 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-04 23:19
Hi,
I have been playing my Leblanc L 200 a lot lately after using my Buffet Academy (read R-13) exclusively for the last 6 months. What was I thinking of! How could I have forgotten how solid the intonation was for the L 200 or how responsive the instrument is though out all registers. I have fallen head over heels for this somehow forgotten member of my little stable.
I did a search on this BB for other users of the L 200 and found few mentions of this seemingly unknown and perhaps under-appreciated diamond-in-the-rough. Someone whos technical and musical opinion I trust very much has told me that the L 200 was the LeBlanc answer to the R-13 but that the clarinet did not really catch on.
Does anyone else play this instrument? If so, what are your experiences.
HRL
Post Edited (2004-09-06 23:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-09-05 00:19
Hank - I cant comment on the L 200 per se, BUT if it has some of the fine properties of my L 7, YES, it is an unappreciated cl for great playing ! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bill28099
Date: 2004-09-05 03:21
In Bb I have a Leblanc Symphonie, Dynamique and LL. I love my Symphonie but it's a bit sharp. In A I have a Symphonie II, it's OK. When I was a kid (1955) I had a Buffet, the bottom of the big three. Today I get to play what I always dreamed of having. And yes, I have blown R13s, one of the best tuned/tweaked in Canada but I still prefer my LeBlanc.
A great teacher gives you answers to questions
you don't even know you should ask.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-05 11:03
the L200 was the model between the L27 and the L300 as far as i know- i think i remember adverts for it staring.... ummm Stanley Drucker??????
a friend of mine had one, with the bell filled in somewhat (to lower clarion B and C pitch) and i remember being quite jealous
the same instrument had been previously owned by an accomplished NZ clarinet player who performed the NZ premiere of the Finzi Concerto. i have a recording of this performance and (for what it's worth) the tone is very fine, intonation not perfect but nothing to be ashamed of (i believe he had purchased the clarinet 3 weeks before the concerto perfomance!).
that's about all i know of the L200
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-05 12:24
Hi,
To add a little fuel to the fire, my outstanding technical source said that there was a period when Leblanc took a large number of L 200s and re-bored them to about 15.00 mm from the original 14.80+mm. My L 200 is roughly 14.83 mm at the top of the UJ and 14.65 mm at the bottom which is very close to my R-13s 14.85 mm and 14.63. These measurements were done with a calipers which I carefully tried to use to get the dimenions (I know that a bore gauge should have been used but at least this gives some point of reference).
Evidently, Leblanc did a bad thing with the re-bored L 200s and the tuning of several areas on the clarinet were quite a bit off. I'm glad I have one of the "good" excuse me "great" L 200s.
I am guessing that the production runs of the L 200s were in the 80s and then after the company came to its senses, in the early 90s. My serial number is 49XXX.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-09-05 14:34
Hank, my L 7 Leb is ser # 43xxx, late 70's/early 80's. There was quite a succession of L models, dont know much of them, but will look in what Leb info I have. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-09-05 15:58
Always never say it all, first time ! I did measure bores, top and botton of my L 7's U J's, it appears to be cylindrical at 14.8 [+?] mm. I found an Leb "wall poster" describing their L X model [1185] as 14.6 mm, their L L [1176] as 14.8 mm and the Pete F [1610] as 15.0 mm. Pay money, take choice ?? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-05 16:28
Hi Don,
Thanks for the information. It appears that my guess of a 1980s build date may be pretty close to right. Also, the bore being very similar to the R-13 certainly does add credence to my information that the L 200 was one of Leblanc's attempt to emulate the R-13.
More fuel for the fire in that my Selmer 9*, not my 9, has a bore of 15 mm at the top of the upper section and 14.55 mm at the bottom. Both the Selmer and the Leblanc play much better in tune than the R-13 in the critical first few notes just above the staff where a lot of the 1st clarinet notes in wind symphony music seem to lie.
HRL
PS And then there is my Leblanc Dynamic 2. Talk about a wild ride!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-09-05 17:56
Hank, Admittedly I am working with impaired mental capacity, but it seems to me that taking a functional clarinet and enlarging its bore is an excellent recipe for a non-functional instrument. Unless it is your intent to make it play sharp over its entire compass.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-05 18:52
Hi John,
Looks like you may have missed soemthing or I was not clear.
Here's what happened "my outstanding technical source said that there was a period when Leblanc took a large number of L 200s and re-bored them to about 15.00 mm from the original 14.80+mm. " So, the Leblanc Co. took the L 200 sometime in the middle of its run and bored it to the larger specs with very poor results. There was then a change back to the "good" dimernsions.
