Unusual ? or not ??

[Stephen Chambers]

2 hours ago, David Barnert said:

 

Is this the only instance of the word “Duet” being applied to a bisonoric instrument? I’ve never run across it before.

 

I think they named it A.G. Duet to describe the dual nature of the instrument - four rows are the bisonoric Anglo-German element, whilst the fifth row is the unisonoric Duet one.

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Stephen Chambers
Typo.

[Richard Mellish]

I'm reviving this thread now, having at long last got around to looking inside the mystery Lachenal and identifying the two notes that were missing from the chart that I posted earlier. Here now is the complete chart. There is a considerable resemblance to the Jeffries 45-key layout that Gary found and I posted, but there are also significant differences besides all the extra buttons. Note for instance, in the middle row on the left-hand end, the basic G-A-B-C-D-E notes being displaced one space to the right. I think this must have been someone's custom layout, and it will take a bit of getting used to by whoever takes it up now.

 

That may not be me, in the end, and I may be offering it here in due course. But it needs an overhaul anyway, so the next step is to find someone to do that.

 

Other information from inside: both action plates are stamped "2277", and hand-written in pencil on the left-hand one is 'H Dean to "C, 522" 20-11-46'.

 

With modern concert pitch A440 and equal temperament, C would be 523.3 Hz, so Dean, whoever that was, seems to have deliberately chosen some other reference pitch and/or temperament. That is another interesting aspect for possible investigation, but not of practical significance for the future as the box will need a re-tune anyway.

Lachenal 55.pdf

[Stephen Chambers]

2 hours ago, Richard Mellish said:

There is a considerable resemblance to the Jeffries 45-key layout that Gary found and I posted, but there are also significant differences besides all the extra buttons. Note for instance, in the middle row on the left-hand end, the basic G-A-B-C-D-E notes being displaced one space to the right. I think this must have been someone's custom layout, and it will take a bit of getting used to by whoever takes it up now.

 

That's something you'll occasionally see on very early German concertinas, which was sometimes copied by early Anglo makers in England (for people who'd grown used to it), and it's something (known as "Artistic fingering") that you'll sometimes find on (untouched) 38-key Jeffries instruments - I've converted several of them to "normal" fingering over the years.

 

Quote

... hand-written in pencil on the left-hand one is 'H Dean to "C, 522" 20-11-46'.

 

With modern concert pitch A440 and equal temperament, C would be 523.3 Hz, so Dean, whoever that was, seems to have deliberately chosen some other reference pitch and/or temperament. That is another interesting aspect for possible investigation, but not of practical significance for the future as the box will need a re-tune anyway.

 

In 2004 I wrote that "Henry Dean (i) was born in Rochester, Kent, about 1836 or '37. On the 1881 Census he is listed as a "Harmonium Reed Maker", at 1, Tyrrell Road, Camberwell. In 1891 he is a "Concertina Tuner & General Shop Keeper", at 106, Shaftesbury Street, Shoreditch and in 1901 he is "Concertina Reed Maker", at 42, Winston Road, Stoke Newington (which is heading in the direction of Wood Green).

 

His eldest son, Henry Dean (ii), was born in Battersea, about 1870 or '71. In 1891 he was an "Auxiliary, General Post Office", and by 1901 he had become a "Postman". But perhaps he carried on his father's business later ?" (I must do some more work on the two of them, now that there are lots more sources for genealogical research available.)

 

C522/A439 was the British standard New Philharmonic pitch, which was established in 1896.

 

[Richard Mellish]

39 minutes ago, Stephen Chambers said:

C522/A439 was the British standard New Philharmonic pitch, which was established in 1896.

 

Thank you for explaining the pitch reference. Henry Dean junior would have been in his mid 70s in 1946, so perhaps carrying on the musical instrument business as a sideline and/or after retiring from his job as a postman.

[Richard Mellish]

I mentioned the action plates being stamped "2277". The same number is also on the left-hand end, where one would expect a serial number. But 2277 would be a pretty early number for a Lachenal, and this instrument is surely not that early. Anyone have any idea when it might have been made and what the number 2277 signifies?

[alex_holden]

2 hours ago, Richard Mellish said:

I mentioned the action plates being stamped "2277". The same number is also on the left-hand end, where one would expect a serial number. But 2277 would be a pretty early number for a Lachenal, and this instrument is surely not that early. Anyone have any idea when it might have been made and what the number 2277 signifies?

 

That's rather nice. It's hand engraved, not a stamp, though the design is clearly based on their printed label.

[Sprunghub]

As something of a 'nearly' one-off, would it be likely that Lachenal 'slotted' it in with the rising Mccann serial numbers ? Dowright's comments below would put it somewhere slightly younger than the Mccann & Crane serials being merged ?

 

 

[Richard Mellish]

3 hours ago, Sprunghub said:

As something of a 'nearly' one-off, would it be likely that Lachenal 'slotted' it in with the rising Mccann serial numbers ? Dowright's comments below would put it somewhere slightly younger than the Mccann & Crane serials being merged ?

 

 

Regarding it as some (very distant, bastard) relative of a McCann might explain the McCann patent number on the straps.

[David Barnert]

Going back to the original post:

 

On 9/4/2020 at 11:31 AM, Sprunghub said:

Is this a Wicki (Hayden)  Lachenal ?

 

FWIW, instruments designed by both Wicki and Hayden only have straight rows of keys.

[Stephen Chambers]

11 hours ago, Richard Mellish said:

I mentioned the action plates being stamped "2277". The same number is also on the left-hand end, where one would expect a serial number. But 2277 would be a pretty early number for a Lachenal, and this instrument is surely not that early. Anyone have any idea when it might have been made and what the number 2277 signifies?

 

Lachenal used different number sequences for Englishes, Anglos, and Duets. 2277 is a number from the Duet sequence, though I seem to remember having had a regular New Model Anglo (they're rare, but very good) 40 years ago that also had a Duet serial number... 

[Richard Mellish]

5 hours ago, Stephen Chambers said:

 

Lachenal used different number sequences for Englishes, Anglos, and Duets. 2277 is a number from the Duet sequence, though I seem to remember having had a regular New Model Anglo (they're rare, but very good) 40 years ago that also had a Duet serial number... 

OK, that makes sense, thank you. Well, a kind of sense, if they deemed this one to be a kind of Duet, which just happens to have mostly different notes on push and pull.

 

About when would they have allocated that number?

 

I don't think I would ever get used to it, when I have been playing 40-key Wheatstone layout Anglos for nearly 40 years. I bid high enough to get it because I was curious about it and reluctant to let to go to someone unknown, where it might never be heard of again.

 

I will get it overhauled anyway, then when it's back in good condition I will offer it here for anyone who feels like tackling its idiosyncrasies. If no-one offers close enough to what it will have cost me I will keep it, and probably twiddle occasionally, until either I need to sell it for whatever it will fetch, to help to support me in my dotage, or I die. I have specified to my executors what to do with all my concertinas when I die.

[Sprunghub]

A random search of the 'Date my Lachenal' thread suggests Mccann 2184, dates to 1903.  There isn't much of a gap twixt the two so probably within a year or so ( not knowing if 2184 would have been Jan or Dec production ? )

 

Mccann/Crane serials supposedly conjoined at 2700 (Mccann's)  in 1910.  

 

A deeper search of the Lachenal dating thread might reveal a closer comparator but it's 14 pages long! or one can guess at the maths?