Copies, Clones and the mystery of 'bones

[FOSSIL]

Okay, I threatened to start this, so here goes....
Recently there has been talk of copies and clones and some indignation at the way Chinese companies in particular seem to copy other peoples hard work.
The way I see it, it was ever thus, ever since the sackbut days, progress has come through developing through copying and improving...or just copying !
Rather than writing a lengthy tome and putting everyone off, I'm stopping here and waiting to see what folks write.
Good luck.....

Chris

[harrisonreed]

The beloved Yamaha company's brass department used to be like Jin Bao, though most likely with much better pay and conditions for the workers.

Their copies of 88Hs have all played as well or better to me.

Now they go their own way.

[FOSSIL]

The beloved Yamaha company's brass department used to be like Jin Bao, though most likely with much better pay and conditions for the workers.

Their copies of 88Hs have all played as well or better to me.

Now they go their own way.

Yes, but even from the beginning of their brass manufacture, they were not content to merely copy...the 321 bass was about the first trombone they sold in the UK. Not a single measurement that I have made of one or two of them corresponded with anything else out there at the time, especially not the Conn 72H that is often claimed to be it's origin. Yamaha have collected and measured hundreds of instruments, but used that as research for a 'better' product. I say that as someone who doesn't really like their instruments, but who greatly respects the way they make them.

Chris

[imsevimse]

I think it depends who is doing the copying. If I'm doing a copy then it is not a copy, then it is a new horn and I just learned a lot from others work. If someone finds my horn and appreciate my work as much to learn from it and make their own brand from it then they are doing copies of my work and that would be something I would like to be illegal

The ones who own the laws are the ones who rule the world.

All talk about Yamaha in the late 1970-ies I heard. "Oh you've got a Yamaha". "They can do motorbikes but a trombone, that's hilarious, hahahaha. Buy a King instrument, that's a real instrument". Later the talk was: "Yamaha? Yes, they are getting better, but the sound? Every player sounds the same.on them. You can not change that sound at will. It is a locked, dead and dull sound".
Now Yamaha is top notch.

The Chinese instruments are on their way. They are now good instruments at low cost. Unfortunately no dealer here sells them, so we can not try before we buy. If they would have some in the shop the quality would have a chance to evolve even better because of real live feedback. I don't know why they are not in the shops here. Shops even declare "We do not sell used Chinese instruments" when they sell on commission. .

I would love to visit Wessex Tubas to try the Wessex Chinese Contras or other instruments. I would probably buy one if I lived in GB. Now after Brexit I have abandoned my plans to buy a Wessex instrument. I hope Thomann decides to collaborate with Wessex and vice versa.

/Tom

[Thrawn22]

I think, Though originality goes a long way, that if something is to be copied then it better meet or exceeds the model its based on. There's too many bad copies out there.

[deanmccarty]

I have a real issue with companies that steal designs... that is why I would never buy a Chinese clone... no matter how tweaked it is. Even if it were equal in quality I would not buy it. To me it is taking the livelihood away from the innovator who built it in the first place.

It’s not exactly the same... but this is why I never purchased an Edwards... the issue with the Thayer valve turned me off to them... and that was just a valve... not an entire instrument.

[CalgaryTbone]

Many years ago (mid-80's?), Yamaha was touring some of their new designs across Canada, and our section was invited over to a local music store to try them out with the design folks there taking notes on our impressions. We were playing Elkhart Conn tenors and a Bach Bass at that time, and while they had a couple of models for each, they steered us towards the ones that were closer to what we normally played to get feedback. I really liked one of the horns until they asked us to play something together. When we played a couple of Brahms chorales that we knew from memory, I really found the sound to be dull and hollow. Those early horns , for me, were nice playing instruments but lacked the complexity of sound that the old Conns and Bachs had in their DNA.

Some of the copies that are out there now play well, and definitely have more interesting colours to their sounds, but they never get exactly to what the originals sounded like. The other thing is that the old classic horns were different from each other. My 88H (end of Elkhart era) and 8H (around 1950) are both great horns, but have some very different qualities.

Jim Scott

[robcat2075]

Even if we regard musical instruments as commodities rather than unique intellectual property we can conclude that China is engaging in unfair practices because it subsidizes manufacturers in general.

Example:

Harvard Business Review (2008)

Many assume that China’s cost advantage in manufacturing comes from cheap labor. But in China’s burgeoning steel industry, our research suggests, massive government energy subsidies, not other factors, keep prices down. These subsidies have broad implications for how companies compete and collaborate with Chinese businesses.

