instrument. See also note below.

Depending on the degree of damage and required part replacement , confusion can arise in identification of an instrument source.

The following relates to instruments rebuilt by ‘Crabb’.

In cases where original name and number plates/labels were extant, these would be replaced on the instrument, a Crabb ink repair stamp would however be applied inside the concertina. If no identification number impressions/plates/labels etc. were evident then Crabb plates* would be applied to wood top models or the Crabb stamps impressed in new metal tops. In these cases a Crabb ID number would be applied to the instrument.

*The Crabb plates were as those also fitted to wholly new made Crabb wood top instruments.

Note. Very occasionally, instruments were supplied with spare reed pans, usually tuned to an alternative pitch as requested by the original purchaser. As an instrument changed hands these spare pans often became separated or no longer required. If these became available, they would form the basis for another instrument to be built around them. If this was the case then any numbers on the reed pan relating to the original concertina would be removed to avoid confusion and new Crabb ID numbers allocated. The completed instrument would be marked externally with the Crabb name and new ID number. In cases where new ID numbers were applied, that number sometimes had an R suffixed to the ID number e.g. 10***R to indicate a rebuild.

The amount of rebuild/replacement work required, would be reflected in a selling price being proportionately less than a totally new instrument of the same type.

That’s all for now folks. Time I did some work.

Geoff

d.elliott · March 12, 2006

I have twice now had fake 'jeffries' to work on, both were Lachenal, with jeff papers overlaying the original and the name 'Jeffries' stamped into the woodwork, I think one was on the flat side of the action box.

Dave E

Edited March 12, 2006 by d.elliott

geoffwright · March 15, 2006

What about my "Jeffries" with Crabb ends (inspected by Geoff Crabb as genuine), thin buttons, inset metal ends, a very dodgy name stamp but definite CJ inards?

Dave P and Pete D are both familiar with it - Is that a fake as well?

Noel Hill was intrigued by it last week and described it as a "hybrid".

Admittedly more than one maker was involved, but I want to play it not look at it - it is the guts that make it a Jeffries, not the end-plates.

(My caller is a pro-photographer so I must get him to do a close-up of the name stamp and get it on the net)

PeterT · September 19, 2007

Hi David,

I've just re-discovered this thread!

Photo of No.27835 attached. Blue Dipper bellows.

Regards,

Peter.

DDF · September 20, 2007

Hi Peter,Thanks for that.They are almost twins it seems.Mine has a bone air button and stap end fixings.I bought itfrom a chap in the midlands via Cecil Sharp House.It had recently been overhalled by Colin Dipper so It was not to much of a gamble agreeing to buy it unseen.Also the Reverend( sorry forgotten his name,I think he wrote about WIlliam Kimber in the1970s)had recently played it and was very impressed.My dream is to one day own a wooden ended one of the same model/vintage that could be played briskly inside without having to give ear muffs to the family.Regards David.

How Many Jeffries?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in