Meyer Bros NY clones

[CE Winds]

Have used a CE Winds 5M 'Meyers Bros' for about the last 6 weeks and find it to be a really well done vintage Meyer replica. As to the question of whether it is plastic or rubber, I will just say it looks like rubber, has the the same weight and feel as rubber (as opposed to most plastic or resin pieces I've used), and plays warm and just a little darker than a vintage NY (not MBros) 5 Meyer I use to own. Its a great match with my '880' Yani. Still am using a first series, limited run, Aizen 5 'Meyers Bros' bought 6 or 7 yrs back, which is just a little brighter, with my SBA alto. Another excellent playing 'clone' is a Morgan Fry 'NYZ', if you're able find one used. (Gilad Atzman played one of these for a significant period of time....though not sure what he's using at this time. I primarily use the 'NYZ' with my Conn 6M VIII, but it works great with the other altos. The 'NYZ' has a particularly full sounding tone thru the upper register, where lots of alto mpcs start thinning out. There are a lot of really great modern options now for a vintage Meyers Bros type mouthpiece.

I also strongly second the thoughts regarding how good, and possibly not getting enough respect, Ralph Morgan mouthpieces are. I've two Morgan tenor pieces, both the Excaliber and the Jazz models. While I prefer the Excaliber w/ my Superba tenor, which provides more bite/cut on the darker horn, both these Morgan pieces are beautifully made and sounding mpcs. If not already owning alto mpcs working well for me, I wouldn't hesitate considering a Morgan 5ML (now the 'New York' model) alto, either a Jazz or Excaliber.

All great pieces, glad you have so many that work well for you. Thank you or chiming in on the Pure Vintage M Bros, especially the feel and response of the hard rubber composite. We are proud of how the mouthpieces and materials have evolved since the beginning of this project.

Peace,

Brian S
CE Winds

[MojoBari]

IMO, a dimensional clone is much more important than a material clone. One of the best Meyer-like mouthpieces I ever played was a clear plastic SR Tech Legend.

[Pete Thomas]

IMO, a dimensional clone is much more important than a material clone. One of the best Meyer-like mouthpieces I ever played was a clear plastic SR Tech Legend.

I find material per se is irrelavant, but the mass or density of the material is not. When we do Meyer "clones" we look at the (internal) dimensions of course but also the density. So even though we don't use hard rubber (which we could do of course to be pedantic), we might use a synthetic resin with the exact same mass because it is only that aspect of the material that has any bearing on the sound. So for example we are currently working on a Meyer design, but as if it was made from grenadilla. I am very exited by this because one of my favourite mouthpieces of all time is a wooden Brancher, so trying to get that kind of grenadilla quailty to other mouthpieces is something we are currently working on.

[Grumps]

One of the best Meyer-like mouthpieces I ever played was a clear plastic SR Tech Legend.

Having gone from a vintage Meyer alto piece to the SR Tech L85, I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. A great substitute for someone wanting a Meyer like piece that's a bit more open tipped.

[10mfan]

This is a general statement about this post and not directed towards any particular mouthpiece makers or mouthpiece companies.
There are many very good “versions” of these Meyer Bros and other vintage mpc's out there that will make players happy.

The problem with this post asking about Meyer Bros "clones", is who is making a true, perfect clone????? Who is CT scanning pieces and making NO changes whatsoever from the original one they scanned? Meyer Bros were made of hard rubber and had certain intended facing curves on them. My feeling is that if you are not using those, not CT scanning, and making adjustments from the original, you cant call your piece a clone or perfect copy.

If you are making adjustments to a Meyer Brothers or any vintage mouthpiece because you want it to play what you consider to be better for you, I see no issues coming out and saying that, but I do see issues with people calling pieces clones or exact copies, if they aren’t.

Having been a well known dealer of the finest examples of vintage mouthpieces for over 3 decades, I can see these changes as clear as day with different models out there.
Just say the piece was "inspired by" or made to be a close example of a particular model but with some modifications.


Also, if you make a casting, there’s always some amount of shrinkage.

The very nature of a clone is an unaltered version of the original.

