New York Bach Mouthpiece - The Missing 16

[manbearscientist]

Little mystery here. This came with a Conn 4H (since sold, I believe it was from 1904). Identifying the time period of the piece shouldn't be too hard; I believe it was from the 30s. But the dimensions are all over the place and it isn't in any old catalogs I've seen.

The Carl Fischer catalog of 1929 lists a 15 and 17, but no 16. A Bach catalog from 1938 lists just the 15.

This seems to be a 'cheater' mouthpiece. If a 12C has a medium cup with a 24.50 mm rim and typically higher numbers having shallow cups or narrower rims, I wouldn't be surprised if this has a very shallow cup and rim as narrow as 24.20 mm. No idea on the throat or back bore. The rim is rounded.

Anyone ever seen one of these, or even seen it in a catalog?

[BGuttman]

I fixed your image cites. You were missing the .JPG extension.

First, a 4H would have to be 1919 or later. Similar models existed before then but did not include the name 4H.

The pictures do not show the 16 model number. Looks like you posted two copies of the same image.

Bach made smaller mouthpieces tha n 17. I know of a 22. It's small, but much bigger than an alto horn or trumpet mouthpiece.

Note that 75 years ago most players used small mouthpieces by today's standards.

[manbearscientist]

I've adjusted one of the images to show the model. My memory is almost certainly off on the 4H, as its been at least 8 years since I had it.

I have seen 17, 18, 19, and 22 (with various letter descriptions). But I've never seen another '16', hence the post.

[baileyman]

Somewhere in a drawer I have a pristine 16, prolly tarnished by now. Where the heck is it? Anyway, if it shows up, I'll prolly offer it up as I'm a confirmed 11C guy.

[Leanit]

Very cool.

[TromboneMonkey]

Hi all,

I wanted to resurrect this old thread because I think this is a unique piece in Bach's line and trying to figure it out gave me a bit better understanding of the small shank Bach pieces. 

As mentioned above: there's no Bach literature (that I can find) that mentions this piece. However 16s show up on eBay from time to time. 

The rim profile is unique; it is wide, has a very strong inner bite but is somewhat (but not extremely) rounded toward the outside; this is compared to several other Bach pieces from this time period which are much more even and narrower; see photos (16 is on far right).

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/24apslxx ... x8n1t&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x7q5v12l ... 5thyd&dl=0

I've seen/owned some Bach "W" mouthpieces and "SC" mouthpieces both of which have cushion rims. The 16 rim is not that. The cushion rims are much more rounded on the outside edge. Unfortunately I don't have any right now to compare directly, but here's a close up of the 16 rim and here are links to other Bach cushion rims to show differences.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wx6cl1ec ... irci9&dl=0

https://rvb-img.reverb.com/image/upload ... cqwqlr.jpg

https://static.mercdn.net/item/detail/o ... 1643202337

I agree with the OP; this piece has a very small diameter, although not significantly smaller than a 12c when measured by my highly-clinical quarter testing. It is smaller than a 7c/11c, see photo. However I disagree with it being very shallow. It is demonstrably deeper than it's neighbors the 15c and 17c; I also have a 12c and 7cthat are shallower, and an 11c which is the same depth see photo.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/36gw11c5 ... e9za2&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rofwysxz ... wh9kl&dl=0

I measured it's volume (with a graduated cylinder) as greater than the 15c, 17c, and 12c too. Smaller than a 7c or 11c though. I think this is due to it's unique cup shape which I'll discuss below.

It's worth noting that very small mouthpieces were popular in the New York era; Bach describes the 15c and 22sc on their list of most popular mouthpieces here:

https://bachloyalist.com/wp-content/upl ... _page2.jpg

The16's throat is also distinct. As far as I can tell it has not been altered. However, I learned it has a .236 throat and a unique reamer which is not the same as other Bach small shanks. I learned this from James New who copied this piece for me and made screw rims for it. Shout out to James New for his work here: not only do I like the copies as much as the original; the work is so well done I can't physically see the screw rim when glancing at the mouthpiece, or feel it with my finger, see photo. He also made a delrin rim for it for me with equally good, tight tolerances. Amazing work.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kmconosj ... q0g87&dl=0

Another shout out to Ken Titmus for making an ebonite rim for it, see photo. I prefer the Delrin but both Jim and Ken are ridiculously easy to work with and do outstanding work.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t1hchnj0 ... z07ed&dl=0

Anyway what really makes me think this is a unique piece in the Bach line is the cup shape. 
According to Dave Harrison and others with scans to prove it, there is not a large difference between the 7c, 11c, and 6 3/4c in terms of cup shape; the major difference is the rim shape. 

https://wedgemouthpiece.com/100c-gen2-p ... outhpiece/

I've also found similarly-aged 12c and 15c pieces' cup shapes to be remarkably similar, and want to retract some of the belligerent complaints I've previously made about Bach consistency because later models are also similar (at least in terms of cup shape profile), as are other companies' versions. See photos.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n8vsmo4c ... 8hr4l&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bhzh4hgh ... ygvgq&dl=0

The 17c is another animal however. It's VERY bowl shaped. I have two of them, different ages. They are consistent, see photo. They play weird.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2dvpxooj ... smqgn&dl=0

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of Bach "no letter" mouthpieces to compare against the 16, but I do have an old old old 7 with a very voluminous cup, see photo.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a3fmwygv ... l2ob6&dl=0

