Quarterly No.

138, August 2017

FoMRHI Quarterly
BULLETIN 138 Christopher Goodwin 2

COMMUNICATIONS

2073 Cittern belly outlines, frustrations and suggestions for

the modern maker Peter Forrester 5
2074 Making woodwind instruments 9c: Baroque traversos, an introduction Jan Bouterse 12
2075 Making woodwind instruments 9d: The choice of traversos Jan Bouterse 26

NOTE: Jan Bouterse’s Comms 2074 and 2075 are accompanied by a PDF, in medium resolution
of plans with drawings, tables with measurements, drawings, photos and descriptions of a number
of historical baroque traversos. A high-resolution file is available on request.

The next issue, Quarterly 139, will appear in October 2017. Please send in Comms and
announcements to the address below, to arrive by October 1st.

Fellowship of Makers and Researchers of Historical Instruments

Committee: Andrew Atkinson, Peter Crossley, John Downing, Luke Emmet, Peter Forrester,
Eleanor Froelich, Martyn Hodgson, Jim Lynham, Jeremy Montagu, Filadelfio Puglisi, Michael Roche,
Alexander Rosenblatt, Marco Tiella,
Secretary/Quarterly Editor: Christopher Goodwin Treasurer: John Reeve Webmaster: Luke Emmet
Southside Cottage, Brook Hill, Albury, Guildford GU5 9DJ, Great Britain
Tel: (++44)/(0)1483 202159 E-mail: secretary@fomrhi.org Web: www.fomrhi.org
BULLETIN 139 Christopher Goodwin

A couple of weeks later than planned, this summer issue is the second Q of this subscription
period (nos. 137-140). It’s a bit thinner than usual, but not short of exercises for the old grey
matter. We continue to be extremely grateful to Jan Bouterse for further instalments of his great
work on woodwind making, and in a similar vein, welcome the first instalment of what we hope
with be a long series of Comms on the cittern by Peter Forrester – the distillation of a life’s work
from a world authority in his field.
It would be nice to keep on track to produce four Qs this year, as the evenings start to draw in
again, why not put aside the glue pot and plane for a few hours, and finally get round to writing
that Comm you’ve had in the back of your mind for so long?
Please note that Jan Bouterse’s Comms 2074 and 2075 are accompanied by a PDF, in medium
resolution of plans with drawings, tables with measurements, drawings, photos and descriptions
of a number of historical baroque traversos. A high-resolution file is available on request. It was
thought better to send out this material in the form of a separate PDF for the purposes of
printing, zooming and scaling.
Those who have not already paid for 2017 will receive this issue only in PDF format,
and thereafter nothing further if they do not renew! They will receive a subscription from in
the post too. Our policy nowadays is that we send out ONLY ONE printed issue of the Q on a
benefit of the doubt basis to everyone who was a member last year. You will start to miss issues
soon if you don’t renew.

Welcome to new members

We welcome new members this quarter: Shusei Matoike, and the Hotteterre Co Ltd of Matsue,
Japan.

Database for scraps of writing in old instruments

We have received this announcement from Laurence Libin, email: lelibin@OPTONLINE.NET:

Occasionally researchers or instrument makers find scraps of old manuscript and printed
documents (e.g. torn sheets of newsprint, liturgical writings on parchment, bits of notarial
papers) used historically in instrument repairs and reinforcement. Mostly these turn up in string
and keyboard instruments, including organs, as well as in drums and instrument cases. An
international database is being formed to record these potentially informative writings and make
them available to scholars. Please send photos and information on any you find to Dr. Donatella
Melini, Fondazione Antonio Carlo Monzino, Milan, via donatella.m@fondazioneacmonzino.it
or go to: www.fondazioneacmonzino.it.

Goetze and Gwynn reports now online

Many thanks to Jan Bouterse for pointing out that the British firm Goetze & Gwynn (organ
makers and restorers) has a website (http://www.goetzegwynn.co.uk/reports/) where they have
placed all formation about their restoration projects, available to all.

Rob van Acht, obituary

We received a message that on July 7th Rob van Acht has passed away, at the age of 73. Rob was
one of the curators of the music department of the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague. He began
his musical career as a young flute player in a famous wind band, St. Michael in the small historical
town of Thorn in the province Limburg, where his father was conductor. Rob went on with a
study in musicology and flute at the conservatorium of Amsterdam. From his work at the
Gemeentemuseum he published several books and catalogues, such as a work European folk
instruments and the Checklist of technical drawings of Musical Instruments in public collections
of the world. But his great project and a major contribution to those technical drawings was the
publication of three prize-winning catalogues of Dutch woodwind instruments from the baroque
period: Dutch recorders of the 18th century (Moeck Verlag 1991), Dutch double-reed instruments
of the 17th and 18th centuries (Laaber Verlag, 1997), and Dutch traversos and clarinets of the 18th
century (Edition Bochinsky, 2004). The fact that three different publishers were involved is a sign
that this was not an easy project. And there were more problems and developments in the
museum, resulting in the closing down of the activities of the music department, which surely did
not make life easy for Rob, who in his later years in the museum had some medical problems as
well. But he had some other jobs, such as teaching acoustics at the conservatorium in The Hague.
After his retirement in 2011 he finally had time to finish a study from his earlier years: the
publication of the Officia propria nobilium virginum thorensium, a book of 472 pages about the musical
and liturgical practices in the ancient abbey of Thorn (published in 2013, by Eburon Academic
Publishers).
I worked with Rob van Acht in a period when there was a great interest in historical instruments,
and we helped each other with information about new finds, and we discussed varied issues such
as the origins of some old makers and technical aspects of instrument research. These discussions
were not always easy, but we had always the same admiration for the achievements of those
instrument makers from the past. Many people will be thankful for what Rob van Acht has
achieved in his life. - Jan Bouterse

Cambridge Woodwind Makers – change of premises

Cambridge Woodwind Makers, as far as I know the UK’s leading organisation offer short-courses
in making a huge range of instruments, www.cambridgewoodwindmakers.org are changing their
premises, and the last courses at the current Stapleford Granary site run only up to the end of
November. Please note that some of the courses later in the year may be relocated to the new
venue.

They write as follows:

Growing and Glowing

Cambridge Woodwind Makers has been growing and glowing successfully for over five years; we
have taught over two hundred Repair & Care students; participants on our making courses have
made almost two hundred instruments and we have empowered and inspired many other visitors
through a number of other events and courses.
Having these years of progress under our belts, we can now confirm the viability of the project
and are keen to get to work expanding capacity to meet the many international and local enquiries
we receive for further professional development courses and handcraft advocacy courses.
Poised on this potential for expansion we have also been presented with a further opportunity to
develop and expand alongside a new artists studio development.
Our colleagues at the Stapleford Granary arts studio have, regrettably, been unexpectedly closed
down. Stapleford Granary arts studio was once Whitehouse Arts, a centre running arts courses in
various handcraft mediums. Whitehouse Arts was grown over 30 years by Caroline Amour but in
2015 was entrusted to Stapleford Granary. A change in the vision at Stapleford Granary has led to
them closing it which has been devastating for the tutors and participants.
 Being closely involved with the studio as their neighbours, and as enthusiasts of all kinds of
handcraft ourselves, we see this as an opportunity to combine forces and create a wider reaching
portfolio of courses. Not only will this provide much needed hands-on and experience
opportunities for the public, in a time where schools are having to close down courses that teach
these skills, but it will also ensure that all the long-serving and dedicated tutors of both projects,
will be able to continue their livelihoods.
Logistically they would remain two separate entities but the sharing of a venue will allow more
efficient use of resources and expertise creating a friendly and professional hub of hands-
on/participatory activity.
Both these charities are currently financially viable but do not have huge capital funds available
for a venue. Thus, our model for this combined venture is to treat the plot, or venue, as a separate
investment opportunity from which these two projects can run. Please email
information@cambridgewoodwindmakers.org for further details if you happen to have, or know
someone who has, a spare million or so!
We are in the process of finding a suitable location either temporary, or ideally, long term. Of
course, if you do have any suggestions we would love to hear from you. Please email
information@cambridgewoodwindmakers.org if you would like more details on the kind of
location we are looking for.

