Anyone using Woodwind Co. baritone mpcs?

[MTKilpatrick]

Is there anyone else here using vintage Woodwind Co mouthpieces for baritone sax (and have not had the mouthpieces altered)?

I would be very interested in your experiences with these mouthpieces. I struggle some weeks to find any reeds at all that will work well with the mouthpieces. I usually use Rico Royal, but I sometimes wonder whether the cut of these reeds is different to that of the reeds that were made 60 years ago. Can anyone shed any light on this? What do you find works best? Do you also find that Woodwind Cos are very fussy with reeds?

On my alto I play a new Meyer Bro 5 Medium with Rico Royal 2 or 2.5. With this I have very problems selecting reeds: most of a boxfull will work. So why do I struggle so much with my baritone mouthpiece?

Michael

[jbjazzman]

1-too small a tip opening
2-NO baffle at all.
3-very likely uneven curves and table.

why not find something modern that works?
what horns are you "trying" to play with these mpcs?

[Grumps]

I've got an old Conn New Wonder baritone that plays sharp with modern mouthpieces. I used an old King B Equa-Tru that came with the horn, but it had almost zero projection. Someone on this very forum recommended I try a vintage Woodwind Co. mouthpiece and I was lucky to get a hold of a K6, which is one of their more open sizes (which.... isn't very open at all, really). It works great on my horn, projects well and doesn't dangle all the way off the neck for proper tuning. I use Rico Royal #3's with it and have had no problem. Is your WW Co. piece a vintage or one of the newer ones made by Leblanc? The vintage pieces can be hard to come by as I know quite a few folks here hoard them (me included if I could find more).

[MTKilpatrick]

What constitutes "too small a tip opening", as jbjazzman asks? After all, since Woodwind Co were making these mouthpieces for many years, I assume people bought them and used them. They therefore must be functional.

The real questions are: whether there is any difference between the cut of reeds then and now, and whether it is in intrinsic property of baritone sax reeds that they are more inconsistent than smaller reeds. I just don't have problems with the alto.

I also wonder whether it's partly an embouchure problem. I find that practising the alto and focusing on my embouchure helps the baritone a lot.

I actually find the B6 Woodwind far too open. I just can't handle a mouthpiece like that. On the alto, though, I find the two Woodwinds I got hold of to be no use - they are just too close. I prefer my Meyer 5.

I'm still looking out for a Woodwind C series, as Grumps, I think, mentioned a while ago on another thread. I have yet to see one, and would like to know how they differ from the Bs and Ks.

Michael

[paulwl]

Here's a preliminary reed tryout report.

Mpc: NY WW B6
Bari: Buescher Trannycrat #273k

Rico V 3: Nice, easy, lively sound all the way up and down the horn. Probably too easy - likely won't stand up to heavy playing.
Rico V 3 1/2: Ditto on sound. A touch stiff at first, but would probably break in nicely.

Rico Royal 3: More like Rico V 3 1/2 (maybe I got a hard one). A little less subtlety of sound somehow.

Marca 2 1/2: Nice lively response, a touch "politer" (darker?) than the Rico V 3 and just a tick harder. Might be the best overall.

Vandoren Blue 2 1/2: More resistant than any of the Ricos but good solid basic sound. Darker. Would break in well.
Vandoren Blue 3: Too hard for the B6. If you prefer a closer facing this would be a good starting point.

If you find the above helpful, I'll try them all on the Conn Tranny 12M.

[alain]

Hi, the C facing of the woodwind co. are the jazz facing, a shorter lenght with a big (relative) opening. The B facing are the all around facing and the K are for the leader so a bit brighter with more projection (ex: the dick Stabile, the K5). For what I read for the bari they have only 2 facing, a standard and a brighter piece. On the Mouthpiece Heaven site they have some old add of mouthpiece maker and one of the Woodwind Co. where you have all the info obout the facing.
Alain

[paulwl]

Thanks! Neat page. Link:
http://www.mouthpieceheaven.com/content/vintage-ads/selmer_show005.htm
It's from the 1956 Selmer Showbook catalog. Selmer promoted Woodwinds as far back as the mid 30s.

Note that the jazz C facing was only made for alto and clarinet. The tenor jazz model was the N. And the bari B6 wasn't made at all anymore.

Wish I could still order a dozen and get the free display case!

[MTKilpatrick]

Interesting advert. It would be nice to find some further info about the earlier Woodwind Co mouthpieces. I've searched the internet in the past but found little with any meat.

