6b vs 7b

[hyperbolica]

I know the classic answer is dependent vs indy. BUT. I bought a horn on ebay that clearly looks like a 6b Duo Gravis, but it is described as a "7b Duo Gravis". I don't see any actual engraving or stamping that says 7b (or 6b for that matter). Owner clueless as usual.

Does anyone have any documentation about 7b Duo Gravis?

[Burgerbob]

Early 7B may be marked with duo gravis. Holdover from when all Kings had a name, I believe.

[Matt K]

Could be a repair of a 7B by replacing the 7B bell with a 6B one.

[JohnL]

As I understand it, "6B" is a retronym; King didn't use that term when the DG was first introduced (I'm not sure if they every used it officially). I'm looking at a King price list from 1976 over on saxophone.org:
https://www.saxophone.org/museum/publications/id/676
and it lists the 2-B (1407), 3-B (1403), 4-B (1404), and 5-B (1480) but the DG doesn't have a "-B" designation; it has a name and a number (Duo-Gravis).

I remember reading somewhere that some DG's were identified as 7-B's, though I've never seen that nomenclature used in King sales literature.

Can you date the horn based on serial number?

[hyperbolica]

The serial indicates 1976. It has the shepherds crook F att and the E 2nd tuning slide (with optional D extension). It has Duo Gravis engraved.

[Kingfan]

My 1971 King catalog lists the dependent valve Duo Gravis as a 7B model.

[Kbiggs]

They (obviously) have different valve tubing configurations, and they would need different neckpipes. Is the borein the valves the same size?

Are the bells the same: Made on the same mandrel, same diameter?

What about the leadpipes? The slide width?

[hyperbolica]

My 1971 King catalog lists the dependent valve Duo Gravis as a 7B model.

Ok, it doesn't make sense, but as long as it's official, I'll take it.

[ghmerrill]

My 1971 King catalog lists the dependent valve Duo Gravis as a 7B model.

Ok, it doesn't make sense, but as long as it's official, I'll take it.

Here's a picture of the 1967 "7B Duo Gravis" on the H. N. White site. It appears to be a dependent valve model.

https://www.hnwhite.com/store/product/1 ... ver-plated

[chromebone]

Could be a repair of a 7B by replacing the 7B bell with a 6B one.

The bell flare dimensions are identical. The differences, aside from the valve configuration, are the DG handslide is slightly narrower and longer, (the end crooks are different dimensions), the tuning slides are different (the 7B tuning slide is slightly wider), and they have different leadpipes.

[dbwhitaker]

Here's a picture of the 1967 "7B Duo Gravis" on the H. N. White site.

I don't know the answer to these questions but I'm unconvinced by what is written on the HN White web site. They show a picture of a horn engraved with "Duo Gravis" and then refer to some catalog that says 7B. IMO that does not confirm that this or any horn is a "7B Duo Gravis".

[JohnL]

From the 1973 King trombone catalog:

King_DG_1973.jpg

Which begs the question:

Why did King call the Duo-Gravis/1490/1490S the 7-B? Was there a 6-B in development that never saw the light of day? Perhaps a DG-ish horn but with a single valve?

[Burgerbob]

I love how it also has the 1490 moniker. They have the old number (1490), the name (Duo Gravis), and the new number (7-B) all on one ad copy. Crazy.

[Matt K]

I would expect nothing less than all three designations from the ULTIMATE bass trombone

[hyperbolica]

Ok, so is there really documentation showing a 6B Duo Gravis?

[ghmerrill]

Here's a picture of the 1967 "7B Duo Gravis" on the H. N. White site.

IMO that does not confirm that this or any horn is a "7B Duo Gravis".

Hmmm ..... I think that it, and other documentary evidence, might confirm that -- at least for a while -- H. N. White was employing the designation "Duo Gravis" in a somewhat cavalier (and perhaps marketing-motivated) manner. But if the question is whether a 7B, in its essential and metaphysical being (so to speak) is really, truly a Duo Gravis (and not just nominalistically called one) ... I shall take no stance.

[ghmerrill]

Crazy.

Make the product appeal to the widest possible consumer base. But I guess this means that I can refer to my Schiller 7B clone equally accurately as a Duo Gravis clone.

[JohnL]

I love how it also has the 1490 moniker. They have the old number (1490), the name (Duo Gravis), and the new number (7-B) all on one ad copy. Crazy.

I think the 14xx numbers were King's real model numbers that they used internally and the "-B" designations, along with the names (Liberty, Concert, Sonorous, Duo-Gravis, etc.), were used for marketing.

[dbwhitaker]

I love how it also has the 1490 moniker. They have the old number (1490), the name (Duo Gravis), and the new number (7-B) all on one ad copy. Crazy.

That is truly impressive! My earlier skepticism about the naming was clearly unwarranted. Maybe someday I'll have a horn with three names.

[elmsandr]

I love how it also has the 1490 moniker. They have the old number (1490), the name (Duo Gravis), and the new number (7-B) all on one ad copy. Crazy.