With energy and material and shipping costs subsidized for manufacturers, they are able to not only produce the product unrealistically cheaper but send it almost anywhere to undercut local retail or mail-order sellers of the same product.

If i made cheap carbon fiber cello bows, it would cost me about $40 just to ship one to a buyer in China.
A maker of cheap carbon fiber cello bows in China can sell me one and ship it to me for less than $40 total.

The same Pacific Ocean has to be crossed for both bows but somehow it is way cheaper for the Chinese business to ship in my direction. Hmmm.

So the problem is not simply that the Chinese have finally figured out how to make a bow or a trombone... or even good ones.

Subsidizing costs for their domestic industries, which then undercut world competitors, is illegal by world trade rules (or a questionable exploit of a loophole?) but no one has many levers to pull to stop China from doing it. Much like no one has many levers to stop China from building new islands in the middle of the sea and then claiming 200 miles of territory around it.

As a desirable alternative to the numerous wars over such things in the past, rules of business, trade and territory have been painstakingly thrashed out in peaceful negotiations in the decades since WWII. China has been party to these negotiations and signed on to the treaties that implement them... then ignores them when it is to their advantage.

[Thrawn22]

Robcat has a point.

[harrisonreed]

Those subsidies are just a fancy way of implementing socialism/communism. America does subsidies for agriculture and manufacturing as well. You take away from everyone and distribute the wealth elsewhere.

If we had true capitalism at work we could see which of the two systems would win out -- I think it would come down to pure manpower and resource availability.

[elmsandr]

Gotta go back to the days when nobody copied anything and built their own designs... Now I'll just go back and swap the flares from my NY Bach, Fuchs, and a Holton and not have to adjust the fit of any of them into the ferrule before soldering...

Dimensional copying is one thing... process copying is another. Who cares if the flare has the exact same shape? You can check it and figure that part out. The real intellectual property there has to be in the process. How, exactly, does it get from the sheet of brass to that final shape. There is a fair amount of variance there and a lot of undocumented process steps that may or may not be significant. Hard part to determining that... what metrics do we use? First we have to agree on what is "better" in the end product. Then we have to translate that 'better' to something you can do with a hammer or a torch.

Cheers,
Andy

[spencercarran]

I think, Though originality goes a long way, that if something is to be copied then it better meet or exceeds the model its based on.

I think there's a place for decent cheap copies. My Wessex/Jinbao euphonium served me quite well when I was a broke grad student who only wanted to play for fun. No one would ever say it matched or exceeded the instrument it was copied from, but it was certainly a cost-effective way to get playing.

[Bach5G]

“ Those subsidies are just a fancy way of implementing socialism/communism. America does subsidies for agriculture and manufacturing as well.”

So America is implementing socialism/communism?

I wonder whether America mostly subsidizes/bails out corporations. I suppose the working Joe gets to keep working for the corp.

[imsevimse]

Isn't it just a trombone we are playing?

A lot of people have said to me they sound the same on any horn and then they say there are a lot of bad horns out there???

Now we are concerned and say there are some who owns the original design? What is the original design of a trombone?

- People tell me every Holton is different.
- Every Bach was different, and at some time it was very hard to find a good one?
- Conns from Elkhart era is good and Abilene horns are bad?

Is it really a big threat to copy a trombone? Even when you own the brand and factory to make one exactly like another one it is a very hard work apparently.

What is the unique design of a trombone that is not allowed to copy?

What I think is wrong is to make a trombone and put the Bach name on it if it is not a Bach. That is stealing and that should be criminal. This has also been done but to just make a trombone that happens to look about the same as another trombone? If it is a better horn than the original then how can that be a copy? I consider that to be just another trombone.

Stencils have been around for a long time. What about them? They are copies of trombone with a name that can be owned by the shop who sells them. Stencils can be from a factory in US or Germany or China.

What's worth something and must be protected is the BRAND because that has to do with trust. It is the good customer support that builds the brand. If the Chinese copy TRUST then they deserve to sell more trombones and then they SHOULD put their own names on their horns. They have just started to understand that know. They get help from west and therefore brands like the Wessex can grow. Wessex do the design and implements trust but the Chinese make the horns. Copies? No, variants.

/Tom

[robcat2075]

Stencils have been around for a long time. What about them? They are copies of trombone with a name that can be owned by the shop who sells them. Stencils can be from a factory in US or Germany or China.

If the right to make that Stencil was negotiated for and paid for in a mutually agreeable way, that should be fine. The originator is compensated.

But that is rather different from copying a product and reaping the reward for the time and cost of development that made it desirable... without incurring the time and cost of development that made it desirable.

