Folks,

this one really sets me drooling:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...em=260251047640

However, the price - US$ 1600 or € 1034 - dries the drool again pretty quickly. Plus the thought of shipment from Down Under to Europe.

Is that a good price for a restored, concert-pitch 48k Lachenal Crane? There are no bids yet, with 2 1/2 days to go - should I wait for it to reappear at a lower starting price?

Cheers,
John

John,

This is already its "second coming", it didn't sell the first time.

Compare the value to an equivalent Lachenal 48 key English or 30 key anglo in that condition from a dealer and I think it's a good price (though perhaps not to an equivalent Maccann, but then a 46 Maccann does have some limitations in range compared to the Crane system imho).

I think it would be an excellent beginner/intermediate duet.

I know the seller and you need have no misgivings about his request for payment by wire transfer, even though eBay disapproves.

My 10c worth....

Good luck.

MC

Thats about as much as I paid for my Crane Lachenal, fully restored, but mine doesn't have metal buttons. Fortunately I got my box from the UK before the gas hike.

I say if you want a restored Crane/Trimuph duet that's probably not that bad a price, 5 years from now that will probably sound like a steal.

A few months ago a woman on these threads was seeking out a 48K Crane, she found one at what I considered a great price from another Cnet member.

Now reduced to US $1,250.00.

Thanks, Stephen,

I saw it too. No bids at over 1000 Euros, so it's down to just over 800 Euros.

My strategy is clear - just wait until the seller sees reason, sets a civil starting price, and then bid.

Even 800 Euros seems a bit unrealistic for a duet. There was a Wheatstone 46 K Maccann on Ebay recently - in apparently similar condition - which went for only 537 Euros. What would make a Lachenal Triumph intrinsically more valuable?

Cheers,
John

I can think of a few reasons....

1. A Triumph is easier and more logical to play.
2. A 48 Triumph has a better right hand range than a 46 Maccann, going down to middle C
3. A Triumph is easier and more logical to play.
4. This particular Triumph has had the equivalent of a 300 pound overhaul; not sure which Maccann you were referring to, so unsure of its comparative playing state.
5. A Triumph is easier and more logical to play.
6. Triumphs seem to be a much rarer commodity than Maccanns. Don't know comparative numbers built, but would be interesting to know....

Well, there's a few reasons....based only on my own humble opinion of course.

And did I mention that a Triumph is easier and more logical to play?

I would add that I have no interest in this concertina as either the seller or repairer thereof, but I do play a Crane. If I didn't have my Wheatstone, I'd be interested. And 48 keys certainly does all I require of it without going for a larger bodied instrument.

MC

Malcolm,
Which would be more logical to play?

Yes me too, if you've got to have one...

Then again, the Linton system was very logical, but pretty unplayable imho.

MC

What was the final verdict on your 46 experiments, Malcolm?

Customer was happy to have the low D, even if a bit breathy; but probably no more breathy than the other low reeds in the same concertina. He is, however, thinking about a Crane....

But of course a Triumph is easier and more logi..... (OK, I'll shut up!)

MC

I hear a Triumph duet is easier and more logical to play than a McCann.
Does anyone have an opinion on this?
Thanks,
MichaelB

Depends what you mean by logical, I suppose!

There's a nice axiom I heard recently: Whatever is, is logical!

Sounds like a paradox, doesn't it? The English concertina definitely IS. The Anglo concertina IS, too. But they can't both be logical, they're so different!

What instruments are undisputedly logical?
Well, the most primitave ones, like the harp and keyless flute. The converging sides of the harp make each string a bit shorter than the last one, so its pitch is higher, so we have adjacent notes of the scale on adjacent strings. Logical!
On the flute, we get the successive notes of the scale by uncovering successive holes. Equally logical.
With the fretted strings, each adjacent fret raises the pitch of the string to the adjacent semitone. Logical plus chromatic!

But is that logic? Is it not more a matter of physics? A shorter string (same weight, same tension) gives a higher pitch; a much shorter string gives a much higher pitch, etc. Same with a shorter air-column in a flute. I don't perceive much logic in my autoharp, banjo or tin whistle. More an instinctive grasp of the physics involved, my instinct being conditioned by empirical observation during childhood.

So is the concertina different? More logical/illogical, depending on the system?

The big difference is that the concertina is basically round, with a basically rectangular keypad. The architecture allows any button to be associated with any note at will. So there is no physical reason why adjacent buttons must produce adjacent notes. Or why one button shouldn't produce two notes, or two buttons the same note.
Another difference is that the concertina is held by the hands that play it. So the hands can't move relative to the instrument, like a guitarist's or a pianist's can - so the button arrangement must be so compact that you can reach all the buttons by just moving your fingers. That's logical!

So there's the physical premiss that the scale has to be compact, and the second physical premiss that you're free to choose what note goes where.

The first solutions were both logical: the German bi-sonoric system reduced the 8 notes of the octave to just 4 buttons; the English system shared the octave between the hands, so each hand only had to press 4 buttons. Both very neat, obviously, because they're still with us!

But neither system is instinctive or intuitive!

Give a musical person any instrument he is not familiar with, and he'll make a good stab at getting the diatonic scale together. Unless the instrument is a concertina - then he's mystified!

