[ Ref. John Grant in 171111 MMDigest ]

John Grant's posting some weeks ago about the maker of his musical box
has taken me some time to seek a possible answer.  What intrigued me
most was the word 'Expression' written as a heading to the list of
tunes.  That word may hold a clue to the maker and could mean that
John's musical box is a historical rarity.  Before explaining why, it
is worth recounting the history of this particular style of tune sheet:

http://www.mmdigest.com/Attachments/17/11/11/171111_113355_Hicks-Box-1.jpg
 

When the late H.A.V. Bulleid configured his tune sheet project in
his book, "Musical Box Tune Sheets" and its three supplements, he
used an asterisk (*) to indicate those attributed to other names.
There are several examples of John's tune sheet with its acanthus
flower border pattern, each with different possibilities of maker
or agent.

Although the basic border pattern remained unchanged, printing
plates wore out quite rapidly and new plates had to be engraved.
This accounts for the many slight variations in pattern, particularly
the top and bottom cartouches.  Each tune sheet has the image of a
mandolin in one side border with a tambourine and xylophone in the
opposite border.  Sometime these images were reversed.  Most were
printed in blue.

The relevant Bulleid tune sheets with the acanthus border are
summarised as follows, using his tune sheet numbers:

No. 253, serial 599, circa 1838:

This tune sheet is the earliest example in his book, which he
attributed to Charles Bruguier.  It had 58082 written on it and the
words 'W genVE, JA', which he could not explain.  This number is too
high to be regarded as a serial number for any maker of this date and
the initials remain a mystery.  He concluded the maker was Bruguier and
the rest of the script was added by an agent.

There is no dating chart for Bruguier and 599 could be his serial
number or gamme number (the number used to identify the tuning scale of
the comb and which also infers the list of tunes) because it is also
far too low for any other maker of this date.  Agents often had their
own serial number system and sellers of antiques had their own code
system.

The Bruguier family (sometimes spelt Brugier or Brugnier) were known
for producing singing bird automata and were said to be makers of
musical boxes.  It is my opinion Bruguier may also have been an agent
for another maker such as one of the Lecoultres.

No. 306, serial 772, circa 1845.

Bulleid attributed the movement to C. Lecoultre.  This could have been
François Lecoultre's brother, Charles-Philippe Lecoultre (1798-1850).
His son, Charles-François Lecoultre (1834-1914) would only have been
eleven years old at the time.  However, Bulleid thought that this must
have been Constant Lecoultre, who ran an agency in Saint Croix in 1853,
as reported by Piguet in his book, "The Music Box Makers, a treatise on
the makers of Saint Croix."

No. 255, serial 23132, circa 1850.

Bulleid attributed this tune sheet with its heading 'Mandoline'
to Lecoultre & Brechet.  The comb was stamped with their initials LB,
(see No. 16 below).  He described the movement as 'super mandoline',
a term he used when there were so many teeth per tuned group that the
mandolin effect was almost continuous for each note played.

No. 16, serial 30490, circa 1858.

He wrote that this tune sheet was often used by Lecoultre but not which
one of this two-branch family who all worked independently from each
other.  He illustrated date lines in Chart 8 of his book for David,
his brother Henri Joseph of the Golay branch and another family group
of the Piguet branch (possibly cousins) entitled F. Lecoultre Frères,
headed by François Charles Lecoultre.  Chart 8 is headed Lecoultres and
Perrelet because the François Lecoultre enterprise, which also had a
period of partnership with a person called Brechet, was followed by his
son and then taken over by Perrelet.

Based on this evidence alone one might assume that John's musical box
was made by one of these Lecoultres.  However, François Lecoultre
invariably stamped his combs L.F. Gve (for Geneva) or L.F. with FL,
LF or LB (for Lecoultre Brechet) on the tune sheet.  Both the other
Lecoultres had similar means of comb identification.  The Lecoultre
Brechet partnership existed between 1844 and 1854.

