MV 6 1/2AL?

[Bach5G]

Were there Mount Vernon 6 1/2 AL mouthpieces?

[OneTon]

Yes. There is one Reverb though I can’t tell if it is large or small shank. Quinn has a Faxx large shank that is a better value.

[Matt K]

The original, original 6.5 sized pieces were the Clarke series, so you might also look for those. Or the various copies. Shires has a good 6.5AL copy (both large & small shank). Brassark has one via Bob Reeves(?) iirc but I don't know if they still have those since he passed.

[MrHCinDE]

I have an MV 6.5A, I believe it has a shallower cup than the 6.5AL, it plays more like a supersized 11C than a 6.5AL in my opinion.

How does that compare to the Clarke series?

[Matt K]

I have an MV 6.5A, I believe it has a shallower cup than the 6.5AL, it plays more like a supersized 11C than a 6.5AL in my opinion.

How does that compare to the Clarke series?

Some reading on the original Clarke mouthpieces from the archives:

https://www.trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?t=1565

I thought there was more but it actually looks like it hasn't been talked about as much on TBC. The archives are incomplete for TBF but I feel like there were some lengthy threads there about them.

Unfortunately, I don't know very much about the size. I like cup/shanks of roughly the 6.5AL size, but I've never owned a Mt. Vernon or a Clarke.

[MrHCinDE]

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.

Mine is a small shank and from what I could read in that thread they are really quite different to the small shank 6.5AL.

[Burgerbob]

Yup, I have one.

[OneTon]

Faxx mouthpieces are said to be copies of an original though not complete Mount Vernon proof set that were given to a man when the shop moved from Mount Vernon. They are manufactured in Germany and double plated.

[Vegasbound]

Sam Burtis was the voice on the Clarke pieces on the old TTF, he used to buy any that came up for sale.

To the OP , you didn’t say why you asked if the MT Vernon pieces existed?

[Posaunus]

As I recall, there were some very lengthy discussions on the Trombone Forum about this topic, with frequent contributions by Sam Burtis.
My aging memory is fuzzy, but I believe the origin of the 6½AL was a Clarke small-shank mouthpiece with a throat much larger than Bach's standard 5.85mm (0.230") and a different backbore. Translating the piece to large-shank but retaining the backbore is probably responsible for the very thick shank wall (unchamfered) at the tip of the large-shank pieces. I always thought that such a step change in the air path diameter was awkward.

[Rusty]

I have a MV 6.5a and a Brassark Clarke 6.5. The Clarke feels almost more like a 5 sized rim and it’s pretty deep and open, great sound, although slightly different to the MV pieces I’ve got (11c, 12). These are definitely still available through Noah at Brassark. I prefer the tighter throat and more efficient blow of the MV 6.5a.

[Matt K]

Once you get to the 6.5AL era, the reason the large shank version exists in its unusual form is because the “L” specified a certain backbore shape that is used on both large and small. As such, the “L” makes the small shank larger and the large shank smaller (and with unusually thick walls at the exit). I’m unsure if the large shank Clarke has the same or similar dimensions. I actually kind of like the large shank and it has only been supplanted by Doug’s new E shanks. I still have a shires 6.5AL in small and large shank, threaded for my XT rims, but I haven’t used them since I got those new shanks

[Posaunus]

I have an MV 6.5A, I believe it has a shallower cup than the 6.5AL, it plays more like a supersized 11C than a 6.5AL in my opinion.

How does that compare to the Clarke series?

In spite of their similar nomenclature, the small-shank 6½A and large-shank 6½A are completely different animals.

The large-shank Bach 6½A is, I believe, the same rim & cup as the large-shank 6½AL but with the slightly larger throat (7.00mm vs 6.63mm) that Bach uses on their bass trombone mouthpieces and their # 429 bass trombone backbore.

Don't know why they gave it the same name but the small-shank Bach 6½A has a much smaller throat and backbore than the small-shank 6½AL (5.85mm throat, # 402 backbore - typical of all most of their small-shank mouthpieces). Rim is apparently the same for both 6½A and 6½AL, but I'm guessing that the 6½A Cup may be a bit shallower than the 6½AL (as MrHCinDE notes).

[To further confuse things, there are also small-shank and large-shank 6½AM pieces, described by Bach as "Symphonic model; same Cup & Rim as No. 6½A, but with "symphonic 'F' throat (6.53mm) and #413 backbore." Pretty darn close to the 6½AL! ]

[Matt K]

In spite of their similar nomenclature, the small-shank 6½A and large-shank 6½A are completely different animals.