I have no intention of changing anything about my L 200. it is perfect.
Hope this clarifys the situation.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-05 20:25
hmmm
i thought it was the LX that was rebored- i'm pretty sure that there is a "Clarinalisis" collumn that Lee Gibson wrote that discusses this (or at least mentions it)..... but maybe they did it to the L200 as well.
i imagine the idea was to avoid the bore changing as the intstruments were shipped across the atlantic- they would rebore and then re-tune after the instruments had adjusted to US midwestern conditions, making the instrument into a kind of "clarinet blank" to be finished by the US worker. i wonder if this had some effect of import duty etc Who knows? (maybe someone)
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-05 22:37
Hi,
A good friend just supplied me with some old copies of Claranlysis for review.
Here is an interesting thing that Gibson had to say: "I do predict that this clarinet will become a great one and possibly the leading clarinet in five years." So much for predictions.
There are also some very complimentary references made about the Selmer 9* in the same article. I am extremely lucky and have one of those as well but the L 200 plays rings around it. However, the intonation for the 9* is perfect as well but the L 200 has superior response and a more focused tone.
HRL
PS For thrifty BB members, consider a classic clarinet if you want to save some money and still have a terrific instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-06 06:20
thanks GBK for that jpeg- you know i'm sure i saw it advertised with Stanley Drucker, because i remember being really suprised (knowing that he played/advertised for Buffet). Maybe it was the L300 or something (of course, i could just be TOTALLY wrong, instead of just a bit wrong)
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-09-06 06:52
Hank: what I'm saying is that if no change other than a 0.2 mm larger bore were introduced into any otherwise well-designed Clarinet, the finished instrument would play sharp. No question about it.
So yes, I would say "very poor results" indeed. It's beyond me to imagine any other result, or why any competent manufacturer would do anything that weird.
Or, once more, is there something I'm missing? Were other changes incoroporated?
Regards,
John
.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FredR
Date: 2004-09-06 06:58
Hank
My Bb is an L300 (ser #55xxx from 1984) and I have the same opinion as you. What really struck me about it, and still does, is the tone I get. My sound was always a bit on the bright side, and I longed for the "dark round " tone I always heard people refer to, and I got with the Leblanc. I don't know what modifications were made between the 200 and 300, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the pros thought the 300 lacked projection and may have been too dark sounding. I've never been able to find any info on the model including bore size or type. I also recently acquired an L7 A (45xxx I don't know the year) which I find to be a great match for my Bb. The one problem I have with both is that the throat tones (esp. the A4) seem to be tuned down from the rest of the instrument. It's great if your playing with a piano but can be problematic in an ensemble or clarinet section that lives on the sharp side.
Fred
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-06 12:16
Hi FredR,
Thanks for the information. Exactly what changes were made in the L 300, I do not know other than there is no bell ring. I got this piece of information from a well-known repair tech that just got one on eBay.
From the sound of it, there were not too many L 200s or even the L 300 made. It is very cool that you have the same result as I do on playing the clarinet.
John: "It's beyond me to imagine any other result, or why any competent manufacturer would do anything that weird" just goes to show that weird things do happen in corporate America. But then, I am playing golf with a several year old Big Bertha driver and Tommy Armour T 100 irons that are really sweet and I hit the ball a pretty good piece. These clubs have been replaced "by new and improved versions." I'm hanging with the old.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-06 20:38
the Lee Gibson reference i recall (Clarinalysis) would have been from the mid to late 1980s, i might even have it i my pile of magazines, but no time to look for it until later
it was in reference to the LX, but i think he wrote something like "continued practise of reboring etc"
of course, given my L200/L300 confusion re Stan Drucker, i wouldn't trust my memory anymore
great instruments though, no doubt about it!
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim S.
Date: 2004-09-09 00:02
I have a small "Retail Price List" printed by Leblanc, effective 3/1/82. It shows the L300's bore as 14.60 mm, and the L200's bore as also 14.60 mm. The L300 in nickel was priced the same as the L200 (I presume also in nickel, though it didn't specify for some reason) at $1495.00. The L27 and LL1176 were both $ 1395.00 (14.75mm and 14.80, respectively). The Dynamic H, bore 15.00mm, was $1295.00, and the Pete Fountain, 15.00mm, without gold overlay was $1695.00. All of these were Bb's.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-09 00:21
Hi JimS,
Outstanding information on the lineup and prices. This stuff is really hard to come by. I also have a Dynamic 2 which has the huge 15.00mm barrel. Since the L200 and L300 are the same bore and the price is the same, I wonder what other differences existed other than the non-ringed bell?
