King single valve basses

[KingThings]

I just picked up a '61 1480, reportedly 536/546 w/9" bell. Should deliver this week. Anxious to compare it to some other horns.

Please let us know your impressions.

[KingThings]

I would wager that any pre-McCracken 1480 that is truly single bore had the original dual bore inners replaced. Many 1480s that show up online seem to be trashed school instruments, so it's very possible many of them had damaged slides replaced at some point in their life. My 1961 1480 (yes, .536-.546/9" as they all were after the '20s) is certainly beat up, and is patiently awaiting some love from a tech.

We learned further up the thread that the McCracken 5B (a tenor, not a bass like the earlier 1480) was also briefly designated 1480 for a short time before the 21xx model numbers began, so those are out there as well. But the McCracken tenor 5B looks pretty different from the earlier bass 1480, so one of those would be easy to spot.

Such an interesting instrument, enshrouded with mystery. My tech says mine was always single bore.......too bad there are no detailed records on these puppies.

[Burgerbob]

I have a 1485 on the way. Dream horn acquired. Can't wait!!

[KingThings]

I would wager that any pre-McCracken 1480 that is truly single bore had the original dual bore inners replaced. Many 1480s that show up online seem to be trashed school instruments, so it's very possible many of them had damaged slides replaced at some point in their life. My 1961 1480 (yes, .536-.546/9" as they all were after the '20s) is certainly beat up, and is patiently awaiting some love from a tech.

We learned further up the thread that the McCracken 5B (a tenor, not a bass like the earlier 1480) was also briefly designated 1480 for a short time before the 21xx model numbers began, so those are out there as well. But the McCracken tenor 5B looks pretty different from the earlier bass 1480, so one of those would be easy to spot.

My 1964 1480 is in the shop and the tech says it has single bore and original slide/lead pipe. From my research, the 1480s that are dual bore are marked "2B" and are silver models. Of course my research could be wrong......if yours is dual bore and brass.

I hope your 1480 gets a refresh at some point.....mine will be ready in three weeks.

[KingThings]

I have a 1485 on the way. Dream horn acquired. Can't wait!!

Silver model.....nice. What year?

[Finetales]

My 1964 1480 is in the shop and the tech says it has single bore and original slide/lead pipe. From my research, the 1480s that are dual bore are marked "2B" and are silver models. Of course my research could be wrong......if yours is dual bore and brass.

The 1480 wasn't marked "2B" for very long, and they could be either 1480 (yellow) or 1485 (sterling silver).

I've owned 2 1480s (no "2B") and they were both .536-.546", and I'm fairly certain every other 1480 that has been measured here on TC has also been .536-.546". There are several very informative comments earlier in this thread about just that. The .536" tube has been out of production for a long time, so you can't get a new one if an inner needs to be replaced. At that point just going for straight .547" probably makes more sense than picking whatever the nearest available size (.531"?) is to .536".

King also changed how the 1480's bore was presented in catalogs like they changed socks. Some years it just says .536", others just .546", others .536-.546"...King's marketing was inconsistent at best. And like any manufacturer back then, they did lots of custom orders. So there are probably a few special-order single bores out there, like the all red brass straight .536" example from 1935 mentioned in this thread. But the default was .536-.546" for most of the model's life.

An early 1480 with the .508" bore as listed in the King catalogs from the 1920s is one of my white whales...but I would also jump at a chance to play that red brass one. Now, a brand new 1480 made with the original mandrels and tapers with 2 valves...

I hope your 1480 gets a refresh at some point.....mine will be ready in three weeks.

It's on the list for my next trip to the shop. I would eventually like to get a 2nd valve put on (probably dependent, to preserve the dramatic taper after the valve), but I'll start with just fixing it up. Funnily enough, the mythical "orchestral gig where neither .547 tenor or .562 bass are really the right choice" is a real part of my current body of work, so both my 1480 and my German quartposaune have actual utility to me. Now to find a similar opportunity for my G bass...

[SFA]

The 1480 wasn't marked "2B" for very long, and they could be either 1480 (yellow) or 1485 (sterling silver).



Is it correct then that a 2B with a 9" Silver Sonic bell IS a 1485?

Is a NON 2B marked 1480/85 or are they rather recognised by experience?


Steve

[Finetales]

Is it correct then that a 2B with a 9" Silver Sonic bell IS a 1485?

Yes, a Silver Sonic 9" bell 2B would be a 1485.