[harrisonreed]

Stencils have been around for a long time. What about them? They are copies of trombone with a name that can be owned by the shop who sells them. Stencils can be from a factory in US or Germany or China.

If the right to make that Stencil was negotiated for and paid for in a mutually agreeable way, that should be fine. The originator is compensated.

But that is rather different from copying a product and reaping the reward for the time and cost of development that made it desirable... without incurring the time and cost of development that made it desirable.

Can you patent or protect anything other than a new valve or valve configuration? There is no way you can protect the rest of the trombone, no matter how much research went into it.

[imsevimse]

Stencils have been around for a long time. What about them? They are copies of trombone with a name that can be owned by the shop who sells them. Stencils can be from a factory in US or Germany or China.

If the right to make that Stencil was negotiated for and paid for in a mutually agreeable way, that should be fine. The originator is compensated.

But that is rather different from copying a product and reaping the reward for the time and cost of development that made it desirable... without incurring the time and cost of development that made it desirable.

What I question is what is the unique design that is not allowed to be copied? Isn't all better trombones an improved version of something that has been around before?

/Tom

[noordinaryjoe]

[/quote]

Can you patent or protect anything other than a new valve or valve configuration? There is no way you can protect the rest of the trombone, no matter how much research went into it.
[/quote]

EXACTLY - there are specific guidelines, rules and laws about how different something has to be to be unique enough to protect as IP...and those expire, because progress cannot continue if good ideas are locked up forever. Long enough to provide a financial advantage and incentive to do the R&D in the first place, short enough to let the world build on the idea after reaping some reward for the original work. Like the wheel, eventually it is all public domain, the original inventor had their time in the spotlight. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. -Joe

[ithinknot]

Dimensional copying is one thing... process copying is another. Who cares if the flare has the exact same shape? You can check it and figure that part out. The real intellectual property there has to be in the process. How, exactly, does it get from the sheet of brass to that final shape. There is a fair amount of variance there and a lot of undocumented process steps that may or may not be significant. Hard part to determining that... what metrics do we use? First we have to agree on what is "better" in the end product. Then we have to translate that 'better' to something you can do with a hammer or a torch.

I think people without a craft background often imagine a sort of 'ideal fabrication', where The Machine Makes The Thing A Shape and we're done, when in reality all processes have undesirable and/or desirable inconsistencies and consequences which become even more complex in musical instruments, where the quality of the end result (assuming basic mechanical function) is a weird mix of semi-objective Compliance with Expectation and utterly subjective artistic judgments.

Design and process aren't separate, which is why copies usually don't succeed as copies, and often don't even reach the level of 'different but equal' in their own right. Even with 'ideal' components, the horn assembled under tension measures exactly the same as the one without, but plays very differently.

Nowhere has this been clearer than in the building of instruments for historically informed performance. Firstly, there's a lot of modern baggage/design compromise/procedural 'efficiency' to leave behind - a process that is still ongoing (and/or misrepresented) in many quarters. But even clear-eyed attempts to exactly duplicate material and preserved measurement have often led to dreadful instruments when the process has been misunderstood.

There's an oft-quoted saying in the field that the ancients 'achieved precision through imprecise means'. The process is often more important than the absolutes of 'Design' so, say, a harpsichord without a single 90 degree joint in it and wild measuring/marking-out errors can nonetheless function extraordinarily well in both mechanics and sound, for the simple reason that, with hand-made components made in the correct way in the correct order, a startling degree of variation can be accommodated and/or compensated in subsequent stages. Moreover, many measurement variations attributed without understanding to 'hand tool standards of accuracy' or 'material distortion over time' may have been deliberate choices by the original maker. The same museum drawing/'design' built as a kit, with components of individually perfect accuracy assembled 'after the fact', is often a disaster.

It's the same reason that quality tends to decrease as companies grow and the original designers/craftspeople leave the picture. The 'design' remains the same, but the understanding behind it is lost. Individual component accuracy and precision may well increase, but assembly-line workers no longer have overall knowledge of or personal responsibility for the process, and the metrics of management have little correspondence with the artistic qualities of the product.

(I don't want over-idealise the past - there were serious dogs in the golden age of every workshop, and time naturally takes better care of the better instruments, so the sample set has invariably been filtered. But the loss of the willingness and custom skills necessary to accommodate individually quirky components not only reduces the ability to salvage errors, but also closes off an important route for happy accidents and accidental discoveries.)

[BGuttman]

Can you patent or protect anything other than a new valve or valve configuration? There is no way you can protect the rest of the trombone, no matter how much research went into it.

