• Vintage Haynes Flutes

Articles“On Villette And Other Musings”The Louis Lot shop operatedfrom 1855 to 1951 under six different individual owners. Villette was thesecond after Louis Lot, followed by Debonneebeau, Barat, E. Chambile and hisdaughter G. Villette became the shop owner in 1876 and retired afterjust six years. Previously, he worked for Godfroy as a key maker. He became theforeman of Louis Lot in 1855 where he worked for 20 years.

Flutes producedduring the Villette period were different than what came before and after. Someof these differences are quantitative and can be seen or measured easily, someare more subjective as in how the flutes sound and feel to the player.The beginning of the thirdquarter of the 19th Century was fertile ground for flute makers. Louis Lot’sexclusive license to make Boehm flutes in France had expired. Bonneville and Rive established theirworkshops in 1876 and 1877 respectively. Godfroy’s widow was still active andcontinued to produce a small number of exquisite wood and metal flutes until1888. Bonneville and Rive both worked for Godfroy before they struck out ontheir own. Their early instruments were very fine flutes indeed.

For twentyyears, Louis Lot and Godfroy would have trained a select few workers who wereable to produce fine flutes under the directions of the established and nouveaushop owners.Very little information is availableabout Villette or his workshop. He produced a total of about 1,000 silver andwood flutes in 6 years, averaging about 90-100 silver flutes, plus a steady 68cylindrical and conical wood flutes per year.

His yearly production was atleast 40 flutes more than Louis Lot’s best years. The production numbers werefairly consistent through the end of Debonneebeau’s tenure (1882-1889). DuringBarat’s period (1889-1904), the average yearly production of silver flutes wasdown about 10-15%.Villette made many changeswhen he took charge of the Louis Lot workshop. The motivation behind thesechanges are unknown to us, but they were bold and fascinating. Before 1877,Boehm system silver and wood Louis Lot flutes were numbered consecutively inone series. Beginning in 1877 even numbers were assigned to silver flutes andodd to wood flutes.

The previously rolled Louis Lot stamp on the body wasreplaced by the same hand-engraved logo found on the headjoint, but the serialnumber was omitted. Many first generation Louis Lot flutes have worn stamps onthe body, some are barely visible, because the impression of the rolled stampwas quite shallow. The omission of serial numbers and discontinuation of therolled stamp on the body probably occurred in 1877 or 1878.Villette’s keywork was quitedistinct.

The two most obvious features were the addition of adjusting screwsand the execution of the back connector (clutch).Elegantsmall back connector on 1st generation LotUniqueVillette clutchThere were five adjustingscrews on the mainline keywork and occasionally, one for the C/C# adjustment onthe footjoint. The C/C# adjustment screw rested on the bridge of the mechanismwhich was not an original Boehm design.

Boehm used two pins to connect the C#key and its lever while the later pinless mechanism used a bridge to connectthe C key to its roller. All the 1st generation Louis Lot flutes shared Boehm’spinned setup.Firstgeneration Lot pinned footjointVillettepinless footjoint with adjusting screwIt was unclear why Villettepreferred the pinless footjoint mechanism. Bonneville, Rive and Godfroy flutesof this period used the pinned mechanism.

There was never a need to line upmore than two posts at a time on the entire flute until the invention of thepinless footjoint. In order for the new mechanism to work properly, all fourposts in the footjoint needed to line up perfectly – a task that was timeconsuming and required much skill. It was easier to support a section ofkeywork between two pivots where the relative position of the two posts was notas critical.

Villette must have looked forward to the implementation of his newfeatures on the 20-year old Louis Lot design. Making any change on a flute wasnot a trivial matter – tools and dies had to be made, trials might not besuccessful, new procedures and scheduling were involved, and above all, theuncertain outcome could be unsettling and devastating especially when itconcerned the acoustics of the flute. Villette was likely contemplating thesechanges for some time. Most of the changes were made during his first year ofownership.Some other modificationsincluding the use of a separate trill rib instead of a one-piece rib, advent ofhallmarks, slightly different shaping of the touches, reconfiguration of theright-hand section – from a two-lug system to a single lug setup, relocationof the G tail, and the use of slightly thicker seamed tubing.I enjoy flutes from theVillette period and find them to be robust both in construction and sound. Theyare easy to play and have good response, perhaps owing to a slightly deeperembouchure wall. It is less intimate than some of the 1st generation Lots andthe scale tends to be slightly longer, as the “normal” pitch at this time wasA=435. Many Villette flutes I have played have an internal scale of A=438.

Theyare certainly not as low as advertised. The sonority of Villette’s silverflutes is dark, rich, and very colorful. The tin flutes are not overly bright.There is enough resistance which allows for good dynamic control and smoothcolor changes. Wood flutes are much more scarce.

As with any vintage woodflute, they are very difficult to assess as the wood tends to change over theyears.Villette flutes are seldomon the market due to a small supply. He made less than 600 metal flutes. Thenumber of surviving flutes is anyone’s guess. The prices of Villette flutes areusually at a premium.

Vintage Haynes Flutes

But they are truly delightful to play, exquisitelybeautiful and historically significant.byDavid Chu, 2015, Maynard, MassachusettsCopyright© 2015 David Chu.