The "My Dukoff Hollywood BD" foto thread [Archive]

View Full Version : The "My Dukoff Hollywood BD" foto thread

xax

02-14-2008, 03:47 PM

They're a source of never ending conversation and curiosity so how about a thread with pics of your Dukoff BD. The point of this is to illuminate the differences and similarities among BDs. Mods feel free to have your way with it should you deem this thread not a good idea...
I'll start off with mine:
Ser: D2xx; 6*(.093), one piece long shank.
8-)

-88-

02-15-2008, 05:24 AM

Hmmmm. Where is your serial imprinted? Opposite the size number? My Hollywood has serial number 565, it's a 7* but there is one ring on the end of the shank not two like yours. That is to say, the parallel tube that terminates on the shank end starts nearest the reed with a single ring, then it says Bob Dukoff Hollywood, and then there is another single ring. By comparison, yours starts with a single ring, then says Bob Dukoff Hollywood, and then there are two rings.

Of what significance is this? Anyone who needn't guess?

Yeah, I'll get some photos.

Jeff C

02-15-2008, 08:58 PM

My Dukoff has a serial # T4## on the bottom of the shank around the barrel band. Then a "6" on the top. It is solid brass, and fromwhat info I have researched, it is a 1945 , with original lig and cap. Just says "Bob Dukoff" on the shank band , one ring at the front of the band and one ring at the back. "Dukoff" on the top of the barrell.

Jeff C

03-14-2008, 04:14 AM

After some more research , I believe now, that this mouthpiece is a 1959 model. If anyone has more detailed info, I would appreciate it. This model has a big, rich, deep sound to it. Very unlike the normal descriptions I read about Dukoff mouthpieces. Also i was wrong in my description. It has 2 rings at the front of the band and one ring at the very end.

maestroelite

03-14-2008, 04:34 AM

That would be because the Hollywoods are a polar opposite design to the high baffle Super Power Chamber pieces most people think of when they just hear the name Dukoff.

Jeff C

03-14-2008, 05:08 PM

I got a new camera, so here are some better pics of my '59 Dukoff Hollywood 6 Tenor: These are clickable thumbnails

[/URL]
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg33/jtc_hunter/59%20Dukoff/S7300062.jpg)

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg33/jtc_hunter/59%20Dukoff/S7300059.jpg)

[URL=http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg33/jtc_hunter/sax%20pics/S7300180.jpg] (http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg33/jtc_hunter/sax%20pics/PICT0009.jpg)

10mfan

03-14-2008, 05:49 PM

Jeff C

03-14-2008, 08:22 PM

Jeff,
Yours is whats known as the "STUBBY" model, with the short shank and no BD on the body.

These are superb mpc's!

I have an original 9* Stubby here, and an original BD Hollywood 10.

These are my 2 best and rarest Dukoffs here.

I have always prefered the STUBBY pieces, myself.

It does say "Dukoff" on the top of the body, and " Bob Dukoff" on the shank, (or "ring"). Is that correct for a "Stubby"?

whaler

03-14-2008, 09:42 PM

It does say "Dukoff" on the top of the body, and " Bob Dukoff" on the shank, (or "ring"). Is that correct for a "Stubby"?

That's the description. I've had a few of these and they play a lot better than the "Hollywood". I had a 3*, 5* and 6* but the 3* out-played the more open ones by far IMO. I think a lot of us like the idea of playing these mouthpieces than what they actually sound like. The "stubby" Dukoffs tend to get a strange feel on the low end.

Jeff C

03-17-2008, 02:42 PM

That's the description. I've had a few of these and they play a lot better than the "Hollywood". I had a 3*, 5* and 6* but the 3* out-played the more open ones by far IMO. I think a lot of us like the idea of playing these mouthpieces than what they actually sound like. The "stubby" Dukoffs tend to get a strange feel on the low end.

You hit that nail on the head. Even w/ a java #2 reed, the Low C and lower are really tough to hit. Could be air leaks on those pads though. They are getting old.