Is a NON 2B marked 1480/85 or are they rather recognised by experience?

As far as I know (happy to get evidence to the contrary!), no 1480/85 is marked as such anywhere on the horn. My 1961 1480 doesn't even say "Symphony", just "King / made by the H.N. White Co. / Cleveland / Ohio".

Kings have always had the 4-digit model numbers, but I think the only period where they put them on the bell was the UMI utilitarian stencil lettering. We just call the 1480/1485 as such because unlike the 2B/3B etc., the 4-digit code is the only one that has consistently stayed with the model. 2B and 5B are both taken by other Kings, and neither stayed with the 1480/85 for very long. Thus 1480/85 is the most concise way to discuss it, despite that the 1480 designation briefly carried over to the McCracken 5B until the trombone model numbers were changed to 21xx.

How to tell what's a 1480/85? Well, if it's a single-valve King trombone larger than the 3B from before 1971, it's a 1480/85. (Actually, did the 3BF exist before the '70s? It might just be "any single-valve King trombone from before 1971".) But also, it has a distinctive dogleg neckpipe and the F wrap often sits inside the bell plane (towards the player's head) rather than outside like most other trombones. Older 3BFs also have a dogleg, but it's much less pronounced. The 2 1480s I've owned have also had very fat slide braces with one big oversleeve, but I'm not sure if all 1480/85s have that.

[Burgerbob]

. (Actually, did the 3BF exist before the '70s? It might just be "any single-valve King trombone from before 1971".)

There were much earlier 3B/Fs, yes

[BGuttman]

Note that there were other instruments sized like a 3B with an F-attachment. I believe there was a Conservatory model (1125?). I know there were versions of the Improved Proportion (1118) with F. The www.hnwhite.com catalog pages show older instruments.

At one time everybody called any instrument with an F-attachment a "bass trombone". I had an Olds Ambassador (A-20?) with F that they called a "bass trombone" even though it was 0.495"/0.510" bore.

[JohnL]

The 9" bell is the first thing to look for, but it's not conclusive. The McCracken 5B also has a 9" bell, and I think their might have been a few 1480's built with 8.5" bells early on.

If it's got a wrap like this:

4B-5B.jpg

It's a McCracken 5B (aka 2105).

At some point, the bell brace was moved so the player didn't have to wrap their thumb around the brace to reach the lever. Moving the brace meant that the "swoop" in the wrap had to be eliminated.

4B-5B-late.jpg

I'd call this version "post-McCracken".


Here is one type of wrap used on the pre-McCracken 1480's:

1480-late.jpg

AFAIK, this is the last variant before the McCracken redesign. It has two tuning slides and the wrap is away from the player's head.

My 1485's from the late 1940's have this type of wrap:

1480-1947.jpg

There is only one tuning slide and the wrap goes toward the player's head.

There is at least one earlier variation (maybe more) for which I cannot find a good image.

[hyperbolica]

My 1485's from the late 1940's have this type of wrap:
1480-1947.jpg

There is only one tuning slide and the wrap goes toward the player's head.

There is at least one earlier variation (maybe more) for which I cannot find a good image.

Yeah JohnL, this post is really helpful, with the different variations.

The '61 1480 I just bought has a wrap like your 1485:

148061wrap.jpg

[Finetales]

Both of my 1480s (1960 and 1961) have/had that wrap. It seems that was the wrap for most of the model's life.

[Burgerbob]

Got my 1485 today. Later style double-tuning slide wrap and .536/.547. Seems to play quite well with a 1 1/2G, just barely in tune slammed at 440. Pictures incoming!

[Posaunus]

Got my 1485 today. Later style double-tuning slide wrap and .536/.547. Seems to play quite well with a 1 1/2G, just barely in tune slammed at 440. Pictures incoming!

Try a King 29 mouthpiece if you can find one. May work well, though the throat is rather small.

[Burgerbob]

I've actually been looking for one of those for a while. I wonder if it's a better match than some of my larger tenor mouthpiece, tbh

[HawaiiTromboneGuy]

I've actually been looking for one of those for a while. I wonder if it's a better match than some of my larger tenor mouthpiece, tbh

I have one that came with an older 4B I once had. I’ve never used it, so lmk if you’d like it. Just cover shipping and I’ll send it over.