Immediate Changes

What these changes mean for the immediate future is that there will be no further Cambridge
Woodwind Maker courses scheduled until we find a new premises. It also means that our Makers
Showcase and exhibition has been cancelled for 2017 but we hope to resume it as part of a launch
for our new venue. We do apologise to anyone who had intended to attend this year.
We hope you are as excited as we are about these changes, we look forward to sharing the
developments as they unfold. - Daniel & Rosemary, Cambridge Woodwind makers

STANDING CALL FOR PAPERS

The Fellowship of Makers and Researchers of Historical Instruments welcomes papers on all
aspects of the history and making of historical musical instruments. Communications or
‘Comms’ as they are called, appeared unedited (please don’t be libellous or insulting to other
contributors!), so please send them EXACTLY as you wish them to appear – in 12 point type,
on A4 paper with a 25mm or 1 inch border all round, or to put it another way, if you are using
non-European paper sizes, then the text area must be 160 x 246 mm (or at least no wider or
longer than this). Our printers make a good job of scanning photos.
In naming your Communication, remember that people will search for it online using
keywords. So if you are discussing, say, a Ruckers harpsichord in Paris, call it ‘Observations on a
Ruckers harpsichord in Paris’, rather than ‘Observations on a curious old instrument.’
You can send contributions EITHER on paper, OR as a Word-compatible or PDF
attachment. If you really do not have access to a word processor of any kind, we may be able to
retype typed or handwritten submissions; send it to our cover address.
The email address for Comms sent as attachments (and other email correspondence) is
Lutesoc@aol.com or secretary@fomrhi.org Non-members will be given a year's free
subscription if they send in a Communication to the Quarterly.
If your interests have changed, and you don’t now want to be a member of FoMRHI, please
let us know, to save postage costs.
Fomrhi Comm 2073 Peter Forrester
FoMRHI Comm. 2074 Jan Bouterse

Making woodwind instruments 9c:

9.10 Baroque traversos, an introduction

First some basic information. In § 9.1 (in Comm. 2068) I discussed the name ‘traverso’,
which is the common abbreviation for ‘flauto traverso’. The term ‘German flute’ was used
in the 17th century (but I think not so much in the 18th century) for the cross-blown flute,
and ‘English flute’ for the recorder. But the baroque traverso was, as Johann Joachim
Quantz wrote in 1753 in the first chapter (§ 2 and 6) of his famous treatise about the flute:
Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversière zu spielen, invented or developed in France,
in the last quarter of the 17th century. Quantz mentions the names of Philibert, followed by
Michel de la Barre and Hotteterre le Romain.
It is likely that the new instrument, in three parts (head, middle joint and foot) with one
key on the foot and with a conical-tapering bore (narrowing towards the foot) was
developed a few decades later than the baroque oboe. The popularity of the traverso began
to rise in the first quarter of the 18th century, also for amateur musicians, and at the expense
of the recorder. The traverso then underwent some changes: it is made in four parts (the
head: part I, the middle joint split up in two sections, the upper middle joint: part II, the
lower middle joint part III, the foot: part IV), the bore more strongly tapering, the turnery
different.

The development of the baroque traverso with one key: the upper one by Hotteterre (end
of the 17th century), the lower one by August Grenser, who worked between 1744 and
1798. The pictures are taken - with their kind permission - from a prospectus of the Von
Huene Workshop (Brookline, Mass. USA).

Much what I said about the renaissance type of flutes (see § 9.1 and 9.2 in Comm. 2068)
also applies to baroque traversos. They are at first glance simple instruments to make and
you don’t need specialised equipment, apart from the usual machines and tools for
woodwind making: a lathe, drills and reamers (which you can make yourself). Perhaps the
most important aspect of making a traverso is knowing how to play the instrument. That
begins with the simple task how to make sound on it: having a correct embouchure* and -
don’t forget - an appropriate breathing technique.
Tuning the instrument means that you must not only know about fingerings, but also
about the behaviour of the sound waves in the bore of the instrument, such as the positions
of the nodes and antinodes for each note. I will give in this chapter information about these
technical issues, but you must learn yourself how to play the traverso. A difference from

* Some people (who are native English speakers) use for the mouth hole the French term
‘embouchure’ or ‘embouchure hole’ (‘bouche’ is French for ‘mouth’). But I prefer to confine
‘embouchure’ for the way you play (blow in) the instrument: the opening between your lips, the
direction of the wind, etc.
thirty to fourty years ago is that there are nowadays many more experienced people who can
help you as a teacher on this beautiful instrument.
And further: there are many more plans of instruments available. That, however, leads to
a problem. The variety of baroque traversos is enormous and there have been fashion
trends: I have seen over the past decades how copies after Bressan were popular, followed
by a fashion for copies after Rottenburgh or Grenser (both families of instrument makers
rather than just individuals), and in recent years, for instance, copies of a particular
traverso (only one) by the Italian maker Carlo Palanca. These traversos are all different,
some of them have more restrictions than others so that you can’t play all types of baroque
music on all of them.

Instrument plans, articles and websites

For this series of articles I have used data from plans which I made of a selection of inter-
esting traversos. It is not ideal or satisfactory to publish these complete plans with their full
measurements, graphs and additional colour photos in the printed FoMRHI Quarterlies. So
I have compiled these plans in a digital supplement, which will be be distributed
separately. This supplement includes colour photos to the instruments in this article and
plans of others by I.Deppe, Richard Haka, D.Lot*, F.G.A.Kirst*, Naust, W.Oberlender
Senior, R.Wijne* and W. Wijne* (*means: traverso with several corps de rechange).
There are some restrictions in publishing the results of measurements (etc.) of instruments.
- In the first place: I can only give complete measurements, pictures and other inform-
ation of instruments which I have investigated myself and as far they are (or were at that
time) in private collections.
- Secondly: I have decided to do the same for instruments in public collections as long
they don’t have their own plans (these collections are of course not responsible for any
errors or omissions in the plans).
- In the third place: where I was involved in measuring instruments in public collections
(for instance the Gemeentemuseum in Den Haag/The Hague), I can present here only
excerpts or summarised data from the published plans of those instruments.
- A special category: plans of traversos which I have built after measurements made by
other people, but where I changed some aspects (for instance to tune the instrument in a
different pitch). I can give here only the main data.
I will add here some important advice: always make your own working drawing from the
information in the plans (and it helps sometimes to discover errors in those plans). That will
help you very much in understanding the construction of the instrument. And do what I
have done: measuring instruments where ever you find them, not only originals, but also
copies by other makers. That will give you much insight in the general design of the
traversos, for instance at which pitch they can be played.

When I made my first attempt to make a traverso (around 1980), it was hard to find plans
with measurements of original instruments. Much has changed since then and you can find
comprehensive information about the traverso and its history, for instance on websites of
woodwind makers who have done research into historical instruments. As this is not a
scientific article and as I mainly stick to my own experiences of woodwind making, I will
give here only two references (with apologies to all people who are not mentioned here). At
first an article by Ardal Powell: ‘Science, technology and the art of flute making in the
eighteenth century’, which first appeared in 1994 in The Flutist Quarterly 19.3. A revised
version of this article is on the internet at :
(http://www.flutehistory.com/Resources/Documents/technology.php3).
There is a long list with historical and modern publications at the end of this article. At
www.flutehistory.com you will find more interesting information about what it says: the
history of the flute (not only baroque traversos).
Secondly at: http://www.earlyflute.com the experienced Dutch flute maker Simon
Polak gives his opinions about making and playing baroque traversos, such as
temperament (tuning), fingerings and other aspects. Also interesting are the descriptions
of the character of several original traversos which are copied by him.
Http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/am/iwd.html gives a list of about 90 drawings of flutes
(renaissance and baroque traversos) which can be ordered from 26 museums and public
collections. But I must give a warning: I have seen many of these drawings, and they are
not always of the most useful quality. Much better are the drawings of baroque traversos by
Jean-François Beaudin, see his website,
http://www.flute-beaudin.com/Plans.html.
In the English translation of my own dissertation ‘Dutch woodwind instruments and their
makers, 1660-1760’ (Utrecht 2005) you will find in Appendix C a lot of data (descriptions,
photos and measurements) of Dutch traversos. But these data are not presented as plans for
making copies. A better alternative: the catalogue of the instruments in the Gemeentemuse-
um in Den Haag (‘Dutch traversos and clarinets of the 18th century’), by Rob van Acht, Jan
Bouterse en Vincent van den Ende (Frankfurt 2004). But also a warning here: there are only
a few instruments in this expensive book which are interesting subjects for making copies.

9.11 Sizes and characteristics of baroque traversos

This chapter deals mainly with the traverso with six fingerholes and one key. By pressing
this key a hole on the foot is opened which raises the fundamental with a half tone: on the
most common size of the baroque traverso is that from d1 to d#1/e-flat1.* The key is also
used for some other notes, such as the upper harmonics of the d#1 and some other notes.

* Quantz made traversos with two separate keys on the foot: one for the d# and one for the e-
flat, as there is in meantone temperaments a small difference in pitch between these tones (the
e-flat a bit sharper than the d#). But other instrument makers have not followed him with this
double key system.

The traverso with two keys, as per Quantz, picture from the Von Huene prospectus.
Most traversos (but not the instruments with two keys by Quantz) can be played to the right
as well as to the left. The undercutting of the mouth hole is done on both sides in the same
way, the fingerholes are placed in a straight line, the foot with the key can be turned to the
desired position.
A minor or major third lower than the common traverso in d1is the flauto d’amore
(fundamental: b or b-flat) of which some fine examples survive by famous makers. Rarer is
the Terzflöte (‘third flute’), a minor third above the d1. The piccolo flute is a traverso in d2
and there is also the bass traverso: an octave below the common flute in d1. It is much
more difficult to find plans of these members of the traverso family.
Apart from the bass baroque traverso (I have not found useful information what the place
of this instrument was in musical practice) the other names of voices (soprano, alto, tenor)
did not come into use for these instruments, as was the case with recorders and some
members of the oboe family. Baroque traversos were also - as far as I know - not made and
sold as consort instruments.
Traversos (I omit the adjective ‘baroque’ henceforth ) from the 18th century were generally
made of European boxwood (Buxus sempervirens), ebony (or other black tropicalwoods) or
ivory. Quantz mentions also lignum sanctum (‘sacred wood’), possibly a member of the
genus Guaiacum of which we also know lignum vitae. I found in the Oekonomische
Encyklopädie by J. G. Krünitz (published between 1773 and 1858 in 242 volumes, (you can
find it on internet: http://www.kruenitz1.uni-trier.de/) interesting information about this tree
and its wood: the scientific name is Guajacum sanctum, it is in found on Puerto Rico and
other Caribbean islands. The wood is very dense and heavy, but not so dark as lignum vitae,
almost identical to boxwood. But I must say I have never seen this wood mentioned in
descriptions or catalogues of woodwind instruments. It is, of course, possible to make
traversos from many other types of wood.

