Sax on the Web Forum banner

Retro Revival "UK Special" (Berg Larsen copy)

7K views 21 replies 12 participants last post by  mijderf 
#1 ·
After several unsuccessful attempts to find a decent older Berg Larsen tenor sax mouthpiece through e bay, I heard about the Retro Revival "UK Special" pieces. I would appreciate any feedback about these pieces from someone who owns or has tried one.
Also, any comments on Retro Revival Super D would be welcome.
Thank you in advance,
Ioannis
 
#3 ·
#4 ·
I have owned both the UK special and the super D. The RR DR copy the super D is a great mouthpiece, I have played five of them, two NY's and three Florida's, they were all different, but all of them were very nice pieces.
I don't think they resemble original DR Links, the long flat baffle of the RR is more like an EB STM baffle not an original DR design...whatever these are exceptional pieces, they play great and they sound great, they are perhaps the best modern metal piece I have played.
As for the Berg copy, I have played only one, I was not a fan, my 120/2 didn't sound like a great original Berg, I had a nice 120/2 to compare it with, the RR Berg lacked depth and character. Original Berg's are made of stainless, the RR Berg is brass, I think this is significant. Eric Falcon is hot right now.
 
#13 ·
If you are looking to buy a bright contemporary Link, go with the Florida, if you want a warmer Link get the NY.
As for your question "which RR DR Link is closer to the original?".
I have owned original NY and Florida DR pieces--a number of them, the baffles on these RR DR 'copies' don't look anything like any of the originals I have owned or seen, but I wouldn't get hung up on the physical comparison of the RR DR Link to original examples, as these RR Links are exceptionally nice playing pieces in their own right, they offer a clarity and power not found in the originals.
RR are offering an exceptional Link like piece here. I will add that I have noticed significant variations between the individual RR pieces I have tried, which is probably due to the hand finishing of the baffles.
I don't think it is reasonable to construe what I reported months ago, as equating with Saxoholic's recent crusade against Retro Revival. As for me not knowing what I am talking about...
I offered my experience then of playing RR pieces, you may have noticed that I said these were "exceptional Link like pieces" and I encouraged people looking for a good Link to try one of these. I don't believe this is what Saxoholic was up to in that unfortunate thread on the matter. I objected to an anonymous member attaching a business in that way, for me it lacked courage and just wasn't clean.
RR have a range of mouthpiece copies on offer, I believe their Slant and Meyer Bro's are close copies of original examples, I reported that I didn't think their RR Florida DR was like an original, this is still my opinion. I was appalled by the nastiness of that recent thread, but the responses from the company didn't impress me either. It was perhaps the most inept example of peer marketing I have ever seen, Mr RR came across as a major league toss pot. Truly the reason people buy these RR pieces is because they are exceptionally good, it is not due to the charm and brilliance of Mr RR's peer marketing on SOTW.

If you read Mr RR's first response--this is an exact quote, he may have left a clue..."I can say 1 thing, I have the first FL 8 that was made I its one of the best tenor pieces I have ever owned. As good as the EB 7* My friend sold me that he got from Eddie Lockjaw Davis.
The Super is very popular and for me not resistant at all." This might be as close to a confession as you are going to get from RR.
The RR DR baffle is clearly not a copy of an original DR, however it does look similar to some EB Link baffles, perhaps you can follow the bread crumbs...

DR Links have a mystique, a mystique that is useful for marketing I suppose. What would happen if you made a hybrid DR EB, who is going to know, as most people have never seen an original DR...except on SOTW where every second member has a private stash of them.
Thank you for replying back with an explanation.
First of all i didnt say you dont know what you are talking about, i actually think you do,nor to equate you with an other person.It was just a logical conclusion, to me at least, since not both arguments can be correct, unless im missing something of course.
Im not here to argue with you or anybody else. I checked both this thread and the other one I mentioned out of genuine interest in the mouthpieces they make.
Lots of companies make their own versions of all those classic mouthpieces but what sets RR apart is that they claim to make exact copies of great examples of the originals, and because of that their asking prices should not be compared to other companies but to the original pieces on ebay that go for 1000$ and more, and that is also the reason people are willing to pay more than the average price of a custom mouthpiece, not cause they are just good pieces. Isnt that what they claim?
Now if someone says that those claims are not true and what they are doing is just an other good Link-like copy that is a serious allegation. No?
I think that was the point saxoholic was trying to make. I deducted from your post above you were making kind of a similar claim without of course going so far as to accuse anyone.
Im not an expert in otto links but perhaps it is what you say and RR has a rare copy of a DR with a EB Link baffle? Maybe that makes some sense?
 
#14 ·
Lots of companies make their own versions of all those classic mouthpieces but what sets RR apart is that they claim to make exact copies of great examples of the originals, and because of that their asking prices should not be compared to other companies but to the original pieces on ebay that go for 1000$ and more
I would dispute that totally. A company can set whatever price it wants, but according to the laws of economics it will usually even out due to supply and demand.

Ridiculously huge prices are paid for those original pieces because they are antiques and collectors items - and even some players want that kind of thing - maybe there is something in it, maybe not I don't know for sure. If you copy them then ultimately you will find it difficult to justify similar prices.

I won't use the word replica because I don't have evidence of whether these are replicas or copies (aka knock-offs) or just "inspired by". I imagine the true definition of replica is it must be an exact copy down to every detail including logo and material.
 
#6 ·
If you are looking to buy a bright contemporary Link, go with the Florida, if you want a warmer Link get the NY.
As for your question "which RR DR Link is closer to the original?".
I have owned original NY and Florida DR pieces--a number of them, the baffles on these RR DR 'copies' don't look anything like any of the originals I have owned or seen, but I wouldn't get hung up on the physical comparison of the RR DR Link to original examples, as these RR Links are exceptionally nice playing pieces in their own right, they offer a clarity and power not found in the originals.
RR are offering an exceptional Link like piece here. I will add that I have noticed significant variations between the individual RR pieces I have tried, which is probably due to the hand finishing of the baffles.
 
#9 ·
Got a UK Special yesterday, 120 tip. Done a solo gig and then a very loud 7 piece gig later yesterday. Very impressed. Done the soft stuff great then it wailed hard later. Very well made. Looks great. Very good on Rigotti 2 medium reeds. Love the big beefy sound. Think this is a keeper.
 
#19 ·
actually my understanding was that they are not only great mouthpieces but that since the originals were all the over place physically, and were far from uniform, that 'replica' referred to sound and general acoustical design. I think we need to stop bashing these guys just because they are not in the club.
 
#21 ·
No one is bashing anyone (and what 'club?'). I'm simply asking for truthful advertising, which I realize is asking a lot. If your understanding is correct, and I suspect it is, then it would be a simple matter for them to say, just as you did: "These are great mpcs and made with the same general acoustical design as __________ " (fill in the blank), and be done with it.

I'm pretty sure that what I'm suggesting is like spitting into the wind. It seems to be a losing proposition these days (maybe in any era) to ask that we at least make an effort to stick to facts and tell the truth. But that's a general statement. Let me be clear that this particular issue with one mpc designer is a rather minor thing in the bigger picture.
 
#22 ·
+1 JL. Some members need to quit doing contortions to justify misrepresentation in ads. No one disagrees that the RR mouthpieces play well. They should stop selling based on misrepresentation and start selling based on excellent performance.
No SOTW member discussion can fix this. Only RR can. And I happen to believe that RR will gain sales and respect by doing so.
...end of sermon.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top