Are we getting Bach all wrong ?

[FOSSIL]

In my lockdown trombone exploration, I'm looking at small bores for the first time since I was a kid. The mouthpiece journey has travelled to the classic Bach 11c and I have managed to collect a few New York and Mt Vernon examples. What strikes me is how much variation there is with these pieces... not just cup and rim, but overall length and outside shape.
People often say how frustrating it is that Bach mouthpieces were so inconsistent in the earlier years...implying or assuming that there was a lack of quality control on the consistency side.
What if this was deliberate on Bach's part ? What if he was simply experimenting in order to refine his products? Are we still his guinea pigs long after he has gone ?
Most makers are totally obsessed with repeatability along with quality. Perhaps Bach wasn't....at least with mouthpieces ........

Chris

[Doubler]

Wouldn't such an endeavor include ensuring adequate and timely feedback from users? I don't know that Bach had such a system in place.

[ngrinder]

Interesting! I always considered it a quirky plus that Bach pieces have so much variation....as long as the mouthpiece is good. I for one think that the artisans back in the NY years knew how to account for tooling wear and also understood what rim bite, throat size, etc meant for the player and then balanced the mouthpieces accordingly. Not so in the later models....

I recently bought two (!) Mt Vernon 6.5ALs for a very good price. They are both excellent pieces, but one is a comfy V shaped zinger with a rim measuring slightly smaller than the stated specs. Almost a 6.75C with the brakes pumped. The other is a more traditional 6.5AL with a wider rim and slightly more open throat. Both are good, and it's quite interesting playing them back to back. Comparing them to a sample from the 80s - stuffy, unfocused and generally....not good - is no contest. I could do without that type of variation!

[ithinknot]

You're talking about a very wide span of time and practices relative to company size, starting from nothing and ending with a substantial business.

In the 'New York' periods, I'm sure there was plenty of in-house and artist-custom experimentation going on.

But even in the 20s, they were already selling by mail order and through various catalogs. There's not much of a feedback loop on those sales. (That doesn't mean they weren't trying things out for themselves, of course.)

Mt V? Between 1955 and 60, they're making around 200 trombones and 1200 trumpets per year, and who knows how many mouthpieces. (That's going on serial numbers, which aren't perfect but give a general indication of scale.) It's not exactly VB standing alone at the lathe... Custom work and new models from the boss, sure, but were junior machinists allowed to creatively reevaluate the true meaning of the 11C? Maybe not on purpose.

Time is a messy filter, too. Perhaps the better (and/or unusual) examples are more likely to have been better looked after by better players. But they're also more likely to have been (professionally) modified at some point, and if the work was done well - and because there isn't a consistent baseline against which to compare - how would you know who did what when?

[FOSSIL]

Good points...I'm not thinking of Bach doing all this himself...more instructing staff.... outer shapes especially....why are outer shapes SO different? Honestly, outer shapes...that's bizarre.
A lack of feedback? Perhaps he was just amusing himself.

Chris

[Burgerbob]

outer shapes especially....why are outer shapes SO different? Honestly, outer shapes...that's bizarre.


Chris

Seriously! Look at these... every one is completely different.

for reference, screw rim NY 11C, NY 7C, MV 6.5AL, corp 6.5AL, corp 3G (all small shank)

[Kbiggs]

It makes sense that he would experiment over time and use consumers as beta testers, given that Bach was a trumpet player and musician first, and only later turned to design and manufacture. It implies that he changed his designs and manufacturing based in part on customer feedback. Whether it is historically accurate or “true” is a different—and perhaps more interesting—question.

[dapfoo]

I’ve seen this in three posts now about inconsistencies about older Bach mouthpieces. That’s really intriguing and makes me want to go back and give my mouthpieces another look-see and run through since I have some duplicates. My current favorite mouthpiece to pair with my 4h, 6h, and 48h is a Vincent Bach “9”.

[Posaunus]

I doubt that the variations in mouthpiece outer profiles had anything to to with "beta testing." Much more likely it was the skill, personal preference, and style of whoever was operating the lathe that day. There was probably a standard shape that they had in front of them to look at / measure and copy, and then they "freehanded" each mouthpiece as closely as they could (or felt that day).

I also presume that there were master cutters of some sort for the mouthpiece cups, but those changed as they wore, possibly accounting for the variation in cup shapes. And I'd guess that the rims (or at least the transition from rim to cup) were also done "freehand" - so some were sharper than others with more "bite"; others were more rounded.

All this of course done by machinists trained by Vincent Bach or his delegates to match physical standards they were given. But ... the boss wasn't looking over their shoulders every minute! They weren't machining to Mil Specs!

