Bach unveils yet another model of the 42...

[EOlson9]

https://www.hornguys.com/products/bach- ... r-trombone

That's definitely a mouthful. Nice to see that they're finally offering a narrower slide now.

[Burgerbob]

That's actually been an option for a while- I've seen that slide at Hornguys a few years ago. I've never seen one out of the shop, for what it's worth... I wonder what crook it is. 88H maybe?

[Thrawn22]

Always jumping on bandwagons they is.

[hornbuilder]

This is an interesting comment. There was no 42BG Greenhoe that I am aware of. There was the Conn 88HTG, which was an instrument co-produced between CS and GH. But there was never such an agreement with Bach.

[chromebone]

That looks like a King 4B/Benge190 slide crook.

[hornbuilder]

That looks like a King 4B/Benge190 slide crook.

Hard to tell anything from the angle of the one photo that includes the crook

[chromebone]

[quote=chromebone post_id=180831 time=<a href="tel:1655166191">1655166191</a> user_id=3008]
That looks like a King 4B/Benge190 slide crook.

Hard to tell anything from the angle of the one photo that includes the crook
[/quote]

Definitely too round to be a TR 150 crook. I’m making the assumption they are using off the shelf parts from their lineup which only leaves two possibilities. But maybe they are making a new crook for it.

[hornbuilder]

It is entirely possible it is the Conn 8x handslide crook tooling being used, with yellow brass, instead of nickel silver.

[octavposaune]

Hi Everyone,

Bach has had a narrow 42 slide for decades. But it was never common. There is a particular part number for that crook in 30yo parts catalogs (I have one of those 30yo catalogs and have seen the bin they keep those crooks in at Bachs Elkhart plant!).

It is a pity Bach dropped the gold brass F attachment tubing they use to have. I have seen precisely one 42 that had that (available till about 1995)

Benn

[CheeseTray]

Hornbuilder,
I have a Greenhoe 42BG. I don't know how many of them there are, but I can confirm the existence of at least one "in the wild."

[hornbuilder]

Hornbuilder,
I have a Greenhoe 42BG. I don't know how many of them there are, but I can confirm the existence of at least one "in the wild."

Yes, there are numerous GH42's out there. I built a lot of them!! But none of them were a part of the Conn-Selmer product line up, and CS had no involvement in their development/production/sale.

It is like saying that Roush or Saleen are a part of the Ford Mustang lineage.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

So……this thread prompts me to ask two questions. I am aware that Bach offered a “narrow slide” slide option for the 42 slide in the 1980s and 1990s. I remember trombonists talking about it in the 80s and remember seeing it stated in a 90s brochure.

My questions are:

1. In the 1980s and 1990s, were those narrow crooks the same oversized bore (.600 inch) as the standard Bach 42 slide crooks?

2. What is the inside bore of these new narrow crooks?

[harrisonreed]

I'd be more interested in an announcement like

"Bach has doubled down on the original designs, plus the 42T, and will be offering these to spec and built as if they were made during the legendary years."

And then followed through. We don't need gimmicks and valves, we need trombones that play really well and don't cost a ton.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

I'd be more interested in an announcement like

"Bach has doubled down on the original designs, plus the 42T, and will be offering these to spec and built as if they were made during the legendary years.”

Well Harrison………if any company was ultra stubborn about sticking to original designs, it would be the Bach company. For many years, when Lloyd Fillio was “product developer” for the Bach Company, very limited PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT actually happened. Sure, things like open wraps were introduced during his tenure, but he was very loyal to Vincent Bach and the original Bach designs.

A friend of mine knew Lloyd Fillio and had conversations with him regularly. He always laughed at Fillio’s “product developer” title. From what I understand, Fillio shrugged off the majority of new ideas. Sure, Fillio would accommodate professionals and customize horns for their specific needs. However, Fillio spent a lot of his energy defending the age-old designs and specifications of Vincent Bach.

It was only after Lloyd Fillio retired (I’m thinking mid-1990’s) that Bach started offering many more options on the 42 model. While he worked at Bach, many considered Fillio to be very stubborn. In retrospect, Fillio is highly regarded because he had the conviction to defend the research and development that was done by Vincent Bach 35-50 years earlier.

Harrison…..I do understand your statement and would love to have an instrument that plays like one the best horns from the “legendary years.” However, I think there are some variables that cannot always be recreated. Specifically, raw materials and skilled labor force. The supply companies and quality of sheet brass that instrument makers use can change over time. Likewise, there can be an ebb and flow in the quality of manufacturing craftsmanship. It is just like Stradivarius violins…….he was the guy with the right skills that made instruments from wood that was perfect at that point in history.

[Burgerbob]

I'd be more interested in an announcement like

"Bach has doubled down on the original designs, plus the 42T, and will be offering these to spec and built as if they were made during the legendary years."

And then followed through. We don't need gimmicks and valves, we need trombones that play really well and don't cost a ton.

We do need valves though. That's the biggest weakness of the 42. The stock 42 should come with a Meinlschmidt or Olsen rotor. I think narrowing down the lineup to disinclude the original rotors would probably be a good idea... but those are also probably the best sellers and easy to make.