FredR, are there any other obvious differences on the L300 other than the bell ring I mentioned?
I do not see much different on the L200 except I notice an interesting thing at last night's rehearsal and that was the L200 stuck on my clarinet peg so the last taper toward the bell is less. This is the first clarinet to stick there (Selmer 9, 9*, R-13, and Dyn 2 did not).
BTW at this rehearsal (the first one for the L200), the clarinet was terrific. Very responsive in all registers and at all dynamic levels and the pitch was right on all evening. Ambient air temperature was about standard at 72-74 degrees F.
HRL
Post Edited (2004-09-09 00:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FredR
Date: 2004-09-09 19:12
Hank
I just use a K&M folding peg but the bell taper doesn't hit anywhere.
I was looking at the jpgs GBK graciously provided and I dont see any outstanding differences. They both have the inline jump trills, the post mechanisms seem the same. I was comparing the L300 to the L7 and the only other keywork difference I see is that the LH C#/F# and the B/E keys on the L300 are attached to the connecting arms (pardon, what I am sure is totaly incorrect nomenclature) by means of a protruding peg , where the L7 the arms sit on the keys and are levered up. I do think Leblanc altered the throat tone holes, I've never played a clarinet before where the F to the Bb sounded so in-tune without lipping down or using resonace fingering.
I do agree with the adverts in that the resistance is very even through out. I shocked my band director awhile ago playing the Grainger Irish Tune hitting that F# to E leap at pp and still dim. The mans a clarinet player himself and is used to grad students so impressing him isn't very easy.
Thanks to both GBK and JimS for the info. Ive had my horn for 8 yr without even knowing the bore size, let alone the advertising aspect and what market they were trying for. It would be intesting to know what led to demise of the L's or would that fall under "don't ask the Question......."
Fred
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-10 00:31
Hi Fred,
Thanks for the differences information. Perhaps the under-cutitng and tone hole dimensions are the only significant difference. That being said, you and I agree that the instrument is a real winner!
Hey, maybe we should start a little L 200/300 club. It seems that such a club would be extremely exclusive.
I plan to just cut a tad off the peg on the folding stand. For my big, heavy home stand, no problem as there was no binding.
As far as what happened in the marketing arena, several posters on the BB have new Leblanc instruments and are very happy. For me, the lust for the newest clarinet is about the same as my lust for new golf club (see above). I am very happy with what I have and no, this clarinet is not for sale.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-09-10 16:06
Dr. Hank, if you start an exclusive Leblanc L200/L300 Club, I shall have no choice but to out-exclusive you by starting a Kohlert-Winnenden Full-Boehm Club. Please don't make me do it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim S.
Date: 2004-09-10 16:23
Or maybe a " What Hole Did Artie Shaw Plug and Where Was it?" club.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2004-09-10 23:19
jim S. --
And limericks about THAT could bring this thread to a rapid close!
Todd W.
Post Edited (2004-09-10 23:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chazman
Date: 2005-10-20 20:46
I must ask for my own clarification...are the L200 with a serial number 45xxxx the more desirable ones?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nickma
Date: 2005-10-20 20:58
Shame on you Hank! I too, as you may remember from past postings, also have a Buffet Academy (56XXX) which is too good to put away! Mine's the best R13 I've ever played....
But, try it with the Howarth Pedigree barrel, and WOW, you'll be blown away. This barrel goes seriously well with these very early R13 polys, and really evens out intonation. Howarth is based in London.
Nick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-10-20 22:12
Hi Nick,
While the Academy is very, very good, the L200 has the edge by quite a bit. But, I also have a Selmer 9* which is right up there. The beauty of the whole thing is I acquired and redid all three great vintage clarinets for less than a used R13.
For my kind of playing (wind ensemble, small group, and a good bit of jazz) any one of the three works just great.
HRL
PS Since I have three great clarinets now, I am in the hunt for a backup alto for my 54XX Mark VI. I just got a YTS 475 for my Mark VI tenor backup. Life can be good!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-10-21 14:40
Dont you have both a CT and a Dyn ? As Yogi says, "If you aint got them, thats why you need them". Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-10-21 15:52
Hi Don,
Pretty good memory for an oldster, Don (close but no cigar). I had a Dynamic 2 and a Series 9 (almost FB) that I sold a few weeks ago to an old pal here in TOL and to a new pal in DFW respectively. I did keep the 9*, the L200, and the R13 Academy. The sold clarinets (along with my PM eefer) were too good to be sitting on the shelf and a combination of a few extra bills coupled with the lust for a back-up alto forced me to have a Fall Sales Event with deep discounts!!! Several extra MPs found new homes as well.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cdgaflash
Date: 2005-10-22 02:35
Hi,
I purchased my L200 A Clarinet from a friend about 5 years ago. With my Pyne M13B mouthpiece, it plays wonderfully rich/dark. It has been described as "chocolatey". Intonation is fine... I wrote to D. Surber who said that the L200 was the premiere offering by LeBlanc at the time (late '70's-early 80's)...