[elmsandr]

So, if you all haven't read the "Bachology" reports by Roy Hempley, go back and do so. I have no doubt that many of the changes over time were intentional. Read the evolution of C trumpets and you will find that Bach was always updating the plan, updating the drawings... so that things marked the same were not the same. Even reading through the shop cards will not tell you if there was a physical change to the tooling between two horns with the same listed specs.

A large portion of the variation I will happily put on measurement errors that lead to larger variation than you would expect in modern manufacturing. Couple that with intentional change over time and you have a recipe for what looks like a completely random set of outputs all stamped with the same numbers. I would argue that until the sale to Selmer (late Mt.V), the actual profiles of everything were not completely standardized. Even then, they continue to match items to a "Master set" of what V.B. thought were the ideal versions at that particular time. He would well have known that he changed what was ideal over time, why he decided to lock down the changes then is a little odd to me.

Some of my favorite memories are of sitting with Cliff Ferree going through a box of ancient mouthpieces with a pencil and a quarter gauging them all and sorting them looking for the size he wanted. They were all marked the same, but he knew better.

Cheers,
Andy

[harrisonreed]

That there are custom makers doing this same thing now, but being open about it, makes me wonder why people are still after these Bach pieces. The good ones can and have been copied already. You can get whatever you want made by a mouthpiece maker who knows more than you do, and possibly more than V Bach knew.

There is no magic here, just the cessation of innovation.

[GabrielRice]

"A friend" spent several years playing Laskey 93Ds and never found two that were the same. A few were similar, but there were clearly at least two very different back bore designs, and there were several that came through my...I mean "my friend's"...hands that were radically different from every other one.

One of those was one acquired from Randy Hawes that he bought directly from Scott Laskey. It's very clear to me that Scott made Randy the mouthpiece he thought Randy should play, which was noticeably smaller in every dimension than any other 93D I ever saw.

Those who worked with Scott when he was the custom maker for Schilke know that he operated that way. You would order from him what you wanted and he would make you what you needed.

[Bonearzt]

That there are custom makers doing this same thing now, but being open about it, makes me wonder why people are still after these Bach pieces. The good ones can and have been copied already. You can get whatever you want made by a mouthpiece maker who knows more than you do, and possibly more than V Bach knew.
There is no magic here, just the cessation of innovation.

Yes there are VERY good copies being made of just about everything...

BUT!

EVERY mouthpiece is still different, just like lead pipes, no two will play exactly alike!!
And, you cannot EXACTLY copy that Mt Vernon/NY/Corp/whatever thing you've found!!

There was a similar argument sometime ago regarding bells and adapting to a particular makers set-up and the resistance to assist.
A player had/found a bell that he absolutely LOVED and wanted it mounted to his regular rig. The maker resisted saying they had a similar bell.
Similar, but not guaranteed the same!


Same with these mouthpieces. They MIGHT be similar, but there is NO guarantee it will play and feel like any other one!!
Maybe this was meant to be? Was a particular shape made for a particular player?

LOT'S to think about beyond manufacturing "inconsistencies"!

[droffilcal]

That there are custom makers doing this same thing now, but being open about it, makes me wonder why people are still after these Bach pieces. The good ones can and have been copied already. You can get whatever you want made by a mouthpiece maker who knows more than you do, and possibly more than V Bach knew.

There is no magic here, just the cessation of innovation.

No magic? I don't know, the "magic" is firstly in the user's perception, but for this user, there is something in the sound of some Bach mouthpieces that really does seem to be better (for me!) than almost anything else.
And when I say "some Bach mouthpieces" I don't just mean NY's or MV's -- my most beautiful, interesting, and some times confounding mouthpieces are Bach pieces - one NY, 3 Corp.", one "Corp" (no period), one LARGE letter, etc.

I honestly think that Doug Elliott's pieces are about as great as a mouthpiece can be, but still -- it may not be the easiest thing to play, but that indefinable quality in a Bach piece, the RIGHT Bach piece....

To me it's kind of like saying that a modern trombone maker can "copy' a Conn 88H or Holton TR 169 or King 2b; they might get close to the right flavor but it's never really the same as the actual vintage trombone. Not saying that one is better or worse, that's up to you, it really depends on you, your playing, your playing situations, the totality of everything that you are dealing with when you are working or practicing. Same goes for mouthpieces.

[harrisonreed]

I guess I was trying to say, if V Bach was cutting mouthpieces that not only continued to evolve and were getting more refined over time, but also might have been tailored to the player doing the custom order, shelling out $300 for an ancient Bach mouthpiece is the opposite of that. Bach would have probably asked why you weren't trying to get something better, supporting his shop (since he's gone, any shop), and helping the brass world move forward.

