Most similar to vintage Conn 62h?

[MStarke]

Not really planning to invest into this, but out of curiosity:
Which bass trombones built today would in your opinion be most similar to a vintage 62h?
(Not a custom-built Edwards/Shires or similar...)

There is probably no instrument that would have all the formal characteristics and most certainly non with the exact playing characteristics.
But what would be closest in your opinions?

[Fruitysloth]

I'd look into whatever variation of Greenhoe bass that Bill Reichenbach is playing at the moment. If I'm not mistaken, he might have gone straight from a vintage 62H to Greenhoe, and the playing characteristics might be similar based on his needs/comforts. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a tenor player who occasionally moonlights as a bass trombonist!

[MStarke]

Yes, totally aware of that option.

Any others, maybe more "standard" than a Greenhoe?

[EdwardSolomon]

None. In my experience, there is not a single standard build bass trombone nowadays than is similar to a vintage Elkhart Conn 62H. I have tried or owned Greenhoe Conn, Kanstul, and Rath custom bass trombones. They, too, cannot hold a candle to the vintage 62H, save, perhaps, for the Greenhoe, which was very, very good. That is why I eventually ended up acquiring my own Elkhart 62H, as nothing but the real thing will suffice for me. I know several other people for whom that is also true.

[MStarke]

Do we come any closer if we leave out the TIS aspect?
Does the modern 62h have any of the vintage trombone's traits?
What about selecting a Kühnl&Hoyer configuration that would come closer?

@Edward: In what directions to the Greenhoe, Kanstul and Rath differ for you from the 62h? Do they feel bigger/smaller, less resonant, different response etc.?

[LIBrassCo]

It would require something custom built.if you ask real nice, conn selmer will send an uncut 62h bell over. I've been able to make a pretty good approximation using one of these in the past.

[Matt K]

This is going to strongly be influenced by how you are defining “similar”. All bass trombones play more similar to one another than a clarinet, after all. And a bass trombone that has a lightweight, two piece bell and unsoldered bell bead with a rotary valve and a single bore slide will play closer to a 62 than a Bach 50T3. But nothing will be similar to it if you define “similar” very narrowly. It’s very subjective.

[MStarke]

This is going to strongly be influenced by how you are defining “similar”. All bass trombones play more similar to one another than a clarinet, after all. And a bass trombone that has a lightweight, two piece bell and unsoldered bell bead with a rotary valve and a single bore slide will play closer to a 62 than a Bach 50T3. But nothing will be similar to it if you define “similar” very narrowly. It’s very subjective.

@Matt: Totally true!
Let me phrase it differently:
If you wanted to buy something new and un-modified and want to get as closely to a vintage 62h, what would you buy?
We already heard Greenhoe and Rath, any other votes?

[hyperbolica]

People say they revere 62h, but they don't like the TIS, and don't like the dependent valves and don't like the levers, and they don't like the E tuning... Modern 62h address all that, but don't have the necessary vintage vibe. The Kanstul 1662i was modeled after the 62h, but really doesn't capture the spirit. Greenhoe to me have always seemed heavy, which is not a 62h trait.

I've kind of settled into a groove with my Kanstul, but it's not the Connish groove I was seeking. If I did the bass quest again, I'd probably land on a modern 62h or a Bach 50, or something in the range of 73h or Holton 180, just to focus on horns that are actually attainable. Not that these are "like 62h", but they might share more elements than a Shires or Edwards.

[ithinknot]

People say they revere 62h, but they don't like the TIS, and don't like the dependent valves and don't like the levers...

Exactly. If you really want a 62H, just buy one.

They're 'rare and expensive' compared to other horns of the same age... but they're not really that rare - there's always one for sale with one of the reputable retailers - and for the OP's purposes (i.e. compared to new RRPs of current models) they're not particularly expensive.

[MStarke]

I am not really in the market as I have two nice bass trombones. Both different from a 62h, but great horns.

Just very interested in your opinions!

However if I were in the market, I would probably look for a very nice original 62h with the d slide and split triggers.
Never played the modern 62h (dependent), so maybe at some point I will try one.
And I would be interested in the current Kühnl&Hoyer in specific configurations.
I had one almost 20 years ago which was a really good horn.

[blast]

By far and away the closest is the latest incarnation of the Conn 62H. I've tried a few and have a student with the indi version and so have compared with my vintage Conns. They are easier to play, more even, with better valves and great slides. The sound is a little smoother, perhaps more refined but slightly less interesting. You have pick one out as they vary....but I've had numerous Elkhart Conns over the years and no two were the same. Both my present Elkhart bells are paired with modern slides and give me the best of both worlds.

