BW77
-
Posts
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BW77
-
-
There are objective criteria like dynamic range, ease and precision of action ( riveted is definitely better than hook! ), tightness, suppleness and number of folds of bellows and condition.
I own a tortoiseshell TT Aeola, which is in absolute mint condition. It has alloy reed-frames and is rather light, but also rather quiet. It wouldn't be a session-box but it is a delight to sing to.
- DYNAMIC RANGE...I wonder...This.is firstly a function of reed status is it not? I believe the common experience is that the *total range* i e the capacity of a reed sounding as soft as possible up to as loud as possible is determined by reed material, precision in processing, precision of assembly, profiling, setting. BUT..it is very hard ( or impossible.?.) to make a reed which combines a quick onset and very soft sound at very low pressure with a quick onset and very loud sound at very high pressure. What you mostly get is either good capacities from low to medium pressure ( = soft sound to medium loudness) OR good capacities from
medium to high pressure ( = medium sound level to great loudness )
So....maybe the total dynamic range does not vary so much ( with good quality reeds) but you have to make a choice between low OR high average dynamic level . I have the impression that instruments historically or periodically or occasionally may differ a great deal in this respect and MAYBE your 31xxx period mostly represents the later category...or what do you think?
Readers with much experience from reed making maybe have comments to add?
- EASE OF ACTION....Since the basic construciton was the same for a century I find it difficult to see why the 31xxx period ( or any other) might have produced significantly different "ease of action".
- RIVETED vs HOOK action.....Production and assembly costs likely have influenced the makers and precision of assembly work certainly has varied by economization but regarding performance capacities - provided that all parts are in good condition - it is hard to see why there should be any important advantage with "riveted action" vs various hook constructions. Or what is it?
- TIGHTNESS. SUPPLENESS. NUMBER of FOLDS. ...These are things that vary throughout history and individually but something characteristic for the 31xxx ?
- TORTOISESHELL instrument....The tortoiseshell ends is a luxury feature firstly. They may have some influence on tone but if positive or negative is again a dubious matter. A friend and I once had access to two same period basically identical Aeolas, one ebony ended and one tortoise shell ended. Ends and reed plates were interchangeable. We tried all four combinations and we agreed about the impression that the tortoiseshell ends seemed to cause a harsher, more piercing, tone. The most reasonable explanation seems to be less absorption of overtones.
Your instrument however got "alloy reed-frames" that may be the cause of a different experience. What kind of "alloy" and from what period? Wheatstone aluminium reed frames from late production definitely have a "softer/mellower" tone.
-
1. ..Some say that with the decline of the golden concertina-days Wheatstone had to come up with thier best craftmanship to satisfy the few remaining customers.
2. .I also have two high-class 33xxx Aeolas with riveted action and the best features, but most of the later ones couldn't compare with the older ones.
3. When I bought my ME TT Aeola from Chris, I had a choice of about 15 instruments - and after hours of testing ended up with a 31xxx...
4...As I mentioned, I have seen and played loads of instruments, but my older Boyd is somehow different - not necessarily better, but unique!?
Comments to added 1-4 above
1. Looking at the production figures of Wheatstone Englishes the output (= sales?) was fairly constant from 1900 until WW2 and maybe even larger than during 1890-1900. But for sure the general market demand had fallen in the early 1930s and Lachenals had closed down which likely helped Wheatstones to survive. Having spoken to quite a few really old concertina players in England several have said in unison something like:
"The best period of Wheatstones was pre WW1 since the war drained the firm of a number of the best workers"
so ...maybe the "Golden era" may still be hard to define....
2. You mention riveted action as a feature of importance.and so it often is referred to - but is it really? What is the advantage in such case?
3. Please excuse the nagging...but did you have about 15 other ME TT Aeolas from different periods to compare with?? I only ask for the general point that - as we have said before - it is so terribly difficult making adequate comparisons and subjective preference really is a difficult method - just as you say here:
4. " my older Boyd is somehow different - not necessarily better, but unique!?"