I don't know about vintage trombones. Sure I have an old 3B from the 60s that is awesome. I wish it had a new slide and removable leadpipe, because the slide just isn't as good as these slides Shires is making these days. Heck, even the new 3Bs off the shelf have a better slide, and it's not that mine is worn out -- materials and techniques are just better now. I've played some ancient 88Hs (not long to go now before they're 100 years old!) and yeah, they're pretty good. My Edwards 396 is pretty good too. The Toby Oft model is flat out better playing than any of these though, and I just didn't know about it -- like the best combination of classic Edwards and classickier Elkhart 88H. It's too late now . With trombones I've found that they pretty much all sound good to me, just give me the smoothest slide you can find and some way to tweak the resistance. Thank you leadpipes and harmonic brace. Thank you backbore design. Which brings us back to mouthpieces, where arguably most of the innovation has been happening in the last 20 years.

Doug Elliott will send you what you need based on a conversation or a lesson -- in my mind what I've gotten from him are very special custom mouthpieces. Bob Reeves and Picket Brass are doing custom mouthpieces. Griego has innovated quite a bit as well. Laskey mouthpieces are back, apparently.

I just got a custom mouthpiece from Bob Reeves made by fusing two different mouthpieces together. It's awesome! They used their expertise to change the cup and match everything up and it doesn't just work -- it's great.

[FOSSIL]

I guess I was trying to say, if V Bach was cutting mouthpieces that not only continued to evolve and were getting more refined over time, but also might have been tailored to the player doing the custom order, shelling out $300 for an ancient Bach mouthpiece is the opposite of that. Bach would have probably asked why you weren't trying to get something better, supporting his shop (since he's gone, any shop), and helping the brass world move forward.

I don't know about vintage trombones. Sure I have an old 3B from the 60s that is awesome. I wish it had a new slide and removable leadpipe, because the slide just isn't as good as these slides Shires is making these days. Heck, even the new 3Bs off the shelf have a better slide, and it's not that mine is worn out -- materials and techniques are just better now. I've played some ancient 88Hs (not long to go now before they're 100 years old!) and yeah, they're pretty good. My Edwards 396 is pretty good too. The Toby Oft model is flat out better playing than any of these though, and I just didn't know about it -- like the best combination of classic Edwards and classickier Elkhart 88H. It's too late now . With trombones I've found that they pretty much all sound good to me, just give me the smoothest slide you can find and some way to tweak the resistance. Thank you leadpipes and harmonic brace. Thank you backbore design. Which brings us back to mouthpieces, where arguably most of the innovation has been happening in the last 20 years.

Doug Elliott will send you what you need based on a conversation or a lesson -- in my mind what I've gotten from him are very special custom mouthpieces. Bob Reeves and Picket Brass are doing custom mouthpieces. Griego has innovated quite a bit as well. Laskey mouthpieces are back, apparently.

I just got a custom mouthpiece from Bob Reeves made by fusing two different mouthpieces together. It's awesome! They used their expertise to change the cup and match everything up and it doesn't just work -- it's great.

Sorry my man, but I didn't intend this to be yet another thread about how good old Bach mouthpieces are compared to modern offerings... it was about the huge variations in old Bach mouthpieces and whether these variations were down to poor quality control or were a deliberate action by Bach and/or his employees. We will never get a definitive answer as the man himself is long gone, but I thought might be interesting to talk it through.

Chris

[CheeseTray]

"A friend" spent several years playing Laskey 93Ds and never found two that were the same. A few were similar, but there were clearly at least two very different back bore designs, and there were several that came through my...I mean "my friend's"...hands that were radically different from every other one.

One of those was one acquired from Randy Hawes that he bought directly from Scott Laskey. It's very clear to me that Scott made Randy the mouthpiece he thought Randy should play, which was noticeably smaller in every dimension than any other 93D I ever saw.

Those who worked with Scott when he was the custom maker for Schilke know that he operated that way. You would order from him what you wanted and he would make you what you needed.

This was my experience. I play on a mouthpiece that Scott made for me at Schilke in the late '80s. I told him what I wanted, we discussed weight, size, rim, etc. He made it and had me come back a couple days later. I then spent a couple of hours there playing it for him and giving him feedback, after which, he'd tweak it and I'd repeat the process. Finally, when it felt 'right,' he listened, tweaked once more and gave it to me for a final confirmation. It felt great and away it went for plating. 30+ years later (and who knows how many other pieces experimented with in the interim) it's still my daily.

[harrisonreed]

I think it is interesting! I didn't know that the outer shapes varied that much. He was having his crew evolve the product, and maybe some of it was due to bad tooling or whims. Or ... Who knows.