The grenadilla is not as dense as my R13 Bb, circa 1973, as it is noticeably lighter. The sound however, is as rich/focused as any of the R13 A's I have played next to. Its a wonderful horn.
Eric
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2021-04-15 00:53
An interesting old thread about some great clarinets... sad to be reminded that we have lost GBK. Looking at my old posts- it was the L300 that Mr Drucker appeared in advertisements for... I'm sure I remember one where he held a cigar, but here is the easily googleable one.
< https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6CPTEx1lT6c/Xp9zdZv76mI/AAAAAAAAIWU/n3q-Am8efYUTFXT5GW4vPWqmqgKwcnyOgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Drucker%2BAd.jpg >
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2021-04-15 03:19
Donald, that ad is attached in one of GBK's posts higher up.
The L200 was the last pro model that Leblanc introduced with a cylindrical bore. (Edit: Incorrect, see further down.)
The L300 has a reverse conical bore and much more character IMO.
Post Edited (2021-04-15 12:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2021-04-15 06:06
Johan,
From one of my posts above about the upper joint measurements on my L200. It was a conical bore very close to that of my R13.
"My L 200 is roughly 14.83 mm at the top of the UJ and 14.65 mm at the bottom which is very close to my R-13s 14.85 mm and 14.63. These measurements were done with a calipers which I carefully tried to use to get the dimensions (I know that a bore gauge should have been used but at least this gives some point of reference)."
Also in one of my posts above there are comments about LeBlanc's failed effort to re-bore some L200 with a cylindrical bore.
HRL
PS I see some posts in the same thread from our old BB friend, the late Don Berger. He was a wonderful source of clarinet facts and figures. Miss you, Don.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2021-04-15 12:01
Hank,
I checked some of my measurements and you are correct. Pardon me. I have to stop writing from the top of my head. L7 was probably the last cylindrical model Leblanc introduced. The short lived L70 was probably the first non-cylindric model.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jeroen
Date: 2021-04-15 12:15
I have a L300 lying somewhere in the house. I will try to find it and blow it again.
From my memories I liked the intonation which was more on par with H. Wurlitzer Reform Boehm clarinets: spot on from G3 to A5, also in throat register. From A5 it started to pitch higher. Clearly the compromises with the 12ths in the left hand were made to favor the lower register.
The sound was round and even in all registers. But imo it lacked resonance and projection. FredR mentioned in a previous thread "that the pros thought the 300 lacked projection and may have been too dark sounding". I can subscribe that and I actually have never used the L300 seriously.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-04-15 17:58
Dear Hank, I have one and I fully agree with everything you have said about it. I use a Clark Fobes barrel on it, which opens it up a bit and makes it more velvety. It's perhaps just a bit less flexible than a Buffet R13, but has a bigger, fuller sound. If it didn't catch on, it is simply that Léon Leblanc didn't have great marketing skills and wouldn't agree to hire somebody that did.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bonnie
Date: 2021-04-16 19:58
I didn't realize they made the L7 for that length of time. I have one fr0m 1968, SN 29xxx.
bdskees@comcast.net
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Lowry
Date: 2021-04-20 00:44
I have two L7s -- one I purchased in 1966 Ser 29407 and another one I got from the Goodwill website for about $200 -- it needed a new rod and the mother of pearl label was missing. Once fixed, still very nice, now being played by my niece. It too was a 29 thousand serial number, but I have no idea when it was originally purchased.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2021-04-20 03:49
Hank, just READING the letters L200 takes my mind back to my year as a jealous 13 year old, sitting next to Gary Wilson in orchestra and secretly coveting his lovely silver keys and the smell of bore oil on the wood.... He played Scheherezade and I couldn't believe how beautiful he sounded.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2021-11-01 02:11
Hi,
I have a set of custom made L300s, Bb, A and Eb. I have tuned a voiced them and modified the keywork. My own design barrel and the bells were picked from about 30 bells. They rock as a horn, a smaller sound maybe but everything else is great. Happy tooting
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