Is that how far we get?..... "Unique" - at least for the fretwork name inlay and the emblem - and "loud" - but "not necessarily better"
-
No serial Number!
Mine has bowing-valve-slots on both sides, one is used with a normal air-lever.
The reed pans are fairly shallow and flat:
Both the ends and the frames are a few mm thinner than normal ( the other one is an Aeola )!?
The Boyd has quite a piercing sound, but the Aeola has more "body" to it's sound - and is lounder alltogether ( it is a top peroid one ( 31xxx ))!?
I have owned and played loads of M 22s - and I always liked them. The best ones were - once again - 31xxx ones!
I would assume that Jay's Boyd also has more "body" to it's sound - similar to the later M22s and Aeolas - as the fretwork is more closed.
I might get around to record 5 different ended Aeolas, a pin-hole Aeola and the Boyd one day... The differences are enormous!
- Many thanks ! Lacking serial number can it still be judged what year it is? Is it known how long did the Boyd business go on? After WW1 at all?
- Reed pans seemingly being the standard flat ones for the model
- Are the frames really thinner than a comparable non-Boyd but same model? The reed pan can hardly be thinner than 5 mm. Is the space between action board and end plate particularly low ?
- Sound...you compare with an Aeola and then we do expect different tone...but what about a twin non-Boyd same model?
You say: "I have owned and played loads of M 22s - and I always liked them. The best ones were - once again - 31xxx ones!"
- Does that mean that from your viewpoint the common 31xxx M22s have been "better" than the (earlier) Boyd ones too...??
I have the impression still that it is not certain that when speaking about identical specific *models* ( like the 22 ) the *Boyds* are different from the *non-Boyds* . Maybe the standard of them is a bit more even....possibly due to extra good delivery control....or demands for selected reeds...or possibly extra end finish by Boyd himself ( or associates) before sale. So far nothing has come up speaking for special reed works which is the factor one would expect being involved IF the *Boyds* are objectively louder than twin instruments but this seems to be questionable still. The hype seems to go on....wonder if there is some superstition around also....When will the blind test ( blinded player, blinded audience...) take place?
-
re. Bowing valves.
This seems odd to me........apparently bowing valves are rare on Wheatstones and yet it seems common to have the end plates prepared with slots for them.
This in my Model 22...with slots or are they just ovals in the place where a lever / bowing valve might be ?
It is really mysterious if not these slots/ovals are intended for the possible addition of bowing valves since a) they are located where the bowing valve levers are on those individual instruments having them
they are present on both sides c) they are not a natural part of the fretwork patternThe idea with the bowing valves obviously was abortive itself - isn't it strange that makers continued preparing for them like this?
If Lachenals did is more understandable, having advocated them initially, but other makers?? Any others than Wheatstones?
-
You might find this previous topic useful.
Definitely so.....It is fairly selfevident that the traditional pressbutton for the air valve on Anglos is not suitable from ergonomic viewpoint but a lever of the same kind as for some common air valves on Englishes or "bowing valves" is a more adequate solution. The thread in this link shows such instruments from both Geoff Crabb and Colin Dipper. Also notice the modified handle with a thumb strap combined with wrist straps instead of the common hand straps.
-
But we always have to keep in mind that our perception of sound is a complex story." I got the annoying feeling that the high G on the RH side (g'') sounded weak, and was getting drowned out by any lower harmonies that I played it against.
Then, for a completely different reason, I recorded a piece of music on the Crane, using one mic pointed at the middle of the bellows. And lo and behold! the g'' could be heard quite clearly over the harmonies in the recording!
So can it be that these "loud, low" reeds and "high, quiet" reeds can be perceived as such only from the player's standpoint, and as far as an audience or a recording mic are concerned need no attention?
Yes, the sound, and particular effects as with this g" issue certainly can be perceived differently for the player, for an audience and for anyone listening to the same performance but recorded. The general loudness while listening and recording has influence. The distance to the sound source ( free reed sound is particularly influenced by distance because of air absorption of high overtones) is important. Although the sound radiation from a concertina is rather spherical there are definite concentration effects - you notice when sitting next to a concertina player...!!
