TromboneChat

I was listening to a K Winding album (1961) and got to wondering what size of mpc players such as Studd, Faulise and Raph would have used.

Alan Raph once showed me his 1 1/2G. Never meet Studd or Faulise but I believe they used similar.

Both used a 11/2 g. Don’t know if Tony had anything done to his, but Paul did. I’m not sure if it’s in print what he did to his. I know, because he had me do the same thing to mine.

Fridge

Thanks. Interesting.

Basically, everyone used a 11/2 in NY. Including Dave Taylor. George Flynn still does. Nobody used a bigger piece for decades. Smaller equipment gives a bigger sound on tape.

Fridge

So what did Paul have you do to your 1 1/2 G?

Fridge wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 7:20 pm Both used a 11/2 g. Don’t know if Tony had anything done to his, but Paul did. I’m not sure if it’s in print what he did to his. I know, because he had me do the same thing to mine.

Fridge

Fairlane57 wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 9:45 pm So what did Paul have you do to your 1 1/2 G?

Fridge wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 7:20 pm Both used a 11/2 g. Don’t know if Tony had anything done to his, but Paul did. I’m not sure if it’s in print what he did to his. I know, because he had me do the same thing to mine.

Fridge

My understanding is that Paul had the throat drilled out 1 drill size up and his piece sits down further into the lead pipe. Definitely works for him.

WGWTR180 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 7:58 am

Fairlane57 wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 9:45 pm So what did Paul have you do to your 1 1/2 G?

My understanding is that Paul had the throat drilled out 1 drill size up and his piece sits down further into the lead pipe. Definitely works for him.

As I'm sure you know Bill, drilling Bachs is dancing with the devil .... I've come across so many that have been wrecked . I have a theory but I'll sit on that. As for how far one sits in the pipe, again a problematic thing... with lockdown I have had the time to make a friction fit sleeve for my MV shank which had been ground slightly undersize. I have been able to try it with and without and my MV works better with the sleeve that makes it closer to Bach's specs.... but that's just my mouthpiece.

Chris

The other question is, if these mouthpieces were/are going in 62H's, did/do they have Conn taper shanks or not?

WGWTR180 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 7:58 am

Fairlane57 wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 9:45 pm So what did Paul have you do to your 1 1/2 G?

My understanding is that Paul had the throat drilled out 1 drill size up and his piece sits down further into the lead pipe. Definitely works for him.

Bill... That is interesting. The 1 1/2G I used for years had the throat enlarged one drill size up with no change to the shank and I used a Minick commercial pipe.
Thanks, Bob

I understand Ray Premru's MV 2G was also opened up a little. Greg Black's copy has a .281 inch throat. I believe .277 is and was the factory spec for both the 2G and 1-1/2G.

What worries me about the progress of this thread is that more irreplaceable MV Bach mouthpieces will be destroyed in the search for the ultimate mouthpiece. I have never played a Bach 2G or 1 1/2G with an opened throat that worked and I have tried a heck of a lot of them. If it has worked for a few people, they are very, very lucky.

Chris

You`re asking about players coming from a time when the Bach 1 1/2G was THE Bass trombone because it was just about the only thing out there.

FOSSIL wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 8:52 am

WGWTR180 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 7:58 am

My understanding is that Paul had the throat drilled out 1 drill size up and his piece sits down further into the lead pipe. Definitely works for him.

As I'm sure you know Bill, drilling Bachs is dancing with the devil .... I've come across so many that have been wrecked . I have a theory but I'll sit on that. As for how far one sits in the pipe, again a problematic thing... with lockdown I have had the time to make a friction fit sleeve for my MV shank which had been ground slightly undersize. I have been able to try it with and without and my MV works better with the sleeve that makes it closer to Bach's specs.... but that's just my mouthpiece.

Chris

Absolutely Chris! Many have been wrecked for sure. I would never advocate doing this to a MV OR another piece that's very close to what you want. One drill size will surely ruin it.

Doug Elliott wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 9:13 am The other question is, if these mouthpieces were/are going in 62H's, did/do they have Conn taper shanks or not?

Doug speaking from what I know about Paul Faulise's piece NO it did not have a Remington shank. But I also believe that Paul's instruments eventually had Minick pipes. But even so his shank was shaved down to fit in a bit more so if he had a Conn pipe maybe it was shaved to that shape?? All I know id whatever Paul used it worked.