9.12 Bore profiles: some remarks

Traversos have generally the following bore profiles:

- in the head cylindrical (for instance 19 mm for a traverso in d1, at the baroque pitch of
a1=415 Hz);
- in the middle joints tapering (for instance from 19 to 15 mm and from 15 to 13 mm);
- in the foot joints there is more variation: often the bore widens again over the whole
length towards the lower end, sometimes the narrowest point of the bore is at hole 7, but I
have also seen a traverso with a cylindrical foot bore.
The middle joints sometimes have straight or almost straight conical profiles, but more
often we see ‘parabolic profiles’, where the tapering becomes stronger towards the lower
end of the section; see the graph below. The option of ‘hyperbolic profiles’ is much rarer.

Schematic graph of the bore profile of a baroque traverso with a cylindrical head (A),
tenon contraction in part II (B), ‘parabolic’ shape of the bore in II and III (C), a step in the
bore at the connection from II to III (D) and the bore of the foot becoming wider towards
the lower end (E).

The bore profile in the graph is not exceptional, but there are also traversos without gaps or
steps in the connection points between the joints, and with regular (straight) conical bores
of II and III, and where often the reamer for III has also been used for IV (but then inserted
from the lower end).
About the gaps and the steps: sockets are not always filled up over the whole length with
the tenons of the next joint. That gap causes a space which sometimes considerably adds to
the volume of the bore at that place. That has consequences for the pitch and sound of some
notes which, however, might have been the intention of the builder of the instrument. The
bore profile might also be irregular because of tenon contraction (especially in the upper
tenon of part II), caused by pressure on the thin wood of the tenon. This has also some, or
even a considerable (but sometimes also surprisingly little) effect on some notes. But it also
happens that, whereas the original instrument plays perfectly well with such irregularities,
you have to make corrections (actually a reconstruction of the bore) for these sections of
your copy. That means, for instance, that you must not be too hasty to make or to order
expensive reamers after the original flute, but, better, after the bore profile of the prototype
you have made and which plays just as you want.
Thirdly: steps in the bore, especially where a lower joint begins wider than the bore diame-
ter at the end of the previous joint, are quite common and probably deliberately executed by
the maker. I have seen such steps for instance on some traversos with a relatively short part
III. Remember one of the principles of a conical (tapering) bore: the instrument can be made
shorter than a cylindrical flute of the same pitch, the distance between the fingerholes also
decreases, the holes also becoming smaller. And an advantage of a conical bore is that it
gives the maker the chance to change the profile (widening it) in critical places.

Schematic graphs of the bores of two traversos by Robbert Wijne (No. 5: Gemeentemuseum
Den Haag, Inv. No. Ea 11-1935; No. 10: Museum Historisch Ede, Netherlands). The bores
of No. 5 show almost no gaps or steps between the joints. The bore of No. 10 is clearly
narrower in the head and lower middle joint, where Wijne has used a different reamer.

The maximum and minimum bore diameters of traversos in d1 are not so much different
from those of baroque alto recorders. For the heads of both instruments you can sometimes
use the same reamers. But as traversos are longer than alto recorders, you have to make
separate reamers for the other joints.
A traverso has no thumb hole, and does not need one as overblowing is done by changing
your embouchure and breath pressure. It is possible to put a recorder head on the joints of a
traverso, but then overblowing is a problem, likewise making corrections for the pitch of
some notes. The other way round, putting recorder joints on a traverso head, might be more
interesting or relevant. But I have never made such an attempt myself and even don’t know
whether other makers have carried out such experiments.
9.13 The mouth hole of a traverso

A recorder has, along with a windway which chamfers at the end, a block, window and
labium - many parameters (key points) where you can vary and influence the playing quali-
ties of the instrument. But on a traverso there is only that small mouth hole, which can be
varied only within narrow margins. The production of the sound is, however, similar:
blowing the wind against the opposite rim of the mouth hole is like the wind coming from
the windway of a recorder meeting the rim of the labium. Most of the wind goes over the
hole, which causes changes in air pressure in the mouth hole: the generator. This leads to a
soundwave in the resonator - the bore of the flute.
Concerning the shape of the mouth hole, it may be round or slightly oval; the
undercutting defines the angle of the hole. The rims of the hole of original instruments vary
from very sharp to slightly rounded or even very worn. My impression is that a slightly
worn rim to the hole makes it easier to play the traverso, the embouchure (direction of the
wind against the rim) is then a bit less critical. But playing some top notes (a3, for instance)
might become harder.

Left: oval mouth hole of a so-called classical traverso, stamped Heinrich Grenser (c. 1815,
collection of the author; the flute had orginally 6 keys, now 5). Dimensions of the hole: 8.9
mm (width or height) x 9.8 mm (length). The rim of the hole is clean and undamaged,
rather (but not too) sharp. Undercutting of the hole: up to 10.5 mm (width) x 13 mm
(length). Right: a round mouth hole with damaged rim on a traverso by Johann Wilhelm
Oberlender Senior (before 1745, Openlucht Museum, Arnhem, Netherlands). Dimensions
of the hole: 8.6 mm (width) x 8.5 mm (length), undercut to 11 mm (length). The type of rim
damage is rather odd. Was it caused by a nibbling mouse (which sometimes happens, for
instance when a mouse is attracted by the smell of peanut oil that is used by some players
to lubricate their flutes!), or made by a player who carved the wood, for instance to make it
easier to find the right position for his embouchure?

Mouth holes of traversos are much smaller than those of modern Böhm flutes. On some of
the earliest baroque traversos they are slightly wider than they are long, similar to
renaissance flutes. After that first generation of baroque traversos we see many instruments
with circular or almost circular holes. Towards the end of the 18th century the mouth holes
become bigger and have predominantly an oval shape: longer than they are wide (see the
picture of the mouth hole of the ‘classical flute’ by Heinrich Grenser).
It is good to have a general idea of the sizes of the mouth holes of original baroque traver-
sos in d1. I have made for my research a scheme, confining it to round holes. A diameter of
about 8 mm is very small; a diameter between 8.3 and 8.5 is still rather small but common
for many instruments from the first half of the 18th century. From 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm I do
not speak about small holes: they are average in size. Above about 9.2 mm we are in the
range of moderately big holes, and above 9.5 mm the diameters are very big (and often for
baroque traversos a sign that holes have been enlarged).
Small mouth holes generally give a small sound*, perfect for chamber music and these
flutes I find often - and perhaps surprisingly - easier to play than those with bigger holes.
I myself prefer moderately small holes and I find it sometimes rather difficult to play instru-
ments with other holes.

* See however the remarks given by Simon Polak to his copy of a flute by Robbert Wijne
(www.earlyflute.com/pages/robert_wijne.html): It has a very small mouth hole and carries
extremely well. It even has a really big sound when played well. Polak mentions here an
interesting difference: between how loud a sound is, and how it carries!

Some remarks about the undercutting of mouth holes.

Most holes I have seen on original traversos are regularly undercut, on both sides in the
same way so that there is no difference in playing the traverso to the left or to the right. But
undercutting it is a difficult aspect to measure accurately, for instance if you want to assess
the angle of the walls in relation with the (curved) surface of the exterior of the flute. The
best way is making a cast with plasticine (which I buy
in a toy shop) or - better - the moulding clay that your
dentist uses. From that cast you can make a drawing
or take pictures - don’t forget to mark the cast with the
direction (such as ‘north’ and ‘south’).

The walls of the mouth hole are on most instruments

straight (left), or only slightly curved (right).

It is difficult to assess the transition from the wall of the hole to the wall of the bore of the
flute (*in the diagram above); whether it is more or less abrupt or has been rounded or
chamfered. You have to make a cast, which is not permitted in most collections. But on my
own original traverso by Robbert Wijne (which is a very fine instrument to play) I can’t see
any rounding or chamfering at all. Concerning mouth holes see also Comm. 2070: ‘Cutting
the flute’s embouchure’ by Arthur Benade. Remember that making woodwind instruments
means removing wood and that repairs on mouth holes are difficult. If you have made the
hole too large, you must plug in a new piece of wood and start again.
The angle of the undercutting determines, together with the size and the condition of the
rim of the hole (varying from very sharp to somewhat rounded) and the thickness of the
wall of the flute, the playing characteristics of the traverso: how easily the notes come, how
loud you can play. Simon Polak makes some interesting remarks on his website. He uses
the terms resistance and openness (www.earlyflute.com/pages/resistance.html) to indicate
the properties of the traverso - and the divergent opinions and wishes of the players.

