Klarinet Archive - Posting 000299.txt from 2005/05
Subj: RE: [kl] Mouthpieces - Chedeville
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:21:23 -0400
Walter brings up a very good point, and that is about the original
design that was created way back who knows when.=20
The only question I have is this. I thought the original Chedeville
mouthpieces were made from hard rod rubber. It is my understanding that
this does not require a mold in the sense that Walter is referring to.
The rubber is indeed molded into a rod form of some diameter and length,
but it would not have been molded into the shape of a mouthpiece like it
Glotin, having purchased the Charles Chedeville firm in 1976, would have
had access to anything that they had in the way of molds, unless they
purchased the name only. Having said this, I have to wonder why it took
them from 1976 until just recently (last year or so) to release their
new Charles Chedeville mouthpiece. Perhaps it was the high cost. Not
having much information about the technical aspects of this new
mouthpiece, it is reasonable that they would have had access to the
original documents that laid out the design parameters for their old
molds. This would be a big plus if this were true, but I don't know if
anyone on this list would really know for sure.
The second part of the equation is the rubber compound and how it was
formed. Again, unless this was a secret that someone took to the grave,
Glotin should have access to any documents that have this formula. The
big question is, did the original Ch. Chedeville make their own rod
rubber, thus controlling the purity and quality of the rubber compound
and the molding process itself. Making a mouthpiece from rob rubber
would be an entirely different process than what is used today. Rob
rubber would have to be machined, bored, polished, and then possibly
hand reamed and finished before the mouthpiece were finished.
I have to believe that it would still be technically possible to try and
duplicate this to a very great degree, but it would be expensive. I
don't know how large a firm Glotin is, but looking at the picture of the
front of their office on their website, they appear to be a fairly small
firm. Still, I have a feeling if someone was willing to put up enough
money, that over the course of years that the initial investment could
be paid back.
Chadash/Hill has also said that the use of raw rod rubber stock is the
single biggest difference between the Chedeville's of old and
mouthpieces today. They somehow found a source for this and are now
producing their own version of the Chedeville mouthpiece. So it can be
By the time you factor in the advancement in computerized CNC machinery,
there is no reason in the world this could not be done today and be done
in a much more efficient way than back then, perhaps even better.
My next question to all of your out there is this. If you could buy a
brand new production Charles Chedeville mouthpiece that was as good, or
very close to the originals, what would you be willing to pay for it.
Glotin sells what they claim is exactly this for about $309.00 US at the
Woodwind and Brasswind. I don't see people rushing to buy one, even
though most of us that have looked for the vintage originals would claim
this price to be a bargain compared to that which is currently for sale
on the open market for the real vintage ones.
I may just have to buy one of these and find out for myself if they are
really close to the original legend or not. I did find a few messages in
the archives about this very subject, but I did not find any real
definitive claim that was made by those people posting.
<< Walter said:
Bill - the problem is not "secrets". The problem is in getting the=20
appropriate molds made. I assume the old Chedeville molds no longer
exist (If they=20
did, someone would certainly be using them). I have to assume that
years of use the molds were no longer usable. >>
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org