[MojoBari]

I find material per se is irrelavant, but the mass or density of the material is not. When we do Meyer "clones" we look at the (internal) dimensions of course but also the density. So even though we don't use hard rubber (which we could do of course to be pedantic), we might use a synthetic resin with the exact same mass because it is only that aspect of the material that has any bearing on the sound. So for example we are currently working on a Meyer design, but as if it was made from grenadilla. I am very exited by this because one of my favourite mouthpieces of all time is a wooden Brancher, so trying to get that kind of grenadilla quailty to other mouthpieces is something we are currently working on.

I think a player can feel when they are playing on different materials. I can fathom that materials with the same density may not be distinguishable to the player. But we have proven that listeners of recordings can not consistently identify mouthpieces made of different materials that are dimensionally the same.

[Pete Thomas]

I think a player can feel when they are playing on different materials.

I'm sure they can in many cases.

But we have proven that listeners of recordings can not consistently identify mouthpieces made of different materials that are dimensionally the same.

When did we do that?

[MojoBari]

I'm sure they can in many cases.

When did we do that?

2013

[Pete Thomas]

2013

Where? Who ? How? What?

[Sebastian]

This is a general statement about this post and not directed towards any particular mouthpiece makers or mouthpiece companies.
There are many very good “versions” of these Meyer Bros and other vintage mpc's out there that will make players happy.

The problem with this post asking about Meyer Bros "clones", is who is making a true, perfect clone????? Who is CT scanning pieces and making NO changes whatsoever from the original one they scanned? Meyer Bros were made of hard rubber and had certain intended facing curves on them. My feeling is that if you are not using those, not CT scanning, and making adjustments from the original, you cant call your piece a clone or perfect copy.

If you are making adjustments to a Meyer Brothers or any vintage mouthpiece because you want it to play what you consider to be better for you, I see no issues coming out and saying that, but I do see issues with people calling pieces clones or exact copies, if they aren’t.

Having been a well known dealer of the finest examples of vintage mouthpieces for over 3 decades, I can see these changes as clear as day with different models out there.
Just say the piece was "inspired by" or made to be a close example of a particular model but with some modifications.


Also, if you make a casting, there’s always some amount of shrinkage.

The very nature of a clone is an unaltered version of the original.

+1. Most so called replicas still have a personal spin on them, be it in finish style, tip sizes, facing schedules etc. Sometimes even the core geometry doesn't seem to resemble the originals or a designer will manage to make it like an original but have extra baffle or floor height. It's probably great and performs better than many original examples but it ISN'T a copy.

[10mfan]

You and I are on the same page.
Hope you are doing well!!!

[MojoBari]

Where? Who ? How? What?

I believe it was you

[CE Winds]

I can agree with what everyone said about exact copies. There are no exact copies. I would add that Vintage mouthpieces were made much differently than most mouthpieces are today. Unless you were at the Meyer factory and had 100 pieces sitting in front of you, it would be hard to find 2 mouthpieces that were exactly the same. It was possible, but the differences would probably be so negligible that not many, IF any, saxophones players, mouthpiece experts, or manufacturers, could really tell the difference. This is a quote from Theo Wanne's website on the Meyer page - this is his opinion, but he is also respected mouthpiece expert. "The lines in the chamber are from hand work and are different on every mouthpiece."

Like Mark, Sebastion, and Pete, Mojo, and many other respected mouthpiece aficionados I'm sure, we've owned several great playing examples of vintage pieces, and some that were not so great - and all were original.

For what we do with these pieces in particular, which may be similar to what Mr. Pillinger does, is start with a great example (at least what we feel is a great piece). From start to finish, we see the piece from master to blank to final product, in our shop. When the piece comes out of our one piece mold, that took us over 5 years to develop (and we feel it still can be better), we pull a mostly finished product. They are very consistent with each other, and very consistent with the original master. When we check during the QC process, if they are not, for whatever reason, we put them to the side. There is a very limited buffing an cleaning process done on order to maintain the material on the body and keep the 'feel' as close to the original.

