Jump to content


Photo

The Oldest Wheatstone In Private Hands


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#55 goran rahm

goran rahm

    Chatty concertinist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 17 January 2004 - 03:40 AM

Thanks again Stephen!
Your archive opens a new world to many of us....

It seems as if my second guess regarding the motive for Roylance was fairly appropriate...the status reduction of the 'English concertina'.

Excuses for repeating myself but so far the 'generality' of the term *concertina* at least at that time (around 1870s) seems evident and the riddle remains how Alexandre 1839 and Uhlig some decade later could adopt the same name for concepts that would be entirely differing.... IF *concertina* was *the name* of the "Symphonium with bellows" *only*.....and neither of them receiving forcible objections from the assumed 'inventor' of the name??!??

I really do not claim it as a definite fact but I do find the hypothesis motivated that 'concertina' also in the early years around 1830 was used in a more general meaning.
The origin of the term will remain obscure unless/until a specific 'birth' of it is identified.

Goran Rahm

#56 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 January 2004 - 11:30 AM

Excuses for repeating myself but so far the 'generality' of the term *concertina* at least at that time (around 1870s) seems evident and the riddle remains how Alexandre 1839 and Uhlig some decade later could adopt the same name for concepts that would be entirely differing.... IF *concertina* was *the name* of the "Symphonium with bellows" *only*.....and neither of them receiving forcible objections from the assumed 'inventor' of the name??!??


Goran, I am sorry, but the subject of what a patent does, or does not, protect has already been gone over, but you refuse to accept it. However, even if the name "Concertina" could have been patented by Wheatstone, it would not have prevented even someone in Scotland, or Ireland, from using it, never mind France or Germany. If you take the time to read the Patent carefully, you will see that it was granted (as was normal) for "England, Wales and the Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed" only. Also, the life of a patent is 14 years, so after that time anyone can make use of what had been patented anyway.

The name "Accordion" appears in Demian's Patent, but, as we have seen, it didn't prevent that name from being applied to the first German concertinas and being used by many others.

I really do not claim it as a definite fact but I do find the hypothesis motivated that 'concertina' also in the early years around 1830 was used in a more general meaning.
The origin of the term will remain obscure unless/until a specific 'birth' of it is identified.


I know that the evidence is not as clear as one might wish, but the inferred "date of birth" would appear to be 27th December 1833, and I believe that the "father" was Charles Wheatstone (but I don't have D.N.A. evidence). If you find any evidence to confirm your theory I would be very interested, but until then I don't see any point in discussing this pure speculation further.

#57 goran rahm

goran rahm

    Chatty concertinist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 17 January 2004 - 01:47 PM

Stephen,
Let me start from the end which also is the beginning....:

"....that "The first Instrument was sold to Capt: Gardner [sic] of the 2nd Life Guards, it was then called the "Symphonian" [sic] with bellows, and not until December the 27th in that year [sic] was it named the Concertina."

Do we have ANY more indications of what Roylance actually refers to above?
- ("was it named Concertina") - *where* ?? on a receipt? in a magazine? in an advertisement? in public?
"December the 27th" is so precise that it seemingly describes a baptizing cermony:-)....there ought to be some more documentation of *what* it was!


QUOTE (goran rahm @ Jan 17 2004, 08:40 AM)
Excuses for repeating myself but so far the 'generality' of the term *concertina* at least at that time (around 1870s) seems evident and the riddle remains how Alexandre 1839 and Uhlig some decade later could adopt the same name for concepts that would be entirely differing.... IF *concertina* was *the name* of the "Symphonium with bellows" *only*.....and neither of them receiving forcible objections from the assumed 'inventor' of the name??!??

Stephen:"Goran, I am sorry, but the subject of what a patent does, or does not, protect has already been gone over, but you refuse to accept it. However, even if the name "Concertina" could have been patented by Wheatstone, it would not have prevented even someone in Scotland, or Ireland, from using it, never mind France or Germany. If you take the time to read the Patent carefully, you will see that it was granted (as was normal) for "England, Wales and the Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed" only. Also, the life of a patent is 14 years, so after that time anyone can make use of what had been patented anyway."

Goran: I know all this and I am considering it allready. Nevertheless it would have been bloody insulting to use exactly the same 'name' UNLESS it was more or less accepted as a general term! Particularly between business collegues as Alexandre and the Wheatstones seemingly were.