One of my own observations: almost every professional maker usually sells several types of
traverso. It is always interesting to play such a variety of instruments. I have discovered
more than once that it was a bit hard for me to hear the differences between these flutes,
more recognising a shared character between them. How difficult is it for any maker of
musical instruments not to put too much of his/her own preferences and ideas in a copy?
It is very hard not to do so and even more: it is important that you find your own style of
making and playing, just as the woodwind makers in the past have done.
I am writing these pages not so much for skilled professional traverso makers (I hope
nevertheless that they will pick up some useful information), but for amateur woodwind
makers, young or old, who have probably never made a traverso before. I have some advice
for you, especially if you are not an experienced player: try to find a traverso with a mouth
hole that suits you well and take that as a starting point for your first copy. And do not be
afraid to deviate a little from the size or shape of the mouth hole of the original instrument:
many makers from the past made also variations; it is always good to compare several
instruments by the same maker! The ‘perfect mouth hole’ is not the hole that is copied from
the original instrument in the most precise way, but the hole that gives you the best feeling
when you play the traverso. That feeling or impression may change as you get more playing
experience, but it is also likely that as a better player you will become more flexible in your
approach to the instruments.
And that brings me to a problem with the relations between the woodwind maker and the
flute player: some players have very strict ideas about their instruments, how they have to
be voiced and tuned. And that clashes sometimes with that flexibility which is also needed
to play freely and to give the instrument as well as the music a chance. It is of course the
task and a challenge for the flute maker to reproduce an instrument in the most accurate
way to satisfy himself and the customer. That is not easy and you need perfect tools and
skills to use them. But in making a copy there will always be an element of discovery and
surprise, just as there is when you play an original old traverso.

9.14 Toneholes: positions, sizes and undercuttings

On all toneholes of a baroque traverso you can play two tones: the first harmonic and by
overblowing with the same (or almost the same) fingering the second harmonic (which
gives the interval of an octave). That means that each hole must be drilled exactly in the
right place of the flute: a hole too low on the flute gives an octave interval which is too
wide. This is because the hole has to be made bigger to get the first harmonic in tune,
resulting in the second harmonic becoming too sharp as the pitch of this tone responses
more strongly to the size of a hole than the first harmonic. Mutatis mutandis: a hole too
close to the mouth hole has the opposite effect. You might change the position of one or
more holes, but then you must alter the profile of the bore of the instrument. But on a
traverso the position of the cork also matters: moving the cork towards the mouth hole
means that the intervals between first and second register become wider, and that is also or
even more the case for the intervals between second and third register .

The general pattern of the holes on the upper middle joint is that hole 1 and hole 2 are
about the same size and that hole 3 is a bit smaller. A similar pattern on the lower middle
joint: hole 4 and 5 do not differ very much, hole 6 is the smallest of all holes on the baroque
traverso. Hole 7 is the hole on the foot that is covered by the key. The size of that hole
varies very much: it is - surprisingly - often rather small on longer traversos (with a lower
pitch) and much bigger on shorter instruments which have a higher pitch.
I always drill the holes initially 0.5 to 1 mm too small. At first I put a piece of writable
adhesive tape on the middle joints, draw with a pencil a centre line, mark the positions of
the fingerholes, and make small dents in the wood there with a sharp punch. To avoid
splintering it is sometimes better to fill the joints with a piece of wood that perfectly fits
into the bore. But I don’t do that normally with boxwood traversos, as that wood has short
fibres and because I must undercut the holes, which removes all irregularities.
It is not necessary to have all holes on a joint in a perfect straight line. For instance: you can
drill hole 3 more towards the left side, and/or hole 6 to the right side of the centre line (see
photo below). That has no acoustical consequences, but makes it impossible to play the
flute the other way (to the left).

This is the first traverso which I bought in 1978: a cheap instrument made by the factory of
Alexander Heinrich in Eastern Germany. It is made in pear wood, with (imitation?) horn
rings and a simple nickel silver key. As the f# was very flat for my untrained ears, I have
enlarged hole 5, but that came - as I discovered - at expense of the f-natural, which become
much too sharp. So I restored the flute to the old situation, by filling in the hole with a
piece of wood and drilling a new hole in it - always a tricky job, to do that neatly. As this
flute had a rather flat pitch (a1 about 435 Hz), I made - many years later - a new upper
middle joint, in boxwood. The original fingerholes are all not undercut; hole 3 and 6 are
not on a straight line with the other holes.

The toneholes of most traversos are undercut. These undercuttings vary in shape and are
important for the tone quality and flexibility of the instrument. And with the way and
degree of undercutting you can also
affect (to some degree) the relation
between the main tones and fork-
fingered tones. There is also a
(complex) relation between the size
of the hole, the diameter of the bore
and the thickness of the wall. For
instance: some ivory traversos are
made with thin walls (to reduce the
weight of these instruments), they have widely
undercut fingerholes, which makes some fork-
fingered tones rather sharp. The undercutting
type with a ‘dome and chimney’ is found on
traversos of the second half of the 18th century
(for instance by August Grenser) and is made
with special tools: see photos.

I have made some small milling cutters in the

shape of the undercuttings of the holes and
which have a hole with a screw thread in the
top. The cutter must be put in the bore just under
the hole. Then turn
with a simple tool
with a screw thread the cutter tight into the hole and fraise the
undercutting with the grooves on the cutter which can be made
with a thin saw and file. It is not a
high tech tool, the steel is not
very hard (because we
have to turn, drill
and file it) but is
functional and makes
perfect undercuttings.

The other types of undercutting (straight conical or ‘cooling

tower’) can also be made with files and finished with fine
abrasive and polishing paper. I often use a wood carving gouge,
which I have sharpened, not at the top but at the sides (picture
right). There is a third possible tool: an electric mini drill (such
as a Dremel) with small fraises. But be careful with this tool: unexpected movements cause
easily damage to the rim of the hole.

9.15 Making a key

Making a key is, with the right tools and working in the right order, not difficult. I use
brass or silver, for traverso keys preferably 1.2 mm thick. ‘Alpha brass’ contains over 65%
copper and is malleable and can be worked cold. Stirling silver (silver content 92.5%) is
harder than pure silver (99%). Heating brass and silver makes the metals soft(er), hammer-
ing or stretching makes it harder.
The diagram on the next page show the working sequence:
1- flat piece of brass or silver;
2 and 3a - sawing out with a coping saw the outlines, use files for finishing
3b - bending the flaps (key guides), over a piece of metal, hammering and filing the
surfaces flat (4b). 3c and 4c are side views.
I always make at first a key channel in the traverso foot (using wood carving tools) and drill
a hole for the key axle through the key ring (for instance Ø 1.2 or 1.3 mm). Then fitting the
key, sometimes widening the key channel, and then drilling the axle hole through the key
guides, after marking the right place.
There are two ways to attach the spring (which can be made of bronze, brass or steel): by
riveting to the touch of the key, or by fasten it into the key channel. I usually make small
grooves at both sides of the bottom of the channel, and taper the end of the spring and push
it into position.

To the photo: attachment of the key

spring (cut out from a metal measuring
tape!) on one of my first - and not very
neatly finished - Rottenburgh copies.
The advantage of this system is that you
can easily change or adjust the tension
of the spring; that is much harder to do
for riveted keys.

Key terminology
9.16 Tuning the traverso

Long ago, in 1985, I wrote my first article for the FoMRHl Quarterly about this subject
(No. 41, Comm. 653). I have not so much to add to the information I have given then. But I
have attained more insight into the behaviour of sound waves and how you can change
sections of the bore profile to get tones better. This resulted in the diagram below.

Diagram of the approximate positions of nodes (N) and antinodes (A) of the tones of a
traverso. The character ‘m’ means: neutral position, changes of the bore will not affect the
pitch or sound of the tone in question. Lower notes have longer wavelengths, which means
that widening (or narrowing) has an effect over a longer section of the bore.
Note: this diagram is not complete and concentrates mainly on the positions of nodes and
antinodes in the upper middle joint.