Is there a blank shape that is representative of the best mouthpieces he made?

Is there a throat shape that represents the best era?

There is a subset of Bach mps that are sought after and beloved, but what exactly is that? If he continued to innovate, are the best pieces right around the time he retired? Or did he peak early?

If there are definitive "this is the best", what does it look like? Or is it all just random? Like wine has good years, except it's not even consistent day to day.

These questions are important I think, since it's difficult to know what people are talking about when they talk Bach mouthpieces. For example, that lineup of mouthpieces that all look different -- what the heck are we looking at in that picture? What does the lettering look like, what era is each from, etc.

[CheeseTray]

To swing it back around to pure speculation, I don't think that attributing production inconsistencies to worn tools or less than exacting standards of craftsmanship is a likely answer. Rather, our era puts more emphasis on producing consistent, exact copies than in the past, when there was a higher level of respect for unique, individual craftmanship. Perhaps Mr. Smith machined his 12C blanks one way, Mr. Jones another, and Bach himself a third way... each putting their own subtle spin (pun intended) on the design but each still meeting the bar for the mouthpiece's general specs - while honoring their own unique machinists' sensibility of craftsmanship and technique.

Finally, I don't think players back then had the expectation of consistency that we've grown accustomed to in our age of NC machining and robotic assembly. They probably had less 'heartburn' over a little variation. In short, just as nowadays, we respect the individual craft, style, and artistry of a tech's custom work, they had a similar type of respect for the individual work of a production machinist.

[Dennis]

In my lockdown trombone exploration, I'm looking at small bores for the first time since I was a kid. The mouthpiece journey has travelled to the classic Bach 11c and I have managed to collect a few New York and Mt Vernon examples. What strikes me is how much variation there is with these pieces... not just cup and rim, but overall length and outside shape.
People often say how frustrating it is that Bach mouthpieces were so inconsistent in the earlier years...implying or assuming that there was a lack of quality control on the consistency side.
What if this was deliberate on Bach's part ? What if he was simply experimenting in order to refine his products? Are we still his guinea pigs long after he has gone ?
Most makers are totally obsessed with repeatability along with quality. Perhaps Bach wasn't....at least with mouthpieces ........

Chris

I think it was combination of Vincent Bach's inherent frugality and his background as an engineer. The shop cards from the New York and Mount Vernon eras are characteristic of someone who is trying tweaks and getting feedback on what works and what doesn't. The New York Model 6 trombone were made in 7 (!?!) different variants, as Bach tweaked neckpipes, tuning slides, and probably other things. Bach even stamped the bells to identify the variants.

Bach was also reported to be frugal. When he finally got around to making the 50B2 (and Bach was late to that party), he had the triggers set up side-by-side with a sax key-like roller. It doesn't work any better than Conn, Holton, or Reynolds' similar setups. (Those setups work fine if you're engaging 1 or 1+2 directly, but going from 1 to 1+2 is awkward.) It certainly doesn't work as well as the contemporary split setup. Someone (I think it was Doug Yeo, but it might have been Kleinhammer) is said to have pointed out the problem to Bach, who acknowledged it was a suboptimal setup. When asked why he didn't change it if he knew it was not the best setup, he pulled out a large supply of side-by-side triggers and said, "What do I do with these?"

If he kept mouthpiece tooling past the wear tolerance and relabeled it with a new size (6 ¾ C? Could that be a worn 6 ½ A tool?), that would explain the plethora of mouthpiece sizes and the inconsistency in dimensioning.

That's my explanation, anyway. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Posaunus]

To swing it back around to pure speculation, I don't think that attributing production inconsistencies to worn tools or less than exacting standards of craftsmanship is a likely answer. ... Perhaps Mr. Smith machined his 12C blanks one way, Mr. Jones another, and Bach himself a third way... each putting their own subtle spin (pun intended) on the design but each still meeting the bar for the mouthpiece's general specs - while honoring their own unique machinists' sensibility of craftsmanship and technique.

Finally, I don't think players back then had the expectation of consistency that we've grown accustomed to in our age of NC machining and robotic assembly. They probably had less 'heartburn' over a little variation. In short, just as nowadays, we respect the individual craft, style, and artistry of a tech's custom work, they had a similar type of respect for the individual work of a production machinist.

As someone who once did metalworking (and woodworking) on lathes (though not at a factory level) - long before computerization - this speculation makes a lot of sense to me. Many of these notoriously inconsistent mouthpieces were made in an era where craftsmanship / artisanship was respected in the musical instrument business. We now live in a different world.

Perhaps not a fair comparison, but consider the attention and obsession given to differences between samples of Stradivari (or Guarneri or Amati) violins.

