Who made this 30 key anglo?

[southseas_squeeze]

I bought this recently from a carboot sale. Basically a rosewood ended 30 key anglo with 7 extra custom keys and an air button. It has no makers name on it anywhere I can find, inside or out. The number 1901 is pencilled on both of the reed boards and also stamped on the inside of the bellow frame (see pics). It has a riveted action, so I guess it's not a Lachenal. The fretwork is solid rosewood, not ply. Not sure if the bellows are original, but they're in pretty good shape. George Jones seems to be the closest thing I could find. Your help would be greatly appreciated, thanks for any ideas in advance!!

[chris]

Hi

Not Jones - the action post is the wrong shape.

chris

[southseas_squeeze]

I thought the other possibility could be an early Crabb due to reed layout and action? Is the fretwork too fancy though? Hmmm.

[southseas_squeeze]

Having done a little further research, I found images of this 1890's Jeffries.

 

http://schnefsky-accordionman.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/jeffries-bbf-concertina-1890s-for-sale.html

 

It would seem the action and reedpans are identical. Is this a Crabb made Jeffries? My anglo definitely doesn't have any makers stamps anywhere, but everything else seems to be exactly consistent with this model, (including pencilled makers notes), other than having wood ends.

Thanks Chris for your earlier reply, what do you reckon to this suggestion?

 

Ben

[chris]

I think Geoff Crabb is your man for this one, he would be the most knowledgeable about Crabbs

Chris

[mike byrne]

Having done a little further research, I found images of this 1890's Jeffries.

 

http://schnefsky-accordionman.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/jeffries-bbf-concertina-1890s-for-sale.html

 

It would seem the action and reedpans are identical. Is this a Crabb made Jeffries? My anglo definitely doesn't have any makers stamps anywhere, but everything else seems to be exactly consistent with this model, (including pencilled makers notes), other than having wood ends.

Thanks Chris for your earlier reply, what do you reckon to this suggestion?

 

Ben

 

Here are some pics of a wooden ended Jeffries.

[southseas_squeeze]

Mike and Chris, thanks for your help here. It definitely looks to be similar to the Jeffries pictures you posted, although obviously not the same. There was an era where Crabb produced instruments for Jeffries? Maybe it is one of those Crabbs. I'll send a message to Geoff and see if he has any ideas. Thanks again for your help.

 

Ben

[Geoffrey Crabb]

Mike and Chris, thanks for your help here. It definitely looks to be similar to the Jeffries pictures you posted, although obviously not the same. There was an era where Crabb produced instruments for Jeffries? Maybe it is one of those Crabbs. I'll send a message to Geoff and see if he has any ideas. Thanks again for your help.

 

Ben

 

 

Ben

I am afraid that without a number, or a named, known similar example for comparison it is not possible to definitely identify the maker.

 

Similarity of the original pan layout and pivot posts does suggest Crabb but I am not familiar with the fretwork pattern used. I have searched through my archive of original patterns but nothing matches. Of course this does not prove that it is not originally an early Crabb, I am still surprised sometimes at what can turn up.

 

Occasionally, ‘J Crabb’ ‘Maker’ was lightly impressed into one of the end box sides (not the fret-worked top). As the instrument has been modified it is quite possible that if re-polishing was done at the same time, the impression may have been ‘rubbed’ out. Careful examination of all the sides may reveal traces of the original impression.

 

 

Not a lot of help sorry.

 

 

Geoffrey

 

 

[southseas_squeeze]

Hello Geoffrey, thanks very much for looking into the concertina for me. It all starts getting so specialist! But fascinating. I've checked over the end box sides and can see nothing at all in terms of makers stamps, although it does look like there could have been some re-polishing at some stage. It has obviously been a players instrument and so has been worked on at various times throughout it's life.

The one thing I'd add is that there is definitely a makers number stamped on the inside of the end box. Number 1901. This is pencilled on both of the reed pans as well. It looks more like a serial number because of the stamping than anything else. I've attached a picture so you can see. Does that search the help any? It really does look like a Crabb from comparisons I can see.

Let me know if throws any further light on anything.

Thanks again for your help.

 

Ben

[Geoffrey Crabb]

Hello Geoffrey, thanks very much for looking into the concertina for me. It all starts getting so specialist! But fascinating. I've checked over the end box sides and can see nothing at all in terms of makers stamps, although it does look like there could have been some re-polishing at some stage. It has obviously been a players instrument and so has been worked on at various times throughout it's life.

The one thing I'd add is that there is definitely a makers number stamped on the inside of the end box. Number 1901. This is pencilled on both of the reed pans as well. It looks more like a serial number because of the stamping than anything else. I've attached a picture so you can see. Does that search the help any? It really does look like a Crabb from comparisons I can see.

Let me know if throws any further light on anything.

Thanks again for your help.

 

Ben

 

Hi Ben,

the existing J Crabb/HCrabb records, 1889 -1989, show the earliest recorded number as 8340. An earlier reported number in the 8### series I have calculated to be circa 1872. As the firm was established in 1860 and output was relatively small, it has always been doubtful if numbers used went much below 8000. Since 1974 I have been made aware that a Crabb instrument has been sighted with a 78## number. As the last two digits were not confirmed I could not estimate a date.

Although I would be pleased to attribute your instrument to my great grandfather I feel that without further conclusive evidence it would be wrong to do so.

 

Lets hope some other evidence comes forth to identify your instrument.

 

Geoffrey