Stephen:"The name "Accordion" appears in Demian's Patent, but, as we have seen, it didn't prevent that name from being applied to the first German concertinas and being used by many others."

Goran: True! ...Known! ...BUT: do we have ANY knowledge about the term *accordion* having been used at all prior to Demians own hand (!?) formulation in his patent application??

QUOTE (Goran)
I really do not claim it as a definite fact but I do find the hypothesis motivated that 'concertina' also in the early years around 1830 was used in a more general meaning.
The origin of the term will remain obscure unless/until a specific 'birth' of it is identified.

Goran Rahm

#58 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 January 2004 - 06:47 PM

Stephen,Let me start from the end which also is the beginning....:

"....that "The first Instrument was sold to Capt: Gardner [sic] of the 2nd Life Guards, it was then called the "Symphonian" [sic] with bellows, and not until December the 27th in that year [sic] was it named the Concertina."

Do we have ANY more indications of what Roylance actually refers to above?
- ("was it named Concertina") - *where* ?? on a receipt? in a magazine? in an advertisement? in public?
"December the 27th" is so precise that it seemingly describes a baptizing cermony:-)....there ought to be some more documentation of *what* it was!


I will give you the full quotation, just to clarify matters :

REMARKS.

The English Concertina was invented by Professor Charles Wheatstone . [sic] (afterwards Sir Charles Wheatstone) and was first introduced to Public notice in June 1838 [sic] .        

The first Instrument was sold to Capt: Gardner [sic] of the 2nd Life Guards, it was then called the "Symphonian" [sic] with bellows, and not until December the 27th in that year [sic] was it named the Concertina.

The fingering of the Concertina is extremely easy, and with ordinary attention to the following instructions, any person with the least musical talent, may in a very short time perform any favourite melody.

(Quoted from Charles Roylance's "How to Learn the English Concertina Without a Master", p. 2)


However, as I have already stated, it is quite evident that Roylance would have greatly benefitted from the services of a good editor, not forgetting a proof-reader ! The piece is confusing, with several readily apparent spelling/typographical errors, certainly one erroneous date and another one seemingly completely missing (probably typos. ?).

My interpretation of the first two paragraphs [with an explanatory addition] follows :

*The English Concertina was invented by Professor Charles Wheatstone, (afterwards Sir Charles Wheatstone) and was first introduced to Public notice [by Giulio Regondi, in Dublin,] in June 1834.

The first Instrument was sold to Capt: Gardnor of the 2nd Life Guards in 1833, it was then called the "Symphonion" with bellows, and not until December the 27th in that year was it named the Concertina.*

I cannot prove it, of course, but it is based on my research of source documentation and is not just wild speculation.

Goran: Nevertheless it would have been bloody insulting to use exactly the same 'name' UNLESS it was more or less accepted as a general term! Particularly between business collegues as Alexandre and the Wheatstones seemingly were.


But it was going on all the time ! Also, there was nothing Wheatstone could do to prevent it, even if he had wished to.

Stephen:"The name "Accordion" appears in Demian's Patent, but, as we have seen, it didn't prevent that name from being applied to the first German concertinas and being used by many others."

Goran: True! ...Known! ...BUT: do we have ANY knowledge about the term *accordion* having been used at all prior to Demians own hand (!?) formulation in his patent application??


No.

... when it comes to patents, names are irrelevant.
Designs and methods can be patented; names cannot be. A design or method need not be named to be "patented", nor does changing the name by which something is referred to alter its patent status. All that is needed is a clear description of a design or method.


On the question of Charles Wheatstone having allegedly "patented" the name "Symphonium", it is worth adding that the firm thereafter always used the spelling "Symphonion", in all their publications, thus seemingly negating any alleged "patent" claim.

I hope this might be the end, I have fresh themes to begin !

Edited by Stephen Chambers, 09 December 2008 - 09:55 AM.


#59 goran rahm

goran rahm

    Chatty concertinist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 18 January 2004 - 10:18 AM

Stephen:"My interpretation of the first two paragraphs [with an explanatory addition] follows :

*The English Concertina was invented by Professor Charles Wheatstone, (afterwards Sir Charles Wheatstone) and was first introduced to Public notice [by Giulio Regondi, in Dublin,] in June 1834.