[JoeStanko]

In my lockdown trombone exploration, I'm looking at small bores for the first time since I was a kid. The mouthpiece journey has travelled to the classic Bach 11c and I have managed to collect a few New York and Mt Vernon examples. What strikes me is how much variation there is with these pieces... not just cup and rim, but overall length and outside shape.
People often say how frustrating it is that Bach mouthpieces were so inconsistent in the earlier years...implying or assuming that there was a lack of quality control on the consistency side.
What if this was deliberate on Bach's part ? What if he was simply experimenting in order to refine his products? Are we still his guinea pigs long after he has gone ?
Most makers are totally obsessed with repeatability along with quality. Perhaps Bach wasn't....at least with mouthpieces ........

Chris

I think it was combination of Vincent Bach's inherent frugality and his background as an engineer. The shop cards from the New York and Mount Vernon eras are characteristic of someone who is trying tweaks and getting feedback on what works and what doesn't. The New York Model 6 trombone were made in 7 (!?!) different variants, as Bach tweaked neckpipes, tuning slides, and probably other things. Bach even stamped the bells to identify the variants.

Bach was also reported to be frugal. When he finally got around to making the 50B2 (and Bach was late to that party), he had the triggers set up side-by-side with a sax key-like roller. It doesn't work any better than Conn, Holton, or Reynolds' similar setups. (Those setups work fine if you're engaging 1 or 1+2 directly, but going from 1 to 1+2 is awkward.) It certainly doesn't work as well as the contemporary split setup. Someone (I think it was Doug Yeo, but it might have been Kleinhammer) is said to have pointed out the problem to Bach, who acknowledged it was a suboptimal setup. When asked why he didn't change it if he knew it was not the best setup, he pulled out a large supply of side-by-side triggers and said, "What do I do with these?"

If he kept mouthpiece tooling past the wear tolerance and relabeled it with a new size (6 ¾ C? Could that be a worn 6 ½ A tool?), that would explain the plethora of mouthpiece sizes and the inconsistency in dimensioning.

That's my explanation, anyway. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

No, the first 50B2 did not have rollers..Peppy made a unique mechanism and I’ve never seen another one. This was Ed Anderson’s which I’ve had for many years. Too much speculation and not enough facts.

Joe Stanko

[CalgaryTbone]

When Bach was in NY (Bronx, Mt. Vernon - I think there was a Manhattan location earlier) he was still running a small shop. As a business, he was probably closer to the current mouthpiece makers that have been mentioned in this thread, than the Bach of nowadays. He was likely experimenting - trying to make improvements based on feedback from his top customers. More recent stuff is produced by a division of a large company where massed sales are the priority. Those experiments produced some great and unique products - probably some epic fails as well.

Jim Scott

[Savio]

I dont know much history about Bach but I think the goal before was not to make every product to be exactly the same. I think consistence is a question that came up later. So maybe before the inconsistence was intended and thing was produced by clever people more by hand and eye. Later these people was replaced with more mass production and more was trusted on machines. So the inconsistence is still there but not intended.

Leif

[JoeStanko]

These are the levers from the first Mt. Vernon Bach 50B2. There was at least one 50B that had a second valve added that I'm aware of and I think the shop card was noted similar to "50B with second valve added", this from Larry Weinman, former bass trombonist of the Minnesota Orchestra. Larry worked at the Mt. Vernon factory in his youth then attended The Manhattan School of Music.

Ignore the saddle on the main bell brace - I had the original levers replaced with standard Bach levers but will be looking to have these original levers restored when I locate a technician who can hand make a part that is missing.

My understanding of the typical 50B2 levers was that Bob Giardinelli suggested using sax type rollers to Bach, similar to what the Reynolds double valve bass trombone was using.

Off topic here as the thread is regarding mouthpieces, but at some point I'll do a photo array of my numerous Mt. Vernon's.

Joe Stanko

[dukesboneman]

Over the years, I have tried almost every major mouthpiece maker.
They all have their pros and cons. Some are extremely comfortable (some almost too much so)
some are not. Now I`m speaking only of how I reacted to them.
But for me, The best sounding, best fit is a Mount Vernon Bach 7C.
I`ve tried many 7C`s and to my ears, there is something "Magical" to those MTV`s.
The sound is a little fuller and they seem to have different overtones.
And put a Mount Vernon7C on a Mount Vernon 36....Look Out!
Again, This is just my opinion.

[Savio]

No, the first 50B2 did not have rollers..Peppy made a unique mechanism and I’ve never seen another one. This was Ed Anderson’s which I’ve had for many years. Too much speculation and not enough facts.

Joe Stanko

I wonder if you Joe or others have more history about "Peppy"? I think he was mentioned sometimes before, but I can't remember exactly where and when.