Doug Elliott wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 9:13 am The other question is, if these mouthpieces were/are going in 62H's, did/do they have Conn taper shanks or not?

I don't know about back then but here and now in the UK lots of people use Bach tapers in old Conns without seeming difficulty. The Symington 1.5 has a Conn style shank as it is a copy of an early B&S shanked 1 1/2G that I had.... in the copying process the CNC company messed up the throat a bit and 'tidied' it, opening up the bore and ruining the mouthpiece...not even a drill size up, but enough. Stuff happens and it was nothing to do with Bill.
Even with the 'correct ' shank for the Conn, I prefer one of my other MVs.... I think the shank thing can be given too much importance, though a B&S taper mouthpiece in a morse pipe can be a bad thing.

Chris

Admittedly, i have not seen extremly many Mount Vernon bass pieces, but i have owned two and have examined a couple more and have played and owned a couple of copies.. None of them had the specs from the catalogue and all of them are bigger in the throat... My theory are that they came that way from the factory. Tweaked and/or finetuned after a special formula maybe?..

GabeLangfur wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 10:08 am I understand Ray Premru's MV 2G was also opened up a little. Greg Black's copy has a .281 inch throat. I believe .277 is and was the factory spec for both the 2G and 1-1/2G.

My (decidedly not MV) "VINCENT BACH CORP. 2G" mouthpiece throat measures 0.272"/6.91mm (smaller than the spec of 0.276"/7.00mm).

My "VINCENT BACH 1½G" mouthpiece throat measures 0.272"/7.04mm (very close to spec of 0.276"/7.00mm).

Both have Cup I.D's a little larger (the way I measure them) than specified. All that is to support the general assertions that Bach's mouthpieces are rather inconsistent!

Tbarh wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am Admittedly, i have not seen extremly many Mount Vernon bass pieces, but i have owned two and have examined a couple more and have played and owned a couple of copies.. None of them had the specs from the catalogue and all of them are bigger in the throat... My theory are that they came that way from the factory. Tweaked and/or finetuned after a special formula maybe?..

I have 3 MV 1 and 1/2G pieces. None of them are bigger in the throat than other Corp era ones that I own. I have owned and sold 2 others with smaller inner rim diameters that were just too small for me. Throats on those were not larger. Bach mouthpieces, especially the 1 and 1/2G, varied greatly with inner rim measurements and cup size measurements. If you have one from the beginning of a run of pieces with brand new tooling you'd get one on the bigger side-as the run continued and "blades" were not changed often enough you'd get one on the smaller side. I believe that the "MV sound" so to speak is partly due to the throat and back bore sizing. Once one starts opening things up it might blow better for a player but the sound will change. I'm even more amazed that a player like Paul Faulise gets the rich, beautiful, sound that he does with an altered piece. I'm sure it's a combination of "the sound in his head" and the instruments he's chosen to play. The only time I ever sat beside him and heard him play I was blown away. So impressed with the presence of his sound both around us and within the ensemble.

If my memory serves me, Paul's mouthpiece was not a Mt Vernon. I think there was a stamp on the shank with a number having something to do with it fitting further into the pipe. The rest about it being one drill size larger sound correct. Gold Plated. Last time I saw Alan Raph, he was playing a Benge !&1/2G on his silver duo gravis.

Yes, Don is correct. It was not a Mt Vernon. Post Mt Vernon. Same mouthpiece forever. The thing set on the leadpipe just like George Roberts. And gold plated.

Eddie Clark

Yes I didn't mean to insinuate that Paul's mouthpiece was a Mt Vernon.

Fridge wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 7:54 pm Basically, everyone used a 11/2 in NY. Including Dave Taylor. George Flynn still does. Nobody used a bigger piece for decades. Smaller equipment gives a bigger sound on tape.

Fridge

Actually, they sound 'Bigger' in reality as well.

Bigness is such a stupid word really ..... core.... center.....focus what ever you like...... equals more overtones.

The thing is, you're gonna have to work at!!! it i.e. practice..... which most people just can't be arsed to do anymore in our world of instant results. Life just ain't like that!

Hence, we have the big world of the bland flabby foghorns we hear prevailing today.

