The importance of keeping records of "Known dates" of Lachenal concertinas

[Matthew Heumann]

http://www.concertina.com/chambers/lachenal-production/images/production-fig09-W400H400.jpg

This is from an article by Stephen Chambers in Concertina.com & proved the date of my instrument:

 

"Edeophone number 38694 (CMC 262) 41 is a 63-key instrument with bowing valves and aluminium reed frames. It sounds remarkably like the unusual instrument described by J. A. Black in January 1895: 42 ‘. . .I have just come into possession of an edeophone (treble) by those truly progressive makers, Messrs. Lachenal. . .This fine instrument (played by Mr. Alsepti [Black’s teacher] at Islington on December 4th last) though of sixty-three keyed and four and a half octave compass, weighs only two and three quarter pounds, or exactly the weight of a forty-eight keyed concertina’. So perhaps No. 38694 should be dated to circa 1894."

 

My Lachenal Edeopone is #38697 (3 later), so the above instrument is a valuable reference point!

 

Edited February 14 by Matthew Heumann
added photo

[alex_holden]

Interesting fretwork design. Does yours have aluminium reed frames too? The modern process for refining the metal was invented in 1886 and the first factory using the process opened in 1888. Prior to that it was very difficult and expensive to refine. If Lachenal was already experimenting with it by the 1890s that was a pretty innovative move. Initially they were probably using pure aluminium, which is quite soft and weaker than later alloys.

[wes williams]

Sorry Matt, but what you've written makes little sense. This is not a 'known date'  - there are only a few 'known' dates from receipts - and Stephen Chambers does say 'perhaps'. So this does not 'prove' the date of your instrument and we can only estimate dates.

 

Stephen wrote the data you quote in 2005, when our knowledge of Lachenal numbers was in its infancy. The photo you added (and linked) is of 28821, the earliest reported Edeophone (56 key) with unusual features (including the fretwork and a tenor/treble, Alex) - so possibly a prototype - and a guide towards the registration of the design in mid 1889.

 

We now have Lachenal receipts that indicate that two English system instruments around the 32600 mark were sold in 1894/5 (the latter date being hire-purchase), so we would expect the instrument described by J A Black to have a number approximately somewhere around that range.

 

But after 30+ years of research into Lachenal numbers we would currently estimate English Edeo 38694 as circa 1899/1900.

[robert stewart]

Has anyone looked at Barleycorn Concertinas (English Concertinas, for sale), where there is what seems to be an identical Lachenal Tenor-Treble Edeophone with the graceful fretwork? This is still described as the only known one of such design. Am I missing some info, or are there now two such early Edeophones known?

(I love my extended Edeophone, from the early 20th).

Robert Stewart

[wes williams]

Edeo 28821 is mentioned in Stephen Chambers' 2005 article as belonging to Chris Algar (Barleycorn Concertinas) and the current description at Barleycorn shows that this is the same instrument, owned by Chris for around 25 years. Chris's son Ciaran is now active in the Barleycorn business.

Edited February 10 by wes williams

[robert stewart]

Edeophonic Confusion. Following the information thus far: is the Chris Algar owned unique Edeophone (28821) in Britain the same instrument as the Edeophone shown in the photo by Matthew Heumann, where he seems to say that it is his instrument (in the USA)?  Perhaps Matthew could clear this up?  As of yesterday the instrument was still listed for sale on the Barleycorn website...as it has been for a number of years.

 

best wishes, Robert 

[wes williams]

...is the Chris Algar owned unique Edeophone (28821) in Britain the same instrument as the Edeophone shown in the photo by Matthew Heumann.

Yes. Follow the link to Stephen Chambers' 2005 article. Just before half way through is Fig 9 (the photo Matthew used) with the caption:

Fig. 9. Lachenal & Co., Edeophone, no. 28821, 56 keys (courtesy of Chris Algar).

 

This is immediately followed in the article by a description of another different Edeophone:

Edeophone number 38694 (CMC 262) is a 63-key instrument with bowing valves and aluminium reed frames......

 

and Matthew says in the first post in this thread:

My Lachenal Edeopone is #38697

Edited February 11 by wes williams

[robert stewart]

Aha...at last I can get some sleep. Thank you.   Robert

[Matthew Heumann]

Wes et al: By "known dates", I was of course referring to instruments with enough provenance that gives us a fairly accurate year "window" which is not as good as a receipt, but much better than formulas and algorithms. The article I quoted refers to the year the instrument was a acquired by one famous player in a known year and that it was previously owned by his teacher the year before. If you can get within 3-4 years of any accurate Lachenal date without a receipt, that's close enough for most of us. Formulas are not very accurate. Just the fact that mine was 3 numbers later gave me a very satisfactory reference point, better than any guesstimate. Given that Edeophones were first patented in 1889, any ownership provenance that gets you that close is nice to have.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion due to the attached picture. I only attached the picture that was in Stephan's article, other than that, I don't know its origin, perhaps it would have best been left out. The serial numbers were the real topic.

---Sorry for confusion

Edited February 14 by Matthew Heumann
rewording

[Matthew Heumann]

The Edeophone that I showed in my post was not intended to represent mine, but the one from the article. Mine is:

[wes williams]

And here is a picture of 38694. The full description can be viewed here.

On 2/14/2024 at 1:48 AM, Matthew Heumann said:

By "known dates", I was of course referring to instruments with enough provenance that gives us a fairly accurate year "window" which is not as good as a receipt, but much better than formulas and algorithms. The article I quoted refers to the year the instrument was a acquired by one famous player in a known year and that it was previously owned by his teacher the year before. If you can get within 3-4 years of any accurate Lachenal date without a receipt, that's close enough for most of us. Formulas are not very accurate.

 

You should have said 'The article I quoted refers to the year AN instrument was acquired by one famous player ...' and this would have been one of the earliest aluminium reed plate Edeos, but not this 38694 one . As I indicated in an earlier post, instruments of an 1894/5 date would be expected to have a serial around the 32000 mark from receipts, which makes 38694 to be estimated as 1889/1900.

 

While you are welcome to your own opinions on our estimates, the author of your 2005 quote (Stephen Chambers) now uses these estimates as the best currently available, and has been part of the group of researchers and restorers working towards these estimates over many years. If you'd care to dive into the JSON data on 38694, you'll find that Steve Dickinson (owner of Wheatstone) came up with a similar date in a 2013 assessment:

'Probably dates from around 1900. Aluminium reed frames corroded, the high carbon steel reeds are age hardened and work hardened.  Bellows fine.  Not suitable as a playing instrument.'

 

Edited February 15 by wes williams

[Matthew Heumann]

No is questioning anyone's expertise, I'm certainly not one. But since there are so many different dates being floated in various forums & sites, my original request was simply for an "accessible database" of these more reliable assessments, so everyone doesn't have to start from scratch or erroneously repost bad info or faulty formulas. We would all benefit by your expertise and make the most of it to discuss our instrument's narrative. Thank-you to all those researchers for all the hard work you've all put into this , helping to keep us informed and honest.