Reedsplinter

03-17-2008, 02:54 PM

My Dukoff Hollywood has the serial number K39; any experts who can translate that into a date (or anything else)?

whaler

03-18-2008, 02:21 AM

You hit that nail on the head. Even w/ a java #2 reed, the Low C and lower are really tough to hit. Could be air leaks on those pads though. They are getting old.

I had the best luck with the 3* (it seemed to be more like a 5* Link as far as the opening) and MH La Voz or a 4 Rico. The Dukoffs have a unique sound, but I just felt like I had to work a lot harder than I care to. I didn't think they made 2s any more;)

dudune

08-01-2008, 12:01 PM

xax

08-01-2008, 02:04 PM

Hi,

Here are some pictures of the 1949 Dukoff BD Hollywood "DG Special" I was talking on the "Dexter Gordon & his Dukoff Hollywood" thread.

If anyone has information about this particular facing, I would be very happy!

Dudune. Thanks for posting this. I agree that DG probably means Dexter Gordon. Would you post a foto or two showing thru the bore?
8-)

dudune

08-01-2008, 02:59 PM

Hi Xax,
Thank you for your response. First picture below shows the bore, comparing with a standard 1945 BD Hollywood 7*.

1945 BD is on the left, 1949 DG Special on the right.

I've added some other comparison picture with the same mouthpiece.

1945 BD in down, 1949 DG Special is up.

Razzy

08-01-2008, 05:51 PM

I heard somewhere that "DG Special" was Dave Guardala's signature when he did significant refacing and tip work to a mouthpiece. No idea as to the credibility of that source, though.

HonkBopSax

08-01-2008, 05:55 PM

I love my stubbie that Brian Powell opened to a .108. I gotta admit though - sometimes I wish I could go back to the day I got it, when it was still like a 5 or so. I remember playing it the night I first got it. Big club, no mic, and that thing could project to the back of the room with no problem. I love it even more now, but man, these pieces do have something special about them.

I had the best luck with the 3* (it seemed to be more like a 5* Link as far as the opening) and MH La Voz or a 4 Rico. The Dukoffs have a unique sound, but I just felt like I had to work a lot harder than I care to. I didn't think they made 2s any more;)

whaler

08-01-2008, 09:08 PM

xax

08-01-2008, 10:46 PM

Dudune, Nice to see the side by side comparison!

xax

08-01-2008, 11:19 PM

There were two things I noticed about the "stubbies" and Hollywoods. They seem to give every note a different quality and have a strange feel on the lower end.
Find a decent link, it doesn't have to be Florida or early Babbitt, and you'll have a lot better playing mouthpiece for a lot less money.

Whaler, my '45 Dukoff Hollywood (beginning of thread)was way different and for me, much better sounding than any Link (NY, Fla, early Babbitt, yada) that I've ever played.
If i had decided to go with the Chu as my main horn, i would have stayed on the BD...as dudune made mention, it was really nice on the Conn. Also, it's far and away, the easiest playing mouthpiece i've had. 8-)

08-02-2008, 12:43 AM

I have not noticed a strange feel with my BD Hollywood. It plays very smoothly and the low notes speak extremely well.

The only things less than ideal are that the altissimo takes coaxing (but it is not intended to be a screamer) and has a pretty close tip (.082.) I keep thinking about having it refaced but I'm afraid it'll lose something.

Scott C

08-02-2008, 06:17 PM

My Dukoff Hollywood BD piece has K416 on one side and a 5 on the other. It is all original and I would describe the facing to be somewhat long and gradual, with the rails and tip to be very clean and well done. It has a slight roll at the tip, the side walls are fairly rounded and the chamber is medium to large. It seems to be a 1 piece design, as I do not see a seam on it as I can see on other pieces.