Also, no T valves to go around anymore! They're gone.

[harrisonreed]

I'd be more interested in an announcement like

"Bach has doubled down on the original designs, plus the 42T, and will be offering these to spec and built as if they were made during the legendary years.”

Well Harrison………if any company was ultra stubborn about sticking to original designs, it would be the Bach company. For many years, when Lloyd Fillio was “product developer” for the Bach Company, very limited PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT actually happened. Sure, things like open wraps were introduced during his tenure, but he was very loyal to Vincent Bach and the original Bach designs.

A friend of mine knew Lloyd Fillio and had conversations with him regularly. He always laughed at Fillio’s “product developer” title. From what I understand, Fillio shrugged off the majority of new ideas. Sure, Fillio would accommodate professionals and customize horns for their specific needs. However, Fillio spent a lot of his energy defending the age-old designs and specifications of Vincent Bach.

It was only after Lloyd Fillio retired (I’m thinking mid-1990’s) that Bach started offering many more options on the 42 model. While he worked at Bach, many considered Fillio to be very stubborn. In retrospect, Fillio is highly regarded because he had the conviction to defend the research and development that was done by Vincent Bach 35-50 years earlier.

Harrison…..I do understand your statement and would love to have an instrument that plays like one the best horns from the “legendary years.” However, I think there are some variables that cannot always be recreated. Specifically, raw materials and skilled labor force. The supply companies and quality of sheet brass that instrument makers use can change over time. Likewise, there can be an ebb and flow in the quality of manufacturing craftsmanship. It is just like Stradivarius violins…….he was the guy with the right skills that made instruments from wood that was perfect at that point in history.

You've missed my point.

You tell me how they can possibly earn anyone's trust to fork over $4609 for a Bach 42, after all this hype of other artist models and the subsequent quality control issues. The point is not that there is a cool new Bach model, or that they are trying to recreate what they used to make and serve their customers, it's that their parent company is trying to get another round of horns out based on a prototype that is probably great, but will consist of a manufacturing run plagued by the same issues as every other production run they've let slip through QC.

They'd need near perfect horns, with around a $3200 MSRP for YEARS with zero major QC issues in order to do that. Otherwise it's obvious what this is.

I feel for the employees at Conn-Selmer. A $4609 Bach is not the way forward, in my mind. I paid $2100 for a Conn 88H in 2005, made by the masters at Eastlake. An unbelievably good horn, and equal to about $3200 in today's dollars. That experience alone tells me all I need to know about these annual offerings from them - that's what a PERFECT Bach should cost, $3200, and I don't think they are going to have the quality of those Eastlake offerings.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

That's why I haven't bought a new trombone in over 15 years! Much easier (and cost effective) to buy a used instrument with low mileage and then modify it to my tastes.

[MrHCinDE]

That's why I haven't bought a new trombone in over 15 years! Much easier (and cost effective) to buy a used instrument with low mileage and then modify it to my tastes.

Couldn’t agree more, around here you can get a nice straight 42 for something around 1000€, that leaves plenty of budget for a slide job and installation of an F attachment with a decent valve before getting close to the typical new 42B prices from about 3800€ and upwards. I‘d rather be supporting my local tech and the trombone circular economy than paying retail prices for a new C-S horn.

I‘d be interested to hear what anyone who has played the new offering in this thread thinks about it though, on paper it sounds pretty nice to me. I‘d be particularly interested in hearing if any of the ‚Bach‘ sound is lost with a narrower slide, or whether the more open valve offsets that.

[spencercarran]

You tell me how they can possibly earn anyone's trust to fork over $4609 for a Bach 42, after all this hype of other artist models and the subsequent quality control issues. The point is not that there is a cool new Bach model, or that they are trying to recreate what they used to make and serve their customers, it's that their parent company is trying to get another round of horns out based on a prototype that is probably great, but will consist of a manufacturing run plagued by the same issues as every other production run they've let slip through QC.

They'd need near perfect horns, with around a $3200 MSRP for YEARS with zero major QC issues in order to do that. Otherwise it's obvious what this is.

I feel for the employees at Conn-Selmer. A $4609 Bach is not the way forward, in my mind. I paid $2100 for a Conn 88H in 2005, made by the masters at Eastlake. An unbelievably good horn, and equal to about $3200 in today's dollars. That experience alone tells me all I need to know about these annual offerings from them - that's what a PERFECT Bach should cost, $3200, and I don't think they are going to have the quality of those Eastlake offerings.

100% agreed. Charging so close to the price point of boutique custom horns while churning out the build quality of mass-produced imported horns is an absurd position to try to occupy in the market, and there's only so long they can coast on the reputational inertia of having bought last century's successful brands.

[tbonesullivan]

100% agreed. Charging so close to the price point of boutique custom horns while churning out the build quality of mass-produced imported horns is an absurd position to try to occupy in the market, and there's only so long they can coast on the reputational inertia of having bought last century's successful brands.