Feel free to ignore this like everything else that doesn't chime with current fashions..... but it's true


Keep safe

BellEnd

Yes! I wholeheartedly agree. I studied with Paul. His sound was incredibly focused and big on his poor little 11/2 g.
And projected like mad. He always talked about his sound as a color in his mind. I can’t tell you what it was, it was a visual. But I know it when I see it as the sun sets.

Fridge

I know Ralph played on a 1 1/2G. Not sure about Studd, Faulise, Hixon, et al. When I first studied bass bone, with a local teacher, he was positively scary on a Fuchs model Conn with a 2G. That mouthpiece wouldn't work for me, so we went to a 1 1/2G - again no go.

In college, Tom Streeter was one of my teachers (Airmen of Note bass bone). He played a custom piece sort of like a Schilkie 59. His teacher, Lewis Van Haney (later my teacher) thought that was too big for himself (Haney played a 1 1/2G and sometimes a 1 1/4G). Streeter and Haney had me play on a 1 1/4G with tolerable results. In Grad school, Jack Robinson at UNC switched me to a Yaxley 1 (between a Schilkie 59 and 60). I tried a Schilkie 60 but didn't like how it centered.

While being a full time pro in the Nashville studio scene, I switched to an early version of the Bach 1G. I got the sound and response I wanted and stuck with it until the middle 2000s. Haney visited me and said that was too big for him, but he really liked how I sounded on it. I was also fortunate enough to spend some time in the 70s and early 80s hanging out with George Roberts. He said the same thing as Haney.

Over time my chops, playing needs, etc, have changed again, and now I am playing a Marcinkiewicz 105. I feel like I have needed the larger sizes to facilitate the low end sound I want to get, but will admit, you can over do it on size. I have several pieces larger than the 105 and while they have certain things about how they work I like, they are very limiting.

I have always played euphonium on a Wick 4AM and had no issues. On my 88H I play a 5G size piece. On my jazz tenor I play a modified 11C. On tuba I play something similar to the large Conn Helleburg. I've been playing all these for many years - maybe that's why I had specific bigger-than-many bass bone mouthpieces.

Here is what I gleaned from all of this: PLAY WHAT WORKS FOR YOU! There is no perfect piece that gives you everything. Don't aim for humongous, and don't aim for small...aim for functionality. If you need several pieces for your horn to achieve the desired effects the situation requires, that's OK, too!

2 things to remember: 1) many of the great things we heard from our heroes were done in the studio. The sound and flexibility they have on a recording isn't always the same in person. Not to take away from the greats, but the acoustic setup just isn't the same so it will sound different, and require even our heroes to adjust for the playing conditions. (2) The second thing to remember is that much of our contemporary performance is way louder than our heroes played in. Sound envelopes have changed greatly as electronics have become so pervasive, and arrangers who have little or no concept of how our instrument works become popular. All these changes have forced changes in our sound and playing to accommodate them.

If you get to perform in an ensemble that glorifies the acoustic sounds our instruments, count yourself lucky! It's getting fewer and further apart between these kinds of performances.

Posaunus wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 1:17 pm

GabeLangfur wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 10:08 am I understand Ray Premru's MV 2G was also opened up a little. Greg Black's copy has a .281 inch throat. I believe .277 is and was the factory spec for both the 2G and 1-1/2G.

My (decidedly not MV) "VINCENT BACH CORP. 2G" mouthpiece throat measures 0.272"/6.91mm (smaller than the spec of 0.276"/7.00mm).

My "VINCENT BACH 1½G" mouthpiece throat measures 0.272"/7.04mm (very close to spec of 0.276"/7.00mm).

Both have Cup I.D's a little larger (the way I measure them) than specified. All that is to support the general assertions that Bach's mouthpieces are rather inconsistent!

Two thoughts as somebody who has often taken metal and poked holes in it for a living... 0.004" on a drilled hole is likely within specifications. Take a piece of paper cut it in half (the thickness of it) and line the bore with it... 0.004 is not much and to be expected with the precision of equipment most mouthpieces are probably still made on. The fact that so many are better than that is rather impressive in the grand scheme of machining accuracy.