Leif

[BGuttman]

Sam Burtis used to mention Peppy, mostly in relation to mouthpieces. Apparently he left Bach and made custom mouthpieces under the name "PEK" (or something like that).

I'd bet if you search the TTF archive for "Peppy" you might find a few references.

[JoeStanko]

Peppy - John Pettinato - some background here:

https://www.saxontheweb.net/threads/ind ... al.238803/

He had a shop in midtown - Black & Hill were in the same building. Peppy then moved his shop to Carroll's Studios. I was there one day with this Mt. Vernon 50B2 - when he saw it he said he built the levers.

[FOSSIL]

Here are some early Bach small shanks.
L-R Per war NY 11, NY 11c, NY 15, Early MV 11c, Early MV 11c, Early MV 11, Later MV 11c (shaved shank), Later MV 12c, Later MV 11c.

[FOSSIL]

Here are some large shanks
L-R Custom screw rim New York, NY 3, Later MV 3G, Later MV 1 1/2G, Later MV 2G, Later MV 2G.

[FOSSIL]

Finally a Pettinato mouthpiece. It's a Bach blank with outer cup modified.

[Kbiggs]

Slightly off topic...

Bach mouthpieces were made, and continue to be made, with a standard Morse taper for the shank. Conn instruments and mouthpieces through roughly 2010 were made with the Brown and Sharpe taper (the “Remington” taper).

Does the end a Bach mpc fit flush into a Conn receiver, or is there a slight gap between the end of a Bach mpc and a Conn receiver? Does this—the “mismatch” from a Bach mpc shank and an old Conn receiver—have anything to do with the mystique of playing old Conns with a Bach 2G or 1 1/2G mouthpiece?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[paulyg]

Does the end a Bach mpc fit flush into a Conn receiver, or is there a slight gap between the end of a Bach mpc and a Conn receiver? Does this—the “mismatch” from a Bach mpc shank and an old Conn receiver—have anything to do with the mystique of playing old Conns with a Bach 2G or 1 1/2G mouthpiece?

Tapers are designed to increase the contact area between two concentric parts. The cone angles have to match. I am definitely out of my element when trying to explain this, but here goes:

The "Morse" and "Remington" tapers are just standards for tapered tools. They allow for tools to be inserted into lathe (or drill press) chucks. Morse tapers are common in machine shops. I THINK that Remington tapers are specialized to the taper on the breech end of Remington gun barrels (nothing to do with the Remington mouthpiece, or Emory Remington).

Why does this matter for mouthpieces? Wouldn't you just cut whatever taper you want? You have to turn the shank anyway. Well, two possible reasons come to my mind:

- Matching the shank taper to your lathe allows you to hold a mouthpiece blank in the tool holder while you cut the rim and cup.

- If you're super lazy (and/or smart), you can also use the end of a Morse (or Remington) tapered tool holder to flare the receiver of the leadpipe you just drew over a mandrel.

The old Bach MV and NY large shank mouthpieces don't actually use a straight Morse taper. I've not had the chance to try, but they probably fit better in Remington receivers than you'd expect. I bet that was due to the Bach lathes in the old shop having an older, different tool set (standardization was pretty regional up until WWII). When the company moved, they probably bought new(er) tooling in Elkhart that had standard Morse tapers.

The above is completely conjectural...

[Doug Elliott]

There sure is a lot of guessing and misinformation about Conn shanks. I have my own opinions about why they did it but I don't think anybody today really knows. Conn was very innovative and did a lot of acoustical testing at one time.

In answer to the question, there is a considerable mismatch when putting a "standard" large shank in a Conn receiver. I don't think anything positive would come out of that.

For some reason people who don't know anything about machinery keep calling it a Browne & Sharp taper, but it's not. The Conn taper is its own thing unrelated to any other tapers as far as I know.

[BGuttman]

The large shank Conn taper was not the same as used by all the other large bore trombone makers. It was used on all large shank Conn mouthpieces including the 3B bass trombone and the Tenor designed by Emory Remington. Many more 88Hs were sold than bass trombones and the mouthpiece shank became associated with the tenor mouthpiece and hence got called Remington. Note that there is also a small shank Remington mouthpiece (supplied with the 78H, 79H, and other Connstellation models).

The Morse taper mouthpiece ends at a smaller diameter than the Conn taper mouthpiece so with a little force the Morse taper mouthpiece gets held at the end of the mouthpiece and where the mouthpiece contacts the opening of the receiver.

I'm sure Doug Elliott can describe how this fit works (or doesn't) much better than I.

I have put Morse taper mouthpieces in older Conn 88H trombones. I have found my Conn shank Remington sticks out of my Morse taper receiver too far.

