Wheatstone Numbers

[cplayer]

I have at last obtained a wheatstone 40 button anglo the serial no is 23703

but all the wood parts of the ends are stamped 57 my friend who has anglo no 23889 his wood work is stamped 58 was this used as a factory assembly number?

I await with intrest

cplayer

[Stephen Chambers]

Those appear to be two of the earliest Anglos built by Wheatstone's, after the death of Edward Chidley senior (1830-1899). He was a player of classical music on the English concertina and opposed to the Anglo, so only a handful were made under his ownership. But his son, also Edward Chidley, seems to have quickly started to make them (shades of "Over my dead body son !" - "OK dad !" perhaps ? ) Unfortunately the ledgers for them are lost, but they should be very nice instruments.

 

The numbers 57 and 58 are what are generally referred to as "batch numbers", and believed to be for factory assembly purposes. But with those serial numbers, they appear to be from different batches and not consecutive.

[wes williams]

The numbers 57 and 58 are what are generally referred to as "batch numbers", and believed to be for factory assembly purposes. But with those serial numbers, they appear to be from different batches and not consecutive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Wheatstone ledgers don't really start showing these numbers until 1912 (SD01 page27) but we know they were already in use, so thanks for reporting them. Is anybody aware of earlier instruments with "batch numbers", or could they have started with the move to West Street in 1905? Could this be a pointer for dates in this "unledgered" period?

[cplayer]

many thanks to steve and wes for your input,In the case there was just two pages of a tutor the front page is how to learn the anglo german concertina by c.roylance the other page is no 39/40 a tune called the bells I will put a photo up of the pages asap

cplayer

[mpcorbett]

The Wheatstone ledgers don't really start showing these numbers until 1912 (SD01 page27) but we know they were already in use, so thanks for reporting them. Is anybody aware of earlier instruments with "batch numbers", or could they have started with the move to West Street in 1905? Could this be a pointer for dates in this "unledgered" period?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi

I have a message below regarding my Wheatstone, which does not have a serial number, and I did end up finding something on the inside that may relate to this. there are two places on each side of the interior woodwork stamped with 2-digit numbers. There is also a letter nearby (l on the left, r on the right). To locate them you take of the entire end. One is stamped on a small corner block on the end of the bellows (under the reed pan), and the other is stamped on the piece of wood that has all of the holes and pads. Sorry I don't know its name.

 

The number on mine is 71. I've been wondering what the heck it means. 1871?

[Stephen Chambers]

The number on mine is 71.  I've been wondering what the heck it means.  1871?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been waiting for you to post pictures of your unnumbered instrument, which I suspect may be from Edward Chidley senior's production, when they only had serial numbers on the number label, not elsewhere.

 

The number you mention is a batch number, significant whilst the instrument was being manufactured, but meaningless today. Chidley senior seems to have only given serial numbers to instruments as they were completed.

[mpcorbett]

The number on mine is 71.  I've been wondering what the heck it means.  1871?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been waiting for you to post pictures of your unnumbered instrument, which I suspect may be from Edward Chidley senior's production, when they only had serial numbers on the number label, not elsewhere.

 

I have taken the photos, but I have to finish the roll, develop, and then scan, so it may be a couple of weeks. Alas, I don't have a digital camera yet. Cheers.