 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-12-21 20:49
I understand that Henri Chedeville supplied mouthpieces to some clarinet manufacturers. I read recently that at one time he supplied mouthpieces to Penzel Mueller.
I have an old Penzel Mueller. It has a Penzel stencil, but it does not say anywhere "France" on the mouthpiece.
I understand that Henri received blanks from Charles. Does anyone know if he ever received mouthpies from his brother before they had any stencil work done? Does a Henri Ched mouthpiece have to say "france" on it I guess is what I am asking. THanks for any help.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2010-12-21 23:11
From my understanding Henri imported his blanks from Charles who I believe was his cousin, not brother, perhaps I am mistaken but I think that is what Henri's grandson told me.
From my experience (have worked on dozens of them this year) the old Henri Ched period blanks were not always stamped France - most all were stamped 'Steel Ebonite' on the back, along with either Bte SGDG Depose and a serial number 41**** to the right of the table. The later ones were stamped 'Artistic Facing' next to the table. All H Cheds had the well known H CHEDEVILLE stamping below the bottom ligature line. Very occasionally I have seen one with a hand etched signature. Most of these early Charles Ched blank pieces came with all of those markings already stamped on them. So it is common to see some Meliphones from the period that look almost identical to a Henri Ched, markings and all, only with different internal workings and MELIPHONE where the H Ched name would be.
Its possible there could be a small 'France' stamped to the left of the table on some but I have not paid enough attention...was too busy working on them. But definitely the France next to the table would not be a factor in appraising a potential H Ched period piece as many French made pieces used the France up through the 1970s.
I have heard mixed stories about Henri distributing blanks to manufacturers - could be though as I was told he would get huge buckets of them from Charles - maybe he was Charles's middleman in America, but that is pure speculation. Perhaps some of the older gents on the board might know.
The key to identify an H Ched period piece is the markings, but more so the internal chamber and contours - also the beak and overall shape of the piece - very distinct design. The Henri Ched mps were incredibly varied internally, while the other makers at the time who used the same blanks were not so much - again from my experience. I personally think Henri was more of a custom maker who made pieces to fit his customers which is why there were so varied.
As for the Penzel Mueller question, I have heard that as well but have not seen any made from that period of blank, have worked on some old ones which used 1930s Ched blanks but not the old ones. Some of the makers who imported the older Henri Ched period blank were Meliphone and Bettoney for sure.
Also we have to keep in mind that when we say Henri Ched we are talking 1920s - early 30s, Henri died in 1932 I believe. The blanks that came in the 1930s were a bit different.
On a side note: I think a lot of people wil diasgree with me, but I believe it to be true: Henri Chedeville was a good craftsman but overrated and surrounded by the hype which came from the legend of Mclane and Wright. His pieces IN ORIGINAL CONDITION are not playable by modern standards; the ones I have seen in that condition have not been that great from a TECHNICAL standpoint, even when taking into consideration the period that they were made. However with refurbishing they can be absolutely terrific. What makes them so great? The real genius was Charles Chedeville, the man who made the blanks from great material and obviously a brilliant mind - wonderful craftsman. Possibly the greatest genius in mouthpiece making history. Shame that many people associate his work with the later 1960s made Charles Chedeville signature pieces that were made after he was no more, and by a different company - a completely different kettle of fish...
Hope that helps to answer some of your question
Any others have more info?
R Wodkowski
www.ramonwodkowski.com
Post Edited (2010-12-21 23:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-12-22 01:29
RamonThanks very much for the info.
You mentioned that there is a distinct shape. What is distinct about it? I have two mouthpieces that I am wondering about, and I notice they seem to taper more dramatically at the beak. THe only other mouthpiece that I have seen on the commercial market that have a similar taper are old gigliottis.
Any chance you have a photo?
THanks again for the info.
Post Edited (2010-12-22 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2010-12-22 01:45
Ramon -
Kal Opperman told me that Chedeville made at least two levels of blanks. The ordinary ones (which shipped with, for example, Bettoney metal clarinets) were nothing special. The good ones have QUALITE SUPERIEURE stamped alongside the right edge of the table, running up from the bottom.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2010-12-22 08:51
Ken
Salzo can you email me privately with some photos of your mouthpieces?
Opperman was talking about mpcs made slightly later in the 1930s and 1940s. The Qualitie Superior pieces were mostly made by Lelandais.
Bettoney did import various blanks - lots of crap. But in the early days they used some H Ched period pieces, to what extent we will never know.
True Chedeville pieces were only made up until the mid to late 1930s and even early 1940s maybe, but at that point the designs were different - then Lelandais took over and changed things forever - but they did continue making the Charles Chedeville signature mpc.
Some people have emailed be about identifying their Cheds - you have to look at the whole picture - all the markings, then the shape, internal cavity, etc. To just go on Steel Ebonite for example is not the best advice as other pieces were made with those features - different quality. Others say that the interlocking Cs is the way to go - again that only identifies a certain period of Charles Chedeville signature blanks. Many people used the same blank without the interlocking Cs.