That is truly impressive! My earlier skepticism about the naming was clearly unwarranted. Maybe someday I'll have a horn with three names.

If you use its’ middle name in a stern voice during a practice session it will know that you are serious.

Cheers,
Andy

[chromebone]

My theory is they were going to make a single valve version of the DG that would have been designated 6B and they ended up not bringing it to market when they discovered double valve bass trombones were the future. There was still a large demand for single valve bass trombones when it was introduced in 1967.

[Matt K]

That's a pretty compelling theory. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

[flotrb]

Gentlemen, if I may:


I believe that the Model 1490 is the only one with "Duo Gravis" and no "number" on the bell.

1975 King Duo Gravis 7B Model #1490S Bb-F-D dependent.jpg

1980 King 6B Model #2106 Bb-F-D dependent.jpg

1981 King 7B Model #2107 Bb-F-Gb-D inline.jpg

1985 King 8B Model # 2108 Bb-F-Gb-D inline.jpg

[JohnL]

Well, that certainly settles the question of whether King ever officially used the designation 6-B (or, in this case, 6B), doesn't it?

My theory is they were going to make a single valve version of the DG that would have been designated 6B and they ended up not bringing it to market when they discovered double valve bass trombones were the future. There was still a large demand for single valve bass trombones when it was introduced in 1967.

Sadly, the two people most likely to know about that (George McCracken and Alan Raph) are both gone. I doubt if it was a matter of development cost; a "Uni-Gravis" would have only needed a couple different parts. I suspect it was more of a marketing decision. It's always seemed a bit odd, given that (as you pointed out) singles were still selling quite well at that time. Then again, that was the Seeburg era, so who knows?

[Burgerbob]

Sadly, the two people most likely to know about that (George McCracken and Alan Raph) are both gone. I doubt if it was a matter of development cost; a "Uni-Gravis" would have only needed a couple different parts. I suspect it was more of a marketing decision. It's always seemed a bit odd, given that (as you pointed out) singles were still selling quite well at that time. Then again, that was the Seeburg era, so who knows?

They already had a single, the 1480/1485. That's why the 6B is the 1490. No need to make a single version of the big bass.

[flotrb]

Whoa!
The King 6B is Model #2106 Bb-F-D dependent.

[chromebone]

[/quote]

They already had a single, the 1480/1485. That's why the 6B is the 1490. No need to make a single version of the big bass.
[/quote]

That was a totally different horn: different bell, smaller bore, it wasn’t a true bass trombone.

[chromebone]

Well, that certainly settles the question of whether King ever officially used the designation 6-B (or, in this case, 6B), doesn't it?

My theory is they were going to make a single valve version of the DG that would have been designated 6B and they ended up not bringing it to market when they discovered double valve bass trombones were the future. There was still a large demand for single valve bass trombones when it was introduced in 1967.

Sadly, the two people most likely to know about that (George McCracken and Alan Raph) are both gone. I doubt if it was a matter of development cost; a "Uni-Gravis" would have only needed a couple different parts. I suspect it was more of a marketing decision. It's always seemed a bit odd, given that (as you pointed out) singles were still selling quite well at that time. Then again, that was the Seeburg era, so who knows?

Chuck Ward is still alive and he might know

[Burgerbob]

They already had a single, the 1480/1485. That's why the 6B is the 1490. No need to make a single version of the big bass.


That was a totally different horn: different bell, smaller bore, it wasn’t a true bass trombone.

It was at the time.

[Matt K]

Need is relative here. It's contemporaneous with some fairly legendary single valve basses, like the Mt. Vernon Bach 50B and Elkhart Conn 71H, and the Olds P-22. The 5B is absolutely not a substitute for those, even at the time. Though certainly as late as the 70s it wasn't unreasonable to call it a bass, as little sense as that makes now - in my opinion, it does stand to reason that King probably at least considered a single valve DG.

[hyperbolica]

...

This is the image of the one I bought (to be delivered today).

No *B number, no 14xx number, only the Duo Gravis text. Described as 7B Duo Gravis, with shepherds crook and dependent valves. Just wondering how you'd tell the difference if its not marked. I asked the seller why he used 7B in the description, and got no answer.

[flotrb]

Bart Varsalona played bass trombone for Stan Kenton from 1943 until 1951 on a King 1480 .536" bore,
5B Symphony Bass. George Roberts played bass trombone for Stan Kenton from 1950 to 1953 on a Conn 70H .562" bore.

BASS trombones!

[Burgerbob]

The 1480 is much more of a bass than the later 5B, let's not get them confused... though of course I know the 1480 was also called the 5B, which helps things!

[chromebone]

They already had a single, the 1480/1485. That's why the 6B is the 1490. No need to make a single version of the big bass.


That was a totally different horn: different bell, smaller bore, it wasn’t a true bass trombone.

It was at the time.

And by 1967 it was out of fashion. After Alan Raph switched to the DG, there were no serious professionals playing a .536 “bass” trombone.