Would we say it's a copy? We would never use that term intentionally (and as far as we know have avoided using it ourselves), but people have used that term relating to our product (which we try to correct as much as possible). We've never been closer to the original than we are right now. That's not to say ours is better than any other make/model/brand, but it is what we like.

[Pete Thomas]

which may be similar to what Mr. Pillinger does,

It's actually Dr. Pillinger, but I'm sure he won't hold it against you - it's worth reading his PhD. (His rigourous scientific approach to the research into materials and embouchure is why I respect his methods so highly)

I can agree with what everyone said about exact copies. There are no exact copies.

I'm sure we are all agreed about that (I mentioned in post #2). I never advertise clones, rather "inspired by"

However I believe it's possible to get as close as makes no difference, but even then what are you going to compare it with? When looking for a meyer model to base a mouthpiece off, I must have tried about 20, bith vintage and modern. The one I chose was an original Meyer Bros, however it sounded and responded (to me) different to the other original Meyers. So as far as I was concerned, that was the best one. Others may not agree. So I got that one copied and it's as physically exact as it needs to be to sound identical - just as with a baritone Slant 7 and a Toots Mondello baritone. For me these were first and fortemost a safety in case I evr lost the original. Soundwise and responsewise they are to all intents and purposes "clones."

[J.Max]

One of the things about the vintage mouthpieces and the copies of them is that people forget just how much variations there are in every mouthpiece, even Meyers. My first teacher played on a Meyer Bros piece, and I’ve played a lot of them - no two were ever the same. So, there are really two options: duplicate one piece as exactly as possible but you only get that one Meyer Bros sound, or play a bunch of them and try to “average” them into one piece. I think a lot of companies opt for the latter, so you get people saying they’re “enhanced” even when that wasn’t the intent.

Same thing with Selmer Soloist soprano pieces. I own 4 of them right now. All different. The Aizen came really close to one of them but was very far from the others. The Pillenger too. And so on and so forth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EsbSpecial]

I taught a half dozen lessons in the last couple weeks with the CE tenor slant piece and the Meyer piece, and my wife is pissed that I stayed in my Pseudio and continued to woodshed after the lessons. I am enjoying those pieces more than I think I ever have any piece before.

The tenor piece especially. The alto Meyer is so liquid it's crazy. This is the most early spring woodshedding I've done in over a decade. Keep it up, good sirs!

[Pete Thomas]

The tenor piece especially. The alto Meyer is so liquid it's crazy. This is the most early spring woodshedding I've done in over a decade. Keep it up, good sirs!

I hope they will, I tried several CE Winds mouthpieces at Namm - sometimes unbeknownst to CE Winds thermselves as some distributors I was consulting for had asked me to play test them anonymously and give an honest opinion. Excellent mouthpieces.

[jamiejazz]

I too would like to recommend Ed Pillinger's mouthpieces. I've used them for years, and many of my students play on them. His pieces have developed and feel less and less like resin to me. One student has a clone-type piece, and it's as good as my NYUSA.

My own mouthpiece is a beautiful NYUSA 5m (bought from 10mfan). About 10yrs ago I had Ed put his 5* facing (between a 5 and 6) on it-it's great and I play it all of the time. I chipped the corner recently but after Ed's repair/reface it actually feels better than before. That 5* facing Ed makes is fantastic.

[Pete Thomas]

I believe it was you

I meant a more scientific study in regard to material and mouthpieces in general (ie not just those with a baffle style that would actually negate any sound differences there may be due to material)

I too would like to recommend Ed Pillinger's mouthpieces. I've used them for years, and many of my students play on them. His pieces have developed and feel less and less like resin to me.

That may be because he uses a Hard Rubber + Resin composite (among other composites such as Bronzite and Onyxite). I think Ed probably knows more than anyone about mouthpiece material and any effects it may or may not have on sound.

[MojoBari]

I meant a more scientific study in regard to material and mouthpieces in general (ie not just those with a baffle style that would actually negate any sound differences there may be due to material).

I thought your tests were pretty well done. Why would the baffle design negate the results of a material test?

Are there ANY published results of double blind testing where listeners can consistently distinguish mouthpiece materials?