Perception of volume from a fairly high note like your g" can be masked by influence from lower frequencies - a phenomenon which can be difficult to explore. Quite often I have also come across single notes/reeds that sound discretely awful for myself but not for others and it can be terribly annoying indeed.
-
...a sustained low drone will rob higher notes of air...
Running out of air is not a problem, my problem is that the lowest notes on the LHS are too loud for what I want to play.
I don't think Ron was referring to "running out of air" when he said "rob higher notes of air," so much as actually making the higher notes quieter by diverting air to an easier route of escape from the bellows that has lower resistance (bigger holes) than the high notes.
There are several factors involved here. Don's primary problem was that the low range drone over-powers the high notes. A related more general "problem" may be that the accompaniment ( particularly lefthanded with Anglos and Duets) over-powers the melody at the RH.
Now...the actual sound amplitude (loudness) is depending on the degree of pressure difference over the reed slot. The *air flow* itself is not causing the sound amplitude but is a result from the pressure difference causing the flow. Thus the "air escape" as I understand it is not the issue.
If a high and a low note are sounding simultaneously they both give their respective amplitude according to the present pressure difference which will be the same for both ( the difference between athmospheric ( approximately) pressure and the pressure inside the bellows). If a high note is played first and a low later, or reverse, and the pressure is preserved the relation between the two is not changed BUT you will not HEAR the high note as well.... it is audibly "drowned" by the low one. There are more acoustical causes of this than the instrument construction... like the varying perception within the tone spectrum and masking of high notes by lower ones.
What Jody talked about is musically very important of course. By skilled balancing of note length and the overall balance between treble and bass range some of the "problems" may be reduced. Playing melody on the RH in its lower octave,( not the top octave) , is one method and playing melody in octaves is another. ( with a symphony orchestra you have 20 violins instead of one for instance)
Back to modifying the instrument several methods have been suggested apart from my "taping over the pad holes" concept. By that method or by reducing the efficient pad opening by thicker pads, or by stiffening the valves... what is in common likely is the reduction of pressure difference over the reed slot resulting in reduced sound amplitude firstly. Maybe some sound absorption is added. An interesting related issue as I mentioned before is how the tone character is changed too (if/when that happens) . Someone who has set up tone spectrometric analysis under lab conditions who is tempted to investigate the matter? Or has it been done before? My hypothesis is that overtone spectrum for a reed firstly varies with amplitude. This is a fairly common musical experience with squeezeboxes - is it not? Playing less loud makes the sound "mellower"....? But we always have to keep in mind that our perception of sound is a complex story.
-
Just for interest sake here a pic of my Wheatstone Boyd. It looks just like Alistair Anderson's instrument.
Note that the fretwork is very "open".
I would suggest that Jay's later Boyd might sound quite different!?
In fact, personal taste changes. I used to like the Boyd a lot, but somehow now I prefer my more enclosed ebony-ended Aeola.
I have played the box a lot! Still it has it's original pads and valves and plays better than new with a very light action.
Interesting...to continue the "research"...would you like to add also:
What is the serial number of it?
Why do you think Jay's (later one) might sound different?
Does it have the flat reed pan with fairly shallow ( 5,5-6 mm heignt) chambers discussed earlier ? Or tempered reed pan?
Can you judge if the reeds seem to be made from fairly hard metal, - at least surface harder than comparable models of Lachenals?
Do you think it is any louder than a twin model "normal" Wheatstone?
Can you judge if the reeds seem to be entirely in original shape or has it possibly been retuned?
Have you found any other characteristics seemingly different from "non-Boyd" alikes?
-
One problem that occurred was that the highest note that I taped over, G3, became slow to speak. I have decided that, at least for now, I want to have a full volume low G, so I have removed the tape from it's pad hole. I should probably remove the G#3's tape as well.
You can of course experiment varying the degree of choking by the tape strips but iif you are prepared for a little bit more work why not try what Greg mentioned.....Thicker pads ( and maybe wider also, since I noticed there is plenty of space between the pads on this model)
It looks as if the pads are attached to the lever by a ball ( traditionally a leather one or similar). Removing this ought to give room for trying different pad thickness ( and choking effect) without interfering with other conditions.