The first Instrument was sold to Capt: Gardnor of the 2nd Life Guards in 1833, it was then called the "Symphonion" with bellows, and not until December the 27th in that year was it named the Concertina.*

I cannot prove it, of course, but it is based on my research of source documentation and is not just wild speculation."

Goran:Very sorry Stephen but if we don't get more hard substance we seem stalled here...
Roylance thus should be reponsible for
- miswriting 1834 for 1838 for the "introduction"
- not knowing the year of the Gardner purchase
- not knowing or misreferring concerning the year of naming

Mr Roylance reliability as a source looks a bit unsecure....
Your own additional research is of great importance but I do get the impression we are still putting a jigsaw puzzle together without yet knowing the final picture....

QUOTE
Goran: Nevertheless it would have been bloody insulting to use exactly the same 'name' UNLESS it was more or less accepted as a general term! Particularly between business collegues as Alexandre and the Wheatstones seemingly were.

Stephen:"But it was going on all the time ! Also, there was nothing Wheatstone could do to prevent it, even if he had wished to."

Goran:Sure...but it would be so startling that you would expect things to develop otherwise. Skip the talk about 'patenting names' and so on which is not relevant.
Like I have said 'the option of naming/baptizing an invention' is so decisive for the identification, 'honour' of inventorship, advertising market value, 'role' in history, and so on....
Like You Stephen rightly has remarked....often the patent rights are merely a formal - not a real - hinder for others to profit on a novelty. Legal procedures and fights for benefits of patents are innumerable, in some segments 'the normal thing'
*Names* is 'hard stuff' also when not possible to take legal proceedings against...and patent or not you *may* still do that and even earn some money on it....not unusual at all. Today....I don't know about 1833 but that has been happening longer than so...
I remain wondering...

QUOTE
Stephen:"The name "Accordion" appears in Demian's Patent, but, as we have seen, it didn't prevent that name from being applied to the first German concertinas and being used by many others."

Goran: True! ...Known! ...BUT: do we have ANY knowledge about the term *accordion* having been used at all prior to Demians own hand (!?) formulation in his patent application??

Stephen:"No"

Goran: And that is why we still with good conscience keep on referring to Demian as the originator of the term *Accordion*....(well aware that it meant something different than mostly assumed....)

Stephen:"On the question of Charles Wheatstone having allegedly "patented" the name "Symphonium", it is worth adding that the firm thereafter always used the spelling "Symphonion", in all their publications, thus seemingly negating any alleged "patent" claim."

Goran:Not for ever evidently....Any idea when they started printing *Symphonium* again??
What reliability do the statements below have.... from the 1950s catalogue, the blue one:

"1825 The 24 key Symphonium invented"
"1829 The 24 key "English" Concertina Invented and patented"
"1835 The earliest 48 key concertina in existence" (single action)

Goran Rahm

#60 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 January 2004 - 02:13 AM

Goran:Very sorry Stephen but if we don't get more hard substance we seem stalled here...


Goran,

I'm afraid I think that it is you who have us stalled here, with all this nit-picking, it is taking up all my free-time just to answer you ! I have been trying to start on a fresh topic for the past week, and said as much three days ago, in the hope that you would allow me to. Unfortunately I will not now be able to do so for the forseeable future, as I have run out of time due to other commitments (which I told you about, privately, a fortnight ago).

My answers to your latest round of questions follow :

1) I did not claim that this was hard evidence, but made it clear, at the very beginning, that it was "My interpretation".

2) I believe, based on contemporary evidence, that the first introduction of "Wheatstone's Patent Concertina" was that given by Regondi in June 1834, and near-contemporary evidence that "it was not until the end of the year 1833 that the instrument named the Concertina was invented".

Roylance thus should be reponsible for
- miswriting 1834 for 1838 for the "introduction"
- not knowing the year of the Gardner purchase
- not knowing or misreferring concerning the year of naming
Mr Roylance reliability as a source looks a bit unsecure....


3) If you read the piece again, you will see that I did not say that I believed Roylance did any of these. I pointed out various very apparent typographical/spelling errors that should have been caught in the production stages of the work, but suggested that unfortunately neither an editor, nor a proof-reader seem to have been employed.

I did not suggest that Roylance didn't know the date of Captain Gardnor's purchase, (about which he is very specific, as you yourself have pointed out) but rather inferred that the typesetter had seemingly missed the year out of the text.