Apart from some basic rules I mentioned before (such as about cork position and the rela-
tion between size and position of the holes), there are a few things to remember.
- A flute with all toneholes covered is flatter in pitch than the same instrument where the
toneholes still have to be drilled.
- Tuning means bringing the toneholes to the correct size and shape, starting with the
lowest hole (7 and going from there to hole 1).
- The fundamental (d1) cannot be tuned on a hole; the pitch of this tone (and of the d2)
depends mainly of the length and bore profile of the foot. Making the bore wider at the
lower end of the foot raises the pitch of the d1, but making the tone flatter is more difficult:
widening the bore in the middle of the instrument (where there is a node of the d1) may be
the solution, but will influence on many other tones (the d2 becomes sharper, as it has an
antinode there) - so be careful with this operation.
- Referring to the previous point: tuning is not forcing a tone to the pitch you desired; it
is much more trying to find the optimal result in pitch and sound for the tone on that tone
hole.
- A traverso is a rather flexible instrument; a tone is never tuned on its own, it must always
be compared with surrounding tones. That means: you have to play intervals and runs, and
at the end of the operation playing real music in various keys.
- Changing the size or internal shape of a hole means that you alter also a bit of the bore
profile, which may have some influence of the pitch and colour of the tones which are
already tuned by you.
- Do not always try to tune the instrument in one single operation; it is sometimes better to
leave some tones initially a bit flat, especially when you are not sure about the next one or
when you think that the size of the tuning hole is becoming rather wide.
- Finally: you must know the fingerings on a baroque traverso, and the problematical cha-
racter of some tones.
Example of a problem: the f and f# in the first and second register. Just as on the renais-
sance traverso in d1 the f with 1 2 3 4 . 6 is always a bit sharp, and f# with 1 2 3 4 a bit
flat - on the baroque traverso hole 7 can be opened to raise the f# a bit. The result is that
we can play easily a pure minor third from d to f, which is 16 cents smaller wider than
the same interval in equal temperament. And for the interval d-f#: that is a major third,
as a pure interval sounding 14 cents smaller than in equal temperament. As a result: the
interval from f to f# is very small: only 70 cents. But actually, playing f and f# without
any corrections (by turning the flute out- or inwards, so making more or less open space
at the mouth hole), there is an even smaller interval than 70 cents. Quantz mentions the
problems in § 23 of his book: The flute has the natural fault that some notes with a ‘#’
are a bit flat and others a bit sharp, which leads to the recommendations mentioned
above. It is not possible, or only to a very limited degree, to solve these problems with
the f and f# by changing the bore profile, the thickness of the wall at the fingerholes or
whatever else. On some traversos is the relation between these tones a bit better (with
fewer corrections required), but I can't tell you exactly why that is so.

Fingerings and tuning holes

These are also the fingerings I generally use on my traversos. There are more options, you
can find fingering tables on several sites on the internet. I left out the fingerings for most
fork-fingered flat tones (such as g-flat).

tone fingering tuning hole

d1 123456 length and bore profile of the foot
d2 . 23456 length and bore profile of the foot, cork position
d#1/e-flat1 1234567 hole 7
d#2/e-flat2 . 234567 hole 7
e1 + e2 12345 hole 6
f1 + f2 1234. 6 hole 5
f#1 + f#2 1234. . 7 hole 5
g1 + g2 1 2 3 . . . (7) hole 4
g#1 12. 456 hole 3
g#2 12. 4. 67 hole 3
a1 + a2 1 2 . . . . (7) hole 3
a#1 1. 345 hole 2
a#2 1. 3 hole 2
b-flat2 12. 4567 hole 7
b1 + b2 1 . . . . . (7) hole 2 (b2 also with 1 . . 4 5 6 or 1 . 3 4 5 6 7)
c2 .23 hole 1 (c2 also with . 2 . 3 4 5 6 7)
c3 .2. 4567 hole 1 (c3 also as 1 . 3 4 . 6 7 or . 2 3 4 5 . 7)
c#2 . . . (4 5 6 7) hole 1
c#3 .234. . 7 there is no actual tuning hole for this tone
d3 .23. . . 7 hole 4, cork position (this is an upper harmonic from g1)
d3 .234. 6 bore profile, cork position (upper harmonic from d1)
d#3/e-flat3 1 2 3 . 5 6 7 hole 7, cork position
e3 12. . 567 hole 4, cork position
f3 12. 4 . .7 there is no actual tuning hole for this tone
f#3 1234 or: 1 . 3 4 5 6; there is no actual tuning hole for this tone
g3 1. 3 hole 4 and cork position
a3 . 2345 cork position
Explanation: 1 (to 6) means the corresponding hole is covered; 7: key is in action, thus key
hole is opened; a dot means that hole is open. Brackets: closing is optional; sometimes (as
on c#2) closing some lower holes gives more stability in holding the flute.

Tuning a woodwind instrument means that you must know the relations between the tones:
- Harmonic series as d1 - d2 - d3; e-flat1 - e-flat2 - b-flat2 - e-flat3, g1 - g2 - d3 - g3; the
tones in each series share the same tuning hole.
- Main tones to fork-fingered tones, for instance f#1 to f1 or c#2 to c2. The tones in
such combinations are tuned together. Fork-fingered tones in the lower register of a
traverso are not ‘critical’, which means that you can often add - or drop - a finger down
in the fork for pitch adjustments. You can’t normally do that in the second (and
‘critical’) register. For instance with the a#2 with 1 . 3: closing hole 4 doesn’t lower this
tone, but has an opposite effect.
- ‘Shifts by leaking’ in the upper registers such as e-flat3 to e3 (by opening hole 3), and
b-flat2 to c3 (with . 2 . 4 5 6 7, by opening hole 1). Opening these holes causes a shift in
the position of the antinodes and nodes, which lead to a change in pitch. But it is as a
rule not possible to tune these tones by altering the size or shape of undercutting of the
‘leaking holes’: they are much more important for the main tones in the first and second
register.
The first issue when tuning a traverso is finding the right cork position. It begins with com-
paring the harmonics of the d1. A problem occurs if d1 and d3 are correct, but d2 too sharp.
You can’t solve that with the cork. Widening the bore in the lower middle joint (section of
hole 4 and 5) may help, sometimes: over there is a node for the d2, and an antinode for d3.
Reaming at a node has the result that the tone becomes flatter, there is the opposite effect at
an antinode. Of course you must reposition the cork after this operation, and might to do
that again after tuning the next tones, especially the g-series when you can compare both
fingerings for d3 ( . 2 3 . . . 7 and . 2 3 4 . 6). Pulling out the foot a little bit from the lower
middle joint, or the lower middle from the upper middle joint, sometimes improves the
balance between tones. Important is the bore section in the top section of the upper middle
joint: here are the nodes of several tones of the first register and the antinodes of the
corresponding tones of the second register. It is an easily accessible section for making bore
corrections: a wider bore means wider octave intervals. It is generally easier to solve
problems with tones which are too flat than tones which are too sharp!
FoMRHI Comm. 2075 Jan Bouterse

Making woodwind instruments 9d: 9.17 The choice of traversos

Many well preserved traversos of various origins (French, English, German, Dutch etc.) can
be found in museums or are still played by private owners. Which are the best to copy? It
makes a difference whether you are a professional builder who makes traversos for
professional players (who often want exact copies of famous instruments or otherwise have
very specific wishes), or an amateur who has only (if any) experience in making a traverso
for yourself, or if you are interested in research, such as in trying to discover the secrets of
particular instruments, which is more or my position.
In making a choice you must also consider which type of music you prefer to play, and the
pitch of the traverso. A= 415 Hz is nowadays the standard for a wide sector of baroque music
performance practice (and there are enough historic instruments with this pitch), but other
pitches such as a=392 Hz for (early) French baroque music are also in use today. But that is
no reason to disregard instruments in other pitches! See for some useful advice see also
http://amandamark wick.com/2011/08/advice-for-traverso-beginners/.

In this section I present a small selection of baroque traversos (all of them with one-key
flutes). These are instruments of which I have made copies and/or which are by reason of
some technical details or for other reasons interesting traversos to study. The presentations
include drawings, of some traversos and I give in a list or table the most important data:
lengths and sounding lengths of the constituent parts, position and size of the mouth hole and
toneholes, an indication of the undercuttings and the diameter of the exterior at those holes,
the data of the bore profile (the bore diameter at various lengths). In the digital supplement to
this set of articles I give some more information, such as colour photos and plans of some
more interesting traversos. See here below the general drawing of a traverso to these data.
Alexander Heinrich, traverso (1980, GDR) in four parts, in pear wood, coloured brown;
rings and cap: (imitation?) black-coloured horn; key: nickel silver; pitch a1=435/440 Hz.

This was my first traverso; a cheap instrument which I purchased before I started making in-
struments myself (see photo in part 9.14 above). I bought it because as a recorder player I
wanted to try out another type of woodwind instrument, preferably one with a minimum of
keys. And this traverso was my start in the world of historic instruments: a friend told me he
had seen a similar flute in a village museum nearby (which indeed appeared to be an original
baroque traverso), and so on, the beginning of a long story, which ended in writing a disser-
tation about Dutch woodwind instruments and their makers. The traverso by Alexander Hein-
rich is rather simply made.
The fingerholes are not undercut and that was maybe originally also the case with the mouth
hole. That is now undercut, it is not unlikely that I did that myself - but I simply can’t
remember! What I certainly did was to enlarge hole 5, to raise the pitch of the f#. But in doing
so the f-natural became much too sharp and so I restored the situation, by filling in the hole
with a piece of wood and making a new hole in it (not an easy thing to do so neatly!). In a
change to its previous state, however, I have undercut that hole.
Another problem was that the pitch of the traverso was about a-435 Hz (the pitch depending
on your embouchure). Which is why I made - many years later - a new upper middle joint for
playing at a-440 Hz. The calculation 440:435 gives a shortfall of about 1.1% of the total
sounding length. That means that the new joint had to be 6 mm shorter than the old one. But
that appeared not to be enough and I had to shorten the joint by another 5 mm to 11 mm. I did
that shortening operation at the upper end, and that makes clear why the bore at that end is
with 17.3 mm narrower than the other joint (17.7 mm). But the whole bore profile is 0.5 to
1.0 mm narrower than the original joint; that explains why the fingerholes are much smaller.
It is not a bad idea for a beginning woodwind maker to make a new joint for an existing flute.
If that functions well, you might remake the other joints as well (which I not yet have done
with the Heinrich traverso).
I don’t know which original instrument this traverso from the Alexander Heinrich factory
was based on, but to my surprise I saw some years ago in the musical instrument museum of
Kloster Michaelstein in Blankenburg (Germany, at the eastern border of the Harz) traversos in
the same style, but with 4 to 6 keys. They dated from about 1800 - 1850, and were made in the
county of Sachsen (Saxonia, probably around Markneukirchen where there still is a long tradi-
tion of making musical instruments). But traversos with one key have probably been made in
this part of Germany up to the end of the 19th century.

