Anglos #<2000 - Lachenal or Wheatstone?

[nkgibbs]

Hello,

In an excellent piece it is suggested that Louis Lachenal was producing Anglos for Wheatstone from 1862/3 and that several of these are mentioned in Wheatstone ledger up to #1493 (which presumably were labelled Wheatstone?). Stephen Chambers has a rosewood Anglo #2655 in his collection labelled Louis Lachenal. Presumably, between #1493 and #2655 labelling changed from Wheatstone to Lachenal? Is it pedantic to ask whether this change of labelling can be ppinpointed more accurately?

 

 

Best Wishes,

Neil

Edited June 14, 2009 by nkgibbs

[Stephen Chambers]

Neil,

 

I've never considered that there was any "changeover" as such, but merely that Wheatstone's sold a handful of Anglos supplied to them by Lachenal's. Despite Louis Lachenal setting up in his own right in 1858, his firm continued to supply Wheatstone's with most of their instruments up until 1865, when they started to be made by Edward Chidley.

 

If you look at my Notes on Specific Instruments, at the end of the article, you will see that #865 is labelled Louis Lachenal.

[nkgibbs]

Dear Stephen,

Many thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly Lachenal was running a series of numbers alongside Wheatstone (so some numbers were duplicated?) and it is probably impossible to say whether a number around 2000 is Lachenal Lachenal or Lachenal Wheatstone??

Best Wishes,

Neil

 

 

 

 

Neil,

 

I've never considered that there was any "changeover" as such, but merely that Wheatstone's sold a handful of Anglos supplied to them by Lachenal's. Despite Louis Lachenal setting up in his own right in 1858, his firm continued to supply Wheatstone's with most of their instruments up until 1865, when they started to be made by Edward Chidley.

 

If you look at my Notes on Specific Instruments, at the end of the article, you will see that #865 is labelled Louis Lachenal.

[Stephen Chambers]

Many thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly Lachenal was running a series of numbers alongside Wheatstone (so some numbers were duplicated?) ...

That would apply to the thousands of English concertinas with numbers in the 6000-13700 range, but not (it would seem) to the Anglos, of which they sold only a handful according to the ledgers.

 

... it is probably impossible to say whether a number around 2000 is Lachenal Lachenal or Lachenal Wheatstone??

I would go so far as to say that it is highly unlikely to be a Wheatstone one, unless its number matches that of one of the half dozen listed in the ledgers, though it might have originally carried the label of one of the many other dealers who Lachenal's were supplying at the time.

 

But whatever the name on the label, it's still a Louis Lachenal.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Stephen Chambers

[nkgibbs]

I have a rosewood ended 20b Anglo with the number 1950 that looks very much like number 7602 in Stephen's collection . Below are some pictures of its anatomy.......it looks like a basic Lachenal (dating from 1865?) with numbered buttons and wood screws instead of bolts but would greatly value people's opinion.

Regards,

Neil

 

 

Edited June 14, 2009 by nkgibbs

[Stephen Chambers]

Neil,

 

So the instrument evidently still has the original baffle, with the serial number, in the left hand end - does it have a label in the right?

 

Long woodscrews (like a German concertina) to secure the ends would be normal in these early examples, but those (no doubt) proved problematic and they seem to have pretty quickly changed to using steel bolts instead.

[nkgibbs]

Neil,

 

So the instrument evidently still has the original baffle, with the serial number, in the left hand end - does it have a label in the right?

 

Long woodscrews (like a German concertina) to secure the ends would be normal in these early examples, but those (no doubt) proved problematic and they seem to have pretty quickly changed to using steel bolts instead.

 

Dear Stephen,

Unfortunately, the baffle at the other end has been replaced at some time in the concertina's history and the maker's label must have been a casualty of this repair. I checked the Wheatstone ledgers and there doesn't seem to be anything for this number around the 1860s so I assume that it either had a Louis Lachenal or supplier's label?

Regards,

Neil

Edited June 15, 2009 by nkgibbs

[wes williams]

Neil,

The thing that interests me is the lever pivots. From the photo they appear to be round - rather like fencing staples - rather than standard the Lachenal flat pivots. If so it shows that Lachenal were producing this form of pivot very near the start of anglo production.

[Stephen Chambers]

Neil,

The thing that interests me is the lever pivots. From the photo they appear to be round - rather like fencing staples - rather than standard the Lachenal flat pivots. If so it shows that Lachenal were producing this form of pivot very near the start of anglo production.

Wes,

 

They were no doubt using both wire-staple pivot posts, and woodscrews instead of endbolts, from the very beginning of Anglo production (#752 has the same), seeing that they were trying to keep prices as low as possible on them. For that matter, they'd already been using bent-wire pivot posts (though in more of a hook shape), and woodscrews too, on the equally cheap Duett model that they'd already made for Wheatstone's in the 1850s.