 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Scotti
Date: 2006-08-17 16:48
For months now, I've been curious as to why the Backun website offers no insight to how their mouthpieces are made, most notably where the blanks come from. I recently had the opportunity to play-test some on my own, as well as observe their display at Clarinetfest. My time there gave me the chance to talk to some in the industry who have also been watching this mouthpiece "phenomenon." From talking to them, and from my personal observations, I am starting to believe that the Backun mouthpieces are little more than Zinner blanks labeled Morales-Backun and sold for ridiculous amounts.
My personal theory is that like most of their products, there is a great deal of desire from the customer to want the mouthpiece to be amazing, even when it's not. Since Zinner blanks are quality mouthpieces without any work done to them, it's not unbelievable that people might play them and love them, thinking it's the "Morales-Backun" label that makes them so excellent, and not the missing "Zinner Hand Crafted."
Have I gone off the deep-end, or is there anyone else who thinks there's some truth to this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-08-17 16:52
I played Grabner and Fobes (bass clarinet) mouthpieces, both made from Zinner, and they were completely different. The price is also different. The fact that it is made from Zinner doesn't mean it is the same at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Scotti
Date: 2006-08-17 16:54
I don't think I was asserting that it did mean that. A blank that is faced and worked on by Grabner and Fobes is altered from its original state. I am proposing that the Zinner blanks from Backun are not worked on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2006-08-17 17:10
BLASPHEMY!!!!
No, I think it's possible that the mouthpiece is another Zinner clone just with the added hype, but so what if it is? It does not really change anything. People will always go for the mystique of the newest product thinking it gives them supernatural abilities. I have fallen prey to this in the past, and for me, I just play whatever sounds good to me. The thing is, I cannot tell, when listening to recordings, etc., what mouthpiece someone plays or how much they paid for it. Often I find out that they are playing just a regular vandoren mouthpiece or like my former teacher Larry Combs, an LC1 fresh from the box. The reality is that Ricardo, et al, sounds like he does because he practices more than you do. Simple.
BTW, I am aware that Mr. Combs no longer plays an LC1.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-17 17:14
I have not tried any of the ultra pricey mouthpieces partially because of fear that I would fall in love with one and be forced to sell the farm to buy it. I know that Zinner and Babbitt make custom mouthpiece blanks for various mouthpiece makers to their specifications so a blank is not always the same blank and it is then reworked by the mouthpiece artisan. Any blank reworked by a mouthpiece maker is a different animal than the starting blank. On most Zinner blanks there is an imprint of the Zinner Company along the side of the table but I am not sure if they make blanks without this designation - perhaps some of the mouthpiece gurus can enlighten us on this?
L. Omar Henderson
Post Edited (2006-08-17 17:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-08-17 17:44
Scotti wrote:
> For months now, I've been curious as to why the Backun website
> offers no insight to how their mouthpieces are made, most
> notably where the blanks come from.
Is that really relevant?
We've already had this (sometimes heated) discussion and there's no point in re-visiting it. People pay what they pay, and your 'ridiculous price' is only in your eyes, not the eyes of one who really thinks that the mouthpiece is worth the money.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-08-17 18:16
"On most Zinner blanks there is an imprint of the Zinner Company along the side of the table but I am not sure if they make blanks without this designation - perhaps some of the mouthpiece gurus can enlighten us on this?"
I don't have a complete answer for this question, but I understood from Clark Fobes that all his Zinner blank mouthpieces have Zinner written on them (he said his mouthpieces without Zinner written on them are not Zinner but French blanks).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian
Date: 2006-08-17 19:09
I was four when I started the clarinet; and my very first teacher, Paul Harris, taught me that practice was MUCH more beneficial than constantly trying new equipment. Therefore, I had been playing the same brand of mouthpiece for more than nine years. Then I had opportunity to try the Backun MP.
Backun Musical have a machine that is huge and worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is especially programmed, and with custom made tooling, to rework the blanks internally and on the facing. It seemed very involved with several tool changes and laser devices used. This machine, I am told, is accurate to within 1/ 10,000 of an inch. Again, for me, there is no 'hype'. This mouthpiece matched expectation and more.
As to the price of the mouthpieces...well, my previous brand was equal, if not more in price.