Measurement data of the traverso by Alexander Heinrich

SL: 148 + 157.8 (146.5) + 136.8 + 91.3 = 533.9 (522.6); pitch: a-435 (440) Hz
between brackets: new joint II, in boxwood; all measurements in mm

I L 218.5; SL 148; socket L 28, Ømax 23.7; bore: cylindrical, Ø18.1 (at cap end 18.2)
mouth hole: L 9.3, W 9.0, Ø wood 29.0; cork at 28 mm from centre mouth hole
IIa (original, pitch: a-435 Hz)
L (tenon 1 + SL + tenon 2): 27.7 + 157.8 + 19.2 = 205
fingerholes (L from centre to upper shoulder, Ø-L/W of hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 1: 71.6, 6.3/6.5, 26.2; hole 2: 107.5, 6.7/6.7, 25.5; hole 3: 142.2, 5.3/5.2, 25.1
holes not undercut, hole 3 is drilled slightly downwards
 Ø wood at tenon 1: 23.0/23.5; upper shoulder: 29.1; lower shoulder: 25.1; tenon 2:
19.0/19.5
bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end): 17.7-0; 17.5-9; 17.2-22; 17.0-43; 16.8-61; 16.6-65;
16.4-77; 16.2-92; 16.0-102; 15.8-113; 15.6-135; 15.4-144; 15.2-157; 150-171; 148-177;
14.6-186; 14.4-192; 14.2-205, 14.15-end
IIb (made by the author, in boxwood, pitch a-440 Hz)
SL 146.5; fingerholes (L from centre to upper shoulder, Ø-L/W of hole):
hole 1: 67.3, 5.9/6.0; hole 2: 100.0, 5.7/6.0; hole 3: 133.2, 4.6/4.8; hole 1 and 3 slightly,
hole 2 moderately undercut; bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end): 17.3-0; 16.5-28; 16.0-80;
15.4-106; 15.0-130; 14.4-144; 14.2-162; 14.0-180 to end
III L (SL + tenon): 136.8 + 18.0 = 155; socket L 19.6, Ømax 19.3
fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-L/W of hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 4: 44, 5.6/5.8, 25.5; hole 5: 80.0, 6.0/5.4 (after repair), 24.0; hole 6: 115, 4.5/4.8,
23.4; hole 4 and 6 not undercut, hole 5 after repair moderately undercut
Ø wood at socket rim: 26.8, baluster 31.0, lower shoulder 23.2, tenon end 16.5
bore (Ø/Lmax, from upper end): 14.2-20; 14.0-29; 13.8-39; 13.6-53; 13.4-58; 13.2-75;
13.0-85; 12.8-93; 12.6-106; 12.4-113; 12.2-122; 12.0-131; 11.8-141; 11.7-150; 11.65-
end
IV L 91.3; socket: L 18.9, Ømax 17.5; hole 7 at 32.5 from upper end, Ø L/W: 8.2/8.5, Ø
wood 23.4; Ø wood at socket rim: 24.8, key ring 33.5, lower end 22.4
bore (Ø, Lmax, from lower end): 13.7-0; 13.6-1; 13.4-10; 13.2-20; 13.0-33; 12.8-45;
12.6-58; 12.4-69; 12.3-72; 12.2- just trough.

(Pierre) Naust (Paris, early18th century): traverso in four parts, in boxwood, stained
brown; rings and cap: ivory; key: silver; pitch: about a1-400 Hz.

This instrument belonged to a private Dutch owner, whose grandfather still played on it.There
was some damage: the key was hammered in a curve, the key ring left and right of the channel

Traverso by Naust, after restoration

was broken off, there were some cracks in the head (which made the flute unplayable), a piece
of ivory was broken off the cap. But the mouth hole was in original condition and the middle
joints were not shortened. The bore profile is regular, not too oval, and there are hardly gaps
or steps in the bore at the connections of the joints.
A conspicuous detail: the ivory ring of the head is short (covering only a part of the
baluster), but the corresponding ring of part III is much longer, stretching over the whole
length of the baluster. This long ring seems to be original, or maybe a very old repair,
possibly carried out by Naust himself to cover a bad spot in the wood below.
The German woodwind maker Martin Wenner restored this traverso and it appeared to
have excellent qualities, such as a very good intonation. But this story has a tragic end: the
owner wanted to sell the instrument, but her carrier bag with the instrument in it was stolen
just when she was travelling to the buyer.
I had the opportunity to have this flute for some months in my workshop and made a fine
copy (with a brass key, rings of artificial ivory and with the middle ring much shorter) of this
traverso and used that as a model for a course in 1985.
There are more traversos by Naust, such as an instrument in three parts in the museum of
musical instruments in Berlin (No. 2667), which is entirely made of boxwood (no ivory rings)
and plays at a-405 Hz. Jean-François Beaudin has made a drawing of this traverso, including a
list with detailed pitch measurements. But I couldn’t find this drawing on the website of the
museum in Berlin, nor on the website of Beaudin. There is, however, a drawing of a traverso
by Naust, an instrument in ivory with silver mounts, in a private collection in Paris (Laurent
Kattenback). That traverso also plays at a-405 Hz and you can order the drawing (no detailed
pitch measurements) via Beaudin’s website (http://www.flute-beaudin.com/Plans.html).

Measurement data of the traverso by Naust (from a Dutch private collection, now lost)
(colour photos and a sketch with measurement data are published in the digital supplement)

SL: 160.3 + 178 + 143.5 + 100.0 = 581.8; pitch: about a1=400 Hz.
I L (without cap): 216.5; SL: 160.3; socket: L 29.2, Ømax 25.0; bore: cylindrical, Ø 19.5
to 19.6 (slightly oval); mouth hole: L 8.5, W 8.5, diagonal 8.8, undercut to 11 (L), on
copy 12 (which works well), Ø wood at mouth hole: 28.8; supposed cork position: at 28
mm from centre mouth hole
II L (tenon 1 + SL + tenon 2): 29 + 178 + 27.2 = 234
fingerholes (L from centre to upper shoulder, Ømin/Ømax of hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 1: 81.7, 6.9/7.0, 27.6; hole 2: 118.7, 6.8/6.8, 27.5; hole 3: 5.9/5.9, 27.1; hole 1 and
2 moderately strong and hole 3 moderately undercut.
Ø wood at tenon 1: 23.5/23.8; upper shoulder: 28.7; lower shoulder: 27.0; tenon 2: 20.9
bore (Ø, Lmin/max): 19.2-0; 19.0-2/40; 18.9-46/50; 18.8-48/51; 18.6-59/60; 18.4-63/64;
18.2-66/84; 18.0-84/87; 17.8-99/hole 1; 17.6-112/115; 17.4-123/126; 17.2-136/139;
17.0-141/hole 2; 16.8-162/175; 16.6-180/hole 3; 16.4-186/191; 16.2-195/199; 16.0-
206/208; 15.8-211/216; 15.6-221; 15.4-229; 15.3-230; 15.2-234/through; there is some
tenon contraction between L0 and L40, the bore was there likely a bit wider (for
instance from Ø 19.4 at L 0 to 19.0 at L 40).
III L (SL + tenon): 143.5 + 17.5 = 161; socket L 27.5, Ømax 23.0
fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-min/max of hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 4: 41, 6.3/65, 26.5; hole 5: 79, 6.2/6.3, 26.5; hole 6: 116.5, 4.8/4.8, 26.1; hole 4 and
5 moderately strong to strongly undercut, hole 6 slightly undercut.
bore (Ø, Lmin/max, from upper end): 15.2-28/34; 15.0-56/60; 14.8-65/70; 14.6-84/86;
14.4-100; 14.2-108; 14.0-119/121; 13.8-134/137; 13.6-144/160; 13.5-160/end
 Ø wood (or ivory) at socket rim: 27.8, baluster 33.7, lower shoulder 26.1, tenon end
19.5
IV L 100.0; socket: L 17.5, Ømax 20.5; hole 7 at 35.5 from upper end, Ømin/max 6.5/6.6,
Ø wood 26.0, hole 7 is moderately strong undercut; Ø wood at socket rim: 27.8, key
ring 33.2, lower end 25.4; bore (Ø, Lmin/max, from lower end): 14.1-0; 14.0-5/12; 13.8-
32/40; 13.7-70-end

A few remarks: I recently checked my copy after Naust and discovered that most of the
fingerholes are smaller (0.2 to 0.5 mm, which is quite lot) than on the original instrument,
whereas the bore in the middle joints is not narrower. I don’t know at the moment the reason
of the differences, I can’t check the original traverso anymore (I fear the moment that
somebody comes to me with this particular instrument, trying it to sell it to me . . . ).
My copy has a very good intonation and I surely had no reasons (30+ years ago) to make the
holes bigger. But it shows that with this traverso you have some margins within which the
copy can be tuned. Such flexibility is welcome for an inexperienced flute maker!
The other remark I have to make is about the undercutting of the fingerholes. I figured out a
schedule with the following definitions:
- not undercut: the hole is cylindrical, or almost cylindrical;
- slightly undercut: a difference from about 2 (for small holes) to 3 mm (for bigger
holes) between top and bottom diameter;
- moderately undercut: a difference up to about 3 to 4 mm;
- moderately-strong: a difference from 4 to 6 mm;
- strongly undercut: the bottom diameter of the hole is 2 x the size or more of the upper
diameter.