Secondly (and probably more importantly), measured with what? A pin gage? A telescoping bore gage? Ball bearing? How does this compare to what they used at the factory? That 0.276" in the chart probably only compares to the set of pin gages they have on their floor. That is, I would not bet a coffee on what they say 0.276" is compared to what a dimensional layout company would say it is... but this isn't going to the moon, it isn't even going on a car... Is the hole on this one in the same range as the ones we sold yesterday with this label is the closest we come to a requirement.

While I have seen some variation in the shape profiles of some of the earliest Bach pieces (made with single tools or profile tooling), I'm actually rather pleased with the dimensional stability of their designs over now almost 100 years of production. I attribute some of our complaints about the current pieces to the companies desire to copy what V. Bach TOLD them to copy when he sold the company. His choice at the time in the early 60's may not have perfect.

Suddenly feeling the need to buy a precision pin, ball, and disc set to gage all of my mouthpieces,
Andy

elmsandr wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 1:47 pm ...

Suddenly feeling the need to buy a precision pin, ball, and disc set to gage all of my mouthpieces,
Andy

Remember, you actually need 2 Plus and Minus. 0.0002" above or below target.

Bach reported the diameters based on the drill size used to make the hole. Look up F, G, and H drills. I was under the impression that the G designation was the drill size rather than a cup depth.

Posaunus wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 1:17 pm

GabeLangfur wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 10:08 am I understand Ray Premru's MV 2G was also opened up a little. Greg Black's copy has a .281 inch throat. I believe .277 is and was the factory spec for both the 2G and 1-1/2G.

My (decidedly not MV) "VINCENT BACH CORP. 2G" mouthpiece throat measures 0.272"/6.91mm (smaller than the spec of 0.276"/7.00mm).

My "VINCENT BACH 1½G" mouthpiece throat measures 0.272"/7.04mm (very close to spec of 0.276"/7.00mm).

Both have Cup I.D's a little larger (the way I measure them) than specified. All that is to support the general assertions that Bach's mouthpieces are rather inconsistent!

OOPS. Typo here – my Bach 1½G throat actually measures 0.277" – within tolerance (say ±0.003") of the published Bach spec of 0.276". The Bach 2G throat is small enough (0.272") to be, in my mind, barely out of tolerance relative to the 0.276" spec. But still within reason; I doubt that deviation much affects the playability of the 2G.

Note:
I use a set of precision drill bits to measure throat diameters (using the cylindrical shank, not the cutting spiral portion).

Drill |Drill Diameter
Size | (inch)
A ......0.234
B ......0.238
C ......0.242
D ......0.246
E ......0.250
F ......0.257
G ......0.261
H ......0.266
I ......0.272
J ......0.277
K ......0.281
L ......0.290
M ......0.295
N ......0.302
O ......0.316

This is supposedly a copy of Ray Premru's 2G and if the specs are correct? it would meanthe throat had been taken out to a K drill S

FOSSIL wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 11:49 am

Doug Elliott wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 9:13 am The other question is, if these mouthpieces were/are going in 62H's, did/do they have Conn taper shanks or not?

I don't know about back then but here and now in the UK lots of people use Bach tapers in old Conns without seeming difficulty. The Symington 1.5 has a Conn style shank as it is a copy of an early B&S shanked 1 1/2G that I had.... in the copying process the CNC company messed up the throat a bit and 'tidied' it, opening up the bore and ruining the mouthpiece...not even a drill size up, but enough. Stuff happens and it was nothing to do with Bill.
Even with the 'correct ' shank for the Conn, I prefer one of my other MVs.... I think the shank thing can be given too much importance, though a B&S taper mouthpiece in a morse pipe can be a bad thing.

Chris

This is interesting. I recently bought a DW 0AL Heritage mouthpiece. Before I bought it I asked the retailer if it was available with a Remington shank to fit my 72H. They wrote directly to Denis Wick. They forwarded his reply to me in which he said it would fit my 72H as is.
I just don't like the mouthpiece going in as far as it does and the little wobble it has so I use a single wrap of masking tape on the shank.

Bellend your post above makes some sense with what others have done. I believe that the original bore size was .276(.277) so opening up 1 drill size would fall in line with what Paul Faulise did to his Corp Era 1 and 1/2G. But .281 is about as large as I'd want to go. I've played ones bored out to .290 and the 1 and 1/2GM is a whopping .319. Playable but it the sound starts to become different.

What does opening up a mouthpiece a little (1 or 2 drill sizes) facilitate?