For what it's worth, here is a table of common tapers: Jacobs, Morse, and Brown & Sharpe:

https://www.victornet.com/reference/Morse_Jacobs.html

[elmsandr]

Just another couple useless notes on the tapers... Bach used a couple of different Morse taper rates, but not the gage line sizes, so they aren’t exactly Morse tapers, but without a Tang on the end, who is going to really care.

As for why, I’m not sure they cared that they could chuck it on the taper. From the step by step photos they have, I don’t think they would have done that anyway. More that they were easy to reproduce. A lot of those era tool shop lathes had built in tooling to make the tapers. Either tracer plates or gear sets to copy the ratios. You could also use your tool setter as a gage to see that you made it right.

Cheers,
Andy

[FOSSIL]

Well, we seem to be at the shank end of things at the moment....which is fine....the small shanks...my two early MV 11c's have slightly longer shanks and neither fits in my Bach 16M....they stick out miles and wobble at the top. The NYs fit fine as do the later MVs.
Large shank....the NY 3 has a taper that fits older Conns but the NY custom is like later Bachs. I had a NY Bach 50B trombone from 1945 that had a Conn style leadpipe (not messed with) which was interesting.
The Pettinato has a longer shank that fits old Conns but not modern basses.
In my experience, putting a Bach taper mouthpiece in an old Conn trombone is not really disruptive. .....brits have done it for decades and some of us are not too bad.

Chris

[CalgaryTbone]

I agree with Chris - a lot of players have played regular Bach mouthpieces in their Elkhart Conns. I played a 5G with my 88H for many years, as did a lot of players that were playing professionally during the 60's/70's/80's and on. In my experience, using a mouthpiece with the longer shank would make articulations easier, but the Bach-style shanks helped encourage a bigger sound. Either way, you had to practice the element of playing that wasn't as well-supported by that particular mouthpiece and you could get the results you desired. I also found that the older Schilke's (51, 51C4) seemed to "split the difference" and be a really good compromise on my old Conns. I don't play a lot of Bass Trombone, but I have an older 72H that I have used a bit - a Schilke 58 with the longer shank works well on that. I also used that 58 on my Edwards tenor (with an E flat valve tuning slide) for some low B's in a movie soundtrack presentation here, and it worked well with that taper of receiver too.

I did like Doug's Conn shanks on my old Conns, so I wouldn't dismiss the idea of using the longer shank on Elkhart Conns. That 72H really responds better with a long shank - I think the receiver may be worn so that Bach-style mouthpieces barely fit at all.

Jim Scott

[Kbiggs]

For some reason people who don't know anything about machinery keep calling it a Browne & Sharp taper, but it's not. The Conn taper is its own thing unrelated to any other tapers as far as I know.

Guilty as charged.

In answer to the question, there is a considerable mismatch when putting a "standard" large shank in a Conn receiver. I don't think anything positive would come out of that.

This is what interests me. As Jim Scott noted, a lot of people played Conns with Bach mouthpieces. Others played Schilke mpcs with the “hybrid” long shank that was supposed to fit both Morse and Conn/Remington tapers. Either way, the mpc. doesn’t fit in the horn properly. But as Chris/FOSSIL notes here (and many other places), a Bach mpc. with a Conn trombone has been the equipment of choice for many years here in the states and in the UK. If it’s not supposed to work well, then why would may successful people continue to play it? Tradition?

[harrisonreed]

How do you know they had a Conn leadpipe in it? Wasn't Minick even helping Conn move to the Morse taper in the late 80s, if not directly then indirectly through his mods.

Conn stopped using the Remington taper leadpipes and switched to the "S" standard pipe "many years" ago.

[Doug Elliott]

Maybe I should say any given mouthpiece would play BETTER if the shank had the correct matching taper. Or maybe I'm just being overly picky.. but a Bach shank in an old Conn receiver seats only at the outer edge and leaves quite a large gap around the end of the shank. I wonder how a mouthpiece would play if I over-tapered the shank to purposely create that same gap?

[CalgaryTbone]

How do you know they had a Conn leadpipe in it? Wasn't Minick even helping Conn move to the Morse taper in the late 80s, if not directly then indirectly through his mods.

Conn stopped using the Remington taper leadpipes and switched to the "S" standard pipe "many years" ago.

Conn switched the receivers sometime around 1990 or so. All of the Elkhart and at least several years in Abeline were with the "Remington" taper.

I know that all of the NY Phil., Metropolitan Opera tenor trombones were playing stock Conns with stock Bach or Wick mouthpieces when I was a student in NYC (except Doug Edelman who used a Bach slide on a Conn bell). Gordon Sweeney, former Principal in Toronto and one of the most beautiful players I've ever heard used a 5G on a stock 8H. A lot of others. Like Chris said, many of the British players were using Bach and Wick mouthpieces on Elkhart Conns.