With string and woodwind instruments, the fingering follows directly from the physics. Shorter is higher. We can see what we're doing. With the piano we can't, but we soon find out that the short strings are on the right and the long strings on the left, and that the action goes straight from key to string, so we can "see" the semitone intervals. So we can rely on intuition.

The action of the concertinas, on the other hand, joins buttons and reeds arbitrarily. The designer gave up the "natural" sequence and thought one out from scratch. Obviously, if the players were to grasp how the systems worked, there had to be some "logic" in them to replace the instinctive approach to other instruments.

Then came the duets, which were intended to combine the "high-right, low-left" of the Anglo with the chromatic layout of the English. It seems to me that these systems were conceived as variants on the existing systems, rather than as totally new approaches (except perhaps for the Rust "piano-concertina", which seems to fall down on compactness). The Maccann still has the zig-zag among 4 columns that the English had, albeit with the 4 columns on one side; the Jeffries seems to have the Anglo's "press" notes in one row and its "draw" notes in another.
So players of other instruments are still mystified by them, but ex-players of the older systems "instinctively" find something familiar about them.

But what about the Crane?

After studying button layouts till my head swam, it seemed to me that the only duet system for me would be the Crane. Because, if you look at the rows as crescents, they have adjacent steps of the scale of C on adjacent buttons. To keep the rows short enough to manage with 4 fingers, the sequence breaks after 3 and starts in the next row. I found this "logical", but I think it's more "instinctive". And my instincts were conditioned early on by the mandolin. On it, you finger three adjacent notes with adjacent fingers, then skip to the next string. If you need an accidental, it's right next to its base note. Like on the Crane.

So perhaps the concertina systems have little to do with logic (or lack of it), and more to do with conditioned reflexes. None of them have much spatial relationship to the scale, so "unconditioned" reflexes are no use. Depending on where the conditioning took place, one or the other system will APPEAR more natural to YOU. Perhaps you're supposed to go from English to Maccann, from Anglo to Jeffries - and the Crane? From the fretted strings?

Unfortunately, I have no opportunity to test the various systems. Perhaps it's all the same, and whatever system you pick up, you manage to play.
But I can't help feeling that the Crane layout is somehow "tidier", more regular.

I'd like to hear who migrated from what to what, or who started off with a duet, etc., and what you encountered on the way.

Cheers,
John

Yes, it is. As an enthusiastic amateur taking a stab at 4 sysems (over a period of about 3 years) Crane comes out on top, no question.

But I still like my MacCaan, if ever I get hold of a Hayden, I may like it more, but till then hand me that Crane!

John,

Looks like you're out of luck then - sold to aother John (in Australia) for US $1,725.00...

If you thought that Crane was too expensive, you won't want this one



Nice looking instrument though....

MC

You'd wonder how much the reserve is, with that Buy It Now price...

Stephen,
Ah, well! So much for buying strategy!

If I (or someone else) had bid the higher starting price last time round, when there were no other bidders, I (he/she) would have got it cheaper ...

I'd better get around to selling my Bandoneon, wife, soul, what have you, to have the ready cash for the next one that comes around!

Cheers,
John

and there WILL be more - especially when the builders start to see there really is an active market for Crane style duets.

Now there's a thought ...

Next time I'm up north with my wife's relatives in Bonn - not that far from Siegen, where Jürgen Süttner has his workshop - I could drop by, show him a Crane layout, and ask him if he could make me one. I'd cite you as a market-research authority, of course. Maybe I could get his prototype cheap!

Seriously, though: if you've got the production set up to make reed-pans for anglos (low reeds left, high reeds right) and ECs (24 buttons a side), all you'd have to do would be to drill a different pattern of button holes and reposition the action posts to get a Crane.

Now, where do I have Jürgen's telephone number? ...

Cheers,
John

I know this part of the thread is good natured daydreaming but I need to briefly point out the reality of concertina making. It is not a matter of making a five row end, or even a five row action pan but the lever layout and positioning of reeds in a pan have to be coordinated. This is not a matter of slightly retooling; this is redesiqn and execution from the bottom up.

I have recently joined Carroll Concertinas and I have to marvel at the dedication, investment and incredible problem solving that goes into making a quality concertina. My hat is off and I offer my most reverent bow to all the makers out there.

To make a quality Crane system instrument would cost as much or more (less potential volume of sales) than making anglos or englishes.

So while it may be nice to daydream about a Carroll or Suttner Crane the math doesn't hold up. I'm sure Chris Algar of Barleycorn Concertinas could eventually come up with TWO quality vintage Cranes for your $6000.

Now, if you would like to dream in Chinese about an instrument of much less quality with accordion reeds but costing less.... And hurry! before the trade unions organize.

Greg

Like anything in manufacturing, the first "one off" is the most expensive , in terms of research. With examples of the product already around, I don't see it costing more - equal to the price of a 48K English, that I can see.

Yes, you will have to do some re-thinkign and make new templates, design and bend your action to fit the new shape, but is that really such a big deal? If you know how to make action for an English, making it for a Duet should be no more challanging. and once you have the blueprint, its just another box.


Lachenal, with less technology than we have, was able to do it...

and BTW, if you send the Chinese blueprints they can make anything: theres no reason why Chinese manufacturers couldn't make concertinas the way Western builders make them, they would just have to charge more than for thier regular stock.

I believe the Rochelles were contracted out, could happen for Duets as well, if ever there were enough people interested.