Concerning the G and G# if muted allright but getting slower onset it is not impossible that the orientation of the tape can have some influence. Turn it 90 degrees and check what happens...(two possible alternatives..)
-
If I am not also confused then I understand that, in ITM, a C/G is often referred to as a D concertina because that is the most frequently (often only?) key that is played. Now take a C#/G# and the same fingering would yield an Eb (enharmonically = D#) concertina.
New to me...is that so? Very interesting. Generally speaking then that in ITM the C/G instruments are most commonly used for playing in D? Just trying to imagine the situation it seems like playing in D major is not particularly handy while D minor might get pretty attractive. Fingering wise...since you get the Tonic D minor and Dominant A Minor chords right away ( while the subdominant G stays major ) Melody fingering likely comfortable too conditionally playing mostly in D minor ...not D major...of course.
What about that? Some sense in it or what else is the reason preferring a C/G instrument for tunes in D? or the reverse? Having no familiarity with ITM I can't know....most tunes in minor really?
The consequent instrument history related question is....Have Dd/Ab ( not C#/G# ) anglos been rather common in Ireland in fact? For playing in Eb as said?
-
Sorry...."reed pan" ...I obviously was asleep writing that...action board of course.....
-
Don,A good try !... I should have said that it probably had been even easier doing it at the other side of the reed pan as I use to do it. Then you might cover 3-4 holes with one strip of tape and not be disturbed by the pads when putting it there... but never mind, you got some result to work on with.
Summing up concerning this kind of interference it definitely is wise using methods which are quick, easy and instantly reversible causing no job to set things "right" again. So is covering the fretwork, either with tape like this or a baffle. The only thing to consider may be that IF there is some original cloth or gauze inside the endplate too sticky tape may loosen it when removed.
If the tone becomes a bit muddled in some unpleasant way try combining this padhole trick ( with a bit less covering) with a complete or part "baffle" . Do report if it works for you !
-
I have an old (1901) anglo concertina that some refer to as an "Eb". Its actually tuned a semitone sharp of normal (for anglos) C/G, at C#/G#. I guess when playing with other instruments, calling it "Eb" is more informative to people unfamiliar with the way concertinas are tuned.
Sounds very odd to me...C#/G# being so very unusual and hard to see the use for too. Is it really a full semitone sharp? Can it have been about a quartertone sharp originally since if so having been an ordinary c/G but in Old Philharmonic pitch a=452,5 ?....and maybe having been retuned later to C#/G# with a=440 just to make it in "concert pitch" ...roughly...
Where the Eb comes in seems even more confusing unless actually been Ab/Eb ( Eb instead of C#) and some of it all been mixed up.....??
-
I am not the seller, just a curious party. Are the 35 button models always tenor range instruments? The eBay listing has little useful information, which is not uncommon.
No.
I have a 35-button "G-bass" Lachenal English. I.e., its lowest note is 2 octaves below the low G of a treble English (or violin). With 35 buttons, its highest note is middle C.
I think that in general, Englishes with fewer than 48 buttons would have been intended for use in bands, including marching bands..
Jim, why do you call that a "G-bass" ? Is it transposing to the key of G really? Or is it rather a C instrument - sounding two octaves lower than the common © treble? In that case is it not a proper C-bass what often is called in concertina band practise a " Bb-bass". ?? (when F instruments become "Eb" ones ..)
-
geoff et al,
do you sometimes find that you'll make a set of pipes that turn out to be 'magic', and you've done nothing different than the last twenty you made.....
This used to happen indeed ........ Yes some instruments are born great and others have to be encouraged but the general niveau is more constant these days.
The problem with assessing old concertinas for their playing qualities is their age and condition, the life they have led.. the playing field is uneven.
Agree completely and that makes ALL our present discussions on these matters rather accidental unless one tries to objectify by as said before some kind of blind tests and of course by very detailed technical investigations.