Minick didn't really start to have that big an impact away from the west coast until the 80's, and the older players weren't his customers. Conn shanks were available from the Bach factory, but I never even heard about them until around 1980 when a fellow student showed me one. I actually ordered a 5G with the 88H shank - took 6 months to get to me, was a bit more expensive, and it was not well made.

I do agree that a proper fitting mpc. can be a great thing in an older Conn trombone, but it's not the only thing to consider. I ended up getting rid of that 88H shank 5G and going back to the one that "didn't fit" but sounded better.

Jim Scott

[FOSSIL]

Looking at the mis match from the other side, I have two Conn bass setups that have vintage bell sections but modern Conn slides. I'm using a Morse taper mouthpiece....when selecting the best leadpipes from my collection of around 25 pipes which includes many high end pipes, I ended up with original Conn 70H pipes in both. The mis matched combos won out...twice !

Chris

[flotrb]

For some reason people who don't know anything about machinery keep calling it a Browne & Sharp taper, but it's not. The Conn taper is its own thing unrelated to any other tapers as far as I know.

Thought that this might be of interest from the old UMC catalog: "Conn 88H Gen II"

[Kbiggs]

Looking at the mis match from the other side, I have two Conn bass setups that have vintage bell sections but modern Conn slides. I'm using a Morse taper mouthpiece....when selecting the best leadpipes from my collection of around 25 pipes which includes many high end pipes, I ended up with original Conn 70H pipes in both. The mis matched combos won out...twice !

Chris

Perhaps there’s some bias going on here, Chris. This combination is the sound and feel you’ve used for a good portion of your career, so it comes as no surprise that you’d select it.

I think the purpose behind my original question was: Why would Bach choose the Morse taper when the most dominant manufacturer*—Conn—was using a different taper? Perhaps it’s due to his machining/engineering background, perhaps the lathes he purchased had settings for the Morse taper, perhaps it was his notorious reticence (crotchety-ness?)... who knows...

*(Yes, King, H.N. White, Olds, Martin, Boston, multiple European makers, etc. etc. were making trombones at the time, mostly using Morse tapers in the mpc. receiver. I believe (altho’ I could be wrong) that Conn was the dominant maker at the time Bach started making trombones.)

More to the point: Why would this mis-matched combination be so popular? Was it at accident? Perhaps the question is a non-starter. Maybe it should be: Why would Conn use a non-standard taper when other makers were using the standard Morse taper? Conjecture—hint, Doug —might be helpful.

[BGuttman]

Conn used that special taper only for large bore instruments (symphonic tenors and basses). The small shank instruments (by far the bulk of their business back then) used the same Morse taper used by most others (Olds used a smaller size, but still Morse taper).

I've never owned a very old Conn large bore, so I don't know if they used that taper before the late 1930s but the special taper came about the same time as the introduction of the 88H and contemporary bass models.

[FOSSIL]

Tapers in the first half of the 20th century were far from standardised. Olds was different as was King and Holton...many others too. Probably about pushing players to use the makers mouthpieces. Morse designed a whole series of tapers, used in settings as diverse as mouthpieces to hip joints. The big selling point was that the tapered joints did not come apart easily...not a plus in mouthpieces and leadpipes !!
As for my trials with leadpipes, I've used everything over the years and wouldn't say that I would feel anything as a sort of 'home base' ....Indeed, I have loved the two Callet pipes that I have owned in the past, but I traded them away when using Conn style shank pieces. I would buy one again if I saw it advertised. I have pipes by Brasslab and Brassark, Herrick and Minick, Williams and King, Conn, Kanstul, Rath and others. New Conn and old Conn. 70H pipes just worked better in the Conns.

Chris

[FOSSIL]

Conn used that special taper only for large bore instruments (symphonic tenors and basses). The small shank instruments (by far the bulk of their business back then) used the same Morse taper used by most others (Olds used a smaller size, but still Morse taper).

I've never owned a very old Conn large bore, so I don't know if they used that taper before the late 1930s but the special taper came about the same time as the introduction of the 88H and contemporary bass models.

My very old Conns have a similar taper, but not the same. Sort of between the two, like Holton 169s.

Chris

[Jimprindle]

When I got my Conn 72H in the mid-1960s, it came with a Remington mouthpiece. After a visit with George Roberts I got a Bach 1/2 G stuck it in there and it worked fine. Got me through many professional years as well as college and I couldn’t tell any difference at all. Except that the Bach 1/2 G made me sound like a professional bass trombone player.