Leblanc/ Backun artist.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2006-08-17 21:32
Well, we always have the ongoing discussion-" isn't xxx mouthpiece or clarinet or whatever overpriced?" Each player decides what works best for them and what they are willing to spend. Only s/he can decide that. Some are willing to spend $60 for a stock Vandoren some $1000 for a Vintage Chedeville or Kaspar or whatever. Some can't tell the difference, some don't care. Does it make up for practicing? Of course not. Good equipment can make a player's job easier.
I don't know what blank Backun uses. Maybe you should ask him. They don't play quite like others I have tried. The ones I have tried play quite well. Maybe they are not for everyone.
That is why Ben and Jerrys makes so many flavors!
Post Edited (2007-11-25 14:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OpusII
Date: 2006-08-17 21:36
Quote:
"On most Zinner blanks there is an imprint of the Zinner Company along the side of the table but I am not sure if they make blanks without this designation - perhaps some of the mouthpiece gurus can enlighten us on this?"
I don't have a complete answer for this question, but I understood from Clark Fobes that all his Zinner blank mouthpieces have Zinner written on them (he said his mouthpieces without Zinner written on them are not Zinner but French blanks).
I believe that Viotto does also use Zinner Blanks, but there aren't any designations on the mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-17 22:16
I was just interested because there seems to be some cache associated with mouthpieces of old and of new that are milled from rod rubber stock. Zinner, Babbit, and other quality blanks are molded rather than milled from rod stock. The Zinner designation means nothing as far as I am concerned about the finished product because several of the present days custom mouthpiece makers use Zinner blanks which are custom made for them or even the stock selection from Zinner which are turned into custom mouthpieces through their artistry. Zinner blanks are acclaimed by many anyway for their quality. It would be easy to mill off or turn off on a lathe the Zinner designation, if present, much as Kaspar turned down Chedville blanks and then put his own logo on them. Just curious!
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-17 22:34
Though somewhat off-topic, I believe that the very common Bundy 3 mouthpieces are Babbitt blanks with absolutely no 'post-processing' (i.e. facing) done to them other than stamping the Bundy name and logo on them. I base this speculation solely on having had a few Babbitt blanks and noticing that the material and facings they come with appear to be very similar, if not identical to the many Bundy 3s I've worked on. My point is, the so-called 'blanks' from the major mouthpiece makers (e.g. Babbitt, Zinner, perhaps Lelandais) are probably pretty darn close to playable 'as-received", if not completely playable, before the high-dollar guys even touch them.
Usual caveats apply: Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, no warranties are expressed or implied, keeo out of reach of children, etc.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-17 23:22
Dave, you are going to ruin your reputation as a "high dollar guy" if you keep this up! I'm still playing the olive green "A" clarinet that you rescued from becoming a lamp and remade the bridge mechanism out of a #10 chili can. You really have to get some panache about your work! Remember - patina = big bucks, and light sanding makes a custom mouthpiece!
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-17 23:56
Dr. Omar, please accept my apologies for that burst of random iconoclastism (is that even a word?). Someone has to point out that the emperor is buck-naked.......... At any rate, I'm glad you have a fine appreciation for 'garage specials' and can see past the humble (or even ugly) exterior of a clarinet, to the functional beauty inside! (arfff.........).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2006-08-18 00:07
Doc, If your eminence can live perfectly well with a lamp-body-reject horn, I suppose I should be happy to keep my rust-colored B&H as-is, in its pure unadultrated form, except for sending it to David for his artistic touch and tin can magic.
EuGene
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2006-08-18 00:25
> "I believe that the very common Bundy 3 mouthpieces are Babbitt blanks with absolutely no 'post-processing' (i.e. facing) done to them other than stamping the Bundy name and logo on them." <
What's common Bundy 3 mouthpiece? The very common Bundy 3 mouthpieces I'm aware of have "France" inscribed on the (bottom) left side. So, they are not Babbitt blanks. This mouthpiece I'm talking about has one line up and one line down, "Geo m Bundy" in the middle, number 3 below the line (in the middle) and "France" on the left side.