[MStarke]

Thanks Chris! I think I need to try one of the modern ones somewhere just out of curiosity.

How do you like the dependent vs the independent version? Does it make a substantial difference regarding response, sound etc. outside the obvious question of valve usage?

[blast]

Thanks Chris! I think I need to try one of the modern ones somewhere just out of curiosity.

How do you like the dependent vs the independent version? Does it make a substantial difference regarding response, sound etc. outside the obvious question of valve usage?

The indi plays very well. If I have to put up with the weight of two valves, I might as well get maximum usability.

[Kbiggs]

What about the M&W 929-T? Has anyone tried this? Any similarities to a vintage 62H?

[tbonesullivan]

Thanks Chris! I think I need to try one of the modern ones somewhere just out of curiosity.

How do you like the dependent vs the independent version? Does it make a substantial difference regarding response, sound etc. outside the obvious question of valve usage?

The indi plays very well. If I have to put up with the weight of two valves, I might as well get maximum usability.

I've tried out a few of the modern Indy 62H trombones, and I honestly don't know why more people aren't using them. Nice sound, good valves, etc etc. But still so many people shell out the extra for the Bach 50 with the somewhat undersized valves. I was considering one, but with my uncurable Yamaha fandom, I had to go for an 830. I love the trigger setup that much.

I've never gotten a chance to try out a dependent 62H, or the old school ones.

[Thrawn22]

I love the Elkhart 62H i have, but after acquiring it, i find i prefer the 70 series horns more. Not that I'd give my 62H, but I've had a few of 72Hs and play a modified 71H right now and they feel right for me.

When i bought my 62H it was mid pandemic. The only place i had to pay it was in trombone 4tets (which it played beautifully). Now that larger groups have started rehearsing i find i can't get it to cut like my 71H (for obvious reasons). I barely found a mouthpiece that gives me a better bigband sound fo my 62H.

So in short, to answer the op, imo the 62H is a unique beast and you would be hard pressed to find anything in the ballpark of it's sound/feel.

I hope my 60H plays just as well.

[Bach5G]

Back in the 90s, Bill Reichenbach and Mike Davis came to town. Terrific concert. At that time, Bill was playing a prototype of the modern Conn 62H. I don’t know if it was a dependent or independent model. He sounded great but, then, he’s Bill Reichenbach. He was involved in the design but if my memory serves, he wasn’t happy with the finished product.

I had a 62H with modified linkage, a D slide and a Minick leadpipe. But the slide was heavy and after playing Mozart’s Requiem I needed physio on my right arm. I eventually sold it to a barrister in Sydney.

This is from the Hickey Music website:

The "Bill Reichenbach" bass, this Generation II 62H was developed on the lines of the old Elkhart model 62H, without the in-slide tuning system. Instead, the tuning is in the traditional spot at the rear of the bell section. Features include: Dual rotary valves. Dependant "stacked" valves. 0.562" main bore. 0.580" valve section bore. 9.5" one piece hand hammered annealed rose brass bell. Three interchangeable leadpipes.

[2bobone]

The addition of an Edwards #2 leadpipe and a Sauers Slide Brace transformed my 62H [from the 90's] from a good horn into the best Conn I ever owned. The later 62H's are definitely worth investigating !

[hornbuilder]

Thanks for the mention KBiggs.

I would have to put in another vote for the M&W 929-2R-GN-T.



I make both independent and dependant configurations. I designed and made mandrels to make the tapered branches specifically for both options. I didn't try to "fudge it" and make some thing, designed for another instrument altogether, work.

I do also make a TIB version, which Nick Schwartz plays.

I've played "many" Elkhart and later 6x series horns. All the "good" is incorporated in the M&W, without the "quirks" that exist in the factory horns.

[hornbuilder]

PS.
I've also been playing on 2 "proof of concept" bells for the last few months, 1 red and 1 yellow, that feature the same type of construction as the original early 70H. Being a seamed, hammered flare, attached to the stem. Really great bells!!

[modelerdc]

Here's one more vote for the Greenhoe Conn as a worthy successor to the vintage 62H. Of course, nothings the same, but a bit heavier feel, with better valves, but still has much of the Conn sound. For my money, I like it better than the original 62h. Modern conn 62H in not bad at all, probably not seen as much as so many of the visible orchestra players use Edwards, Shires, or modified Bachs. The new 62H, just like the new 88H has a soldered rim, and probably heavier gauge metal, which makes them play more to modern tastes than the originals. Not bad just different. I have a Shires B1 bell made in Conns style, but it reminds me more of a 72H than a 62H. And i have a BII 2R bell, which is similar but with the larger throat, but it reminds me more of a Holton than the 62H. My suggestion would be for buying new either test drive the Greenhoe done in the Conn style, or to give Matt Walker at M&W a call.

