Spotlight > Whistle Maker by Country > United Kingdom > Hudson > 022 Hudson Round Whistle Reassigned, Special Edition
Whistory
Our special edition focuses on a reassignment rather than a whistle that is mono-typical. Why do we say reassignment? Because this same whistle design that is displayed on page 35 of More Whistles by Martyn Gilchrist is pictured and described as OFFICER by B. Lilly and Sons. And you will find it under beaufort whistles.
Difficulty with Classification (Comparing Lilly to DeCourcy to Hudson)
It is found there described as a beaufort whistle, due no doubt to the conical shape. However, upon closer study we describe it under round whistles. This reclassification is done for two reasons, one of which is the use of a single window atypical of conical shaped whistles. Usually two windows are found in this sub class of whistles ( with exceptions ). Furthermore, a fipple is integral with the mouthpiece, which is never found on beaufort/conical type whistles.
Typically, a round whistle has a straight body. Indeed, this whistle could arguably be placed in either category. However, for study purposes and communication, we move it into round whistles.
Reassigned from Lilly to DeCourcy, and again to Hudson
B. Lilly and Sons did indeed farm out their whistles to local manufacturers, as well as manufacturing their own whistles. So, it is not surprising to find out that this whistle design was made by another manufacturer. In this case it was most likely Alfred DeCourcy, due to the stamp found on a dated whistle ( seen below ).
— Update, February 12, 2021: This is now amended as per photograph found by Pete Owen of an early Hudson address. ( See below )
Whistle classification
| Category | round |
| Order | Hudson Lilly DeCourcy |
| Type | railway |
| Class | nickel plated brass |
| Sub class | conical |
Whistle Archeology
Two Important Whistles Remarkably Stamped With Makers
Finding a manufacturers name stamped on a round whistle is not exceptional as stated in More Whistles on page 36 under Round Whistles, “Only occasionally are round whistles marked with any maker’s, seller’s or organization details”. Reference is made to extant whistles as such:
- Auld ( common )
- Dixon ( rare )
- Hudson ( common )
- Linegar ( rare)
- Stevens and son(s)
- Yates ( rare )
Whistology
Our Focus Begins with Alfred DeCourcy, then Hudson
What is surprising is that Alfred made this whistle for apparently a decade or more and that it spanned at least 1905 to 1915. The 1915 whistle that surfaced is a railway stamp for Northwestern which is also unusual because dated whistles are usually for the military, in this case a government railway with a date. So we have a railway whistle and it was made with Alfred DeCourcy’s stamp – A.DE COURCY & Co. Under that it is ground or scratched off and appears to once have been BIRMINGHAM.
We have seen now four dated whistles matching this whistle, minus the manufacturers name:
- 1905
- 1911 ( on auction, asking a very high price at the time of this article. )
- 1912
- 1915
The 1915 still resides here in the reference collection. It was only when the 1915 surfaced with the A. De Courcy & Co. stamp on the front, that confirmation of the ‘understood’ manufacturer of whistle was established, now corrected to be Joseph or James Hudson.
Interestingly three of these have come from Pakistan. One has come from the UK. The OFFICER stamp seen in More Whistles was followed by one that went to an online auction for 216 dollars in 2013. However, it was sold as a Lilly whistle. B. Lilly and Sons did make their own whistles, so this now clears up some confusion over the actual manufacturer.
Here are the dated ones showing that these were targeted at the railway NWR ( North Western Railway ). Quite unusually so, as we see dated whistles have mainly been thought to be for the military, but some that were government/state owned railways did use arrows and dates. Were the others ( i.e. OFFICER ) targeted at police forces or still railway? De Courcy marketed for both from 1905 onwards with his company the Police Whistle Works.
As you may recall from our SPOTLIGHT on De Courcy’s early years, he first started dating his whistles at his address at 20 Frankfort street in 1906, although patents taken out by his brother Edgar are dated to 1905 as well as a patent by himself in 1905.
At his Mary street address prior, no dated whistles before 1906 have surfaced till now. He is listed in trade directories as a whistle manufacturer from 1890 to 1903 ( see CPWs page 62 ), but as can be seen here, he at least started dating them in 1905 and nameless at first. Possibly 1905 was his earliest of his dated whistles.
Now lets compare the two and focus on the similarities and differences.
‘OFFICER’ picture on the left ( courtesy of Leif Bailey)
From a private collection, if you look closely, you can see the Officer is stamped on the front over the window as well as Alpha 121 on the side. This one with milling around the edge.
Side by side the same design can be readily seen. The conical top is scarcely seen on any other whistles. This makes it a distinct design characteristic. Couple with this the knop placed right on top and the very distinct and rarely seen oval window. Then note the length is the same.
The only real differences are that the OFFICER is smooth ( perhaps worn off ) around the top cap edge and the NWRs have milling. Additionally there is a trim edge just under te milling non the original Hudson and the later De Courcy. The milling edge connects directly to the conical whistle body.
For comparison of windows only…
There is a handmade quality of all these whistles. The oval window is seen in Barrall round whistles, with larger more dramatic ones in the heavier DeCourcy and Auld whistles.
from left to right: Barrall, DeCourcy, Auld
Conclusions
Perhaps DeCourcy copied Lilly? Not likely. He was an innovative whistle designer and usually carved his own path. Gilchrist lists the OFFICER as circa 1900. That would be just prior to the dated 1905. There might be earlier dated ones yet to see. Perhaps the OFFICER is closer to 1905?
The size, design and stamp indicate reassignment to Decourcy from Lilly. However in lieu of the Hudson whistle picture ( the whistle is not identified with any collection ), It may be that Alfred DeCourcy ressurected this model after it fell into disuse for many years.
TWG
Posted September 17, 2013
Revised September 12, 2020
Revised October 11, 2020
Revised February 21, 2021
Revised December 31, 2021
Revised June 12, 2022
Bibliography:
Reference Collection Whistle Gallery
Collecting Police Whistles and Similar Types
Photograph provided by Pete Owen 2021
More Whistles by Martyn Gilchrist 2005
The Whistle Gallery archives
© – All photos with blue background property of The Whistle Gallery reference collection. Please contact The Whistle Gallery for permission of use of any website content. Spotlight articles are copyrighted. Please contact The Whistle Gallery for permission of use of any website or Spotlight article material written or otherwise. Use of photos without authorization is prohibited.