It is possible that the original series Bundy mouthpieces (just like their clarinets) have been made in France but later switched to other blanks
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2006-08-19 02:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Paprocki
Date: 2006-08-18 00:52
I'm having a hard time understanding this statement about the Backun mouthpiece, this is off his web site, "These mouthpieces take advantage of the laws of physics and science with the use of The Boundary Layer; a complex property that increases the vibration and response of the reed, as it floats on the mouthpiece table. "
A quick background of myself. I have a BS in mechanical engineering and a DMA in clarinet performance. I've had a courses in fluid mechanics and 2 phase flow. Some one explain to me what he is talking about - I don't see how boundary layer theory would apply to the mouthpiece table. I'm too busy practicing to hunt down my engineering books and research this but it strikes me that this has shades of P.T. Barnum
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-18 01:02
As I understand it in this application (and as I have said I do not have the nerve to try out Morrie's MP's for fear of the "want me's") the bottom of the reed floats on a layer of air caused by the ridge design of the table. This is the hover craft theory. Please put me right Morrie if this is an incorrect interpretation and explain it so that I will understand. Chemistry took over and my engineering education soon got lost.
L. Omar Henderson
To expand - the reed can vibrate freely because even though floating it has no upward movement above the table because the layer, even though not touching the table, is so compressed that it acts as a solid surface. Imagine a multi-ton hover craft skimming over rough water because the air layer and water layer it rides on below is smooth and miniscule in comparison to the water surrounding and it does not have an up and down moment of the water (of course if the waves get too rough the mechanical aspects of setting up the boundry layer fail and the ship becomes a ship and bobbs on the waves). A tough concept to get your brain around for sure.
Post Edited (2006-08-18 01:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-08-18 02:05
The following is perhaps the most extensive and informative thread I've seen about the subject matter of this thread so far:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=210783&t=209993
also:
"...the so-called 'blanks' from the major mouthpiece makers (e.g. Babbitt, Zinner, perhaps Lelandais) are probably pretty darn close to playable 'as-received", if not completely playable, before the high-dollar guys even touch them."
______________________________________________________
Perhaps in other cases. Since I am not interested being broad-brushed into that category....not true in my case.
BTW, knowing that it is axiomatic as with any item, $$$ does not necessarily = quality, I'm not altogether sure who the so-called "high-dollar guys" are anymore.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
Post Edited (2006-08-18 02:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-18 03:36
Vytas,
Although I personally have seen only one or two, you seem to be most familiar with earlier, French-made Bundy mouthpieces. Nearly all the Bundy 3's I've worked with (many of which have been alto, tenor and bari sax, and bass and contra-alto clarinet mouthpieces) have been American-made (no "France" markings, no lines) and the hard-rubber material was most definitely "Babbitt-like" (until you get to the really recent Bundys, which are molded plastic).
But I believe you're correct, analogous to the ca. 1930s "G.M. Bundy - Paris" clarinets (of which I've owned one), the early Bundy mouthpieces seem to have been made on French blanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-18 13:14
I have done some digging and found an article that describes the "Boundary Layer" origin which can be found at:
http://www.aps.org/units/dfd/prandtl_vol58no12p42_48.pdf#search=%22physics%20%22boundary%20layer%22%22Article
This concept, though technical, would not describe the purported attributes of the mouthpiece unless it was modified by some aerodynamic application such as used in the hover craft example. Without a real mouthpiece in hand and accurate measurements it is difficult to determine how the Boundary Layer principle could be applied in the BM mouthpiece. Some help in explanation from an aeronautical engineer or Morrie would be helpful.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-18 15:42
I'm reminded of the device (still being sold) that is advertised as increasing the fuel economy of your automobile by 5-10%: it's a magnet that attaches to the outside of the fuel line or fuel pump and is supposed to 'increase the vorticity' of the fuel, and somehow this makes the engine run substantially more efficiently. Do you believe that? I don't.
Now I have an MS in mechanical engineering, part of which studies were in fluid dynamics --- and in my opinion the Backun claims not only fail scientific scrutiny, they also fail the common-sense 'sanity check'. I believe the claims are pure, 100% nonsense -- but I don't want to start a flame war about it, especially since Mr. Backun's products and services have an outstanding reputation. I'll blame Madison Avenue for this one..............
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2006-08-18 16:05
I'd like to face some mouthpieces myself.
Where can I buy some Zinner blanks?
I'm going to use a Morgan mouthpiece refacing
kit.
Julian's comments were interesting...isn't he
connected with Backun company?
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-08-18 16:09
Old Geezer wrote:
> Julian's comments were interesting...isn't he
> connected with Backun company?
The statement showing the affiliation is at the bottom of all his posts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-08-18 16:31
Instead of speculating, why not email Morrie and ask him about the blanks.