[MTbassbone]

Full disclosure: I have never played a vintage Conn 62H so I don't have a frame of reference. I have played a Yamaha YBL-620G and it has been said to be inspired by the Conn 62H. I felt it was a great off the shelf bass trombone.

[goldendomer04]

If anyone here is interested, I just acquired a Minick Elkhart 62H and will be selling my Eric Swanson modified 60h.

It started as a transition 60h. Eric added a second valve and open wrapped the horn for me. The horn plays fantastic and is one of the nimble and fun horns I have had the pleasure of playing.

I’ll be posting it up for sale tomorrow in the classifieds, but feel free to drop me a line if you are interested.

I have tried lots of fantastic horns and am firmly in the camp of nothing else is quite like these old Conns. I think there is some magic in the combination of the narrow/heavier slides paired with the red, lightweight bells.

[BassboneJ25]

Thanks for the mention KBiggs.

I would have to put in another vote for the M&W 929-2R-GN-T.



I make both independent and dependant configurations. I designed and made mandrels to make the tapered branches specifically for both options. I didn't try to "fudge it" and make some thing, designed for another instrument altogether, work.

I do also make a TIB version, which Nick Schwartz plays.

I've played "many" Elkhart and later 6x series horns. All the "good" is incorporated in the M&W, without the "quirks" that exist in the factory horns.

As a person who plays a M&W 929-2R-GN-T, I can say that I had to relearn how to play bass trombone. I was so accustomed to forcing things to happen on my other horns, and on this horn it all just comes so easy. I have always been an elkie fan and I find that this M&W does everything so efficient, warm, and resonant just like most of the elkhart's I played do. Never have I been a person to not want another trombone, but I would only want to get more M&W's.

[MStarke]

I came to a dependent Conn-style Greenhoe in near new condition for a fair price.
No direct comparison at the moment to a vintage 62h, but I hope this will keep me happy for a while

[MTbassbone]

What about the Yamaha YBL-620G?

[Burgerbob]

What about the Yamaha YBL-620G?

It's certainly a dependent bass trombone

[tbonesullivan]

Full disclosure: I have never played a vintage Conn 62H so I don't have a frame of reference. I have played a Yamaha YBL-620G and it has been said to be inspired by the Conn 62H. I felt it was a great off the shelf bass trombone.

I had heard some say that its predecessors, the YBL-611 and YBL-612, were based on or inspired by the 62H, however I now know that is not really correct. Probably the closest thing is true is that the market they were aiming at was known for using Conn 62H trombones. Probably the most well-known player of the YBL-612 was Phil Teele, a monster commercial player.

I remember the list of what some "old school" commercial players were playing, and from that list, Bruce Fowler and Phil Teele were using YBL-612s, while Bill Booth, Alan Kaplan, Lew McCreary, and Bill Reichenbach were playing 62Hs.

[WGWTR180]

Matthew Walker has done a few Conn 60H/62H conversions and from what I've read from players who actually know what a Conn should play and sound like his conversions are incredibly close! Many of those who have tried to "build a modern Conn" have failed. A great 62H sounds the way it does because of the way it was built and the materials that were used at that time.

[conn88Hagmann]

The Kanstul is quite close, and won’t break the bank. Not sure they make them Anymore.

[Posaunus]

The Kanstul is quite close, and won’t break the bank. Not sure they make them Anymore.

Kanstul ceased manufacturing several years ago (~2018?) ["we came to a point where it was no longer viable for us to continue"]. Some assets (mostly manufacturing equipment) were acquired by BAC, but the Kanstul brand and designs are gone. R.I.P.

[Bach5G]

There was (and, I expect, still is) a used Kanstul TIS bass in the wall of the LMS. I have owned an Elkhart 62H and have tried the Kanstul and I don’t think they are very similar at all. And the LMS was asking a lot of $ for the Kanstul I thought.

[Digidog]

If I understand it correctly: People don't consider new Conn 62's to play like vintage 62's? Why so?

I mean; Conn couldn't have changed so much in construction and materials from then until now, or have they?

Isn't the logical answer to what plays most like a vintage 62, be a new 62?

[ithinknot]

If I understand it correctly: People don't consider new Conn 62's to play like vintage 62's? Why so?

I mean; Conn couldn't have changed so much in construction and materials from then until now, or have they?

Isn't the logical answer to what plays most like a vintage 62, be a new 62?