[hyperbolica]

My 1480 showed up today. It's not the kind of horn I just fall in love with immediately. It's definitely picky about the mouthpiece. Bach 2G and Schilke 58 are things it seems to like. I could use it for tenor with a DE XT 104 G8. It complies, but reluctantly. My bass piece (XB k8 - about Schilke 59 size) is ok, but not great. It seems like a serious air hog with a real bass bone mouthpiece, which I wouldn't have expected.

It's definitely a heavy horn, and front heavy. I'll need to get some sort of counterweight for it. And that F attachment is right up on the side of my head. The thumb-around-brace arrangement works ok for my 3b, but here, I'm going to have to do something, like build out a thick cork pad on the F lever. It seems to be made for hands that are bigger than mine.

The mouthpiece receiver is right on the brink. It's so big, it swallows some of my mouthpieces.

I'm going to have to play this in context in big band and quartet to see what it does in action. It has a big bass sound down low, without pretending to be a tenor at all. It gets a bit of that kazoo feeling up high where it's not really resonating in its sweet spot.

I measured the slide bore, and it appears to be the 536/546 dims. The main slide braces are wide. It feels a little clunky. I think if I get the counterweight and extend the F paddle a little, and it should feel better.

This particular horn is a '61, and it has been mostly nicely refinished, cosmetically. Not usually my style, but this was what I found.

1480.jpg

[Posaunus]

My 1480 showed up today. It's not the kind of horn I just fall in love with immediately. It's definitely picky about the mouthpiece. Bach 2G and Schilke 58 are things it seems to like. I could use it for tenor with a DE XT 104 G8. It complies, but reluctantly. My bass piece (XB k8 - about Schilke 59 size) is ok, but not great. It seems like a serious air hog with a real bass bone mouthpiece, which I wouldn't have expected.

The mouthpiece receiver is right on the brink. It's so big, it swallows some of my mouthpieces.

Matt,

Try a King 29 mouthpiece - might just fit the bill perfectly. It has a matching oversize Shank, so won't be "swallowed." According to my records, the (V-shaped) Cup I.D. is ~26.75mm; the Throat is 6.63mm.

[hyperbolica]

Matt,

Try a King 29 mouthpiece - might just fit the bill perfectly. It has a matching oversize Shank, so won't be "swallowed." According to my records, the (V-shaped) Cup I.D. is ~26.75mm; the Throat is 6.63mm.

It might come to that, but I'm going to go through the process with several I've got here first. I'm trying to clear stuff out, not accumulate more! The best fit so far is the Schilke 58 with the long shank. It fits well, and sounds good. The absolute best sounding low D and C I've ever created. My old DE LB K8 works well, but the new XB K8 really doesn't feel good in this horn, even though they are exactly the same size. Surprisingly my EUPH J9 is nice too. Ferguson V is good, but comparitively bright, and the whole shank gets swallowed. The DE mouthpieces sit about 3/8" low, to give an idea the size of the receiver.

And you have to use older style Trombotine cream with the slide. Rapid Comfort really doesn't do anything for it.

This is a great horn for 3rd parts. Anything on the staff and down to pedal G, which includes most bass parts as well. Very surprised at the quality of the F-C under the staff sound. That low C is just about in tune, too. Several of my quartet tunes have bass parts very active in the trigger range. This horn as it sits would wear you out. The thumb muscle that flexes when pulling the trigger sits right on the bell brace, and the paddle is just a little too far back. It will be ok when I build up a couple layers of cork on there.

It will take a little work to practice this thing into submission, but I think I can do it, and might be able to use it to replace the much bigger and heavier Kanstul.

With the mouthpieces sitting down so low, I've got almost another 1/2" of arm to reach that flat 7th position. And all of that on an undersized bore, undersized bell, undersized valve... The valve is the thing that surprises me most. My Holton 159 also has a very small valve, with a nice trigger range sound.

The 159 is definitely more tenor than bass, and the 1480 is definitely more bass than tenor. Notes above the staff, and above F drag a little bit. They just don't resonate like a real tenor would. You can play up there and it might even sound ok, but you can tell it's not native territory.

[Finetales]

One thing I don't like about the 1480 is that because the rapidly expanding neckpipe is such a crucial part of the horn, I don't know how you'd put a 2nd independent valve in without really compromising the horn. Perhaps you could fit one in front of the F valve, just before the slide receiver? Or move the whole neckpipe back to fit the 2nd valve, shortening that leg of the main tuning slide to compensate. Or a combination of the two...put the 2-valve set closer to the slide receiver, then move the neckpipe back.