Also inquier about the physics of the floating surface layer?
I have spoken with him in the past about a problem with an Eb clarinet that was out of tune, and he was very forthcoming and affable. "Does Macy's sell Gimbels?"...Sure!
Since I am not in the market for a mouthpiece, I won't bother him, but someone who is interested enough to call, will surely get the story from him, and they can inform us.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-18 17:45
Geeze Dave, we're going to have to send your memory chip back for reprogramming and some protocol changes to conform to the "party" doctrines. First iconoclasticism, then observing the king without clothing and saying it, then scientific skepticism expressed ..... what next? You know that we like to give shovels to people digging holes for themselves and not rope -- what has come over you? Is this a classic humor bomb or what! (Sorry folks this is an inside joke - Dave drops these bombs on me when I get way too serious about my rhetoric)
Allan, good suggestion but I know that Morrie ghosts the BB but may be away at the moment.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-08-18 18:25
I am happy if somebody else pays mucho dollars, I just don't want all moutpiece makers to think it's cool to make me pay a fortune for something marginally better than a machine made piece.
-S
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-08-18 18:38
The majority of French made Bundy mouthpieces were most likely made in the 60s and 70s. Bundy eventually moved to rubber and then acrylic Babbitt blanks. For what it is worth, those French Bundy pieces can be faced to play very nicely. Kaspar used the same blanks for a while!
Regarding the boundary layer, I suspect it is a way of marketing the surface texture of the baffle and or chamber. I would guess the so called "Boundary Layer" in a mouthpiece is a result of its roughness. I don't think it has anything to do with the mouthpiece's table concavity, or the reed's relationship to the table. When the surface texture is a little rough, it can create an air film that allows for a smooth laminar flow.
For example: A shark's skin is rough, creating a water film around its body that actually allows it to swim faster.
Different surface textures do effect the way the mouthpiece and instrument plays and sounds.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-18 19:55
Brad, I respect your knowledge and experience with mouthpieces and also agree that roughness can lead to laminar flow which may or may not be a property desired in a mouthpiece and this in turn could affect the vibration of the reed indirectly depending on other properties of the mouthpiece. The quote however is: "The Boundary Layer; a complex property that increases the vibration and response of the reed, as it floats on the mouthpiece table." which goes back to the hover craft analogy, Dave's lobotomy, or potentially my own lack of understanding of the physics involved. Some where we have to get levitation of the reed on the table into this equation and this is where I get lost in Boundary Layer physics.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-08-18 20:00
So, Brad, I think you are explaining the rationale behind NOT overly polishing the table.
Another thought: SURFACTANT. We find this as a layer in the air sacs of the lung to reduce the friction during expansion. Premature babies lack the surfactant.
Surfactant also is found as a product....RainX windshield solution is one that comes to mind.
Air or water can be a surfanctoid, causing hydroplaning of the reed.
If that is the case, then what of a tight ligature?....doesnt this negate the effect? Perhaps a ball bearing teflon ligature might be better...Pardon me while I bend over a pick up the reed as it slips off like wet soap in a shower stall.
Omar....aside from producing a cheap and reliable Eb horn for your next project, We are going to shackle you to the lab bench until you produce the ideal reed-table interface solution.
I already have mine....It is called saliva.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Beck
Date: 2006-08-18 20:09
As an engineer who has done a lot of low speed aerodynamics work on remotely piloted vehicles, I’ll crawl way out on this limb. Start sawing Dave and Dr. Henderson!
At very low air speeds, such as in the bore of a clarinet, a smooth (laminar) boundary layer is not necessarily a good thing. Under the wrong conditions it can thicken, stagnate and go into what is called laminar separation. In a pipe, such as a clarinet, this can greatly destabilize and even choke off flow.
Boundary layers generally start off laminar and at some point down stream trip to turbulent. An excellent example of this is the rising smoke from a cigarette. With a turbulent boundary layer, there is energy exchange between free stream flow and air laying on the surface. This energy exchange tends to keep flow attached to the pipe wall with no instability or big dead zones. I suspect that what Morrie is doing is to trip the boundary layer early and thus assure a stable flow through the mouthpiece. This is a very common trick with problem flows on aircraft wings.