I would describe the tone this piece makes as "velvety", "smokey", not bright and also it seems to want to be played softly, it's harder to play loudly, as compared to my Lamberson J6, but if I push more air, it can play quite loud. With the small baffle, it tends to lean toward the dark side tonally. It is a very good control piece, I can play quickly up and down the scales and get good clear notes. I have a vintage Berg Larson Ligature that the owner generously offered with the piece. I have no preference between the Lamberson and this piece, it's that good! I use it on a silver plated Conn "Tranny" tenor which it seems to have been designed for. I'll try to attach a better photo when I get a chance.

shmuelyosef

08-02-2008, 06:38 PM

These all seem to have quite tich tables on them...lore has it that one of the key points of the FL Links is that the table is thin, which puts the reed/tip contact closer to the centerline of the mouthpiece...the thicker table does the opposite.

Wonder if this is why these blow different than older Links? They look a lot like modern STM NY pieces

08-03-2008, 06:00 PM

My BD Hollywood has a very gradual rollover which makes the chamber effectively smaller than that of an STM regular or NY Link. I think that is why I prefer it to Links. Though compared to most other common designs the chamber is large. Both the Hollywood and Links tune very well on my Mk VI. Smaller chamber pieces are more of a struggle to play in tune with my horn.

The Hollywood is a notch brighter than a modern STM or vintage TM Link and the high end is more responsive, but the low notes also respond well as I mentioned. IMO there is a good reason these are sought after pieces.

Horned Toad

08-06-2008, 05:57 PM

Dukoff Hollywood has been one of my main pieces for years as well and I just ended up back on it again. In my view, if you want to experience the real value of these mouthpieces, you have to find one that has not been opened up.

Similar to early Florida and NY links they were made with small tip openings for a good reason. Besides the fact that small tips were the norm for the time period, small tip openings on this type of low/no baffle pieces have a certain and unmistakable effect on sound and air movement.

The right Dukoff Hollywood with its' original 4-6* facing size can be very bright and loud while still retaining the fat and complex sound (not talking about the modern idea of a bright mouthpiece). The small tip opening brings the reed closer to the tip and baffle creating more buzz and projection and allows use of a harder reed for a thick sound.

They did make some larger stamped tip openings such as 7, 7* etc, but even then they are not in actuality very big at all. When we open up Dukoff Hollywoods to .100 or .105 or .115 etc etc, people think they are modernizing them, when in fact they are just destroying them. Those mouthpieces will no longer be Dukoff Hollywood because that mouthpiece, once it has a high baffle and greater distance from reed to tip rail is fundamentally not at all the same. It will play nothing like the original.

Scott C

08-06-2008, 08:33 PM

That is why I'm glad that I got an original untouched piece. I agree with you, once they're tampered with, they're a different animal. I am going to go up a reed this weekend and see what that does with my tone. I have been using Java 2.5's but want to try some 3.0 and 3.5's. This piece is sooo easy to play all the way up and down and I'm starting to find out that I can actually get quite loud if I push more air. It has naturally a lot less resistance than my Lamberson which for me, translates into being able to play longer without tiring.

Dukoff Hollywood has been one of my main pieces for years as well and I just ended up back on it again. In my view, if you want to experience the real value of these mouthpieces, you have to find one that has not been opened up.

Similar to early Florida and NY links they were made with small tip openings for a good reason. Besides the fact that small tips were the norm for the time period, small tip openings on this type of low/no baffle pieces have a certain and unmistakable effect on sound and air movement.

The right Dukoff Hollywood with its' original 4-6* facing size can be very bright and loud while still retaining the fat and complex sound (not talking about the modern idea of a bright mouthpiece). The small tip opening brings the reed closer to the tip and baffle creating more buzz and projection and allows use of a harder reed for a thick sound.

