Anglo Prices

[Hilary]

I remember someone asking for selling prices of instruments, but I can't find the thread so ...

 

I noticed in the paper (don't know which one, I found it in a pub) that a couple of Jeffries were sold at auction recently for £3300 and £2400.

I quote:

 

"Apparently, even the old squeeze box makes its mark! Now I don't mean the toy or domestic concertina, the real thing - a well-made machine intended for professional use.

The market leader in this equipment is headed by the firm of C Jeffries."...

"It appears that these are sought after by small Irish folk bands.

There are two types of concertina - the Anglo and the English. The two instruments which made the highest price were the prefered Anglo system."

 

I think that clears up the ongoing discussions about type of instument - if it isn't Anglo or English, it isn't a concertina (apologies to all the duet etc players out there ) or is the duet a form of English? which is what my husband believes.

Edited June 19, 2005 by Hilary

[geoffwright]

I belive the Jeffries duet system is based on an anglo, opened out to play in one direction, so not all duets are forms of English con.

[Clive Thorne]

"or is the duet a form of English?"

 

Well that depends on how the individual defines each type.

Personally I'd say that the fact that a duet has a "bass" and a "treble" end rtaher than aletrnating notes between the hands makes its worthy of its own category.

 

Clive.

[Chris Timson]

Personally I'd say that the fact that a duet has a "bass" and a "treble" end rtaher than aletrnating notes between the hands makes its worthy of its own category.

Which would make the anglo a form of duet, a concept I find not unreasonable.

 

Chris

[Clive Thorne]

Personally I'd say that the fact that a duet has a "bass" and a "treble" end rtaher than aletrnating notes between the hands makes its worthy of its own category.

Which would make the anglo a form of duet, a concept I find not unreasonable.

 

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't really mean to imply that either Chris, although I can see in that in highlighting the differences between a duet and an english I did not actually mention what, in my mind at least, distinguishes the anglo from a duet, ie the different note in each direction.

 

 

 

Clive.

[Chris Timson]

I didn't really mean to imply that either Chris

Shame! While of course an anglo is an anglo, not a duet, I find the comparison a useful one when considering how I at least try to play it.

 

Chris

[JimLucas]

I noticed in the paper ... I quote:

"There are two types of concertina - the Anglo and the English."

 

I think that clears up the ongoing discussions about type of instument - if it isn't Anglo or English, it isn't a concertina (apologies to all the duet etc players out there ) or is the duet a form of English? which is what my husband believes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I presume you said that with tongue in cheek. Nevertheless, the subsequent discussion prompts me to respond.

 

Personally I'd say that the fact that a duet has a "bass" and a "treble" end rather than alternating notes between the hands makes its worthy of its own category.

Which would make the anglo a form of duet, a concept I find not unreasonable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't really mean to imply that either Chris, although I can see in that in highlighting the differences between a duet and an english I did not actually mention what, in my mind at least, distinguishes the anglo from a duet, ie the different note in each direction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not quite sure what the point is here. Some unidentified newspaper reporter states something about concertinas that conflicts with what the community of concertina players and makers has accepted for more than a hundred years, and we're supposed to debate whether we should consider adopting the classification we've been using all along?

 

The common English-made concertinas are usually classified into three groups: English, anglo, and duet. The English are unisonoric, with the scale alternating notes in the two hands. The duets are unisonoric, with lower notes in the one (left) hand and higher notes in the other (right) hand. Duets also generally have some overlap between ranges of the two hands, though I don't think that miniature duets do. Anglos have lower notes in the one (left) hand and higher notes in the other (right) hand, usually with some overlap, but are bisonoric.

 

These are the distinctions which are generally accepted and understood, though there are times when other distinctions can be useful. E.g., most duet players do not find it reasonable to consider the different duet systems to be "identical".

 

The layouts of anglos and Jeffries duets are closely related. Some folks like to describe the Crane system as resembling the English, and there are certain features of both which can be compared, though I think the differences are far more significant than those similarities if one is learning to play.

 

I do find it reasonable sometimes to think of the anglo as a "bisonoric duet", though the bisonoric quality alone is enough to earn it its own classification ("anglo"), and I doubt that very many others would think of it as "a kind of duet".

 

No time to look it up right now, but a while back someone here on Concertina.net was experimenting with a keyboard design that was bisonoric like the anglo but with the scale alternating hands like the English. Unless and until it becomes popular, I'm not going to worrry about how to classify it. On the other hand, I've seen the Linton system described as a "duet" -- maybe because it looks like other duets? -- when it's really more of a variant "English". It has bar-and-strap handles like the duets, and its key layout is 6-across (like the Maccann duet), but its scale alternates between the hands like an English (and it's unisonoric).

 

So I suggest that you/we use whatever classification makes it easiest to communicate our intention... but that will usually be the division into anglo, English, and duet. We don't have an official rule book, and if we did, it wouldn't depend on an article written by a half-informed journalist.

[Clive Thorne]

All very interesting Jim, but I don't think anyone was actually argueing about it anyway. I was just responding to the (possibly unintentional) implication in Geoff's remarks, that some duets might be considered as a form of English.

 

Clive

Edited June 20, 2005 by Clive Thorne

[Clive Thorne]

I didn't really mean to imply that either Chris

Shame! While of course an anglo is an anglo, not a duet, I find the comparison a useful one when considering how I at least try to play it.

 

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never played a duet, but I can see what you might mean in the sense that if I did I would have a 'chord and melody' approach as I do on the anglo.

 

Clive