The subtle subjective differences ( more or less "magic") between seemingly twin instruments is well known among users of any kind of musical instruments and on top of that comes reputation and imagination....Just pick Stradivarius-es or Steinway grands ( if you got some...) as an example. ( Or numerous blind expert tests of red wine which sometimes turn out very entertaining ( not to say embarrassing...) )
One issue regarding history of old concertinas is if they have been used much or not, if still today being in "original condition". If hardly used at all this may be caused either by having some hidden defect making them inferior some way and put aside by the early owner ..or being absolutely superior from the start but just forgotten one way or other. NOT having been played for a very long time makes sqeezeboxes go out of tune and a major retuning may be necessary which risks ruining the early excellency, or at least makes the tonal quality uneven. The best old instruments you find today likely are those which have been played regularly, by as few owners as possible, BUT not reconditioned at all except for bellows, bushings and other replaceables .So...generally speaking there is a risk we travel on thin ice here most of the time....
Jay...by the way...it sounds as if you are saying that your "Wheatstone Boyd" is louder than your ex "Lachenal Boyd" . Is this something others want to support too it seems also to support my reflection in #31 that there is a common "loudness" difference between the common, same class models, of instruments coming from Wheatstones and Lachenals resepctively. IF SO...this is a particular bias also when speaking about "Boyd loudness".....or "Boyd response"....
-
In another thread: Boyd Wheatstone Concertinas
BW77 mentions some experiments with muting the volume of selected reeds:
Usually one thick or maybe 2 thin washers fix the damping allright. The other 2 just reduces the button travel ( and for what reason?) Muting the sound by reducing the pad lift IS a possibiity. I have muted some instrument by reducing the pad hole opening itself with tape strips. The result is quite interesting. Another method of course is using various kinds of "baffles" underneath the endplate.
I have tried a leather baffle on the LHS of my Peacock and while it reduced the volume it also changed the tone. Most of the time I don't use the baffle. Another problem is that it reduces the volume of all of the reeds on that side, whereas I only want to lower the volume of the lowest reeds.
I tried 'feathering' the bass buttons with my fingers to see if I could get a decent volume reduction with a very slight button press, but there seems to be quite a cliff edge between sound and no sound so I am not sure if this technique will work for me. I might try some additional washers to see what happens - it is a simple, non-destructive experiment.
Then BW77 mentions taping over the pad holes with 'quite interesting' results. Please elucidate.
Is that interesting in a good way or a bad way?
- BAFFLES. Both measures and materials have influence. In early instruments there were wooden boards. You used leather you say.Try cardboard instead. What happens is reduction of amplitude and some absorption of high overtones. Asphalt sheets may reduce overtones a little more. You can of course experiment just covering the lower part of your left side. You may be surprised how great deal of the fretwork you can cover witt fairly little effect. Another simple experiment is just covering (parts of) the fretwork with adhesive tape. For attaching internal baffles use double adhesive tape 2-3 mm thickness.
- WASHERS. Reducing the pad lift can mute the sound also but doing just part of the keyboard will change the general button feel when playing. IF it happens that doing it all over gives you a nice playing experience why not since completely harmless ( except for the work...) but it will consume considerable work unless you can slip on the washers without taking the pads off.
- REDUCING THE PADHOLES with tape. Entirely harmless of course and takes very little time and effort. Don't use plastic tape though which can be too sticky to gett off ! Try the kind of paper tape used to mask when painting which comes off easliy. Try covering a little more than half of the pad holes for a start and check the result. The amplitude is reduced and you can easliy choose what range of the keyboard you wish to soften.
Subjectively the tone itself seems to be changed by this operation also. My impression is that the tone spectrum is changed with lower amplitude ( less influence by high overtones ) This is something which ought to be easy to evaluate by spectrometric analysis. Someone who knows and have checked this?
-
My Tenor IS in F(!)
Would it not be handy tuning the guitar to Bb F C G then?
-
1. Is the wheatstone just a louder instrument or Are there other differences when playing
2. I love the romanticism of the idea that the Boyds are better instruments but I've only every played one....... and that was a lachenal though it did have a wim wakker rivetted action in it and a great set of new bellows made by him aswell. It played really well but I don't recall it being particularly loud........
