 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: mhbstevens
Date: 2005-01-30 19:38
Recently I started playing clarinet again to teach my son. In my search for some instruments I have been looking at old Buffets from 1905-1945, prior to the R13. I have found that many players rave aboutt the 1950's Buffets and hence Buffet's attempt to imitate it in it's current "Vintage" instrument. So I am wondering just what was the period of the very best Buffets? If I found some good condition Buffet to choose from what would be the most desireable year to buy?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2005-01-30 20:15
Each model run had gems and clunkers - most of the machining and fitting was done by hand until the late 1970's.
Condition, tuning and intonation are pretty obvious to the buyer (with a tuner at hand, anyway) - how the instrument "feels" will vary with players.
Personally I prefer the RC model which has a more even resistance pattern.
I play a Hard-rubber Ridenour TR147, and NEVER worry about theft or cracking.
In full blare, no one can tell which maker's instruments are played.
The Kids, on the other hand, are notorious about Brand Names.
If the horn is for you- the best instrument under $1200 with a FRESH overhaul.
If it's for your son, start with a less fragile instrument. If he keeps up the practice into his early teen years - then buy a nice one for him.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2005-01-30 21:16
There are trade-offs with even the best vintage years. If you buy a great old Buffet--say 60s vintage--you will probably need to do a bit of an overhaul. Let's say at least pads and probably more. Bear that in mind when shopping. No doubt a great old instrument is worth the money spent in an overhaul. Plus, you need to have a good technician to do a good job.
There are many around on the board, should you need one. I've used John Butler as well as the Brannens.
However, you can find a great new one as well--if you're patient enough. You would have to go to lots of stores and try lots of instruments. That is a bit of an expense as well. I found a great new one a few months back, but it took several months to find it.
I think there are always some good ones found, even in the midst of bad ones. Just have to look, or have someone look for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mhbstevens
Date: 2005-01-30 22:19
I was thinking in the years I said I was looking at, ie 1905-1945. Do I read the replies here to say the 50's-70's are better (ignor condition) Of course I will get a full restoration and of course I will not buy any cracks, but the best decade is what I am after.
Jack's pointer to the 60,xxx to the 110,xxx puts the date at the 60's as the best. Is this generally accepted? I'll follow Jack's links now and thank-you.
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2005-01-30 22:35
I have Buffet 21xxx (1936) and 25xxx (1938). Two years apart, the instruments are completely different - and I mean that not merely subjectively. Even the bells are different (21xxx is longer). Barrels are different lengths (67 vs. 65). The older clarinet has a smaller bore. My experience playing it is that it produces surprisingly in-tune, crisp-sounding tones, and overall has a "serious" tone quality that, for instance, is in complete contrast to a mid-1950's Leblanc I have (totally "superficial"). However, it is not that easy to love. I came to respect it only after some playing time.
The 25xxx Buffet is a favorite. This poor baby is probably blown out or something, but it speaks with great ease and warmth of tone. It plays like "butter" (I open myself up for ridicule, I realize). The bore is noticably wider than the older one. The wood grain is more open. The keywork is claptrap, and I can no longer play it (despite a 2000 overhaul) because the springs are, one by one, fatiguing. I miss it like an intimate friend. It has cello qualities (for this player).
My understanding (which may be wrong-wrong-wrong!!!) is that as they went into the 40s, the bores just got bigger and bigger until - voila! - Hans Moennig saved the day. The rest is history.
Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: super20dan
Date: 2005-01-30 23:15
arnt all the good vintage ones "blown out"by now any awy? (if you believe in such rubbish!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2005-01-31 00:05
No, I don't quite think that old clarinets can be blown out. But - I have read about the changes in resistance. The 25xxx Buffet I was talking about is so responsive - some might find it "too" responsive. Of course you can change mouthpieces and set-up, etc. I've come to the conclusion that the 25xxx had a harder life than the 21xxx, which came to me as a "time capsule," complete with the original case, and inside the original reed box, silver cap, ligature, and mouthpiece. It was like getting a letter postmarked 1936.
What's important is what you love - I *like* both Buffets (plus my 1967 R-13 just fabulously overhauled by Vytas Krass!), but I admit I do *love* the easy-playing, tubby 25xxx. It's gettin' buried with me.
Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susieray
Date: 2005-01-31 04:24
Not all the good vintage ones are necessarily blown out (if there is such a thing), simply because they have been packed away for a zillion years unplayed and are still in almost new conditon (except for the pads and corks, which are old and need to be replaced.)
On the other hand, there are some very well-loved horns that have just been played to death. So you really have to judge them on an individual basis.
Sue 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: earlthomas
Date: 2005-01-31 15:47
The next-best Buffet clarinets I had or auditioned were in the low 100,000s, both the A and the B-flat. My current set (for many years now) is a 1928 A that's been spoken for by everyone who's ever tried it. And the B-flat is a 1938 plain-boehm marvel. They are both of very little resistance and very mellow, especially the A that has the most "glossy and shiny" bore that one could ever see. Of course the best Borbeck 13 and "floating-rail" ligature also help significantly. I was told that Moennig "tweaked" the B-flat, but that's not documentable. I tried a bunch of the Buffet series "S" once and did not find any to be acceptable. I think the early 100,000 serial numbers were quite good, and they would be from the late '60's or quite early '70s, I believe. If you find one that's up to the reputation they've acquired, give it some serious thought.