Unfortunately 19th century typesetters had a very bad reputation for getting drunk and producing garbled texts (otherwise the man was incompetent !), perhaps Roylance was a victim of this ?

4) The actual "year of naming" is not directly mentioned.

Your own additional research is of great importance but I do get the impression we are still putting a jigsaw puzzle together without yet knowing the final picture....


5) Of course it is a matter of putting together a jigsaw puzzle, history is like that, and always will be, it isn't a precise science. (Is science ?) There is no such thing as "the final picture", and I would be very wary of any historian (or scientist for that matter) who claims there is.

I would compare history to a car accident : There is the physical evdence, which demands expert interpretation, and then there are the witnesses who will all tend to give different accounts (which are sometimes completely contradictory !), and then there are those who claim to know all about it, but did not actually see it. The poor investigator has to try to make sense of it all !

But we will never get anywhere by making up theories for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence, much of the incorrect "accepted history" from the past is a result of opinions being stated as fact. On the other hand, if you will only accept evidence of a "smoking gun" kind, then we won't get anywhere either in concertina history research, the instrument was always too ephemeral to be written about much at the time.

Skip the talk about 'patenting names' and so on which is not relevant.


6) I never thought it was, it was your argument which I was responding to !

Like You Stephen rightly has remarked....often the patent rights are merely a formal - not a real - hinder for others to profit on a novelty.


7) I do not believe that I have made any such statement, only a reference to one specific patent being evaded. (This was because it could only offer protection for the "Improvements", but not the instrument as such, which could therefore still be made without them.)

Goran: And that is why we still with good conscience keep on referring to Demian as the originator of the term *Accordion*....(well aware that it meant something different than mostly assumed....)


8) I have an open mind, but I think you should have evidence if you mean to suggest that he did not (likewise for Wheatstone), otherwise I will continue to believe the evidence that says he did.

(The Nazis tried very hard to prove that Demian, who was ethnically Armenian, did not invent the accordion. A book was produced, during their era, claiming the honour for Buschmann, a German. But this is now discredited in Germany.)

Demian very quickly developed the early model of Accordion, shown in his patent, into an instrument we would more readily recognise as such today. That is the nature of invention, and patents ! (Just like Wheatstone !)

Stephen:"On the question of Charles Wheatstone having allegedly "patented" the name "Symphonium", it is worth adding that the firm thereafter always used the spelling "Symphonion", in all their publications, thus seemingly negating any alleged "patent" claim."

Goran:Not for ever evidently....


9) I was referring to the music they published for the instrument in the 1830's, during the life of the Patent. What they may have done when writing historically, long after the Patent expired, is irrelevant in this context.

Any idea when they started printing *Symphonium* again??


10) Long after they stopped making them !

Either spelling is correct (I would use both of them, depending on context), but if you do register a name, you cannot then spell it differently and still be covered.

What reliability do the statements below have.... from the 1950s catalogue, the blue one:

"1825 The 24 key Symphonium invented"


11) I have already said that this is incorrect.


"1829 The 24 key "English" Concertina Invented and patented"


12) In essence this is correct, as the first form of the "symphonium with bellows" appears in the 1829 Patent. It is inconsequential that the more developed instrument, bearing the name concertina, did not appear for another 4 years.


"1835 The earliest 48 key concertina in existence" (single action)


13) The first 48-key in the ledgers is number 154, sold to Mr. Purdy, 22 Oct. 1837, but they are not a complete record of production, so there could have been an earlier one.

Edited by Stephen Chambers, 10 August 2017 - 04:37 PM.


#61 goran rahm

goran rahm

    Chatty concertinist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 19 January 2004 - 03:16 AM

Due to an occasional fit of consideration I will try being short in order hopefully to give you a chance getting on with more urgent matters Stephen....Stalled or not I propose again that maybe putting in print some formulations of our respective 'theories' and the requirements for prooving them could give structure to continuing research. This in turn might have the direction of being either purely descriptive or analytical...

QUOTE (Goran)
What reliability do the statements below have.... from the 1950s catalogue, the blue one:

"1825 The 24 key Symphonium invented"

Stephen: "11) I have already said that this is incorrect."

QUOTE
"1829 The 24 key "English" Concertina Invented and patented"

Stephen:"12) In essence this is correct, as the first form of the "symphonium with bellows" appears in the 1829 Patent. It is inconsequential that the more developed instrument, bearing the name concertina, did not appear for another 4 years."