They did make some larger stamped tip openings such as 7, 7* etc, but even then they are not in actuality very big at all. When we open up Dukoff Hollywoods to .100 or .105 or .115 etc etc, people think they are modernizing them, when in fact they are just destroying them. Those mouthpieces will no longer be Dukoff Hollywood because that mouthpiece, once it has a high baffle and greater distance from reed to tip rail is fundamentally not at all the same. It will play nothing like the original.

saxez

08-24-2008, 03:20 PM

I saw a BD Hollywood mouthpiece custom Cap listing on ebay now. Your doesn't include a cap and lig? Good luck!!!!

junior1

10-06-2008, 11:55 PM

I just picked up a couple of weeks ago a 1945 Stubby engraived #6. I like how it plays but coming off a STM 9* I feel it lacks volume. I don't necessarily want to have a refacer open it up because I keep reading how that might devalue the piece. Right now I'm using ZZ 2 1/2 and playing on a King SilverSonic tenor. I'm wondering if the Kings are not a good match for the vintage Dukoff and maybe a Conn tranny or 10m would be the ideal set up? I love this MP and I hate to sell it or put it in the closet. Any of you Vintage Dukoff owners/fans feel the same way in the beginning and later the piece just grew on you.?

domo

01-13-2009, 01:56 PM

Three to Compare

Hollywood BD Dukoff 7 #D206
Tip 79-80
44 34 25 20 14
Window 167
Shank .655

Hollywood Dukoff BD #D642 (4*) John Reilly reface
Tip .91
45 33 24 20 14.5
Window 165
Shank .657

Hollywood Dukoff Stubby unmarked
Tip 85
46 34 26 20 13
Window 164
Shank .655

domo

01-13-2009, 02:32 PM

There are more photo's here on my flicker site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23625749@N05/?saved=1
SOTW is too slow on the upload :)

domo

01-28-2009, 02:21 PM

Just in case someone is still looking at this thead. I thought I'd make some playing comments.

They all sound remarkably similar. There is a warm huskiness to the sound, not in a link way, but in a Dukoff way. All three have a similar "character" to them that can lead to a unique sound. Warm, yet with some kind of wilder harmonics in there, that could lead you to get your yah-yahs out in a freaky NYC vibe kind of way. It makes me wonder if Bobby sold more of these to players in the East coast, then he did to the guys out in Hollywood? Not at all stuffy responding. They all work better with thicker reeds. I prefer using the oleg-iture for bringing out the warmth, or the metal Woodstone for bringing out the high frequency's (Roberto's and Ishimore). They all have smaller shank openings and fit more tightly on the neck then most other mpc's.

None of them are bright, but from darker to brighter it would be: BD#D206, unmarked Stubby, and BD #D642.

For someone like me, who is not bothered too much by a wide variety of tip openings, anywhere from .096 to 118 can be fine, I was still shocked to see how easy it was to get used to these smaller Dukoff openings. The .091 and .085 went from altissimo to low Bb, and in reverse order, in an effortless way. With a nice warm sound. Only the .079 tip wanted to close up on the altissimo. But not so much that I couldn't get used to it at lower volumes. At louder volumes, it might be more challenging to get used to.

Reilly did a masterful job on the BD. He opened it up and still kept a Dukoff sound. However I think it sounds more like the unmarked Stubby then the BD, which for my preference's, is a good thing. The response is even through out all octives. The rail and window #'s seem to stick to Bobby's numbers rather well. Not really sure why two SOTW-er's and one Ebayer would want to sell this one.

I have noticed a slight resistance in the low D area that other posters have mentioned. At present, I believe a previous poster was correct, in that this is from the slightly less deep floor in the throat area leading into the chamber. But I also think that this is a big part of the Dukoff BD Hollywood sound.

The BD 7 is a beautiful, all original, great sounding piece that deserves to stay all original.
The BD Reilly is a great piece, refaced, yet true to the Dukoff Hollywood character of sound.
My favorite of the three would be the unmarked Stubby.

Turnaround

03-29-2009, 02:00 AM

I just acquired a nearly mint (after just a little polishing) The Woodwind Co. Stubby 6* that is truly in original condition. Plating is near perfect (and I own 2 other Dukoff Stubbys). These are AMAZING pieces. The unmarked Stubbys do play significantly better than the other large chamber Dukoffs. They are like Links with what's missing. :twisted: