 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Grover
Date: 2000-09-14 10:00
Does anyone know what serial number represents the first R13? I've run into someone who is selling their "R13" via the internet at a reasonably attractive price, if it is actually an R13. I've generally thought that 50,000 on up were safe numbers, but haven't heard anything about earlier numbers, especially those in the missing serial no. years.
This particular clarinet has a serial number of 40,xxx which would seem to place manufacture in early 1950, by extrapolation.
Anyone with insight on this issue?
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-09-14 12:15
Grover wrote:
-------------------------------
I've generally thought that 50,000 on up were safe numbers, but haven't heard anything about earlier numbers, especially those in the missing serial no. years.
-----
That's exactly right. Anything earler would have to be inspected by someone with a real indepth knowledge (and measuring tools) to determine if it really is an R13)
------
This particular clarinet has a serial number of 40,xxx which would seem to place manufacture in early 1950, by extrapolation.
------
It is suspect as an R13. You'd have to have a respected repairperson check this out very carefully.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eoin McAuley
Date: 2000-09-14 12:20
I read somewhere that the earliest R13s did not have the polycylindrical bore which made the R13 famous and has been copied in virtually every clarinet since. If it is one of these, it should not be worth as much as a polycylindrical R13. A repair tech should be able to recognize the bore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-09-14 14:56
There were a series of clarinets that said R13 in a catalog back when Carl Fisher imported Buffet clarinets. This was Fisher's designation, not Buffet's. That's why I said that a competent repair person needs to look at the clarinet; they can measure & look at the keys to determine the clarinet's type.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Lester
Date: 2000-09-15 22:34
Back in the late '40s and early '50s, Selmer was at the top of the heap. I played a Buffet at the time and was the lone outcast. I was always out of tune with the rest of the clarinets. But then something occured that changed clarinets forever after --"polycyndrical bores." (sp)
Selmer couldn't or wouldn't change their straight bores and Buffet took over the top spot. Selmer just never caught up to the tech changes taking place thoughout clarinet land.
I guess Selmer is still trying, even today to recapture their previous glory.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mark weinstein
Date: 2000-09-21 06:24
Extrapolation ... many of us have tried it with the "lost years" using 3000 +/- per year.
I don't know how they are doing it, but Buffet Crampon has added the numberinmg of the lost years at the Boosey & Hawkes website. Previously, if you queried that system, it would not provide the requested info. Now it does. Go to
http://www.booseyandhawkes.com/Instruments/Startframe.htm
mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