I've got quite a few for baritone. A B4 and B4* which look quite new and shiny - I've no idea how old they are. The B4* is my favourite, but I can't really see how it differs to the B4. I've got two different B5s, one with the large chamber, the other with a chamber that is more squared off, which doesn't sound as rich. Unfortunately I think the larger one may have been altered. Both have a much duller lustre compared to the black shine of the B4s. The K6 and the Melliphone ones I can't get quite same rich Carneyesque tone from, and the B6 is too wide for me.

I'd really like to find a B5 or B5* that I could be sure hasn't been tampered with, of the same generation as my two B4s.

Michael

[alain]

Hi paulw, yes neat page for the Woodwind Co. fan. This with a Ralph Morgan article on the facing spec of the 50's (sax journal) help to well know this line of piece and compared it to other line popular at that time. If you have a fax I can send you the spec. If I remember from other post you play a Meliphone special B6 and a Stabile, How they compared in sound and feeling?
alain

[alain]

The older model are the standard woodwind Co. on the right of the page. For what I know they doen't change this model. The square chamber you have are maybe a recent model deivated from the meliphone special.
alain

[paulwl]

I've got two different B5s, one with the large chamber, the other with a chamber that is more squared off, which doesn't sound as rich.
My B6 has the more-squared-off chamber (still mostly round).

[Grumps]

Just wondering Michael,
Any interest in trading that too wide B6 for bari? I've got some trade bait listed on the marketplace forum (subject: Bring out the dead, Mouthpieces FT).

[shmuelyosef]

I just bought a Conn 12M (the guy I bought it from bought it new in 1951 for $395) that came with a Woodwind Co. mouthpiece (in addition to the original Conn mouthpiece). It is a B5* facing? It has the largest chamber that I have ever seen...the 'step' where it becomes the shank is ~3mm (i.e. the chamber diameter is ~1/4" bigger than the neck cork O.D.).

This piece has two chips on the tip rail...both extend about halfway thru the flat on the tip rail, so the piece squeaks fiercely and it's hard to tell, but has a very rich sound at the bottom of the range where I can play it. Are these pieces worth the $$$ to have refaced?

[MTKilpatrick]

I don't believe in refacing old mouthpieces like that! You can never restore it to its original condition. Once it's altered it's worth nothing to the people who want original vintage mouthpieces.

If this Woodwind B5* mouthpiece is not functioning correctly because of chips on the tip, it's vaguely possibly you might be able to fill them in and restore the tip. If this mouthpiece is damaged and useless to you, I'lll happily make you a small offer for it and attempt to fill in the tip. It may turn out to be useful. Perhaps you might have access to a digital camera and be able to send me a couple of photographs of the body shape and the tip condition?

Does it say B5* feintly on the table, or on the body? Does it say "Steel Ebonite" and "The Woodwind Co New York"?

Michael

[MojoBari]

Damaged mouthpieces, like this one, can be restored to better-than-original condition in terms of playing.

[jbjazzman]

Mojobari is absolutely correct. I've had a number of pieces
"brought back from the dead" including chips on the tip and
really BAD previous refacing attempts. The idea of a vintage
piece being of no use unless it is virginal is really an academic
exercise of sorts. What is more important: having a piece that
plays easily and well, or, being able to "brag" that it's all original,
but, "I just can't seem to find any reeds that will work"???

I have a number of both vintage and current pieces that I have
had corrected or "blueprinted" if you wish. The degree of improvement
in some of them was unbelievable. All that was done was getting
them to match the original factory specs.

Also, if a mouthpiece tech is "REALLY GOOD", you shouldn't
see any obvious indications the piece was worked on.

[MTKilpatrick]

Personally I would much prefer - occasionally - to invest time and effort into finding appropriate reeds than to have an old mouthpiece altered. There are many mouthpieces manufacturers in business today, and there are many of those lines of mouthpieces that we can probably expect to be around for a few years yet. But, there is a limited supply of vintage mouthpieces that are no longer manufactured. You can't really undo the changes, even if those changs are positive improvements when you reface it. The original mouthpiece may or may not be anything special, but it's still irreplaceable. I know that some people throw old mouthpieces out when they get a vintage horn if it's not a brand they're familiar with. It's infuriating to hear things like that. Whether or not it's "an academic exercise" to have virginal mouthpieces isn't really the question: it's whether there are *any* left at all, that one or two people may be interested in experiencing. Perhaps they want to collect historical things, they want to know what sort of sounds those things produced, want to compare the lay with modern pieces, whatever. Either way, there is an argument for ensuring that at least *some* survive more than 20 years without being altered.

