Are we getting Bach all wrong ?

[Doug Elliott]

For some reason people who don't know anything about machinery keep calling it a Browne & Sharp taper, but it's not. The Conn taper is its own thing unrelated to any other tapers as far as I know.

Thought that this might be of interest from the old UMC catalog: "Conn 88H Gen II"

OK, I see that the catalog says Browne & Sharp, but I go by the actual mouthpieces, receivers, and their measurements, which are very consistent. The taper is distinctly different from the Browne & Sharp taper.

[harrisonreed]

I wonder if the taper they are referring to is the long end? Otherwise, why would they only label the M pipe as morse? The classic taper is "brown and sharpe", the M taper, longer and slower (only on the back end) is "morse". The S pipe is labeled as neither, even though that should be morse too...

Mystery. It was maybe created by someone who had no idea what they were talking about.

[FOSSIL]

Most advertising put out by manufacturers, especially in the past, is pure BS and only serves to muddy the waters.
The only part of a leadpipe where it might help to know the taper is the part that takes the mouthpiece....the greater part could be any shape that fits within the inner slide, and there have been many variations of that.

Chris

[JohnL]

OK, I see that the catalog says Browne & Sharp, but I go by the actual mouthpieces, receivers, and their measurements, which are very consistent. The taper is distinctly different from the Browne & Sharp taper.

I suspect it's a case of "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[Slidennis]

I wonder if the taper they are referring to is the long end? Otherwise, why would they only label the M pipe as morse? The classic taper is "brown and sharpe", the M taper, longer and slower (only on the back end) is "morse". The S pipe is labeled as neither, even though that should be morse too...

Mystery. It was maybe created by someone who had no idea what they were talking about.

I have a Conn slide with those leadpipes : S and M are morse taper, and R is the Remington.
"S" stands for "standard" and "M" for "Marcellus". The S and R have same lenght, and appart from the receiver part they look quite the same in shape... The Marcellus has a more gradually opening radius and is longer. This is the one I like best : more open yet focused...

I often put teflon tape at the end of the Bach mpc I used in Remington receivers (Conn 88H or 71H), so it didn't wobble at all anymore : easy and with good results...

[Slidennis]

A completely other subject than the shank taper, I just wonder if anybody knows the different manufacturing eras for the Bach mpcs : MV, Corp large and small dot, Corp, no Corp???

I have a large shank Bach Corp. 6 1/2 A that is a winner in nearly large bore trombone I ever played with, and it's still a true wonder to me... It is so worn out that all the silver plating of the ring has gone, but I don't have any prob playing on bare brass, so this is it...

[ithinknot]

the different manufacturing eras for the Bach mpcs

https://www.trumpetjunkie.com/datingbachmouthpieces.htm

[Slidennis]

the different manufacturing eras for the Bach mpcs

https://www.trumpetjunkie.com/datingbachmouthpieces.htm

Thanks for that, very valuable info !

[enobmort2RSNO]

No two Stradivarius Violins are the same.

[Kbiggs]

Here’s another twist on this question:

How much of Bach’s early trombone mouthpieces were derived from his experimentation with trumpet mouthpieces? We know Bach studied mechanical engineering and manufacturing, and he was a trumpet soloist who, by all accounts, was a master of his instrument. Were Bach’s early mouthpieces more like “big trumpet” mouthpieces, or did he approach trombone mouthpieces completely differently from the beginning, that is, did he design them for a different instrument?

Bear in mind that most of the trombones of Bach’s early years were smaller than the ones used today, and that the larger sizes of trombone mouthpieces we are so familiar with now—the 5G, the 6 1/2 series, even the 1 1/2G—were developed later when larger trombones started showing up.

If the above is true—that his early trombone mouthpieces were more “trumpet” like—then how and when did Bach decide to change the design and manufacture of his trombone mouthpieces? Likewise for his other mouthpieces for horn, tuba, etc.?

Just another armchair quarterback question...

[ithinknot]

... Were Bach’s early mouthpieces more like “big trumpet” mouthpieces, or did he approach trombone mouthpieces completely differently from the beginning, that is, did he design them for a different instrument?

Bear in mind that most of the trombones of Bach’s early years were smaller than the ones used today, and that the larger sizes of trombone mouthpieces we are so familiar with now—the 5G, the 6 1/2 series, even the 1 1/2G—were developed later when larger trombones started showing up.

If the above is true—that his early trombone mouthpieces were more “trumpet” like—then how and when did Bach decide to change the design and manufacture of his trombone mouthpieces? Likewise for his other mouthpieces for horn, tuba, etc.?

Just another armchair quarterback question...

I don't think this holds up. I'm sure there were all sorts of long-lost experiments in the very earliest years, but if Bach had the understanding necessary to design highly successful actual trombones relatively early in his career (the 6 and the 36 both go back to the early 30s...), then the idea that he might have lacked a 'trombone-specific' mouthpiece concept seems improbable.

As far as gradually populating the larger end of the range, exactly the same thing applies to the trumpet mouthpieces. From surviving catalogs, in 1922 trumpet sizes are 6/7/8 and trombone 12. By 1929, trumpet 3 thru 12, bass trombone 3, trombone 4 thru 22. (But yes, the 'center of gravity' of taste and consumer demand shifted more slowly, and the large-bore/bass trombone standards are post-war.)

No two Stradivarius Violins are the same.

Well, no two trees are the same, so he had more of an excuse