Going dependent wouldn't be easy either (at least if you have the inward wrap)...because the wrap is on the right side of the bell, I don't think you could do the bird's nest valve as it would eliminate all the room for your head. And if not a bird's nest, then where?

EDIT:

So funny story...My 1960 1480 had the smaller inward wrap with the single tuning slide like hyperbolica's. I thought my current 1961 did too, but I just checked and it has the newer style with the two tuning slides. Oops! So maybe they changed the wrap in 1961? The 1962 catalog shows the newer wrap, while the 1959 shows the older, so it seems to hold up.

[Burgerbob]

No time for pictures today, got some time in on it yesterday playing wise.

Ergonomics are a nightmare, front heavy and that bell brace right on the pressure point in your hand. Yikes. Something will have to be done there. Valve also has a long enough throw to be annoying- easy to half valve, and worse with the ergonomics.

I am surprised at the size of the thing- the end of the gooseneck and tuning slide are quite large for what looks like a smaller instrument. This definitely contributes to the obvious bass characteristics.

I do have to mention the workmanship- I had the valve apart, and the machining and work on this horn is just impeccable. That's not even to mention the engraving! What a well made horn. This era of King was really on a high level of instrument making.

Excited to get a proper mouthpiece for it, and perhaps make some ergonomic mods.

[hyperbolica]

I've spent some more time on it, and can confirm Aidan's experience with front heaviness (his must be even heavier with the sterling bell), the bad ergo of the F lever, the overall low tuning and the terrific craftsmanship.

I've been on this rather dissatisfying bender for the past 10 years or so. I've been playing bass reluctantly, trying to dial in various aspects of a Kanstul 1662i including the weight, response and the sound. This 1480 might be the best compromise I've found between the playability of a tenor with the sonorous nature of a great bass. It's heavier than a tenor, but a huge weight savings over the Kanstul.

On most of my horns, I have to pull the tuning slide almost 2", but on this, it's pushed almost all the way in. And the low C is significantly sharp. (My 88h slide is long enough that the C is almost in tune, which is a little frustrating here). Maybe an E or Eb slide is in the cards.

This incarnation of the 1480 is an odd duck to be sure. I can see why they made so many modifications to it over its life time trying to dial in the small bass category . And after all the modifications, it's still not a real success story. It's not perfect by a long shot, but I'm going to play test it with a couple of groups to see what section mates think. I already love the sound below low Bb, and into the trigger range. The upper range is not tenor-ish, but it's better than the Kanstul.

Anyway, to the OP's original question, this instrument could only be confused with a tenor visually. It doesn't really look like a bass, and the specs even don't look very bassy, but there is no part of the range that sounds or plays tenorish, and it would certainly fight a 5G. I don't think it starts to warm up until you get into the 2G range, and the sound doesn't really come alive and sound "native" until you're at the bottom of the bass clef. A 2 valve version of this horn would be amazing, if they could figure out the ergo problems, but I don't even think I could fit a plug in valve on the current wrap.

[JohnL]

I can see why they made so many modifications to it over its life time trying to dial in the small bass category.

I always figured that they weren't so much trying to dial it in as trying to keep it relevant without having to devote the resources necessary for a full redesign. For whatever reason, the people at H. N. White decided to stay out of the fray while other companies developed "modern" f-attachment symphonic tenors. Even Olds tried (largely unsuccessfully) to get into the game with the Opera models.

Don't discount the 1480 as a tenor until you've tried it with a King 29 mouthpiece.

Me? I think where it really shines is as the bottom voice in a section that's otherwise made up of small tenors. I also like it as a bridging voice between the tenors and the "true" basses in a trombone choir.

[Burgerbob]

Thought I would get some pictures before my 3B/F goes off to live at work. Gives you an idea of how much bigger the 1485 is than the small tenors.

605F, 3B/F, 608F, 1485

[hyperbolica]

I've played the 1480 with a couple of different groups - a big band and a small college band. It doesn't seem to project like other trombones. It is softer with a more covered, darker sound. That's with a tenor (DE XT 104G8) or bass (LB 112K8) mouthpiece.

With the big band I played the Makin Whoopee bass bone solo, and I really had to push it to be heard in a way I wouldn't have had to push the Kanstul. But I have to say, it has a really great sound from low Bb to low Db.

To get past the balance issue, I got an old Getzen clamp-on counterweight. It's a little too heavy but let's just say that it's not front heavy any more.