Van Heerde (Amsterdam, first half of the 18th century): traverso in four parts, in ebony
with ivory mounts and a silver key; pitch: about a-418 Hz.

I bought this traverso in 1993 at an auction in The Hague. Because of some deep cracks in the
head it was not playable, but a new head revealed the fine properties of the instrument, a pitch
slightly above a-415 Hz and a good intonation. There are some other problems with the flute:
a cap and an ivory ring of the foot are missing, the baluster ring of the head is a replacement
(in horn) and is also cracked. But the mouth hole, the bore and the tone holes (strongly under-
cut, even hole 6) are not altered, the upper middle joint seems not to be shortened.
The instrument shows some properties which you can find on more Dutch traversos from
this period, a relatively small and round mouth hole, a wide bore (up to 19.7 in the head),
the combined parts III and IV together with a length of about 240 mm.
For a copy I made part II 5 mm longer, to come closer to the pitch of a-415 Hz. It is generally
easier to make longer corps de rechange than shorter ones. Other traversos by Van Heerde are

Van Heerde traverso: above, the original instrument, after restoration by Martin Wenner;
the other one is a copy which I made with a slightly longer upper middle joint.
also a bit longer. There is one in the collection of the Gemeentemuseum in Den Haag, but the
head of that instrument is not original.
Just as with the Naust traverso, I discovered that the fingerholes on the copy happened to
become smaller than on the original, and were also less heavily undercut. Well, the copy plays
fine, at the desired pitch, so why should I care? But I feel that I have not yet discovered the
secrets of the Van Heerde traverso. And I do not want to spoil pieces of expensive ebony
wood for further research . . . The original flute, after a restoration by Martin Wenner, was
sold to a private collection in Holland.

Measurement data of the original traverso by Van Heerde: Total length of the head joint
(I), without cap tenon, 206 mm; sounding length 154 mm; cork position at 25 to 29 mm from
centre of mouth hole. The bore of the head is a bit oval at cross section: Ø 19.7 vertically
over the whole length, but horizontally just 19.4 to 19.5. And I discovered now that the bore
of my copy is a bit narrower: 19.2 to 19.3 mm.

Upper middle joint (II), total length 205, sounding length 152 (of the copy: 157).
Bore (Ø, Lmin/max), from upper end: 19.0-0/1; 18.8-0/2; 18.6-1/9; 18.4-8-15; 18.3-8/35;
18.2-33/36; 18.0-38/54; 17.8-45/56; 17.6-52/67; 17.4-67/88; 17.2-83/95; 17.1-89/98; 17.0-
105/115; 16.8-121/125; 16.6-137/hole 3; 16.4-148/150; 16.2-155/161; 16.0-173/hole 3; 15.8-
183/185; 15.7-186; 15.6-190/192; 15.4- 197 and through; 15.6/15.6- end

Lower middle joint (III). Length: 160.3, sounding length 142.5. Bore (Ø, Lmin/max), from
upper end: 15.7-27; 15.6-31/32; 15.4-43/hole 4; 15.2-50/54; 15.0-65; 14.8-
72-74; 14.6-82/hole 5; 14.4-88; 14.2-94; 14.0-107/109; 13.8-117/118; 13.7-134/140; 13.6-
138/141; 13.5-150/154; 13.4-through; from lower end: 14.3/14.5: 0; 13.8-1; 13.5-2

Foot (IV), length 99.1; bore (Ø, Lmin/max), from lower end: 14.4/14.5-0; 14.2-12;
14.0-20/27; 13.8-39; 13.6-49/51; 13.4-73/hole 7 and through; 13.3-through.
 Van Heerde - lower middle joint

Van Heerde
foot and key

August Grenser (Dresden, Germany), second half of the 18th century, traverso in four
parts, in boxwood, with register on foot. Copy in a-415 Hz, with extra corps in a-440 Hz.

The German woodwind maker Guido Klemisch once told me that in his opinion August Gren-
ser was the last (or even the only) person who made very high quality traversos with one key
in the later part of the 18th century. What I can say is that his instruments look old-fashioned
with balusters still having a small beading group (see * in the picture below; the traverso by
Rottenburgh has ‘smooth balusters’).

Top: traverso by August Grenser; bottom: traverso by Godefroid-Adrien Rottenburgh. Both

instruments with a register (sliding extension) to adjust the length of the foot for different
corps de rechange (centerpieces, left hand joints). Both flutes have also a screw cap, for easy
adjustment of the cork. From a prospect of Friedrich von Huene.
My copy of the traverso of August Grenser is based on an instrument in the Germanisches
Nationalmuseum in Neuremberg, which has seven different corps de rechange, in the range of
a-415 to a-440 Hz. I have taken measurements of another flute, in the Gemeentemuseum in
Den Haag. That instrument (with the inventory number Ea 14-1935) must have had several
corps, but only one (numbered ‘1') survived, at a pitch about 30 cents lower than a-415 Hz.
For my copy (in a-415 Hz) I mainly used measurements of the instrument in Nuremberg and
of a copy made by Guido Klemisch. Some years later I added an extra joint in a-440 Hz, the
result of some calculations (scaling) and study of a drawing from Nuremberg. That drawing
gives mainly the bore profiles and some lengths of all parts, but not the dimensions (diame-
ters) of the exterior of the flute. You might derive these from that drawing (which is at a scale
of 1:1), but that is not easy and not accurate as well.

Measurement data of a copy (by Jan Bouterse) of a traverso after August Grenser,
based on flutes in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg and the collection
of the Gemeentemuseum Den Haag (a plan with measurement data to photos of the copy is
published in the digital supplement)
copy (415 Hz): SL 148 + 173.5 + 137 + circa 98 = 556.5
copy (440 Hz): SL 148 + 144.5 + 137 + circa 92 = 521.5

I SL = 148, Ø bore: 18.6, cylindrical; mouth hole: 8.9x9.2 (WxL), undercut to 14 (L);
socket: L 27,5, Ømax 24.2; Ø wood at mouth hole: 30.7; cork at 23 mm from centre
mouth hole
IIa (415) SL 173.5; fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-L xW hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 1: 84.2, 6.4x6.1, 25.6; hole 2: 98.6, 6.6x6.3, 25.3; hole 3: 154.8, 5.2x5.2, 25.3
bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end): 18.5-0; 18.2-2; 18.0-12; 17.8-18; 17.6-48; 17.4-62;
17.2-67; 17.0-80; 16.7-95; 16.6-101; 16.4-hole 1; 16.2-140, 16.2-hole 2; 15.8-161; 15.6-
hole 3; 15.4-189; 15.2-193; 15.0-199; 14.9-203; 14.8-through; 15.0- end
IIb (440) SL 144.5; fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-L xW hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 1: 6.3x5.9, 25.5; hole 2: 6.7x6.0, 25.2; hole 3: 5.5x5.2, 25.0
bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end): 18.5-0; 18.2-10; 18.0-18; 17.8-25; 17.6-42; 17.4-59;
17.2-66; 17.0-102; 16.8-115; 16.6-hole 2; 16.4-124; 16.2-130; 16.0-141; 15.8-144; 15.6-
154; 15.4-160; 15.2-166; 15.0-170; 14.8-183; 14.6- through
III L (SL + tenon): 137.0 + 17.5 =154.5; socket: L 21,5, Ømax 20.6
fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-L xW hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 4: 42, 5.9x5.8, 25.0; hole 5: 77.5, 6.0x5.9, 24.9; hole 6: 114.5, 4.9x5.0, 24.7
bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end): 15.3-22; 15.0-28; 14.8-33; 14.6-hole 4; 14.4 + 14.2-
hole 4; 14.0-62; 13.8-hole 5; 13.6-83; 13.4-90; 13.2-95; 13.0-102; 12.8-107; 12.6-122;
12.4-126; 12.2-128; 12.0-145 and end of bore
IV L: ca. 98 (depending on register); without register: L 90; hole 7 at L 35, Ø 7.2x6.3
bore of register: 17.5, cylindrical; body (L, Ømax from lower end): 13.5-0; 13.2-16;
13.0-21; 12.8-32; 12.6-48; 12.4-hole 7; 12.1- touching through

Some remarks on this copy of the traverso by Grenser

The Grenser traversos in The Hague and Nuremberg have a register on the foot. I have
copied that, see the picture below. I made a drill with a guide to make the circular sleeve in
the wood. I found a simple steel tube with the right dimensions, and made the teeth at the end
with a fine file (see photo next page), and added a guide that directs the drill through a pilot
hole. A correct sequence of drilling is important: make at first a pilot hole, then drill the
 sleeve; fill the sleeve with a
piece of wood before you
further ream out the bore. Be
careful drilling and turning the
extension: it is rather thin and
cracks easily.
There are more sophisticated
tube drills. The well-known
traverso maker Rudolph Tutz of
Innsbruck told me once that he
made with such a drill (a very
long one) a long hole in a piece
of thuja wood, and that he
My simply made tube drill, ended up two pieces of wood:
the first one with the long hole,
and the second (and much
thinner) one - without a hole -
being the core of the wood
which came out of the drill.