3. Perhaps a meeting needs to be arranged for metal ended treble concertinas only from the late 19th and early 20 th century....... possibly in devon!!!
1-3 added by me:
1. Not talking "Boyds" here but from the couple of dozens fairly alike Wheatstone and Lachenal comparable sixsided medium to top of the line english models from ca 1905-1935 I have tinkered with, my impression is that the Wheatstone tone is a bit louder ( and mostly "harsher") than the Lachenals ( mostly a bit "softer/mellower"), In general the Wheatstone reeds are a bit more precise and when filing them giving a "harder" resistence ( possibly depending on a different, sometime bluehardening of the metal or the steel composition ( the rumour however says that the original composition of "music steel" for free reeds from delivering steel works has been very much the same throughout history BUT of course there must have been some batch differences all the same. What may have been done however is an occasional extra bluehardening by the makers when processing the actual reedworks )
IF this subjective observation corresponds with reality this also is a factor to keep in mind when comparing the makes in general AND the "Boyds" also
2. Another individual observation but still maybe supporting the assumption that maybe after all there is not so much, if anything, extra with the "Boyds" but perhaps a combination of good marketing and from that good reputation...Neither the new action nor the new bellows ought to have had any influence here...
3. Would of course be interesting and a bit intriguing doing some blind tests with several players and audience as well. When and where?
-
Is there a suggested way to practice and remember old tunes as well. Suggestions welcome Thanks Ron
Certainly....just play them 10000 times and your fingers will never forget them what ever your mind does. What your neighbours remember is another story...there is always a certain risk you never come that far..... I usully don't....
-
Yes; it looks just like my 35 key Lachenal New Model F Tenor, only mine's in a much nicer condition having been restored by David Robertson. I had been tempted to convert to a standard tenor but in the end liked it too much as it is, as you can just pick it up and play without having to give any thought to the fingering. My wife, who plays mandolin, can pick up a tenor guitar tuned CGDA and accompany this concertina.
Hm...what do you mean by "convert it to a standard tenor" ? If it has the low F ( a fifth below middle C) on the left side at the same level in relation to the thumb strap as the normal C on a treble. ( So it is on the instrument here: http://www.ebay.com/...sd=201785005053 ) then that IS the "standard" Tenor arrangement since when fingered in the same way as a common treble it transposes a fifth down to the key of F. Same principle as a "standard" baritone fingered just like a common treble transposes an octave down. Next according to the same principle you have the F-bass transposing an octave+ a fifth down
There surely ARE "tenors" also in C but if meant for band work, as these F-instruments usually were, the point was playing the score/part for Eb instruments while the common original C-instruments did the score/part for Bb instruments. In concertina band environment the F-instruments thus often ( mostly?) are referred to as Eb instruments. Somewhat confusing if this background is not considered.
You say ..." My wife, who plays mandolin, can pick up a tenor guitar tuned CGDA and accompany this concertina" At a quick thought on this it makes me a bit confused however.... IF your tenor IS in F.
It would be more handy if being in C it seems ( without trying in practise ) but you may transpose of course with the guitar too....)
By the way - it is fairly easy to transpose with a concertina also between keys F and C... and after swapping all B:s and Bb:s you can make it one step easier still.
-
Many thanks Jay.The logotypes differ a bit. On the Wheatstone "HBoyd" can easlily be detected. On the Lachenal at first I didn't
see the *H* at all, but then it came up as someting like "H x Boyd" .
Some curiosity remains...Since the Boyd instruments are supposed to be extra loud for these two examples it would be interesting to
- compare the general construction (The fretwork is fairly alike and ought to have no influence)
-compare the loudness itself between the two ( or similar) and with not-Boyd similar instruments
- compare the onset response -"-
- compare the reed chambers ( length, height, flat / tapered ) -"-
- compare the reeds ( length, profiling, metal hardening) -"-
- compare the reed shoes ( measures and profiling) -"-
-
The instrument in #23 above obviously is a Lachenal. Jay - it would be interesting to compare it with the fretwork inlays with the Boyd name in your Wheatstone. Can you show a photo? and what is the serial number of it?