However, the 16 cup shape is NOT the same as any of these pieces, and is so unique that as I said I think it was an attempt to fill a whole different place in the lineup. The cup wall descends almost vertically then has a noticeable shoulder and is almost a straight funnel to the throat. See photo.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8x3qtuc3 ... skv9o&dl=0

There are other mouthpieces which are similar. My Warburton M cup is the closest, but a bit shallower; Doug's cups have similarities as well. The Giddings Almont is a bit different but preserves that funnel aspect. See photo.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ez85vij8 ... urwt4&dl=0

My hypothesis is the 16 was Bach's attempt to produce something consistent with Almont or Giardinelli at the time; The rim is not dissimilar from a Giardinelli W rim or the Almont rim, and the cup profiles are similar. Makes me really want to try the Greg Black NY Legend pieces!! I think that players who can tolerate smaller mouthpieces and who enjoy mouthpieces like the Warburton or Giardinelli M cups or Doug's cups might like this piece. 

I play this piece most of the time now. Rather, I play the New copy with the delrin rim most of the time. I do a lot of three horn section live work and I need a ton of endurance and something that blends well with high trumpet and screaming tenor saxophone. That said, I do not consider the 16 a screamer. It's nothing like a 15ew in character, feel, or sound. It's also not like a Warburton S cup, Rosolino/Steinmeyer, or Curry S cup. The 16 is not as shallow, and is clear but not shrill or edgy. And in spite of its rather angular cup shape, the sound has body and is somewhat malleable. It speaks very fast. The Warburton with a similar cup is also one of my favorite mouthpieces, and I have always loved Doug's stuff too. Perhaps I just like this cup shape?  

Anyway I love going on deep dives like this because I feel like they give me some insight into the history of brass making. 

[TromboneMonkey]

I decided to get more clinical with my testing.

I had Vennture measure my Jim New copy of my 16 (because I didn't want to put my original 16 in the mail...); and also my MV 15c. Vennture already had a 15ew, Schilke 42b, Giardinelli 6d, and Bach 17c on file.

My silly putty testing was more-or less correct. The 16 is remarkably similar to a Giardinelli 6D cup profile, which is itself almost identical to a Schilke 42b or Yamaha 42b. Comparisons below.

The Giardinelli and Bach 16 rims are wide, but not nearly as wide as the "cushion' rim that the 15EW has. The Bach 16 rim is the sharpest of the bunch in terms of inner rim bite. The 42b rims are narrower, but the 42bs and the 6d cups are nearly identical. The Bach 16 cup is slightly wider at the top and slightly more c-shaped at the bottom.

The Bach 16 cup is wildly different from the 15c or 17c, its theoretical neighbors. As I'd mentioned before, the 17c is very bowl-shaped.

Comparison images below:

Bach 16 (White) vs. Giardinelli 6d (Red) vs. Shilke 42b (Green): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hd2kbzus ... 149hc&dl=0

Bach 16 (White) vs. Yamaha 42b (Red) vs. Shilke 42b (Green): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ar6i1ap0 ... aiqnn&dl=0

Bach 16 (White) vs. Bach 15EW (Green) vs. Bach 15c (Red): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ij93g26j ... 4pjd3&dl=0

Bach 16 (White) vs. Bach 17c (Green) vs. Bach 15c (Red): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j5rubaz4 ... djfkv&dl=0


Vennture also gave me a list of parameters. Unsurprisingly, the Bach 16 has the smallest tangent diameter (i.e. the high point is the most toward the middle of all of the rims), and the LOWEST alpha angle (meaning it drops more abruptly down into the cup compared to the other mouthpieces).

But perhaps more interestingly the backbore is convex on the Bach (and, on other Bach mouthpieces), where it's a linear taper on the Schilke, Yamaha, and Giardinelli mouthpieces. The difference is subtle, but observable, see here:

Bach 16 (White) vs. Giardinelli 6d (Green) vs. Bach 11c (Red): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h5rh9n85 ... j15ed&dl=0

The Bach shanks are also shorter (quite significantly shorter) than the Giardinelli and Schilke/Yamaha shanks. It's hard to tell how much this matters though, because the tapers are the same and the protrusion from the instrument (I measured myself) is less than .1 inch between the Bach and Schilke/Yamaha mouthpieces.


The other thing, which I'm having trouble measuring clearly, is the length of the cylindrical section of the throat. Based on the diagrams I got from Vennture, it seems the Giardinelli is the longest (.544"), the Bach 16 is in the middle (.342"), and the Yamaha and Schilke are the shortest (.232 and .042, respectively), but Bach throats are all over the place (I have a 7c which measures >.6" cylindrical throat length).

Why does all of this matter? The Bach 16 is definitely the punchiest mouthpiece I own. In 3-horn section work. It is by far the easiest on which to blend with high trumpet and punchy saxophone, and on which to cut if I'm doing a solo over amplified instruments. It's not close. It seems like as subtle the differences are between these cups it wouldn't be that different from the 42bs or a 6d, but it is.


I wonder if the throat cylindrical length, or the top of the cup being slightly wider (lower alpha angle), or the sharper rim/narrower high point of the rim are the determining factors in attaining the sound I want? I feel like more data points will only muddy the waters, but this kind of thing is very interesting to me. FWIW, Vennture measures the cup diameter of each to be approximately .954 or .955, a negligible difference.