Michael

[paulwl]

Michael, I agree. As someone interested in replicating actual 1930s-40s commercial sax timbre as heard on recordings, it helps me to work within the hardware parameters of the period. Although I sometimes wonder about reeds, and how their cutting & selection may have changed.

This may be the ultimate academic exercise, because nothing is as dead as unremembered pop music. At least the Rascher type of classical playing is something you can get a college degree in. But it has taught me an awful lot about playing my horn and what makes beautiful tone (and they sure had it in the 30s and 40s).

[MojoBari]

You SHOULD wonder about the change in reeds over the years. To me, this negates attempts to preserve the exact set-ups of yesteryear.

After you have measured and played a bunch of mouthpieces, vintage or modern, you will notice areas in the facing curve and chamber/baffle that vary from piece to piece of the same brand and model. These are not design features, this is manufacturing variation. So if you have a preserved vintage mouthpiece, you do not neccessarily have a good one, or even an average one. You have an example of a period mouthpiece including some period manufacturing variation. If you are a collector, put it in a glass case. Vacuum seal it. If you are a player, decide if you want your mouthpiece to play well or not. Get it fixed or retored if it needs it.

[Grumps]

I just wish someone would replicate those vintage mouthpieces, but with modern facings at less than $300 a pop. I've been tempted to reface some of my vintage pickle-barrels (for bari) as they're the only things that will play in tune on my vintage Conn and I'd love to have them opened up a bit...... but...... I remember something one of my techs once told me about guys he knew who had mouthpieces refaced. To imitate them, he frowned and exclaimed in his thick, English accent (very much like the guys in the pawn shop in 'Snatch'), "You RUINED my MOUTHPIECE!" Basically he was implying that not all results are guaranteed and you may never find what you're looking for.... and in fact, may have already had it. This is not to say that there aren't some very talented re-facers out there, but I'm with Paul and MTK on this one.

[shmuelyosef]

Since I started this 'faceoff', I'll add a little more information. The piece says 'Steel Ebonite' and does have B5 on the table. It does, however, measure about 0.100...wider than I am used to for a '5' facing. I got hold of some harder reeds and was able to play it some, even with the chips, and the sound is amazing but it is not capable of much volume, even compared with a standard Berg or Meyer...nothing like my Lamberson.

Does this sound like an original facing?

[shmuelyosef]

Also MTK...it does say "Woodwind Co. New York", and it is also a very dull lustre, not just faded but rather a non-polished surface.

[amg]

But, there is a limited supply of vintage mouthpieces that are no longer manufactured. You can't really undo the changes, even if those changs are positive improvements when you reface it. The original mouthpiece may or may not be anything special, but it's still irreplaceable.

I agree. It's good to leave some originals well alone. On the other hand MojoBari and others are correct to point out that an "original" vintage mouthpiece may be a bad example from the player's point of view because of manufacturing variability (and subsequent history -- e.g. the table may have warped, something that can be harder to see than chips on the tip rail).

If a mouthpiece has that kind of problem then it's possible that you won't ever find reeds that will work reliably. I wonder if a reasonable compromise would be to have someone make a _copy_ of the original, and use that for performing, small facing adjustments etc, and keep the original for private study, special occasions (or, of course, just put it in a glass case).

Perhaps the experts could tell us, can a modern copy be faithful enough for this to work?

I think Ed Pillinger makes copies, he's not very far away from you Michael.

Andrew

[shmuelyosef]

I have posted some pictures here: http://sjrosner.home.mindspring.com//BariMouthpieces/
I have to admit that I am tending towards having this piece refaced, but copying the existing lay curve as much as possible and with a 0.100-0.105 opening as it is currently. Looking at it carefully, it already appears evident that the table has been touched up some, so probably the takeoff point was also retouched then too (it's very smooth). Unless someone wants to offer me what it's worth (e.g. Theo has one right now in a B4 for $175...calls it the best of the large chamber pieces) I am going to go ahead and have it refaced, so I can really experience this piece at full song; right now it breaks up if you push it at all, and I think that is the result of the chips.

[shmuelyosef]

I did end up having this piece refaced by Mojobari...it clearly had already been refaced at some earlier point as the opening was 'way big' out of spec. Keith cleaned up the tip and set the facing curve to what he believed to be original. Left the tip opening at ~.105.

It has come out very nice; real dark sound, incredible intonation on my 12M, yet works well on Keilwerth stencil (King Tempo low A). Volume is distinctly less than my Lamberson (surprise!) but now this piece can be pushed quite hard and develops a nice edge, but keeps the dark, fat sound at the core. It's incredible up high playing ballads. It has convinced me to pull up the repad of my 12M in the schedule...hope to get to it over Thanksgiving holiday.

