Paul Read Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 I have been using the Buyers Guide articles (mostly Wes Williams) for a while now to date Lachenal anglo concertinas. I went in this week to date one with a number just over 205,000 and found that one guide says 201,000 were made (obviously an incorrect assumption) and elsewhere that 350,000 were made. I suspect I've missed some previous discussion, but my question is: what is the current state of the art for age estimates for anglos. Also, what is the best guess for 205,000 manufacturing year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Coles Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I'm told Wes is working with others, like Chris Algar, Jim Lucas, Randy Merris on a comprehensive study of age constraints on Lachenals. The flip side is that I've gotten the impression from Wes that he is weary of being misquoted from the article posted here (e.g. by antique sellers on ebay) and any revisions will appear elsewhere. The 350,000 figure was speculative and is clearly outdated, I gather. The highest number I had seen was just over 201,000 and we all assumed it was from right around Lachenal's demise in 1936 or so. Presumably a real 205,000 would be around that time. More or less the last one put together. There are some real experts here, they might chime in with better info. And (sigh) I guess the old Lachenal dating articles in the Buyer's Guide need editing or at least serious disclaimers attached to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Read Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 The posting wasn't meant as a criticism. Without the efforts of these guys we'd have nothing. Without Wheatstone management of the 1930s we'd have everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Unfortunately, nobody knows what happened to Lachenal's serial number records, or if they even kept any, but the highest Anglo numbers that I am aware of are (as Ken says) in the 201000 series. My own research, published in PICA in paper format only so far (and I haven't even seen it myself yet), but due to be published on the web, indicates some important new dating parameters: It would seem that Lachenal's only started to produce anglos in 1862, and the year of closure was almost certainly 1933. Also, I can tell you that #196865 was sold for £5.0.0 on 9th January 1926 as I have the receipt for it. I would love to know more about this #205000, as it goes off the graph of present knowledge, though a freak number is always possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Read Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 Given the response, I went back and cleaned up the label. Sorry boys, false alarm, it is just a very fancy #1 up front. It did have us all going for a while though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 The flip side is that I've gotten the impression from Wes that he is weary of being misquoted from the article posted here (e.g. by antique sellers on ebay) and any revisions will appear elsewhere. Not exactly weary, but when I put so many 'don't take anything here as gospel and allow at least 10 years either way' caveats into the article, it gets annoying when some bright spark claims elsewhere that their concertina was made in exactly 1877 because I've said so! As to not publishing any revisions here, but elsewhere, thats not correct - I've probably started at least ten revisions of the article for publication here (where else?), and each time they've been delayed for one reason or another. I managed to get the section on 'other makers' substantially updated a few years back, and stuck that up on a site I get free from my ISP, as an interim update, meaning to finish the whole later - but failed Currently I'm stuck again - I'm waiting for Stephen's Lachenal article to go up on the ICA site, and our joint Jeffries article to get posted - otherwise what I've written may not make sense, and/or I may be jumping the gun and publishing before the main source has. Its difficult!! So, 'cos its Christmas, here's the almost current (but pre-Stephen's 'Lachenal Part 2', which you can apply from above) version for Lachenal Anglos: Serial/ after - before 1..1500 1858 - 1864 1500..3200 1858 - 1867 3201..15400 1858 - 1878 15401..25200 1861 - 1878 25201..44700 1872 - 1878 44701..46999 1876 - 1878 47000 1878 - 47001..51000 1878 - 1881 51001..80600 1878 - 1887 80601..92000 1881 - 1887 92001..140500 1885 - 1896 140501..144400 1895 - 1897 144001..152600 1895 - 1918 152601..172000 1897 - 1918 172001..187400 1904 - 1918 187401..196800 1904 - 1927 196801..201071 1926 - 1935 So 105,000 is estimated 1885- 1896. But Paul's misread, even when he has some experience, is typical of the problems that face us with so many reports of instrument serials! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 It would seem that Lachenal's only started to produce anglos in 1862, and the year of closure was almost certainly 1933. here's the almost current (but pre-Stephen's 'Lachenal Part 2', which you can apply from above) version for Lachenal Anglos: Well its only a pseudo Louis Lachenal Part 2, which I do intend to write one of these days, indeed I would also like to update Part 1 with information I have found since, but it does contain a lot of the research for Part 2. I forgot to mention another, very significant, dating parameter in that the change of the firm's title from "Louis Lachenal" to "Lachenal & Co." appears to have taken place in 1873 (Louis having died in December 1861 and the business was carried on by his widow in the meantime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 and found that one guide says 201,000 were made (obviously an incorrect assumption) and elsewhere that 350,000 were made. And perhaps we'd better answer Paul's original question: The 350,000 comes from Neil Wayne's Free Reed magazine, early 1970s. I believe that the original quote came from Tommy Williams, and it was '350,000 30 key anglos', which does seem to be stretching things a bit too far. But so little was known 30 years ago, that anything and everything needed to be noted, and its only recently that we can get a better idea, through being able to exchange and seek info via the net, worldwide. Look at all the mistakes I made, and the lack of info, only a few years ago when this site first started! Just under 201,100 is the highest serial number reported so far, and the instrument has all the features of a very late model, so a misread is not suspected. We've also had similar reports over 200,000 so giving further weight to this figure, which also includes some JEDcertinas. In terms of English, the numbers go a bit over 60,000 and duets are almost 10,000 although I believe that Crane and Maccann numbers were initially two seperate series, so perhaps nearer 12,000 duets were actually made ( or numbers allocated?). Grand total: circa 275,000 Lachenal concertinas, and around 0.5% reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindizzy Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 In terms of English, the numbers go a bit over 60,000 and duets are almost 10,000..... And DH has Lachenal English 60325 ! Chris Algar reckoned that was the highest serial number he'd seen so far .... so has he got the final box to go out of the door? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Coles Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 As to not publishing any revisions here, but elsewhere, thats not correct - I've probably started at least ten revisions of the article for publication here (where else?), and each time they've been delayed for one reason or another. I managed to get the section on 'other makers' substantially updated a few years back, and stuck that up on a site I get free from my ISP, as an interim update, meaning to finish the whole later - but failed Well, sorry for that misimpression, Wes (maybe I got it from looking at that avatar)! As for getting things done you have company, many of the overdue site revsions get started many times by yours truly and set aside before they are done. Meanwhile I will keep a note of this thread, some interesting info to include whenever I _do_ revise all that dating info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Read Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 (edited) Boy, you sure get a full answer on this site. Thanks Wes, Stephen et al. I do have one over 200,000 (200,574) winging to me as I write. it will be interesting to compare this with the earlier ones. One numbered just over 150,000 seems to have rosewood laminated ends whereas the new one and 105,000+ were solid mahogany. I wonder if the laminate was considered an upgrade. It certainly has proved more resistant to splits/cracks/shrinkage. The new one has an original case that is leather and NOT hexagonal, the others have the traditional hexagonal wood case. I wonder when Lachenal made the change. This may have some significance for dating exercises too. Typos edited Edited December 16, 2004 by Paul Read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 And DH has Lachenal English 60325 !Chris Algar reckoned that was the highest serial number he'd seen so far .... so has he got the final box to go out of the door? In terms of verifiable numbers, its pretty near. We have a handful of reports from 64000 to 68000, but nobody on the project has ever seen a number this high, and Chris's wide experience of reading these numbers has shown that quite a few get misread when he asks the sellers for them. And Ken - the avatar is the original Dorset Ooser from at least 150 years ago, now sadly lost, brought out at this time of year to frighten the good folks around Melbury, and said to have sinister magical properties, which seem to be working even here. Lots of info on the web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 (edited) The new one has an original case that is leather and NOT hexagonal, the others have the traditional hexagonal wood case. I wonder when Lachenal made the change. This may have some significance for dating exercises too. Paul - I think the leather case versus the wooden was probably dependent on the model. If you look at the price list here (circa 1890 - 1900?) you'll see an example. Added: And we shouldn't forget Stephen's typing exercise in this thread. Edited December 16, 2004 by wes williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike byrne Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I have a Lachenal 30 button anglo No. 200704. It has plastic buttons, mahogany plywood ends and fibre inserts for the endbolts to screw into (which soon loose their holding power after the concertina has been opened a few times) and have to be replaced with threaded brass inserts. These were made down to a price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Read Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 (edited) Mike, How well does the 1930s 30-button play? Have you compared it to one of the older ones? How many folds to the bellows. Edited December 16, 2004 by Paul Read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike byrne Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Paul, It has five fold bellows with brown papers, comparing it to a similar mahogany ended older instrument, it is not as responsive, but the sound is similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 One numbered just over 150,000 seems to have rosewood laminated ends Presumably that is one with full, handcut fretwork across the ends ? whereas the new one and 105,000+ were solid mahogany. Solid mahogany, or rosewood, with simple machine-cut fretwork was employed for the cheaper grades of instrument. I wonder if the laminate was considered an upgrade. It certainly has proved more resistant to splits/cracks/shrinkage. It may go against modern thinking but it was indeed, and for those very reasons. However, the late period basic models had ends made of mahogany plywood, round-ended plastic buttons, Art Deco papers and tend to be stamped "ENGLAND". The new one has an original case that is leather and NOT hexagonal Very late ones usually came in a square fibreboard case that was grained to look like leather. That may well be what it has. it is not as responsive That would certainly be my experience of them. Not the best-made reeds ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyn Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I have a Lachenal 40-key metal ended anglo, in the key of Bb/F No. 200436. It has finely cut fretwork and the ends are inset into the frames. As this is a very loud instrument, I was wondering if the manufacture of it was completed after the take over by Wheatstone. I've always assumed it was made in 1935. Any ideas? Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now