Goran:Hmmm....
1) Now I'm confused...have we not sort of agreed that there are in reality NO PATENTS registred either for the *instrument* Symphonium or for the *instrument* Concertina....??
The patents BOTH (one relating to the Symphonium 1829 and one to the Concertina 1844) ARE explicitely claiming ONLY the specified keyboard layouts and some other "improvements" of the said *instruments* NOT the complete devices as such

I am not 'picky' about this.. just trying to be correct

2) Technically speaking the description and attached figure in the 1829 papers hardly ought to be approved as sufficient material to claim rights for the 'complete device'....and this is NOT done either!!... Very precisely expressed in the text.

My *interpretation* of this situation is that later on Wheatstone(s) (the firm) themselves or journalists and other authors have misunderstood/misinterpreted the implications of the patents....and this in turn is colouring 'our' view on it all...

QUOTE
"1835 The earliest 48 key concertina in existence" (single action)

Stephen:"13) The first 48-key in the ledgers is number 154, sold to Mr. Purdy, 22 Oct. 1837, but they are not a complete record of production, so there could have been an earlier one."

Goran:Excuse me...have I missed a reply...? I asked before:...What date is the earliest notation of "concertina" in the ledgers?

Goran Rahm

#62 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 January 2004 - 07:31 PM

I propose again that maybe putting in print some formulations of our respective 'theories' and the requirements for prooving them could give structure to continuing research.


Goran, who made you my Academic Referee ? (I already have a real and extremely well-qualified one thank you, in the shape of a City University of New York Professor of Music and researcher, who is also a concertina player!) You seem to be making a case that you are an expert in concertina history, but what do you have to back up your own "theories" ? From what I have heard so far they are based on third-hand information you cannot substantiate, your own imagination, and stubbornness. Have you ever done any original free reed research, on old documents, or instruments, yourself ? Do you have any concept of just how little source material exists on the subject ? The kind of "smoking gun" evidence, which you have indicated is all that you will accept, is virtually non-existent, so any research could get absolutely nowhere. Let's just give up !

Anyway, on that note my Louis Lachenal (Part 1) and Michaelstein papers went online today, if you follow this link. and I have an article to finish for PICA.

My answers to your questions follow :
 

 

"1829 The 24 key "English" Concertina Invented and patented"

Stephen:"12) In essence this is correct, as the first form of the "symphonium with bellows" appears in the 1829 Patent. It is inconsequential that the more developed instrument, bearing the name concertina, did not appear for another 4 years."

Goran:Hmmm....
1) Now I'm confused...have we not sort of agreed that there are in reality NO PATENTS registred either for the *instrument* Symphonium or for the *instrument* Concertina....??
The patents BOTH (one relating to the Symphonium 1829 and one to the Concertina 1844) ARE explicitely claiming ONLY the specified keyboard layouts and some other "improvements" of the said *instruments* NOT the complete devices as such

I am not 'picky' about this.. just trying to be correct

2) Technically speaking the description and attached figure in the 1829 papers hardly ought to be approved as sufficient material to claim rights for the 'complete device'....


This is disingenuous, I am not going to "argue the toss" with you yet again on this same topic. I can give you no other answer than to please look again at all the previous posts about this from Wes, Jim and myself.
 

 

My *interpretation* of this situation is that later on Wheatstone(s) (the firm) themselves or journalists and other authors have misunderstood/misinterpreted  the implications of the patents....and this in turn is colouring 'our' view on it all...


No, they have understood the implications of Patent Law, it is yourself who refuses to accept them.

If the 1829 Patent did not cover the concertina, as you state, why did nobody else, in "England, Wales and the Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed", start to make them until 1844, the very year it expired ?
 

 

"1835 The earliest 48 key concertina in existence" (single action)

Stephen:"13) The first 48-key in the ledgers is number 154, sold to Mr. Purdy, 22 Oct. 1837, but they are not a complete record of production, so there could have been an earlier one."

Goran:Excuse me...have I missed a reply...? I asked before:...What date is the earliest notation of "concertina" in the ledgers?


Sorry ! I took your question to be a straightforward one, I did not realise that it too was disingenuous. Now you have made your meaning clear to me :

To the best of my recollection the word Concertina is never mentioned in any of the Wheatstone ledgers, so using that "evidence", and taking your argument to its reductio ad absurdum : The concertina was never invented, never patented and never manufactured. Therefore it cannot exist !