The large-shank Bach 6½A is, I believe, the same rim & cup as the large-shank 6½AL but with the slightly larger throat (7.00mm vs 6.63mm) that Bach uses on their bass trombone mouthpieces and their # 429 bass trombone backbone.

Don't know why they gave it the same name but the small-shank Bach 6½A has a much smaller throat and backbore than the small-shank 6½AL (5.85mm throat, # 402 backbore - typical of all most of their small-shank mouthpieces). Rim is apparently the same for both 6½A and 6½AL, but I'm guessing that the 6½A Cup may be a bit shallower than the 6½AL (as MrHCinDE notes).

The reason is as I described above unless I'm misunderstanding your point. The 6.5A in large shank and 6.5A in small shank have differences in their throat & backbone for... reasons... but are specified in the catalogue (see below) 7and the "L" specifies a specific size regardless of it being large or small shank. As is common with Bach, there is not necessarily a common pattern for something being the "same" or "different" between the two. It does seem that the default is for there to be backbore differences and for the exceptions to be pointed out in the catalogue such as with the 5G which specifies:

Same as No. 350-5 except for .276” throat and #429 backbore
(same as No. 341-5G but with small shank)

Then they give description like this for the large shank 6.5A:

Same rim and cup as No6 1⁄2A small shank tenor trombone, but with full bass trombone throat and backbore for a rich, compact sound of large volume

Although their definition of a "full bass throat" is .276 apparently.

Interestingly enough, we can walk backwards to get at some of the small shank specs they dont' provide due to the 6.5AM large shank which states:

The same rim, cup, throat, and backbore as No.6 1⁄2AM
deep well rounded. “F” small shank tenor trombone mouthpiece, but with bass shank.

Thoat/Backbore = .257 ("F") and 413 throat. Therefore... the small shank 6.5AM is also the same. Therefore the 6.5AM small shank also has the .257 and 413 throat.

Symphonic model tenor trombone mouthpiece features the same
deep well rounded. cup and rim as No.6 1⁄2A, but with symphonic “F” throat and
#413 backbore.

Clear as mud right?

[Bach5G]

Maybe I’ll just order a SS Faxx 6 and a 1/2 and be done with it.

[Matt K]

That's definitely easier than finding a Mt. Vernon 6.5AL (and probably $300 cheaper).

[OneTon]

Faxx mouthpieces are bang on when compared to the Mount Vernon proof set they came from. In 30 years of playing Schilke 47 mouthpieces, I only found one that was slightly different from all of the rest. My mind of course told me it was better but the difference was very, very small. I got it out of the box at a rehearsal. I don’t remember why or what we were playing. I let that mouthpiece slip back into the herd and now I don’t know if I could identify it or not.

Faxx has the same mindset as Schilke.

For what it is worth, I now play a Mount Vernon 11C. If it disappeared or were to be damaged, I might go back to a Bach 11C. 11C was not in the Mount Vernon proof set. Faxx doesn’t make an 11C. Antique Mount Vernon 11Cs are all over the map. Bach 11Cs are pretty close, better on consistency, available, and reasonably priced.

[paulyg]

I have 2 MV 6.5ALs. Both are small shank, but one is the earlier shorter blank and one is the later longer blank (I think that's how that works?). The rims are very different between the two, possibly due to modifications by previous owners. The longer piece feels a lot like my modern large shank 6.5AL, but it does feel a bit denser. I personally feel that the unique qualities ascribed to the MV pieces by lots of folks have a lot to do with narrower throats and shallower cups on the same "spec" piece, because this one certainly has that relationship to my modern 6.5ALs.

[jacobgarchik]

Are people referring here to 30s Bach Clarke or 30s Conn Clarke?

[Matt K]

Bach. Or at least I was referring to Bach

[jacobgarchik]

Is that what they used to make copies of?

[Burgerbob]

My MV has a bit smaller rim than my others, but a larger throat. It has a really massive high register. If I could play that rim size I would still be using it.

[Matt K]

Is that what they used to make copies of?

Yep! That was the original piece and all the Bach and similar are “copies” or “clones” to varying degrees of success or copies of copies of copies etc.

[jacobgarchik]

Sorry, I meant, "Did the modern manufacturers offering products described as 'Clarke' base their models on Conn Clarke or on Bach Clarke?"

[Rusty]

Sorry, I meant, "Did the modern manufacturers offering products described as 'Clarke' base their models on Conn Clarke or on Bach Clarke?"

The Brassark/Reeves Clarke piece is definitely based on a Bach Clarke.