You can only patent something that can be defined differently from a standard product. There is a patent on a coffee cup with the handle inside the cup (often sold as a novelty item). There is no requirement that the result be an improvement, only that it be novel.

The King patent of 1910 was for a double brace between the cork barrels (one straight and one curved). Other patents have covered slide locks, valve designs, water keys (but a particular design; not the idea in general), bell lock nuts, etc.

[robcat2075]

No, you can't get a patent for a trombone anymore than you can patent a mirror.

But you could patent a new way to make mirrors, a better coating for mirrors, a more durable mirror and a hundred other aspects about mirrors... if your improvement is "novel" and "practical".

Someone merely making mirrors isn't infringing on your patent rights. But if they have deduced your patented improvement and copied it... that is a violation, even though mirrors are an old concept.

Is the trombone at a dead end such that nothing is left to be patented and all the previous patents have expired? In most regards, probably so. It is certainly possible to make a good trombone without infringing on any valid patent.

I can imagine many aspects, like a more friction-free slide, that could be improved and patented. And stolen.

However, if the [insert nefarious nationality here] are merely copying my 50 year old Holton TR181 without putting a Holton name on it they would be in the clear, patent-wise.

(Could the unique appearance of the Holton TR181 be trademarkable? Is it? I don't know. Trademarks don't automatically expire.)

But if they are getting paid by their government to make trombones so cheaply that no one else can stay in business selling any trombone... that is the trade problem i spoke of earlier.

You can say that their generic trombones are just intruding on the student market, but the makers of very fine trombones can't stay in business if they lose their student market. That volume of business creates economies of scale that make all their grades of trombone possible to make at a sane price.

[imsevimse]

No, you can't get a patent for a trombone anymore than you can patent a mirror.

But you could patent a new way to make mirrors, a better coating for mirrors, a more durable mirror and a hundred other aspects about mirrors... if your improvement is "novel" and "practical".

Someone merely making mirrors isn't infringing on your patent rights. But if they have deduced your patented improvement and copied it... that is a violation, even though mirrors are an old concept.

Is the trombone at a dead end such that nothing is left to be patented and all the previous patents have expired? In most regards, probably so. It is certainly possible to make a good trombone without infringing on any valid patent.

I can imagine many aspects, like a more friction-free slide, that could be improved and patented. And stolen.

However, if the [insert nefarious nationality here] are merely copying my 50 year old Holton TR181 without putting a Holton name on it they would be in the clear, patent-wise.

(Could the unique appearance of the Holton TR181 be trademarkable? Is it? I don't know. Trademarks don't automatically expire.)

But if they are getting paid by their government to make trombones so cheaply that no one else can stay in business selling any trombone... that is the trade problem i spoke of earlier.

You can say that their generic trombones are just intruding on the student market, but the makers of very fine trombones can't stay in business if they lose their student market. That volume of business creates economies of scale that make all their grades of trombone possible to make at a sane price.

It is the other type of financial system that's the problem, isn't it? China is governed by communists. They do things their way. We in west can like it or not. Stop buying anything from China? No, because they are cheap. We want them to be cheap but we also want them not to steal our jobs? That'is the real problem. It has not much to do with making trombones. Think this is turning into a political discussion and I don't want to take sides in any political discussion. Everybody need to take care of business best they can, that's what I think. We can not both have their cheap products and not have them at the same time. Trombones are not different. Don't buy them? but again that Wessex Contra would be so nice to have. Okey, that's a dilemma if you turn this into politics.

/Tom

[robcat2075]

America does subsidies for agriculture and manufacturing as well.

That is not hypocrisy. Agricultural export subsidies are allowed under the current rules everyone has agreed to.

There is a general agreement to eliminate these eventually, it hasn't happened yet.

Are there US manufacturing subsidies that violate the rules?

I couldn't find mention of any. When I search Complaint about US export subsidies what comes up is news of other nations' violations that hurt the US.

[BGuttman]

I thought there was a battle between EU subsidies of Airbus and US subsidies of Boeing.

[harrisonreed]

But Rob, what techniques are you talking about? I'm not trying to be dumb or overly argumentative here, I promise -- I just think it's unfair labor and trade practices that are the issue and not "copying" instruments. A patent usually covers something for 20 years. That means we could start making our own CL2000 valves (although we would likely have to call it something else, like the ST2021) and it would be 100% permissable. Otherwise Conn would have a monopoly on that valve design forever, and the nuclear power industry has been chomping at the bit to finally be able to use it in their reactors.