IMG_20240303_112031383.jpg

To get past the F lever woes, I built up a couple layers of mute cork on the paddle. It helps, but doesn't really solve the issue.

I couldn't get past the tuning issue (overall instrument is flat or nearly flat). I just pushed the slides in as far as they would go, and played some positions a bit sharp.

I wasn't able to use any mutes. Tenor mutes get swallowed, and bass mutes stick out comically far. In the list on the linked thread, compare the 1480 with the 1662. Big difference. Compare the Holton tr159 with the Conn 88h. Small difference. viewtopic.php?p=235090&hilit=bell+throa ... ts#p235090

Something I didn't mention previously was that the smaller top bore of the 1480 helps me conserve a bit of air, but I think it does it at the expense of volume/projection. This is the opposite of the Holton tr159, which adds bore size to a tenor slide, giving it more power.

To answer the "what is it" question, I'd have to say that the sound of the 1480 is too dark to be a real tenor with any mouthpiece, but with a real bass piece, it makes a convincing bass until you get to low C. So it's definitely a small bass trombone. If you use it with an XT 104G8 it sounds like a husky tenor, but a 2G is too big to sound tenorish and too small to sound bassy. You start to see why people have been ambivalent about this model. And that ambivalence just carried forward to the 5B. The designers never really dedicated the 1480 or 5b to a specific type until they made it a tenor by pasting the bass bell on a tenor body.

How does the 1480 compare against the Holton tr159? The 159 is a 156 with a trigger, and the 156 is a real tenor, and works with tenor mouthpieces. You just have to have strong chops to make it play convincingly as a tenor. The 159 is the flip side of the 1480. 159 is more tenor than bass and 1480 is more bass than tenor. Tr159 has a longer slide (by almost an inch), and doesn't have the tuning issues that the 1480 has, this combination gets it closer to a real low C. You can use tenor mutes with the 159. With the 1480 just hope you don't need a low C/B or a mute that sticks in the bell.

What could King have done to improve the 1480?
- Remove 2" from the horn to fix overall intonation
- Consider an optional dependent (plugin?) Eb 2nd valve
- Sort out the main bell brace/F lever problem. Ergonomics prevents people from playing this model
- Offer a kit to modify tenor mutes to fit
- This may have been a bone that would have benefited from TIS?

To get a visual comparison of the 1480 against other bell sections bigger and smaller, here's an image. Left to right are the Kanstul 1662i, King 1480, Holton tr159, Conn 88h, Conn 79h.

IMG_20240226_201509125.jpg

[Finetales]

I've played the 1480 with a couple of different groups - a big band and a small college band. It doesn't seem to project like other trombones. It is softer with a more covered, darker sound. That's with a tenor (DE XT 104G8) or bass (LB 112K8) mouthpiece.

With the big band I played the Makin Whoopee bass bone solo, and I really had to push it to be heard in a way I wouldn't have had to push the Kanstul. But I have to say, it has a really great sound from low Bb to low Db.

I have yet to play my current 1961 in anger, but when I had my 1960 I used it a lot and it could bury a Latin big band. And of course, Bart Varselona had no trouble being heard over the very loud Kenton band on his.

That said, the 1961 I have now does feel pretty veiled as you describe, in a way that feels like that's not how it's supposed to be. I'm going to have my tech look it over soon, because I feel like it's an issue to fix rather than a permanent problem of the design.

I think the 1480 is also just very picky with mouthpieces, partly on account of the oversized shank. It needs to be a REALLY good match for the horn to be happy.

[Burgerbob]

Mine seems plenty loud with anything I put in... The original King 28 really does match quite well, though it does have a small throat. It's got the most even ranges with that piece.

Otherwise I find the 1.5 sizes to be too big and woofy, the Yamaha 58 2G sized piece is the 2nd best and most modern sounding.

[elmsandr]

Question…. How does the tuning slide on the 1480 compare to the Duo Gravis? Diameter and width…

I assume the entire bell flare is larger on the DG, right?
Andy

[BGuttman]

All the 1480/Symphony/5B models had bell diameters under 9.5" (240 mm). Some were 9" (225 mm) and some were 8.5" (215 mm).

The Duo Gravis is larger in all aspects. The Symphony is a "small bass" at best and some were more "large symphonic tenor".

[elmsandr]

All the 1480/Symphony/5B models had bell diameters under 9.5" (240 mm). Some were 9" (225 mm) and some were 8.5" (215 mm).