Laitch - ( Here is another Wheatstone with bowing valves ) .... that example obviously prooves the existence of Wheatstones with bowing valves. Now....is there anyone around having used them according to the instructions by "Signor Alsepti" ?
-
My 1912 Wheatstone is listed as "Model 22, Nickel, 48 keys, B.V." in the ledger with no indication that it was for Boyd although it has the name in the metal. It's also the only model 22 they produced during June of 1912, so Boyd clearly didn't always order in batches.
Perhaps the B.V. (which I believe stand for bowing valves?) is a clue? I just went through the whole ledger for 1912, and it looks like they only made 5 model 22's the whole year, and mine is the only one with the B.V. notation.
Does this instrument of yours have the "Boyd" name inlaid in the fretwork like the instrument in previous message #20 which I would guess is a Lachenal? Or is the name "Boyd" engraved ( meaning that it might have been added after delivery from Wheatstones...)
AND does it actually have bowing valves now? or are there any signs that they have been there originally but removed? I checked several Wheatstone englishes from 1905 to 1930 having the slots for possible bowing valves on both sides but not having had the actual valves. For none of them identified in the ledgers (1910-30) there is any notation saying B.V.
Questions: Does the "B.V. " surely stand for bowing valves having been mounted ? Can it stand for fretwork prepared for bowing valves? ( would be strange...)
I have believed that the bowing valve concept was practised by Lachenals only (marketed by Lachenals and in cooperation some way with Alsepti advocating for them in the tutor published by Lachenals but I may be mistaken of course...). Someone who has got a Wheatstone with bowing valves?
-
Please excuse Geoff, obviously a non thoughtful shortcut by myself. Since your "1898" IS domed its place in the market competition sound likely but as I said we have to know for sure in what chronologic order these newish designs came up from respective makers.
I made the assumption because of your reported problems with the pad lift. Now - as it got domed ends - this surprises me even more since with metal ends it ought to gain some 3-4 mm extra space for pad lift compared to a same kind wooden ended instrument. I've got a 48 key sixsided domed wooden ended Wheatstone from 1905. I will take it apart tonight to examine it a little for comparisons. It is interesting what you say that maybe the model was "not fully developed" in 1898. I think mine also got 4 button washers originally. This routine which IS somewhat peculiar maybe reflect some problem with the lacking space you have described. Usually one thick or maybe 2 thin washers fix the damping allright. The other 2 just reduces the button travel ( and for what reason?) Muting the sound by reducing the pad lift IS a possibiity. I have muted some instrument by reducing the pad hole opening itself with tape strips. The result is quite interesting. Another method of course is using various kinds of "baffles" underneath the endplate.
Someone who really knows the order of appearance of the domed/raised ends Lachenals and Wheatstone is welcome reporting!
Poor mans choice between violin and concertina is another interesting subject. Here we are talking about top of the line concertinas and a rough guess of mine is that such an instrument cost at least 2 months wages for a worker. Saving that amount must have taken a lot of time...Not surprising if a low budget standard concertina would be more tempting, cost say 10-20% of the top one.
I have no reference regarding violins but industrial made German ones I actually guess ought to have been cheaper than even mid standard concertinas. Some documents around to tell?
By the way...when the Boyd label is presented in the fretwork what does it look like? On Lachenals integrated with the fretwork like the "SA" letters for Salvation Army models? On Wheatstones with a printed paper label replacing the original "C Wheatstone" label? Or engraved? Any photos somewhere?
Any Ideas For The Short-Of-Thumb?
in General Concertina Discussion
Posted
Quite so..as I said also in #4 above. Do check what was said on the item before here
http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16472
and a Dipper instrument with lever operated air valve in action here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHoZOyvi3qg and notice how smooth it works
There is hardly any reason for makers of today ( nor players of course...) using press button air valves at all. They ought to be dismissed and just like you said only provided on special order.... but even that is somewhat dubious since it conserves an evident historic mistake..