So if the CL2000 valve, which came out like yesterday, isn't protected any more, what techniques or improvements possibly could be? Trade secrets are just that -- as soon as you figure out the secret spice blend to KFC chicken (hint, it's mostly a whitish crystal powder from Japan), you copy it like crazy because it's finger licking good. KFC has no right to it, they just aren't letting you know what it is. So the mandrels, copper content, etc, those are just the secret spice. Electroforming a bell probably was patented as novel, but that was now 70 years ago. Most of the other techniques come from the bronze age. Valves are one, special bracing might be another (T396 comes to mind), and that's about all I can think of. And the kicker is that you have to provide a description and a schematic of your improvement of you want to patent it, rather than try and keep it a secret. So in 20 years, you've essentially given decent instructions, for free, to your competition.

In any case, I think so we can do is try to even the playing field for trade and manufacturing costs.

[harrisonreed]

America does subsidies for agriculture and manufacturing as well.

That is not hypocrisy. Agricultural export subsidies are allowed under the current rules everyone has agreed to.

There is a general agreement to eliminate these eventually, it hasn't happened yet.

Are there US manufacturing subsidies that violate the rules?

I couldn't find mention of any. When I search Complaint about US export subsidies what comes up is news of other nations' violations that hurt the US.

Did China agree to pay a certain level of wages or not subsidize shipping? I honestly don't know much about this topic other than everyone complains that China is unfair. There is unfair, where China signs agreements and then violates them, and then there is unfair, where everyone pledges to do something and China doesn't, and then China wipes the floor with them.

I know that China totally rips all tech that they manufacture on behalf of US companies (wrong, unfair) and also hacks government systems to try to steal US Military tech (arguably a real attack). But that is not what we are talking about here.

I'll have to do some reading.

[robcat2075]

I thought there was a battle between EU subsidies of Airbus and US subsidies of Boeing.

Yes, that looks to be so.
https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-boeing-wto ... a-49442616

It appears both have won their complaints and both now claim to be in compliance with the rules.

[Posaunus]

Someone should compose a tune called "Tones for Clones Bones."

[deanmccarty]

The fact that the younger generation thinks it’s ok to get a clone that costs a fraction of what the instrument was copied just because “they’re a broke college kid” is a major part of the problem. It’s the same mentality of people who used Napster to download music for free... “It’s OK, I’m broke.” In the case of the instrument... there were years of development to produce that model of instrument... Jin Bao or whatever cloning company in China steals those years to produce a cheaply made copy... and somehow that’s considered OK??? Whatever...

As a composer/arranger and studio musician I cannot stand that people steal the recordings that I have been on just because “they are broke.” I don’t pirate movies, I don’t photocopy music, and I don’t buy cloned instruments... it’s just not right.

[spencercarran]

The fact that the younger generation thinks it’s ok to get a clone that costs a fraction of what the instrument was copied just because “they’re a broke college kid” is a major part of the problem. It’s the same mentality of people who used Napster to download music for free... “It’s OK, I’m broke.” In the case of the instrument... there were years of development to produce that model of instrument... Jin Bao or whatever cloning company in China steals those years to produce a cheaply made copy... and somehow that’s considered OK??? Whatever...

Everything in my current stable was union made in the US or England, if that makes you feel any better.

[Bach5G]

“Jin Bao or whatever cloning company in China steals those years to produce a cheaply made copy... and somehow that’s considered OK??? Whatever... “

But Shires and Rath were happy to take their designs to China, train a Chinese work force, assemble the horns in China and ship the finished horns back to America and Western Europe. I often read good reviews from happy owners of JP Rath and Shires Q-series horns. Are there any US manufacturers making student horns in the US anymore? Fender imports guitars from all over Asia, as well as Mexico, most of which are variations on Leo’s original designs.

[elmsandr]

The fact that the younger generation thinks it’s ok to get a clone that costs a fraction of what the instrument was copied just because “they’re a broke college kid” is a major part of the problem. It’s the same mentality of people who used Napster to download music for free... “It’s OK, I’m broke.” In the case of the instrument... there were years of development to produce that model of instrument... Jin Bao or whatever cloning company in China steals those years to produce a cheaply made copy... and somehow that’s considered OK??? Whatever...

As a composer/arranger and studio musician I cannot stand that people steal the recordings that I have been on just because “they are broke.” I don’t pirate movies, I don’t photocopy music, and I don’t buy cloned instruments... it’s just not right.

Returning to my previous example... So my ~1990s Holton, ~1940s Bach, and 1925 Conn all happen to be nearly the exact same length from bell rim to ferrule and have exactly the same diameter at that ferrule...

Sure years of design and development... but how much of that development was "grab my calipers and let's check this horn"? Don't idolize our copyists any more than the new guys.