The Duo Gravis is larger in all aspects. The Symphony is a "small bass" at best and some were more "large symphonic tenor".

Flare end diameter is the least interesting dimension to describe the differences here… there was the noe above about large tuning slide and my question is… how large? Normal bass? Or something in between?

The confirmation on the tuning slide is what I was curious about…. Related, is the tuning slide the same for DG-6B/7B/8B?

Cheers,
Andy

[hyperbolica]

Flare end diameter is the least interesting dimension to describe the differences here… there was the noe above about large tuning slide and my question is… how large? Normal bass? Or something in between?

The confirmation on the tuning slide is what I was curious about…. Related, is the tuning slide the same for DG-6B/7B/8B?

Cheers,
Andy

Here are some measurements I took. Measuring at the big end OD of the mts crook and the small end OD of the crook. Kanstul 1662i (TIS, so it doesn't have a normal bell-end tuning slide)

1662 = 23.7 / 19.1 mm
1480 = 21.7 / 19.3
88h = 20.5 / 16.3

Any single dimension isn't going to say much. I think you have to have a way to characterize the entire bore profile to say anything meaningful. And it would have to be ID, not OD. Slide to bell rim, But I'm not going to cut my horns open. The 1662 is the only real bass I have sitting around the house, and as a TIS, it's going to be particularly different especially around the bell crook area.

The one thing you can infer here is that the 1480 neckpipe expands a lot.

[elmsandr]

1662s/62Hs have fairly normal bores in those areas…. For example a Bach 50 MTS receiver is ~.963” or just about thickness of the tuning slide tube above the OD you measure.

The 21.7 is suspiciously close to my Bach 45 sitting right next to me (21.66 if my calipers are to be trusted).

And yes, the overall profile would be more useful to compare, I’m more curious about the King overall designs of their bass trombone line.

Cheers,
Andy

[Burgerbob]

Basically all Kings minus the 5B are a complete ground up design, I wouldn't be surprised if every part was different.

[KingThings]

I can see why they made so many modifications to it over its life time trying to dial in the small bass category.

I always figured that they weren't so much trying to dial it in as trying to keep it relevant without having to devote the resources necessary for a full redesign. For whatever reason, the people at H. N. White decided to stay out of the fray while other companies developed "modern" f-attachment symphonic tenors. Even Olds tried (largely unsuccessfully) to get into the game with the Opera models.

Don't discount the 1480 as a tenor until you've tried it with a King 29 mouthpiece.

Me? I think where it really shines is as the bottom voice in a section that's otherwise made up of small tenors. I also like it as a bridging voice between the tenors and the "true" basses in a trombone choir.

I am envious of everyone that has their 1480 working, as mine is still in the shop waiting for an upper inner slide tube. I really like the King 29 mouthpiece......it has the unusual shank to really fit the horn, and the cup size and rim diameter seem ideal.

My tech insists that mine is single bore and has the original pipes......but most people say they are dual bore. Anyway, very interesting discussion.

[KingThings]

Thought I would get some pictures before my 3B/F goes off to live at work. Gives you an idea of how much bigger the 1485 is than the small tenors.

605F, 3B/F, 608F, 1485

You got a nice one! Where do you weigh in on its uses? What is it best suited for in your estimation?

[Burgerbob]

You got a nice one! Where do you weigh in on its uses? What is it best suited for in your estimation?

[KingThings]

You got a nice one! Where do you weigh in on its uses? What is it best suited for in your estimation?

Ah yes....the deep mystery of the enigmatic, varied and puzzling 1480 King, whose nature baffles the very elect of TromboneChat.

[hyperbolica]

Just in the vein of follow up, I got a King 29 mouthpiece, and it's not significantly better than a DE 104G8 in the 1480. It's still a husky tenor, and doesn't really take advantage of the horn's low note capabilities. I tried to use this in quartet, and because there is no low C/B, and it really doesn't have any bite even when you push it, I'm not sure where I'd use it. Unless there's a soft part where it stays mostly on the bottom of the staff down to a Db. Nice horn, best sounding low D I've ever played. Absolutely wouldn't use it as either a tenor or a bass. Maybe 3rd part in a small orchestra playing parts that aren't that low or loud. It doesn't have enough snap or bite or power to be used in a big band.