Answer to the above question. More air. In the olden days.......the horns were much tighter. Especially the valves. That’s what a lot of players did then, me included. Now, horns, and especially valves, are much more open. For me, a regular or slightly more open throat gives me compression. A lot of players of a certain age....ahem..use the this for soft playing and articulations. For me, that’s also why I use regular rotors.

Eddie Clark

Fridge wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 11:03 am Answer to the above question. More air. In the olden days.......the horns were much tighter. Especially the valves. That’s what a lot of players did then, me included. Now, horns, and especially valves, are much more open. For me, a regular or slightly more open throat gives me compression. A lot of players of a certain age....ahem..use the this for soft playing and articulations. For me, that’s also why I use regular rotors.

Eddie Clark

Thanks Eddie! After reading this thread I opened a 1 1/2G up to .281. I'll live with it for awhile and see if it works for me. I'm using it in a 72H.

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 5:25 am

Fridge wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 11:03 am Answer to the above question. More air. In the olden days.......the horns were much tighter. Especially the valves. That’s what a lot of players did then, me included. Now, horns, and especially valves, are much more open. For me, a regular or slightly more open throat gives me compression. A lot of players of a certain age....ahem..use the this for soft playing and articulations. For me, that’s also why I use regular rotors.

Eddie Clark

Thanks Eddie! After reading this thread I opened a 1 1/2G up to .281. I'll live with it for awhile and see if it works for me. I'm using it in a 72H.

Did it feel better after the change ?

FOSSIL wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 5:30 am

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 5:25 am

Thanks Eddie! After reading this thread I opened a 1 1/2G up to .281. I'll live with it for awhile and see if it works for me. I'm using it in a 72H.

Did it feel better after the change ?

Yes, it seemed to. Trigger range and pedals seem to articulate and speak easier. But that might just be a "honeymoon phase". I'll live with for a couple of weeks and see how it goes. I'm not as as accomplished as many are here, so not sure if my observations and opinions are valid.

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 5:25 am

Fridge wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 11:03 am Answer to the above question. More air. In the olden days.......the horns were much tighter. Especially the valves. That’s what a lot of players did then, me included. Now, horns, and especially valves, are much more open. For me, a regular or slightly more open throat gives me compression. A lot of players of a certain age....ahem..use the this for soft playing and articulations. For me, that’s also why I use regular rotors.

Eddie Clark

Thanks Eddie! After reading this thread I opened a 1 1/2G up to .281. I'll live with it for awhile and see if it works for me. I'm using it in a 72H.

How did you do this? Black and Decker??

WGWTR180 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 6:18 am

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 5:25 am

Thanks Eddie! After reading this thread I opened a 1 1/2G up to .281. I'll live with it for awhile and see if it works for me. I'm using it in a 72H.

How did you do this? Black and Decker??

First I put a .277 bit through. Followed with a .281. Then I glued a piece of 220 grit to a tapered dowel (actually a sharpened wooden pencil) and eased the tool marks the bit left at the top of the throat. Followed that with 500 grit. And finally 1000 grit.

Guys literally "eyeballed" it years ago with a Black and Decker drill. LOL!!

WGWTR180 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 7:57 am Guys literally "eyeballed" it years ago with a Black and Decker drill. LOL!!

Maybe that's why so many were trashed!
The way I did it I knew it would be straight through and round. The finishing with abrasive paper was to eliminate any sharp edges the might create turbulence and affect the response adversely.

WGWTR180 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 7:57 am Guys literally "eyeballed" it years ago with a Black and Decker drill. LOL!!

The drilling out of mouthpieces was common "in the day", and there's even a paragraph in an old VB catalogue explaining something to the effect that there's a standard throat and that professionals are going to have the throats and backbores adapted anyway. I remember a few 2B players with a 11C's bored out to .250" with a reamed back bore, and Conn 5/6H's with a 12C drilled the same. "Mick" at Rosehill Music (UK) was the guy that was good at that job, being a trombonist himself.

Pre59 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 10:11 am

WGWTR180 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 7:57 am Guys literally "eyeballed" it years ago with a Black and Decker drill. LOL!!