We can either adapt or be displaced by the changes. One way to do that would be to supply the design and process detail work (like Shires and Rath opted to). Other ways? Innovate like Butler and change the conversation.

Cheers,
Andy

[Bach5G]

And before Butler there were Jimmy Dell and da Carbo.

[harrisonreed]

The fact that the younger generation thinks it’s ok to get a clone that costs a fraction of what the instrument was copied just because “they’re a broke college kid” is a major part of the problem. It’s the same mentality of people who used Napster to download music for free... “It’s OK, I’m broke.” In the case of the instrument... there were years of development to produce that model of instrument... Jin Bao or whatever cloning company in China steals those years to produce a cheaply made copy... and somehow that’s considered OK??? Whatever...

As a composer/arranger and studio musician I cannot stand that people steal the recordings that I have been on just because “they are broke.” I don’t pirate movies, I don’t photocopy music, and I don’t buy cloned instruments... it’s just not right.

I have long championed the crusade against printing public domain facsimiles of Beethoven scores found on IMSLP. That is stealing from Beethoven, and it isn't right. And my other crusade against cheaply made Wal-Mart picture frames! Everyone knows that frames come from ancient Egypt and I'm tired off them being ripped off in art galleries around Italian paintings -- where are the mummy portraits? All the worse are the plastic frames in Wal-Mart -- don't be cheap, guys, fly to Egypt and pay for the real deal! Same goes for hammers -- That nail pry is being ripped off by every tool maker in the world and that is stealing a really revolutionary design feature.

I also am against pirating movies, mp3s, scores protected by copyright, an-- oh wait, those are actually wrong to do and are crimes. The other stuff is ok to do though. Literally no legal protection for an instrument that has been made since the 14th century.

How is a trombone being copied any different from a violin maker trying to recreate a stradivarius? If the answer is "the span of time", again I refer you to patent laws. The best quality product, made legally, at the best price is going to win always no matter what emotions we try to apply.

[deanmccarty]

But Shires and Rath were happy to take their designs to China, train a Chinese work force, assemble the horns in China and ship the finished horns back to America and Western Europe. I often read good reviews from happy owners of JP Rath and Shires Q-series horns. Are there any US manufacturers making student horns in the US anymore? Fender imports guitars from all over Asia, as well as Mexico, most of which are variations on Leo’s original designs.

The difference is that those are THEIR designs. I’m not saying I am anti-overseas market. I am against someone taking other people’s work and selling it. The JP Rath, Shires Q, and some of the BAC stuff is made in China... but under the authority of the parent company... I actually own a JP Rath alto... not a bad horn.

[LeTromboniste]

But Shires and Rath were happy to take their designs to China, train a Chinese work force, assemble the horns in China and ship the finished horns back to America and Western Europe. I often read good reviews from happy owners of JP Rath and Shires Q-series horns. Are there any US manufacturers making student horns in the US anymore? Fender imports guitars from all over Asia, as well as Mexico, most of which are variations on Leo’s original designs.

The difference is that those are THEIR designs. I’m not saying I am anti-overseas market. I am against someone taking other people’s work and selling it. The JP Rath, Shires Q, and some of the BAC stuff is made in China... but under the authority of the parent company... I actually own a JP Rath alto... not a bad horn.

Do you sincerely think Michael Rath, Steve Shires or Mike Corrigan never based one of their models on someone else's designs? Come on, they all designed instruments that were based on old Conns and others. Hell, Courtois makes a copy of 1960s 88H that's closer to the real deal than even Conn is able to make now. Are those all acceptable because they're successful brands, because they cost more than the original designs, or simply because those makers are from countries we like better than China?

[BGuttman]

A copy made of good quality materials, made well, and with its own name will be accepted.

A copy made of shoddy materials, or poorly assembled, or bearing the name of a company it is not, should be shunned.

How many cheap violins are there with a "Stradivarius" tag inside the box? Especially from mid-19th Century Germany.

[Fidbone]

My Rath R4/F is supposed to be a copy of an 88H Elkhart.

It has a lightweight red brass bell, bronze slide, yellow tuning slide and Rotax valve.

It doesn't look like a Conn.
It plays better than an Elkhart with less quirks.
Mechanically it's streets ahead.
It captures that Elkhart sound if you want it to, but is also very easy to change to whatever sound you wish to convey.

It's a Rath, made in England

[harrisonreed]

Still I would love to see a shoddily made copy bearing the name "Bonge" or "Binge".

How about a Kong 3Z?