No. 381, serial 6236, undated:

Bulleid attributed this tune sheet for a key-wind movement to Badel
and described it as rearranged.  In fact, other than minor engraving
differences common to this acanthus-pattern series that is not the case
because it was used upside-down.

Chapuis described Badel as one of a small group of makers of pièces à
musiques circa 1826.  Few of Badel's movements have been recorded and
he is quite difficult to identify but all makers made key-wind movements
prior to 1860.  The last tune was pinned on the cylinder track line
dots punched at the cylinder tune gap, standard practice for most
Geneva makers.  Saint Croix practice was to pin the first tune on the
dots.  Bulleid also noted, with his accustomed 'eagle eye', that the
handwritten script in the bottom cartouche was typical of another
agent, Henriot.

No. 360, serial 12967, circa 1859.

This is a very different and simplified acanthus border design that
still retains the instruments in the side borders.  The tune sheet is
headed 'Musique Expressive,' the importance of the word 'Expressive'
was not explained and the movement is unattributed.  Unlike all the
other examples the designer of the tune sheet has the name: 'Lith.
(i.e., lithographer) A. Massin, Mulhouse.'

Mulhouse is in France, close to the Swiss/German border and about 30
kilometres from Basel.  The printer is associated with Troll and, more
important, several unattributed musical boxes.  A possibility is that
Massin tune sheets were agency types.  The Massin name is also associated
with Festu & Massin of Paris for a tune sheet for Mermod.  (See No. 158
below).

No. 260, no known serial number, circa 1860.

The maker of this tune sheet is unknown but it has a sticker for a
dealer called F. Altstatt.

No. 158, serial 2214, circa 1862:

This tune sheet is printed in sepia and is the latest Bulleid example
that had the name MERMOD FRERES A Ste. CROIX written in the bottom
cartouche.  Its use by a Saint Croix maker has never been explained but
they started making musical boxes about 1850.


In summary, we have the same tune sheet pattern in use for over 20
years, associated with at least one possible maker of the Lecoultre
clan but also agents.  The actual pattern varied slightly with time
because printing plates wore out and fresh printing plates were made,
which accounts for some of the details changing.

At the end of this analysis I thought I had come to the end of my
investigation to find a maker for John Grant's musical box -- that
is, until I noticed the hand-written inscription on the tune sheet:
'Expression'.  That sent me on a completely different tangent.

This is a term has a particular meaning when used by brothers David
and Henri Lecoultre.  The limited evidence, exclusive to the works of
Bulleid, indicates that the word applied to their forte piano musical
boxes.  It also seems that these were the only makers to produce 'loud'
and 'soft' tones on a musical box by using long pins and short pins.

The real impact of Bulleid's research is sometimes lost in the text,
particularly when his works are out of print.  In his book, "Cylinder
Musical Box Design and Repair," printed 30 years ago in 1987, he wrote:

  "They (i.e., the long-and-short-pin types) were superseded around
  1845 by what became the standard type, with about two thirds of the
  cylinder playing a forte comb and one third a piano comb, and with
  equal pins (he meant equal in length) throughout the cylinder."

The term is spelt several different ways: 'expression, expresssif, or
expressive.'  Nicole made 'two comb' the term [denoting] forte piano
movements, which they called piano forte but not the term 'expressive'
to describe them.  However, the term 'expressive' was used by Nicole
and other makers to describe other musical aspects such as the Nicole
Mandoline movements: 'Mandoline Expressive'.

Bulleid illustrated only one example of a Nicole tune sheet headed thus
just before his death, Number 448, published by him in an MBSI (Musical
Box Society International) journal.  He was invariably cautious and
correct in all his writings but the person writing the tune sheet by
hand may have inadvertently used the old-fashioned word to describe a
piano.

However, to find out more one has to read Bulleid's lucid account,
found on pages 27 to 32 in his book, "Cylinder Musical Box Design and
Technology."  He printed it in 1987, many years before claiming that
Nicole used this form of the term.  It appears he was correct to do
so because I found and published in my book, "The Nicole Factor," in
Mechanical Music, page 219, another Nicole tune sheet with the words
Piano Forte.  It was a replacement tune sheet for a Nicole dated 1855.