This piece may not be original, but Mojo successfully converted a damaged piece of curious history into a valuable piece of usable gear for me...hmmm...

One last question: this piece has a huge diameter...too big for any standard ligature...Consoli "I", Rovner L9/3R don't fit. I'm currently using a Ligaphone and it just barely makes it, but I hate the ligaphones. Anybody have any ideas?

[Grumps]

I use a Rovner 4R (bass sax) on mine

[shmuelyosef]

There is one of these for sale on eBay right now real cheap if anyone is interested...I really enjoy mine since Mojobari cleaned up the chips...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2374017043&category=38 112&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBWA%3AIT&rd=1

[shmuelyosef]

Another one of these for sale on eBay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3713706024

[MTKilpatrick]

Another one of these for sale on eBay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3713706024

Thanks for that. However, I do find it annoying that there are so many B4s and B6s floating around, but never quite as many B5s, which is what I'm really looking for!

Michael

[mark_m]

I just picked up that B6 on ebay. Don't have it yet... It (as many) has a small chip out of the tip. This is from Mark Aronson and he says it doesn't affect playability.... anyway I'm curious, has anyone successfully filled such chips?

Mark A. notes that this is the original facing on this piece... I took it for $40., can't go wrong I 'spose... I sure don't have another piece like it.

[shmuelyosef]

I know that there are mixed feelings about 'original facings' on these...I got a B5 in the case with a Conn 12M that I bought (another great story) that had two chips in the tip. Played great in the bottom range but very dicey (squeakwise) in the upper range. Mojobari refaced it to grind away the chips, but matched the original facing curve. It plays great now and the facing is beautiful. Still not a particularly loud piece, but a very dark, smoky vintage sound. Good for some settings and real easy to play.

[mark_m]

I was hoping to hear your experience with that - thanks.

So, the prevailing practice is to reface to the point of eliminating tip chips, or can they also be filled?

[MojoBari]

Big ones can be filled. A reface is still needed. Little ones go away with a mild reface.

Original Woodwind facings have variation and defects too. I have not seen any that come close to the "specs" published in Sax Journal by Ralph Morgan (probably from the original E. Brand repair manual).

These are at least fine blanks. Perhaps some of the really old ones are better. I just got an old alto one in but I have not measured it up yet.

[MojoBari]

I just measured up a Woodwind Sparkle-aire alto B5*. It looks all original. A nice and symmetric piece with a really nice facing on it. .061" tip and a 44 (22 mm) facing length. "Spec" is 43164 = 43 L and 1.64mm = .0645" tip. So it is a little off, like most pieces are. But this piece was nicer than any other Woodwind piece I've seen. Perhaps the Sparkle-aire vintage is a notch better, or I just got a good one. Hard to know with a sample of one.

[MTKilpatrick]

Just in case anybody might be interested in conclusions to my original posting, I've now decided that I'm going to stick to the grubby old B5 (with the larger chamber) I picked up some time ago. I really find it too frustrating using the B4 and B4*. I was previously always uncomfortable trying the wider tip opening, but now I have settled into it. Using Rico Royal 2.5 reeds I get pretty good results - even more Carneyesque than with the B4. It blows really freely, and has an enormous sound. I think the closer-tipped mouthpieces I've got are just too fussy with reeds, unless it is something to do with my embouchure. I have a B6*, but I find that unpleasantly open. So, B5 it is. I do hope I find one in slightly better condition at some point, however!

Michael

[mark_m]

Very interesting how sensitive these seem to be, from the postings, to tip size. I just got a B6 but haven't picked up a lig for it yet so have only played it with rubber bands holding a too-soft reed, yet it seems promising.

Is it just me (?) - it seems like the bari is more greatly affected in tone by the mouthpiece choice than my alto. Both fun and exhausting exploring the different characteristics available.

[shmuelyosef]

My take is that as the horn gets larger, there is just a wider range of sounds available...IMHO, there is a wider palette available on tenors compared to altos and baris vs. tenors. By wider palette, I 'believe' that both design of the horn (bore/taper/material) and the choice of mouthpiece provide flexibility. I think this is why alto players seem to be more satisfied with mouthpieces than tenor players (and why there are so many tenor designs out there)

[shmuelyosef]

I've got an old Conn New Wonder baritone that plays sharp with modern mouthpieces.

Is this a problem with Conn baris in general? I have had this 12M (1951) and have the same problem...most of my bari collection is only interesting for practice because of 'falling off the neck' syndrome....but I really like some of the sounds that I can get, e.g. with a Lamberson on the Conn...