Bach has been about that since the UMI-Selmer merger. They immediately moved to position Bach as the "Premier Artisan Level" brand, with Conn, King, Holton, and Benge taking second stage on their trombone designs, as well as trumpet designs. Anything that competed with Bach was downplayed and/or discontinued. One might say that things got even worse after they purchased Steinway, and then changed the parent company name to Steinway. If any company knows about semi-shady leveraging tactics, it's Steinway.

I admit, my Bach 42T, purchased before the Merger, is a great horn. After I spent a bunch of money to fix the factory warp in the slide, and the incorrectly installed Thayer Valve. It still has issues, such as the now nearly perfect alignment on the tuning slide causes it to slide inward, even after having the end of one expanded slightly. I guess I'll need to get it expanded a bit more.

I am honestly amazed why people go near Bach horns given how overpriced they are for what you get.

[fsgazda]

A friend of mine knew Lloyd Fillio and had conversations with him regularly. He always laughed at Fillio’s “product developer” title. From what I understand, Fillio shrugged off the majority of new ideas. Sure, Fillio would accommodate professionals and customize horns for their specific needs. However, Fillio spent a lot of his energy defending the age-old designs and specifications of Vincent Bach.

My undergrad teacher was a Bach artist, and Lloyd Fillio came to meet with the students and talk instruments one time. I asked him (pretty rude, in retrospect I guess) why the rotor valves on Conn and Benge played so much more open than the Bach. His reply "They don't". Even after another student tried to follow up he just repeated "They don't", and then moved on to something else.

[Kbiggs]

Sorry about this rant/argument, but here goes:

While I understand and, to some extent, agree with the complaints about Bach-Selmer-Steinway, some of the comments above seem… well, cynical and pessimistic. Companies do what they can to attract new customers. They make genuinely new products, they modify and improve existing products, and they use marketing ploys. There’s nothing new there.

There’s also nothing new about the complaints of Bach’s quality control. In the past, Bach’s QC has been poor, and many of their instruments and mpcs were poor and inconsistent. They have improved appreciably in the last 10-15 years, thanks to changes in management, and investing in new training and machines.

Looking at this situation differently, I welcome Bach’s willingness to expand their line of instruments, and expand their available slide options and valves. That is a positive development for the music and trombone community.

There are many things that contribute to the price of a product. Meinl-Schmidt valves can be expensive and difficult to get, or so I’ve been told. No doubt Bach-Selmer-Steinway have a licensing agreement with M-S to produce a certain number of valves exclusively for them. Licensing agreements cost money, however, which adds to the price of the instrument.

Rath, no doubt, has a licensing agreement with Hagmann, which adds to the cost of their instruments. Shires and Edwards went a different route: they developed their own valves and produce them in-house, which adds to the cost of their instruments. When Conn first introduced their Lindberg valve, it added about $1000 to the cost of the horn.

(We can argue about whether the unit price passed down to the customer is fair or equitable. But that’s beside the point, which is whether Bach’s recent offering(s) are a positive development for the trombone and musical community.)

Are the new Bachs over-priced? Compared to older models, yes. Given their new offerings, no. Are they competitive with the boutique makers? Yes. Will some prefer a Bach over a Conn, King, Holton, Shires, Edwards, Rath, etc.? Of course. There are loyalists/fans in any human endeavour: Giants vs. Dodgers? Broncos vs. Patriots? Chelsea vs. Liverpool vs. Manchester United?

I’m off to mow the lawn.

[sirisobhakya]

I have thought the newer Bach models are overpriced.

Then I saw the prices of newer Yamaha models (823G, 825G, etc.)…

Well, at least they have better QC, or have they?

[harrisonreed]

I know someone who just paid $7000 for whatever the premiere Yamaha tenor is over here....

I think, though, that the quality of the Yamaha horn is far superior to anything that I've tried from Bach made in the last ten years. Overpriced, yes, but vastly better than paying $4609 for a horn that probably has stresses built in and sloppy soldering. Do I know the new Bach has this? No. Has horn guys stopped carrying Conn-Selmer in the recent past because of QC issues? Yes. Did I try Conn-Selmer stuff at recent trade shows? Yep, and the slides were scratchy, and the solder was not good.

The point above about these being nearly the same (or beyond, in the case of the Yamaha) price as boutique shop offerings is my hang up.

[spencercarran]

Did I try Conn-Selmer stuff at recent trade shows? Yep, and the slides were scratchy, and the solder was not good.

Showing up to a trade show with something built incorrectly is a pretty big red flag IMO. Who at the company is picking the horns that go on display there, and what sort of impression do they think they're making?

[Finetales]

Will some prefer a Bach over a Conn, King, Holton, Shires, Edwards, Rath, etc.? Of course. There are loyalists/fans in any human endeavour: Giants vs. Dodgers? Broncos vs. Patriots? Chelsea vs. Liverpool vs. Manchester United?

That's easy. Dodgers!

[Kbiggs]

Will some prefer a Bach over a Conn, King, Holton, Shires, Edwards, Rath, etc.? Of course. There are loyalists/fans in any human endeavour: Giants vs. Dodgers? Broncos vs. Patriots? Chelsea vs. Liverpool vs. Manchester United?

That's easy. Dodgers!

‘10, ‘12, and ‘14. ‘Nuff said.