Stephen Chambers Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 2 hours ago, wes williams said: Thanks for that Mike - there is a Crane in our database with exactly the same number, so another bit of evidence that Maccanns and Cranes started with different series of numbers. I'll just add that Maccann #836 would date from the end of 1890, whilst Crane #836 would be 1910. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Thorne Posted September 24 Author Share Posted September 24 Even more thanks all for all the information. One final question. Can anyone say where this instrument might have sat in the quality league? Particularly with regards to the reeds I guess. Is it worth restoring as it is, or would it better to "repurpose" it? Clive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted September 25 Share Posted September 25 On 9/24/2022 at 4:50 PM, Clive Thorne said: One final question. Can anyone say where this instrument might have sat in the quality league? Particularly with regards to the reeds I guess. That's hard to say with the original ends missing, but a photo of the reed-pans (showing the chamois gasket) might give me a clue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Thorne Posted September 25 Author Share Posted September 25 (edited) Here you are Stephen. I take it that the darkening of mush of the chamois means that it has been leaking? Clive. Edited September 25 by Clive Thorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted September 25 Share Posted September 25 1 hour ago, Clive Thorne said: Here you are Stephen. Thanks Clive, that confirms that the instrument started out as one of middling quality, not a professional instrument. Quote I take it that the darkening of mush of the chamois means that it has been leaking? Yes, quite likely as a result of corner support blocks coming unglued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Thorne Posted September 26 Author Share Posted September 26 (edited) Yet again many thanks. I'll settle for middling quality as, as a 46 key Maccann, I had assumed it was pretty much a starter instrument. Also as a middling instrument I won't feel so bad if I do end up "Repurposing" it. Edited September 26 by Clive Thorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 12 hours ago, Clive Thorne said: ... as a 46 key Maccann, I had assumed it was pretty much a starter instrument. You'll find even top-quality Aeolas, Edeophones, and New Model Maccanns in 46-key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Thorne Posted September 27 Author Share Posted September 27 Thanks Stephen, Everyday a school day. Clive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.