The drilling out of mouthpieces was common "in the day", and there's even a paragraph in an old VB catalogue explaining something to the effect that there's a standard throat and that professionals are going to have the throats and backbores adapted anyway. I remember a few 2B players with a 11C's bored out to .250" with a reamed back bore, and Conn 5/6H's with a 12C drilled the same. "Mick" at Rosehill Music (UK) was the guy that was good at that job, being a trombonist himself.

Back "in the day" did they re-silver plate the throat after drilling it out, or leave it raw brass?

Fairlane57 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 9:57 am

WGWTR180 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 7:58 am

My understanding is that Paul had the throat drilled out 1 drill size up and his piece sits down further into the lead pipe. Definitely works for him.

Bill... That is interesting. The 1 1/2G I used for years had the throat enlarged one drill size up with no change to the shank and I used a Minick commercial pipe.
Thanks, Bob

Was this by chance, the one you sold to me?

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 4:18 pm

Pre59 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 10:11 am

The drilling out of mouthpieces was common "in the day", and there's even a paragraph in an old VB catalogue explaining something to the effect that there's a standard throat and that professionals are going to have the throats and backbores adapted anyway. I remember a few 2B players with a 11C's bored out to .250" with a reamed back bore, and Conn 5/6H's with a 12C drilled the same. "Mick" at Rosehill Music (UK) was the guy that was good at that job, being a trombonist himself.

Back "in the day" did they re-silver plate the throat after drilling it out, or leave it raw brass?

I had a Rudy Muck 23 that somebody had bored out to 0.250" and the shank was thinned out to fit the Olds trombone it came with. Neither the bore nor the shank were replated.

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 4:18 pm

Pre59 wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 10:11 am

The drilling out of mouthpieces was common "in the day", and there's even a paragraph in an old VB catalogue explaining something to the effect that there's a standard throat and that professionals are going to have the throats and backbores adapted anyway. I remember a few 2B players with a 11C's bored out to .250" with a reamed back bore, and Conn 5/6H's with a 12C drilled the same. "Mick" at Rosehill Music (UK) was the guy that was good at that job, being a trombonist himself.

Back "in the day" did they re-silver plate the throat after drilling it out, or leave it raw brass?

I didn't, and it never occurred to me to do so.

Pre59 wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 11:54 am

bigbandbone wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 4:18 pm

Back "in the day" did they re-silver plate the throat after drilling it out, or leave it raw brass?

I didn't, and it never occurred to me to do so.

Well there's always 1.

I see a lot of measurements for throat sizes in this thread.

Has it ever been standard practice to take measurements for backbore size as well?

bassboy wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 12:28 pm I see a lot of measurements for throat sizes in this thread.

Has it ever been standard practice to take measurements for backbore size as well?

How to define this will be problematic... They all have a throat, and they all end at roughly the same diameter for the leadpipe. What portion in between there is the backbore size? Is it linear or curved? (I'd wager most are linear, but I haven't done enough measurements to say for certain). Is it one constant function or are there different sections of different tapers? What is the length of the throat, i.e. where do we define the backbore starting?

I wouldn't trust two different people to have the same definition of this nor the same measurement method, so I wouldn't bother to try to compare answers from them.

What would you measure for this?
Andy

elmsandr wrote: Fri May 15, 2020 1:29 pm

bassboy wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 12:28 pm I see a lot of measurements for throat sizes in this thread.

Has it ever been standard practice to take measurements for backbore size as well?

How to define this will be problematic... They all have a throat, and they all end at roughly the same diameter for the leadpipe. What portion in between there is the backbore size? Is it linear or curved? (I'd wager most are linear, but I haven't done enough measurements to say for certain). Is it one constant function or are there different sections of different tapers? What is the length of the throat, i.e. where do we define the backbore starting?

I wouldn't trust two different people to have the same definition of this nor the same measurement method, so I wouldn't bother to try to compare answers from them.

What would you measure for this?
Andy

Thank you very much for the detailed information sir, much appreciated!
It would be nice if this was simpler to explore, but I think you explain nicely why it's not (simple).

I believe that (in the old, pre-CNC days, at least) "backbores" (the tapered area between the mouthpiece throat and the shank end) were created on lathes with "reamers" - probably with straight tapered walls, though perhaps some were curved. Mouthpiece makers probably created their own (proprietary?) reamers and had different reamers for different mouthpiece designs. It would be hard to categorize these shapes by simply calling out a "size."

Any comments from you mouthpiece experts who know much more than I do?