Whether forte piano or piano forte, there were at least two basic ways
of producing an 'Expreessif' effect.  It seems the first was by the two
Lecoultre brothers using long-and-short pins.  The second superseded
this type when makers used two combs.  It is worth repeating some of
his observations as follows:

  "For people with the time and ability to listen carefully there is
  something attractive about a Forte Piano musical box.  One hears with
  pleasure a soft passage repeated forte, or topped by powerful chords;
  and such effects as a soft, distant echo of a passage previously only
  heard at full power......" His words need to be appreciated by today's
  collectors because few seem to understand or appreciate the musical
  nuances produced by these amazing musical box makers.  Few seem to
  appreciate the technical difficulties and rarity of the single comb
  types."

Bulleid continued by asking, 'Why are these musical boxes are
relatively rare?'  It was a rhetorical question, followed by, 'Why did
everyone stop making them after 1880?'  And, 'Why was the effect never
introduced on disc machines?'  He answered by presuming the public
wanted 'noisier boxes' and the fact that the standard two-comb Forte
Piano arrangement was not cost effective.

David and Henri Lecoultre seemed to be in competition with each other
in their use of long-and-short pins to play a single-piece comb.  Also
they included other musical expressions of crescendo and diminuendo.
There is not enough evidence to say categorically if all their forte
piano movements also had the addition of crescendo and diminuendo.

This is what makes John's musical box so intriguing.  John and the
prospective buyer can easily carry out some simple checks to see if
it was made by either of these two Lecoultres.

Before explaining how, one needs to remember how the log-and-short-pin
movements were made.  The piano passages used pins that lifted the
teeth less than the forte passages to produce a less intense sound.
In fact, the forte was no louder than a standard cylinder musical box.

Piano passages were pricked, drilled, pinned and ground to height first
using the musical score provided by a skilled arranger.  They may also
have been raked because it was common practice to do so to give added
strength to the pins.  Again, we do not know for certain if this was
the case.

The forte passages were treated in the same way.  That is the basic
principle of the single comb forte piano movements by both the
brothers.  There was an additional problem caused by using two
different cylinder pin heights (or effective heights when raked).
This is because a long pin releases the comb tooth later than a short
pin.  The difference affects musical timing.  Both brothers overcame
this timing difference by setting the long pin stage a little in
advance of the previous short pin one.

A warning to all those wishing to re-pin a long-and-short-pin movement
is don't!  Its musical integrity will be lost forever.

The crescendo and diminuendo effect were achieved by hand raking
selected pins.  No doubt the completed cylinder was replaced into the
pricking and drilling machine, this time to make the hand adjustments
from the musical.  It must have been a highly skilled, time consuming
and expensive process.  That is why these instruments are so rare and
were soon to be superseded by the two-comb versions.

It is quite easy to inspect the cylinder pin heights to see if the
movement was made by either David or Henri.  It is also quite easy to
see if there are varying degrees of rake for both the long and short
pins.  It even easier to listen very carefully for both the loud, soft,
crescendo and diminuendo effects.

However, it is even possible to decide which of the two brothers
made the movement.  David and Henri both used comb with hooked teeth.
The evidence to date indicates that the hook-shaped tips had different
profiles.  Both found that straight teeth did not cope well when
released by pins of different effective height but that the hooked-down
tooth tip allowed for a more positive pin-to-tooth-tip engagement and
release.

The major difference between the two makers was introduced by Henri.
He went to great lengths to bend each comb tooth down near its root
and then to bend it up again near the hooked tip.  The comb has a
distinctive pattern from the bass end to about two-thirds towards the
treble.  John's comb does not have that effect.

In conclusion and subject to further investigation, John's movement
could be a single-comb long-and-short-pin cylinder movement by David
Lecoultre.  If not, the record of his musical box will still add to our
fund of knowledge and appreciation of these wonderful musical
instruments.

Paul Bellamy

 [ http://www.mmdigest.com/Attachments/17/12/09/171209_070912_John%20Grant%20tune%20sheet.doc