So what are we doing wasting all this time over something that doesn't exist ?

This is absolutely my last post on this Topic, this can go nowhere.

Fancy a pint anybody ?


Edited by Stephen Chambers, 31 December 2013 - 02:50 PM.


#63 goran rahm

goran rahm

    Chatty concertinist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 20 January 2004 - 03:45 AM

Dear Stephen, no reason to be upset....I am NOT questioning your general expertise in this field and I am the first to welcome your presence in these pages .....and the simplest way to proove THAT is taking advantage of your willingness to share your knowledge with me/us!!

This however is definitely not an "academic" 'forum' and I am of course no "expert in concertina history" whatsoever!....you are perfectly welcome to regard me as the ignorant savage bombarding you with any idiotic questions that come up...but without questioning we do not learn....

I also mean that this issue maybe needs a break for a while...this below is not said for 'last-word-ism' just to round off in that case:

Stephen:"I had been hoping to share the fruits of more than twenty-five years of research with this community, but you have single-handedly stopped me in my tracks. It is obviously not going to work in this medium, so in future I will go back to publishing only the occasional formal paper."

Goran:Sorry about that unfortunate perception of the situation Stephen but I can trust I speak for many who would miss your presence enormously so DO stay!.. and *I* will stay within bars! ....and other topics will come up allowing enjoyable conversations....
I believe you were just unlucky slipping into one of the major riddles in my own
'concertina history book' making my eagerness to find a quick and simple answer a little manic....

Stephen:"If the 1829 Patent did not cover the concertina, as you state, why did nobody else, in "England, Wales and the Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed", start to make them until 1844, the very year it expired ? "

Goran: I don't state it...C. Wheatstone himself 'did' by formulations 1829 and 1844.
The patent 1829 covered the 'particular 2+2 row keyboard dividing the diatonic scale on both sides' (my formulation)...
Without that 'keyboard' the *concertina* could not be fabricated by others without interferrence with the patent.

Goran before:"..What date is the earliest notation of "concertina" in the ledgers?"

Stephen:"Sorry ! I took your question to be a straightforward one, I did not realise that it too was disingenuous. Now you have made your meaning clear to me :

To the best of my recollection the word Concertina is never mentioned in any of the Wheatstone ledgers, so using that "evidence", and taking your argument to its reductio ad absurdum : The concertina was never invented, never patented and never manufactured. Therefore it cannot exist ! "

Goran:This above misunderstandings exemplify why it is so important to make proper formulations of a 'theory/hypothesis' and the requirements for proof.
It really is not easy to create 'understanding' :
1) no generally accepted definition of the term *concertina* exists
2) consequently one will always be limited so some sort of 'working definition'
3) the historic/occasional use of the term therefore needs to be referred to 2) in any sort of successful analytical communication
4) the origin(s) of the term is not known (secondary documentation exists)
5) the common meaning(s) of the term have changed from 1830s to now

On top of that it certainly happens that I misunderstand and misuse the english language....!:-)
Cheer up Stephen!

Goran Rahm

#64 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2004 - 09:31 AM


Stephen Chambers published a paper last year about some of the instruments in his own "private hands":

Chambers, Stephen. "An Annotated Catalogue of Historic European Free-Reed Instruments from my Private Collection", in Monika Lustig (ed.), Michaelsteiner Konferenzberichte 62: Harmonium und Handharmonika (20 Musikinstrumentenbau-Symposium, Michaelstein 19 bis 21 November 1999), Stifung Kloster, Michaelstein, 2002), pp. 181-194.

 

I've never been happy with the "Private Collection" formulation in the title Bob, which seems terribly possessive and proprietorial in English, but it seems to be a German concept and was forced on me by my German editor.

 

It seems that in German:

 

A private collection is a collection of cultural objects built not from public funds, but with private funds. The term often refers to works of art and refers to the counterpart to the collection of a state art museum.

 

Private collections play an important role in many areas: private individuals collect paintings, products of the art industry / design objects, carpets, stamps, coins, books, manuscripts and handwriting fragments, toys, motor vehicles, technical devices and many other objects. Large state-owned museums, mostly founded in the 19th century, owe their important collections to private collections, which were given or bought as gifts.

 


Edited by Stephen Chambers, 10 August 2017 - 06:29 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users