TromboneChat

Does anyone have any info on what makes Bach corp/corp./MV mouthpieces so special? I picked up a 4g Corp (no dot) last week and it’s incredibly comfortable compared to my Griego 55.

I understand blanks might’ve been different but I’m not sure if it was anything special besides the craftsmen making them.

No clue. I have had many Corp and earlier pieces (Mt Vernon and NY) that are just better than later ones. It honestly just annoys me. What could possibly be the difference that is SO clear? Ugh.

Perhaps Bach exhausted the supply of their special proprietary brass mouthpiece alloy about the time they left Mt. Vernon for Elkhart?

Burgerbob wrote: Sun Sep 21, 2025 9:27 pm

No clue. I have had many Corp and earlier pieces (Mt Vernon and NY) that are just better than later ones. It honestly just annoys me. What could possibly be the difference that is SO clear? Ugh.

Maybe they changed the way they were making the mouthpieces? Moving from using tracer lathes to numerical control lathes? I could definitely see that transition leading to some changes.

The way they were made. NY and MV were individually made by hand. After the move they were made with a semi automated process. If you get a good Corp example, you are just lucky. They were the same as later ones.

I have no clue. But, if I see a MV 1½G, I'm buying it. I've got a bunch, and they're all awesome.

I don’t understand all of this Corp era revisionism. The horns were more and more inconsistent as time went on, especially after Vincent Bach had less involvement with the company, and the mouthpieces were wildly inconsistent. This all looks like the CBS era Fender revisionism. Used to be no one wanted a 70’s made Fender guitar, now they are fetching thousands, and they’re still the same inconsistent quality instruments.

chromebone wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 5:10 am I don’t understand all of this Corp era revisionism. The horns were more and more inconsistent as time went on, especially after Vincent Bach had less involvement with the company, and the mouthpieces were wildly inconsistent. This all looks like the CBS era Fender revisionism. Used to be no one wanted a 70’s made Fender guitar, now they are fetching thousands, and they’re still the same inconsistent quality instruments.

IF you read the comments no one is saying they are all spectacular. They were inconsistent BUT if you find a good one it's a good one. I own several MV 1 and 1/2Gs. All good but a few better than others. Then I ran across a Corp. that's also very good. You have to hunt.

Is there any difference between Bach ‘pieces that have Bach with or without the dot/full stop /period after the Bach name?

chromebone wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 5:10 am I don’t understand all of this Corp era revisionism. The horns were more and more inconsistent as time went on, especially after Vincent Bach had less involvement with the company, and the mouthpieces were wildly inconsistent. This all looks like the CBS era Fender revisionism. Used to be no one wanted a 70’s made Fender guitar, now they are fetching thousands, and they’re still the same inconsistent quality instruments.

Steve Dillon (owner of Dillon Music and a trombone player himself) told me once he thinks the most consistent era of Bach production was the period of a few years after the Conn factory closed in Elkhart and many of those workers went to Bach.

That said, the Corporation 50B I've mentioned here before with a dented leadpipe from the factory had a 1976 serial number.

I have had any number of MV Bach MPs over the years with the same number, and no two played the same, and sometimes they were very obviously not even the same size.

None of them struck me as special, but they were all admittedly smaller pieces (12C and up) that is never a good fit for me.

Posaunus wrote: Sun Sep 21, 2025 11:13 pm Perhaps Bach exhausted the supply of their special proprietary brass mouthpiece alloy about the time they left Mt. Vernon for Elkhart?

Did anyone ever do an analysis of the content of that alloy? I remember that for a while someone (probably B. Guttman) had access to a gas chromatograph or something similar.

I always expected to find that the "special brass' was actually just leftover shavings and metal melted together.

tbonesullivan wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:06 am

Posaunus wrote: Sun Sep 21, 2025 11:13 pm Perhaps Bach exhausted the supply of their special proprietary brass mouthpiece alloy about the time they left Mt. Vernon for Elkhart?

Did anyone ever do an analysis of the content of that alloy? I remember that for a while someone (probably B. Guttman) had access to a gas chromatograph or something similar.

I always expected to find that the "special brass' was actually just leftover shavings and metal melted together.

I think once we dove into this discussion some time ago people started chiming in with "placebo effect" etc. and many who can actually tell differences in the generations of mouthpieces bowed out of the conversation.

tbonesullivan wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:06 am

Posaunus wrote: Sun Sep 21, 2025 11:13 pm Perhaps Bach exhausted the supply of their special proprietary brass mouthpiece alloy about the time they left Mt. Vernon for Elkhart?

Did anyone ever do an analysis of the content of that alloy? I remember that for a while someone (probably B. Guttman) had access to a gas chromatograph or something similar.

I always expected to find that the "special brass' was actually just leftover shavings and metal melted together.

I had an X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer. I couldn't test for materials under about 1% of total composition, and could not "see" lighter elements like Beryllium or Aluminum. I found the mouthpieces to be the typical brass alloy still used to this day (around 2% lead for machinability; illegal under RoHS, but safe to use with intact plating).

If there were trace materials that made the "magic" I couldn't find them.

I’m curious: Do current makers still use lead in the alloy to help with machining? Have they reduced the amount of lead? Has the industry moved to something else?

Kbiggs wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:53 pm I’m curious: Do current makers still use lead in the alloy to help with machining? Have they reduced the amount of lead? Has the industry moved to something else?

Per the foundry information I can see, C26000 Cartridge brass is 0.07% lead, max. I don't know what else would be suitable for the purpose in the alloy.

Free machining brass, type 360, contains 3% lead. I believe this is what Doug uses.

I am using 360. I looked into "unleaded" which still has lead in it, just less... and it wasn't available in sizes that I use.

After 40+ years of handling, machining, and buffing raw brass, I got a blood lead test done a couple of years ago, just to see what it might show. My level was quite low, well within normal background exposure that everybody gets.

Back to the topic... For a lot of reasons, inconsistency is inherent in instrument and mouthpiece manufacturing. Even on a CNC lathe, dimensions change as it warms up in use.

I have a Bach Corp 5G that was so poorly made it has circular grooves in the cup. I had a section of the cup cut away so it can be used for buzzing with the mouthpiece in the trombone.