Good luck in your quest. I think you might like the "K" series Selmers or those that were labeled BT or RT. They were very good. I played a Selmer made in 1921 that was excellent and I believe it had "undercut" tone holes, or I was told that it did. There were a few Noblet clarinets that also were strongly recommended for a time. One of my pupils has one and it's a very fine clarinet. I knew that Loree made a fine clarinet back in the late '30s. , A high school friend and duet-partner had a lovely set of them way back then. My set of 1950's Selmer Omegas (made in the "K" series bore) were also distinctive with a pure and ringing "european tone quality" and excellenly crafted, silver-plated mechanism.
All the best,
E.T.
Post Edited (2005-01-31 16:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-01-31 18:30
The R13 has had a number of changes since the mid 1950's. Some think those changes were for the better.
Others, like Hans Moennig, thought the improvements were a step backwards. Thus, he supposedly stopped selling R-13's after about #125,000 because of the changes that had been made to the keywork and springs, as well as the fact that he could no longer order clarinets with unplated keys, which he felt were not as slippery as nickel or silver, and were easier to file and bend.
Moennig also had concerns about the length of time the wood was being cured.
There are a number of players (including myself) and repair techs who think that the Buffets produced from 1965 to 1971 (approximate serial numbers 85,000 to 120,000) were the "Golden Age". My primary R-13 Bb is 96xxx and my R13 A is 86xxx, and they are by far the best Buffets I have ever played. Other colleagues I know think that there are many great R-13's up to 1981 (220,000) before the bore slightly changed to more resistance.
On a personal note, I also have R-13's in the 154xxx, 162xxx and 190xxx range (with the 162xxx being the best of those three) which are excellent, but very different from the ones cited above. I also have a 237xxx, 248xxx and a 274xxx which play great but have a totally different feel, color and response.
(I currently have 2 Buffets with repair techs, and both are in the process of being fully restored - one is from 1939 (26xxx) and the other is an R13 from 1962 (70xxx). The wood and keywork of both seem in superb condition and from initial test playing, before restoration, I think they have great potential to be excellent instruments.
Many now say that we are in the new "Golden Era" of Buffet clarinets. I am not totally convinced. I think that great instruments are definitely out there, but it takes a little more searching and testing to find one. There have also been a number of quality control issues posted by the repair techs on this board and those concern me. I have helped students select new R-13's and it is often a frustrating task to find one that I would personally buy. Again, I may be jaded by the horns I already own.
In my mind the quality of the wood was definitely a consideration when I chose to stay with the older R-13's. Although certainly not a guarantee, a clarinet that has been crack free and stable for 30+ years has a high percentage chance of staying that way forever.
It is no secret that the length of time the wood is now aged is less than in previous generations. The jury is still out as to whether this has an effect on the sound and/or reliability of the instrument.
One important point to ponder: In the 50's and 60's the R13 was the top of the line Buffet clarinet. Supposedly, only the best wood was used for these instruments. Wood which was flawed or less than perfect was relegated to the lesser models. Today, with a number of Buffet clarinets (Tosca, Prestige, etc...) at a higher price point than the standard R13, one has to wonder: If the highest quality grenadilla billets are used for these instruments, would the R13 now get the 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) best quality grenadilla? Buffet makes it no secret when they say that their "heartwood" now goes into their top brands. Where did it go before? My guess is it previously (and sporadically) went into the traditional R13.
What to do? If the clarinet sounds good, tunes well and is in top mechanical condition the decision should be easy, no matter what the year.
In the overall scheme of things, clarinets are still a relatively inexpensive long term purchase...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2005-01-31 20:55
My R-13s are 134,XXX (Bb) and 126,XXX (A) from the early 1970s, and I've never played better ones. However, I seldom try new instruments because I don't play for a living and don't need anything in addition to what I have.
Old instruments are always a crapshoot. The key mechanism gets loose, and since the keys on the pre-WWII instruments were individually filed and hand-fitted to each instrument, they can't be replaced from another instrument, even of the same period. Also, the barrels and top joint bores have often been reamed out, making the instrument useless.
I have a Bb/A set from 1908 (from the 1B3XX series), which were apparently bought by an amateur and sat untouched in a closet from 1909 on. I bought them precisely because they looked so ratty, which indicated that they had been played very little. After restoration, they play very well, with a less "orchestral" quality than my R-13s. The barrels that came with the instruments were unusable -- too short, and reamed out so much that they were practically unplayable. Kalmen Opperman made barrels for them, and he told me that they need a completely different barrel length and bore from current models. Even if you find an older instrument, the odds are it will need extensive work, and a custom barrel, to play in tune.
The early R-13s, from the mid-1950s through the early 70s, were different from the current model. The outside diameter of the body was noticeably smaller, and for me they had a more flexible sound. But once again, these instruments are often badly worn, and the design had characteristic intonation problems. If you want that style of instrument, you would be better off with the current Vintage model. I've tried several, and they made me homesick for the first R-13 I bought in 1959.
A couple of years ago, I played several superb new Festival Greenlines at a Buffet exhibition (at the late lamented New York WW&BW store). Jon Manasse bought 3 out of the 5 they brought.
Unless you're exactly what you're looking for, and know and want the particular qualities of the older instruments, I think you will be much better off picking out a new one (or having a professional player choose one for you).
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler ★2017
Date: 2005-01-31 22:30
I tend to prefer the 1964-1968 instruments personally (although I play a LeBlanc now). I overhauled an R13 for a customer with a 147XXX serial number which is the best I've ever played.
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