I can't think of any situation where I wouldn't pick up the Holton tr159 first, because A) I can use it as a real tenor, and B) when I use it as a low note generator, it has some power and bite. The 159 isn't a real bass for sure, but with an inch longer slide, it has a more believable low C, and with a 1 1/2G it has all the pedal notes you can hope for. And finally, the 159 sounds like other trombones. The 1480 creeps ever so close to the baritone sound range.

Maybe I'm being too critical, or splitting hairs.

This particular example that I got is in great shape. It's a nice collector's horn. Beautiful instrument, and now with the King 29, includes the original mouthpiece. Maybe you have different tastes than I do, and this might work for you. This will probably find another home some day.

[Finetales]

I tried Aidan's 1485 and my 1480 (freshly fixed up and no longer feeling veiled!) back-to-back yesterday on some trios. They played and sounded very similar, and both sounded great on the 3rd part, either with my normal bass mouthpiece or the original King 29. I'm excited to use my 1480 in an ensemble!

I also learned that the lower leg of the 1480's tuning slide is the same size as the lower leg of a Bach 50, meaning you can install the 1480 tuning slide and bell on a 50 chassis. I'll definitely be trying that one day.

[hyperbolica]

... my 1480 (freshly fixed up and no longer feeling veiled!)...

What made the change?

I checked mine in the shower, and there appears to be a small leak around the biggest ferrule in the bell section. Plus, the valve doesn't seem to have much seal (zero pop when the valve slide is pulled).

[elmsandr]

/Reads Tiffany’s post
/ears perk up

Well now, that’s information I can use with a torch…
Andy

[Finetales]

... my 1480 (freshly fixed up and no longer feeling veiled!)...

What made the change?

I just had John Sandhagen go over the whole horn and fix whatever needed fixing. I think the dent in the neckpipe was the big thing that was hamstringing it. Plays great now!

John also told me about the Bach 50 compatibility, as he's done it himself. According to him, you just have to reverse the 50 leg and it slots right in. I'd love to do it right now, but 50B3s that are cheap enough to buy on a whim for mad science aren't around very often. Makes me wonder what other trombones have the same lower leg as a 50...

[Burgerbob]

I will say that the Tiffany on the King 29 sounded really great. The bass piece worked but the 29 had an amazing color to it.

[Posaunus]

Isn't it amusing that (sometimes) these old, "outdated" mouthpieces can actually outperform more modern (and very expensive) models? Context is important!

[Finetales]

The question is, what stock mouthpiece is closest to the King 29 but larger? Maybe a long shank Schilke 58/59?

The King 29 is very small for a bass trombone mouthpiece, and although it did sound great, I would feel more comfortable playing bass parts on something bigger.

[elmsandr]

What made the change?

I just had John Sandhagen go over the whole horn and fix whatever needed fixing. I think the dent in the neckpipe was the big thing that was hamstringing it. Plays great now!

John also told me about the Bach 50 compatibility, as he's done it himself. According to him, you just have to reverse the 50 leg and it slots right in. I'd love to do it right now, but 50B3s that are cheap enough to buy on a whim for mad science aren't around very often. Makes me wonder what other trombones have the same lower leg as a 50...

A shires valve section works just fine with a reversed 50 tuning slide….. just saying.

Cheers,
Andy

[Posaunus]

The question is, what stock mouthpiece is closest to the King 29 but larger? Maybe a long shank Schilke 58/59?

The King 29 is very small for a bass trombone mouthpiece, and although it did sound great, I would feel more comfortable playing bass parts on something bigger.

I wouldn't call the King 29 a true bass trombone mouthpiece. I no longer have one (sent mine to greenbean) but I think I measured the Cup I.D. to be about 26.75mm (1.053"); the Throat was only 6.63mm (0.261"). So yes, except for the cup shape and oversized Shank, the King 29 is probably more like a narrow-throat Yamaha 58L or Bach 2G.

I suppose one could buff up the shank of a standard large-shank mouthpiece with a bit of tape. As you suggest, a long-shank Schilke 58 might work [Larger Cup, much larger Throat - 7.67mm (0.302")].

[Burgerbob]

The question is, what stock mouthpiece is closest to the King 29 but larger? Maybe a long shank Schilke 58/59?

The King 29 is very small for a bass trombone mouthpiece, and although it did sound great, I would feel more comfortable playing bass parts on something bigger.

Forgot to have you try my Greg Black 2.5GSY, I think it may be the winner

[Burgerbob]

Found that you can attach a counterweight to the ferrules- they are Bach size even if the brace is not. Wow, it's much easier to play this way.