R Wodkowski
www.ramonwodkowski.com
Post Edited (2010-12-22 09:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-12-22 13:10
Thanks Ramon- I will send some pictures via your website later on today.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-12-22 13:35
Ramon-
I sent you a half dozen photos, trying to get good lighting. I think you can see the "darker" photos better.
salzo
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2010-12-22 14:11
Regarding Penzell Mueller, I forgot to mention that many of their high quality older mpcs were made from the Hard India Rubber blanks - definitely in the rough period of the early Cheds but a different material and design. A very fine but underrated mpc, good quality.
R Wodkowski
www.ramonwodkowski.com
Post Edited (2010-12-22 14:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2010-12-24 00:51
(Disclaimer - Owner of the Chedeville trademark and name mark internationally)
Ramon, thanks for the wonderful information. Only a mouthpiece maker can evaluate the various variations in mouthpiece architecture in the Chedeville history. At the time of making the original Chedeville mouthpieces and blanks in the late 20's and early 30's the manufacture of vulcanized rubber too was in a state of transition and not really standardized in any form.
From investigating and examining early documents about hard rubber manufacture in this period it sometimes appears to be a haphazard process where formulations were varied and often batches were not the best example of the manufacturing technique. Perhaps the surviving mouthpieces were the pick of the litter and the bad batches have already met the rubbish pile?
The various designations of France, Steel Ebonite, India rubber, Qualitie Superior, Artistic Facing, etc. are not specific to any period of Chedeville manufacture - some earlier than later but not markers of a particular quality or design. Many may be good but some also bad. As Ramon suggests for modern playing most must be refaced or otherwise worked on to bring out their potential.
There were several makers who supplied mouthpiece blanks to instrument makers like Penzeil Mueller, Buffet, E & S, etc. and their quality and design was not consistent. Other than an analysis of the design and rubber quality there is no good way to pick a potential good Chedeville blank.
When LeLandais bought Chedeville and produced mouthpieces after the 40's and into 70's there were still old Chedeville blanks with the Charles Chedeville name and logo elements sold but in general the Lelandais blanks were of a different design and rubber quality than the 30's Chedeville mouthpieces.
Many will say that current custom mouthpiece makers have combined the best elements of the old Chedeville design with more modern modifications e.g. Kaspars and I tend to agree from my own experience playing the older and new mouthpieces. There are some tonal qualities IMO either by design or rubber quality that are distinctly different between older Chedevilles and new designs but these are so slight that only players that seek these esoteric qualities will struggle to find the "Grail" of the older examples by Henri and Charles Chedeville or other manufacturers.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2010-12-25 05:05
I had a Bettoney Mouthpiece marked Steel Ebonite. I don't recall any other markings. I found it to be unplayable and ultimately sold it. For a while people were bidding up the prices on Silva Bets just to get mouthpieces marked Bettoney.
I have heard that the old vulcanized rubber distinguished the old mouthpieces and that current health or anti-pollution laws kept modern makers from duplicating the older material. Any truth to this? What properties of material would be important to sound?
Omar -- I'm assuming that you have already or will eventually check out the chemistry of making good mouthpiece material. No need to share trade secrets, but I'm betting you will develop a great blank.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2010-12-25 06:10
After the WWII the rubber industry became more efficient due to the needs of the war effort but mouthpieces were forever changed because they are now molded and not machined out of a vulcanized rubber rod stock. Molding also necessitates a different rubber formulation and curing process than making rod stock. Modern rubber formulations include both sulfur and other catalytic enhancers for the crosslinking that forms vulcanized hard rubber, whereas only sulfur and an organic agent were used in making rod stock..
In rod stock there are, or were, various curing stages that formed a more homogeneous rubber than molded pieces that undergo differential cooling because their thicker and thinner parts of the mouthpiece. Another overlooked difference in vulcanized rubber today is that in the 1920's - 40's the raw latex was much less purified and contained a number of contaminants like plant debris which alter the pattern of crosslinking in the finished rubber. The sources of the raw latex changed too from native rubber trees to hybrid rubber tree plantations and the major production areas and climate migrated from the India regions to Indonesia.
Recreating the rod rubber produced in the 20's & 30's is a challenge since scant records of production methods and techniques survive. The process is experimental to emulate the conditions used to produce the rod rubber but includes using the highest quality latex (there are several commercial grades available) while simulating potential elements that alter crosslinking patterns and then recreating the amount of sulfur used as catalyst, the coloring agents, the time, temperature and pressure of the vulcanization process and then the heat curing schedules.
Modern rubber manufacture has helped with machines and techniques to measure the hardness, flexibility, and crosslinking pattern of the rubber samples. Acoustic properties are probably the hardest parameter to assess. After many expensive trials and testing we finally developed a method of testing and optimizing the acoustic properties of the rod rubber, and with other measures to develop quality control parameters for batches.
There are few companies that still produce rod rubber stock using the antiquated methods but this approach is the only way to recreate rubber of the same characteristics as the old Chedeville blanks.
The material is only part of the equation of making mouthpiece blanks but that is a discussion better left to the mouthpiece making artisans.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