Yamada - YTL-888
Shores - "Colin Wailums" Bb/F
Wrath - TIS altos
Khan - "007 Moon-riker" ballroom model
Boch - 420 "straight chilling" straight jazz bore
Edvärds - T-90210 with harmonic bridge (...capabilities. Trios and Choruses too)
Bondi's - "Island" jazz model
Kurt Haas - "bourgeois" symphonic model
Slay Girl - "commercial" studio model
Tien - "Piotr Steiningway" model (too soon?)
Gin Bow - "Scurvey" sackbut (not made in China)
B.A.C. (yes, the company is literally called Blood Alcohol Content...I got nothin) "stained glass and tin foil" trombone shaped lamp stand -- bell holds one beverage.
Helmet Fought - "Gettysburg" valve trombone
Jorgen Bought - student alto sackbut
Green Hoe - "agrarian" wooden mouthpieces
Sulky - "melancholy" model flugelbone

[Fidbone]

Harrisonreed, you have way too much time on your hands

[Basbasun]

We are bying copies all the time. Sometimes bad copies. Sometimes copies that are better than the original. It is like cars. What is the original trombone like? Blessing made copies that was good, not as good as the original, but very good for students. Yammaha is said to make copies, 322 321 hade some similarity in the way the F attachemnt looked. But the trombone was not very much like Bach or Conn. Some folks said it was better. Of course they copied! But tried to make it better, like Conn, Bach and King hade done. If trombone makers hade not copied we maight be playing sackbuts today.

Well that is a thought......

[harrisonreed]

Harrisonreed, you have way too much time on your hands

It's COVID though. Don't hate.

[soseggnchips]

Has anyone ever successfully patented a trombone design? How would you define it? The length, diameter, material and fitting locations of every part? Even at that level of detail, would it be sufficient to qualify for a patent?

How do the arguments for/against cloning apply to mouthpieces? Pretty much every manufacturer has their take on the 6.5AL - some of them use the same number or make abudantly clear in their advertising copy that it's based on a 6.5AL (on steroids, obviously!) Is imitating the general dimensions of a mouthpiece fair game? If so, why not the general dimensions of a trombone?

Are the horns competing in the same niche? I don't play alto trombone, and I'm unlikely to ever need to. As such, I'm never going to spend thousands on a pro-quality alto. I might, however, pick up a Jin Bao for a few hundred as a novelty. Even if it is a copy (is it?), what's the negative impact on the original designer? It hasn't cost them a sale because I could never have justified buying the more expensive product anyway. Conversely, if you're serious about alto the presence of cheaper, inferior instruments isn't likely to prevent you buying a pro-quality horn, because for your requirement the extra cost is worth it.

A better argument is that cheap horns eat into the student horn sales that subsidise top quality horns... but how is buying a Chinese student horn now different than buying an Amati or Corton 40 years ago (or a Jupiter 30 years ago)? Yes, it takes a sale away from a Yamaha 354, or a Bach 300, or a Conn Director (or any other student-level 6H clone ) but surely it was ever thus?

In the guitar world, it's accepted that other manufacturers will clone the designs of goliaths like Fender and Gibson. Historically they've turned a blind eye to others copying their designs, but cracked down hard on any imitation of their brand - hence copies will generally have a different headstock design. Interestingly, Gibson have recently started taking legal action against copies after decades of silence - provoking a huge backlash from guitar players. As a counterpoint, Rickenbacker have always been very litigious, and copies of their designs are rare as a result. Completely different approaches in exactly the same marketplace.

Meanwhile in the world of classical string instruments, copies of old Italian designs are not just common but expected - players demand them, and luthiers have been building them for hundreds of years. As well as 'imitations', there are plenty of counterfeit Strads and Amatis out there - and if someone gets good at making an imitation Strad or Amati there's a good chance someone will start making counterfeits of their work! A copy of a copy! Part of a modern luthier's skillset is being able to look at the way an instrument is put together and provide some insight into when, where and by whom it was built - regardless of the label. Incidentally, let us hope the trombone marketplace never goes the way of bowed strings. I'd hate for Elkharts and Mount Vernons to become historical artifacts with six figure price tags.

Reading the above back, it probably comes across as 'pro-cloning', which wasn't really my intent. I think the point I'm trying to make is that mimicing aspects of a trombone's design isn't new, and that where you draw the line will depend on your personal stance. Personally, I'd be looking more for re-assurance on the human aspects of its manufacture - can I guarantee that my trombone was built by someone who is treated well, paid fairly, not overworked, etc. - rather than it being an original design or not. Unfortunately, those are questions we should probably be asking about every product we buy these days, and in plenty of other countries besides China.