Stable, useful, laminar flow doesn’t develop until airspeeds way above anything that’s going through a clarinet (unless you are holding it out the window of your car going 60 mph!) At the flow rates where we live, laminar flow is much more of a problem than a good thing.
Without being able to examine flow through a mouthpiece, the above is a best guess, whatever that's worth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-18 20:24
On a practical level, I've done extensive experimentation with both mirror-polished smooth facings vs. rough-finished facings, and smooth mouthpiece interiors vs. relatively rough finishes. All I can report is that I have been able to achieve equally good (or equally bad!) results with any combination of these finishes. As a practical matter, I finish my facings mirror-smooth because I judge the curve optically (rather than measuring with gauges), and a shiny smooth surface is necessary for me to do that. I tend to leave the interiors semi-smooth (or semi-rough, depending on your perspective) because it's quite a bit of work to get them very smooth (for no measurable performance improvement in my experience), although smoother internal finishes are more esthetically pleasing, I think.
Other mouthpiece makers and refacers may have (in fact, some do have) different experiences and opinions. One well-known refacer once wrote that his mouthpieces played better with a rough interior finish, for example. Such a finish, by the way, would most certainly NOT promote laminar flow, even if true laminar flow were possible at the very low Reynolds numbers (there ya go, Tony!) existing in the airstream within a clarinet mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-08-18 21:11
I think the boundary layer that Backun is talking about is between the reed and the facing/table, and not the air flow-chamber interface.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the message.
Vida supra "Instead of speculating, why not email Morrie and ask him about the blanks.
Also [ask] about the physics of the floating surface layer?"
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-18 22:16
Maybe so, Allan, but consider this: Any air flowing between the reed and the facing has to go one of two places -- out the sides (wasted air -- bad!) or into the mouthpiece where it belongs -- in which case the flow characteristics will be altered, for better or worse.
The more we try to analyze the situation, I think, the less we will understand it! I suggest a moratorium; or what's left of my brain may explode and make a big mess all over the BB.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2006-08-18 23:56
I thought that perhaps the reference to the boundary layer had something to do with the grooves that you see across the bottom of the table in
http://www.backunmusical.com/mouthpieces.html
my understanding is that some of these areas of the table are of varyied heights (thousands of an inch difference) to affect reed response and playing properties.
Post Edited (2006-08-18 23:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-19 00:19
Dave, I agree with you - my brain is getting tired too sans any feedback from the maker. Why don't you buy one, send it to me and I'll analyze it for a year and then send it back to you for your own investigation and then we can have a joint symposium at ClarinetFest in Toronto 2007!
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-08-19 00:58
Some of the old Bonade mouthpieces had grooves on the table.
Maybe they collected his cigarette ashes.
But why then did he squeeze the reed against the table with a firm ligature?
If the grooves make a difference, then let us obtain a grooved and a non-grooved, identical**mouthpiece and put the same reed/player/instrument on it, then do a doubleblind study with multiple listeners. Likewise, the player(s) are also blindfolded and the mouthpieces are selected by an unbiased process (ie the mouthpieces are made without grooves, deemed to be identical, and only then are the grooves placed after a random selection process).
Only the FDA would venture such a thing, and it would cost billions with the costs transfered to the public to sustain the bureaucracy.
**yeah, I know there is no such thing
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-08-19 02:17
Allan, public financing notwithstanding, such a study as you suggest would only be scientifically valid if the MOUTHPIECES THEMSELVES were blindfolded.
It's tired and I'm getting late -- must be close to bedtime here on the U.S. East Coast........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-08-19 05:40
David, I always play with the mouthpiece blindfolded, since I'm affraid it will run away if it could see who is playing it.... 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2006-08-20 03:20
> ***** "The majority of French made Bundy mouthpieces were most likely made in the 60s and 70s. Bundy eventually moved to rubber and then acrylic Babbitt blanks. For what it is worth, those French Bundy pieces can be faced to play very nicely. Kaspar used the same blanks for a while!" ***** <
It is possible but I think these blanks are a bit older (from 30s and 40s) made by Lelandais. BTW. I've never seen a Kaspar mouthpiece made on 'one line up and one line down' blank. Do they exist?
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2006-08-22 00:39
Oh swell. I just sold four Geo. M. Bundy mouthpieces for $12.50. But I had a nice buyer
Lelandais blanks?!
Vytas, after you reface these I may the first in line to get one! LOL!
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[toast]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley15.gif)