Well, see the above comments - some consider the familial resemblance quite strong. But it's a completely different design, if you weren't aware; TIB not TIS, soldered bead, indy option, different leadpipe, etc etc.

[Digidog]

If I understand it correctly: People don't consider new Conn 62's to play like vintage 62's? Why so?

I mean; Conn couldn't have changed so much in construction and materials from then until now, or have they?

Isn't the logical answer to what plays most like a vintage 62, be a new 62?

Well, see the above comments - some consider the familial resemblance quite strong. But it's a completely different design, if you weren't aware; TIB not TIS, soldered bead, indy option, different leadpipe, etc etc.

Yeah; I understand as much, but the basic measurements of the 62 would nevertheless be quite the same, or did Conn re-construct the whole instrument between the original production ending and the revivial?

I know (and percieve) there are differences between the various construction methods, but basic features seem to me to be the base on which every other difference is applied as more superficially defining traits - albeit significant in their own ways. I have tried both vintage and newer Conns (88s and 6Hs a.o.), although not any 62s, and though there were differences between individual instruments, the prominent impression to me, within the respective line of models, were more of the similarities than the differences.

[Burgerbob]

Yeah; I understand as much, but the basic measurements of the 62 would nevertheless be quite the same, or did Conn re-construct the whole instrument between the original production ending and the revivial?

I know (and percieve) there are differences between the various construction methods, but basic features seem to me to be the base on which every other difference is applied as more superficially defining traits - albeit significant in their own ways. I have tried both vintage and newer Conns (88s and 6Hs a.o.), although not any 62s, and though there were differences between individual instruments, the prominent impression to me, within the respective line of models, were more of the similarities than the differences.

The new 62H is much more different to the old one than different generations of 88H. Just the change of bell tuning is enough to make it a completely different instrument.

[Digidog]

Yeah; I understand as much, but the basic measurements of the 62 would nevertheless be quite the same, or did Conn re-construct the whole instrument between the original production ending and the revivial?

I know (and percieve) there are differences between the various construction methods, but basic features seem to me to be the base on which every other difference is applied as more superficially defining traits - albeit significant in their own ways. I have tried both vintage and newer Conns (88s and 6Hs a.o.), although not any 62s, and though there were differences between individual instruments, the prominent impression to me, within the respective line of models, were more of the similarities than the differences.

The new 62H is much more different to the old one than different generations of 88H. Just the change of bell tuning is enough to make it a completely different instrument.

Clarifying. If Conn remodeled the bell (among other things?), to give it very different characteristics, I can see why there is a discussion about it.

Thank you!

[hyperbolica]

Well, see the above comments - some consider the familial resemblance quite strong. But it's a completely different design, if you weren't aware; TIB not TIS, soldered bead, indy option, different leadpipe, etc etc.

And those things (along with the stock lever arrangement) are exactly what people don't like about the original. People are fickle.

The real answer is that the "Elkhart lore" makes anything other than pre-1972 Conns automatically inferior. Truth is GenII and later horns are actually very good. I know this is true with 8h and 88h. I've played a couple new 62h, which were pretty convincing.

If I could afford the change (coming from Kanstul 1662i) right now I'd do it, and I'm an original Elkhart fan. I'd get a new one over an old one.

[spencercarran]

If I understand it correctly: People don't consider new Conn 62's to play like vintage 62's? Why so?

I mean; Conn couldn't have changed so much in construction and materials from then until now, or have they?

Isn't the logical answer to what plays most like a vintage 62, be a new 62?

It's a completely different design, made in a different factory by a different company with different materials and different construction techniques. First UMI (when GenII Conns were first introduced) and later Conn-Selmer have the legal right to use the same brand/model names as the previous C. G. Conn Ltd, but they're not otherwise related.

This is not to say anything one way or the other about the quality of new Conn-branded trombones, in either design or construction. They may in some ways be better or worse than vintage Conns, but I'd say it's more accurate to think of it as an entirely separate entity.

[Digidog]

It's a completely different design, made in a different factory by a different company with different materials and different construction techniques. First UMI (when GenII Conns were first introduced) and later Conn-Selmer have the legal right to use the same brand/model names as the previous C. G. Conn Ltd, but they're not otherwise related.

This is not to say anything one way or the other about the quality of new Conn-branded trombones, in either design or construction. They may in some ways be better or worse than vintage Conns, but I'd say it's more accurate to think of it as an entirely separate entity.

Thanks for an informative reply!

But if it is as @Burgerbob says, and the different generations of 88H's are (roughly) approximately similar to each other, than why are the different generations of 62H's so separate? Were there any inherent flaws of the older 62H construction that made production quality unreliable, and that the new company decided to iron out by redesigning the horn? And also: Why did they keep the designation 62H if the new horn was so radically different from the original? Conn-Selmer seems to have no particular sentimental regard for their model names in other product lines.