Wrath - TIS altos
Khan - "007 Moon-riker" ballroom model

Where did Riker's trombone come from? Are King still in business in the distant future? Is it a genuine antique? Or did it come out of the replicator? What are the ethics of replicated trom-clones? Discuss.

[robcat2075]

But Rob, what techniques are you talking about? I'm not trying to be dumb or overly argumentative here, I promise -- I just think it's unfair labor and trade practices that are the issue and not "copying" instruments.

I agree. I thought my long-ish answer about trade practices indicated that.

I think copying is a problem for the maker being copied. It does disadvantage them but, unless some patented (or trademarked!) element is involved, it's not an illegal practice.

I think the sub-normal market pricing is the bigger problem.

The copying may make their sub-normally priced product more credible by appearing to be "the same as" the original. That is a problem, but not an illegal one, I presume.

[glenp]

To me, the difference between the copies/clones that are accepted and those that are generally not, is intent. What is the intent of the manufacturer?

That's obviously not possible for us to know. But we do see behaviors and physical characteristics that we interpret to mean a certain intent.

For example, a clone made in a foreign country known for its "questionable" trade practices, and sold at a steep discount compared to the original: I would say the intent is to make money at any cost and would therefore not purchase their product.

On the other hand, a clone made in a country with generally acceptable trade practices, marketing the horn as a high quality, top-notch horn, at a price you would expect for that level of horn, and I would conclude that their intent is to make the clone because they are passionate about it and want to offer something amazing (of course they want to make money too but I wouldn't assume that's the sole intent).

And each of us have different ways of interpreting the behaviors and characteristics of these horns, leading to different conclusions. And some have different standards of ethics, or are in a place in their lives where they aren't thinking about those ethics as much. I know when I was in college I didn't care about these types of questions as much as I do now.

[dukesboneman]

Most of the talk is about the Chinese clones/copies but what about the expensive boutique companies that offer the
"Conn" like setup or the "Bach" like set up
They have obviously done their homework as to copying the 88H or the 42B to get that "Feel" and "sound".
Why pay extra when you can just buy the Original?
That, to me, makes no sense.

Aren`t most all modern Flugelhorns modeled after the classic Cousnon?
Just my 2 cents

[harrisonreed]

The Conn-like Shires generally transcend Conn.

I think the post referring to different countries and their intents leaves out the craftsman and might be unintentionally dehumanizing -- like or not, there is a Chinese worker, probably many of them, who knows how to make a trombone and they likely take pride in what they do and try to make the best product they can. They might not play. They might not know how to make a better trombone. But I am sure they go home to their family with their pay, however small, and and think about the future. I doubt that person went in with ill intent, thinking about how they were going to undercut and take advantage of some market. They probably were told "this horn is going to be on a shelf at the Wessex shop in Chicago" and they did their best.

You don't just "copy" something and have a Wessex or Jinbao trombone. I can't make anything like that. Shame on the bosses who take advantage of skilled people.

[BGuttman]

I've seen variations in Flugels, although I guess the Couesnon is the one the jazz players seem to want.

For Soseggnchips, you can't patent a "trombone". That idea went into Public Domain in the 1500s. You can patent modifications to one provided they are novel and "unobvious". The Harmonic Bridge developed by Edwards is patentable (I refuse to make a statement about whether it helps or not). Making a slide using a novel material: uranium for that "glow in the dark" effect; carbon fiber for lightness; stainless steel for durability; could be patented. Some materials have been used before and thus are not novel: yellow brass, nickel silver, red brass, bronze, etc.

[Burgerbob]

I have a pretty great Holton 185 that's largely (though not entirely) a copy of Kleinhammer's red brass Bach 50. I'm glad it exists, it's rare but nearly as rare as the horn it sprung from.

[glenp]

I think the post referring to different countries and their intents leaves out the craftsman and might be unintentionally dehumanizing -- like or not, there is a Chinese worker, probably many of them, who knows how to make a trombone and they likely take pride in what they do and try to make the best product they can.

My comment was an observation that we have different ways of evaluating these things, and that I think we all probably use perceived intent in that evaluation. I think that your post shows that you use intent as well. Your comments were evaluating the intent of the worker, whereas I was focused on the company's intent.

Is one wrong and the other right? I don't think it's that simple. But I believe that most of the time, the intent to undercut competition seems to come from the companies, not the workers. So my judgement of ill-intent is against the company, not their workers.

All that said, I don't believe anyone else's opinions are wrong. I think this is an exceptionally complex topic and I've been edified by reading all the opinions shared.