The result

The original instrument has also a screw cap, which I

didn’t copy, because of lack of tools and experience.
At the right the construction with cap and cork of the
August Grenser traverso in Nuremberg (from the
drawing which I bought in the museum).

About the sound of Grenser flutes

Herbert Heyde, the former curator of the museum of musical instruments in Leipzig (now
Grassi Museum) wrote about the sound of Grenser traversos, and especially the instrument in
his collection: typical for (August) Grenser is a Grosses Volumen (loud), voll (full), weich
(soft), fast ohne Schärfe (almost without sharpness - I suppose with a soft sounding attack),
die Höhe etwas zu dünn (the upper register a bit too thin), leichte Ansprache (easy response) -
see the catalogue by Heide with the title ‘Flöten’ (Leipzig 1978, p. 90/91).
These are not easy conceptions to assess and to describe (and very hard to translate!), they
are subjective as well and depend very much on your embouchure and way of playing. But I
am glad that Heyde made an attempt in writing this sound description, it gives you some
direction where you might go when making a replica.
Godfroid-Adrien Rottenburgh, traverso in d1, copy after the instrument form the
collection of Barthold Kuyken

This is a famous instrument, copied by many woodwind makers. Jean-François Beaudin made
a fine drawing from this traverso, but measured only two of the seven corps de rechange.
Barthold uses corps V to play at a pitch of a-415 Hz, but has to pull out that corps for about 3
mm. I didn’t copy the screw cap and the register foot.

Copy (415 Hz): SL 146.7 + 166 + 137.8 + 101.8 = 552.3

I L without cap 220, SL 146.7; socket: L c. 26.5, Ømax 24.2; mouth hole (original):
9.0x8.8 (WxL), at wood surface 9.15x9.3 (slightly overcut); undercut to c. 12 (L); Ø
wood at mouth hole: c. 30.0; bore: Ø 19.1 over most of its length, but wider (ca. 19.4)
over some distance at c. 100 mm from lower end of the head (this might favour some
notes of the highest registers)
II SL (copy) 166, fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-WxL hole, Ø wood at hole):
hole 1: 80, 6.0x6.2 (on original instrument 6.4x6.4), 25.5 (26.5); hole 2: 114.5, 6.1x6.5
(on original flute 6.3x6.3), 25.5 (25.8); hole 3: 151.5, 5.2x5.4 (5.4x5.4), 25.3 (25.4), all
holes strongly undercut bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end, original instrument): 18.4-0;
18.0-10; 17.8-25; 17.6-69; 17.4-78; 17.0-100;16.8-105; 16.6-112; 16.4-123; 16.2-132;
16.0-147; 15.8-161; 15.6-168; 15.4-171; 15.2-182; 15.0-192; 14.9- 191 and through;
14.6- through III L (SL + tenon, copy): 137.8 + 17.8 =154.5
fingerholes (L from centre to upper end, Ø-WxL hole, Ø wood at hole, original flute):
hole 4: 45.6, 6.0x6.0, 26.2; hole 5: 80.5, 6.0x6.0, 25.2; hole 6: 115.5, 4.5x4.4, 24.6 (on
copy: holes 4 and 5 a bit smaller)
bore (Ø, Lmax, from upper end, original flute): 15.1- 24; 15.0-27; 14.8-34; 14.6- 49;
14.4-57; 14.2-72; 14.0-89; 13.8-91/95;13.6-108; 13.4-117;13.2-122; 13.0-130; 12.8-
135; 12.6-138; 12.4-144; 12.3-150;12.15-155
IV L 101.8 (copy, without register construction); socket: L 18.5, Ømax 19.4; hole 7 at L
32.5, Ø 6.7x 6.7; Ø wood at hole 7: 24.7
bore (on original instrument, with register at minimum length of 96.3 mm; Ø and Lmax
from lower end): 14.3-0; 14.0-14; 13.8-23; 13.6-29; 13.4-32; 13.2-45;13.0-55; 12.8-74;
12.6/12.7-76 and through.

This drawing (by Martin Wenner) is from a head of another traverso by G.A. Rottenburgh, in
the Stadtmuseum in Munich (Inv. No. 4-16). The bore of this head tapers from Ø 18.7 near the
mouth hole to 18.4 near the socket. Also the mouth hole is smaller than that on the Rotten-
burgh traverso of Barthold Kuyken. An observation: I have seen copies of this flute by other
woodwind makers, which were quite different, for instant in the bore diameter of the head.
The well-known Belgian traverso maker Alain Weemaels told me once that the absolute bore
dimensions are not so important: it is more about the shape of the bore profile, for instance
where there is a change in the tapering of the bore over a short distance.
Making traversos: a summary of conclusions and advices

- Traversos (renaissance and baroque) are beautiful instruments, but have their peculiarities
which you have to discover.
- In playing traverso you have to be precise and flexible as well. The same can be said about
making copies of historical instruments. You have to follow exactly the dimensions and
properties of the model. Flexibility in making means that you know where you can (or must)
make some changes. And that is often necessary to do; one of the reasons is that original
instruments show often irregularities, for instance caused by shrinking of the wood. But it is a
learning process: you must understand what are the effects - or at least the direction of the
effects - of making changes, for instance what happens when making a bore wider in parts of a
traverso.
- It is very helpful - certainly when you are making your first traverso - to have a good
instrument on hand (in most cases that will be a copy) and to investigate that thoroughly.
- Making a traverso means that you know how to produce all tones of the instrument, but it is
of course better when you can play the instrument at least at a reasonable level, and that you
must know fundamental aspects of the fingerings, temperaments and tuning.
- A step further than making an exact copy is scaling a traverso into a different pitch (for
instance from a-405 to a-415 Hz), or - for the same reason - making extra corps de rechange.
Scaling involves making the lengths of all parts of a traverso proportionally shorter or
longer (for instance 415/405 = about 2.5 %), whereas all internal bore diameters have to be
changed with a different factor, in this example, where I follow the practice of scaling organ
pipes, with about 1.5 % (which is 60% of that 2.5%).
- Making better instruments means that you have to improve your own level of playing, but
generally to search co-operation with excellent players. That does not always makes life
easier, as I found in a letter from Frans Brüggen to Friedrich von Huene, who relied on
Brüggen as his flute oracle.* In 1968, when Brüggen sent his copy of a Kirst traverso back to
von Huene with a cracked headjoint (‘that damned grenadilla!’), he gave a revealing account
of his opinion of two original flutes by Rottenburgh and Scherer, and made recommendations
for changes to von Huene's Kirst design:

‘I found the boxwood low-pitch Rottenburgh a really gorgeous and highly sensible (recte:
sensitive) instrument, far more so that the ivory Scherer, although this is very fine, especially
with the next to lowest midjoint. The account for Rottenburgh goes for the wood, I think, and
of course the ‘delicious’ embouchure hole. Soul food, man! I am more and more in favour of
not too oval embouchures.The Kirst in Berlin (1-keyed) is very nice. Its embouchure hole
being a bit more round than on your copy. As said, I would prefer this, and ask you. if you see
something in it to make the new headjoint a bit wider in the bore with a more round
embouchure hole, but leaving the same total hole aperture (= volume). Perhaps this would
also serve to have some more sonority on e' and f' without having to change your embouchure
much. The distance cork-middle of hole is now 24 mm, that is as you put it.
However, the octaves g'-g", a -a" and b'-b" are on the narrow side (the lower tone always
seeming too high). Could you experiment a bit with it (cork distance or otherwise) to get them
in tune? C" with 23 is too high. By now you will realize that I am looking for the moon - a
Kirst-Rottenburgh-Naust combination. Some backward Flötenmacher around 1760 or so, who
wanted to be modern but could not forget his father. Please give it a try.’

* From Geoffrey Burgess: Well-tempered woodwinds, Friedrich von Huene and the
making of early music in a new world; Indiana University Press, 2015; p. 138/139. These
pages of the book are in internet (Google Books).