I'm asking this, because I try to understand the foundations for the discussions about vintage Conns. From time to time it can seem confusing for one who isn't well read about the Conn company's history.

[spencercarran]

In-slide tuning (as the old 62H had) is more difficult to manufacture, and once you've switched to bell tuning that necessitates a bigger overall redesign than the genII 88H got. And then tastes in bass trombone valve configurations had changed significantly, so that piece of the horn also needed bigger changes.

I can't answer why they chose to reuse the model number. Some marketing manager from the 1990s knows the answer to that.

[tbonesullivan]

I can't answer why they chose to reuse the model number. Some marketing manager from the 1990s knows the answer to that.

It would not be the first time. The original "62H" was a "#2½ Bore Simons Duo-Bell Model with 6½" and 8" Bells". The original 72H was an Eb double Slide bass. Lots of fun stuff at the Conn Loyalist

https://cderksen.home.xs4all.nl/ConnTrbHFull.html

[ithinknot]

In-slide tuning (as the old 62H had) is more difficult to manufacture

That's an interesting question. Relative to a normal slide, sure.

But then you don't have to parallel a bell section, so across the whole instrument it might be quicker overall. Only if you were intending fine tolerances everywhere, though; with questionable labor, an unsquare bell section will still function, but a bad TIS job is going to be a disaster.

It would be interesting to know why the 60 and 62 were discontinued and the 71 and 73 survived. Maybe Abilene management recognised that quality was going to be a particular issue or maybe, contra current reverence, they just weren't selling... (They were pulled so soon - 1972 - after the move that the new workforce hardly had time to trash the models' reputation.)

[sf105]

My understanding is that, amongst other acts of vandalism, Macmillan trashed the archive during the move (along with the experience of the workers).

S

If I understand it correctly: People don't consider new Conn 62's to play like vintage 62's? Why so?

I mean; Conn couldn't have changed so much in construction and materials from then until now, or have they?

Isn't the logical answer to what plays most like a vintage 62, be a new 62?

It's a completely different design, made in a different factory by a different company with different materials and different construction techniques. First UMI (when GenII Conns were first introduced) and later Conn-Selmer have the legal right to use the same brand/model names as the previous C. G. Conn Ltd, but they're not otherwise related.

This is not to say anything one way or the other about the quality of new Conn-branded trombones, in either design or construction. They may in some ways be better or worse than vintage Conns, but I'd say it's more accurate to think of it as an entirely separate entity.

[baBposaune]

What about the M&W 929-T? Has anyone tried this? Any similarities to a vintage 62H?

Those are stellar horns! I tried on at ITF in 2017 and really liked it. Still want one.

Having owned 5 Elkhart 62s over the course of 40 years I'd say that the M&W is similar but better. Better because it is an improved version that doesn't light up as quick as the old Elkharts. The Conns I played would work well in a big band and but the sound would sometimes break up if the decibel levels got pushed too far, which caused me to eventually switch to bass trombones with slightly heavier bells.

[CuriousKen]

The new 62H is much more different to the old one than different generations of 88H. Just the change of bell tuning is enough to make it a completely different instrument.

This is the answer to the original post. A modern horn that doesn't have in-slide tuning can't replicate the sound of the conical expansion from the valve through the J bend and bell. Even if a new 62H "was inspired" by a vintage, the in-bell tuning makes it a totally different animal. I played a vintage 62H for an orchestral staging of Sweeney Todd and the horn was beautiful for that program.

I've played a Modern Greenhoe with in-slide tuning and the conical J bend/bell and a Kanstul interpretation of the 62H. I thought both were pretty similar to the 62H but better and more modern. Better valves, easier blowing, but still with that basic conical sound. Honestly, if I had my choice between a vintage 62H, a Greenhoe, or a Kanstul, the vintage Conn would be my last choice. And I love me some Elkhart Conns.

[charger]

So I’m guessing a 73H won’t have the same magic due to no TIS?

[BGuttman]

So I’m guessing a 73H won’t have the same magic due to no TIS?

Not just TIS. The 7xH basses had a different set of proportions to the 6xH basses. It may be better for you or not.

[tbonesullivan]

So I’m guessing a 73H won’t have the same magic due to no TIS?

Not just TIS. The 7xH basses had a different set of proportions to the 6xH basses. It may be better for you or not.

I always forget, which horns had the large throat bells, and which had the smaller throat bells? I seem to recall that the 7xH had smaller bell throats.