 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-10-26 13:19
Is there a date or serial number for when the Acton mechanism was put on the B&H 1010?
Thanks.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2012-10-26 13:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2012-10-26 13:49
I don't know exactly but the first incarnation of the Acton Vent was put on 1010s in the very late 60s. My old A had this and the date on that was 1968. My old Bb was 1973 and that had the second version which stuck until the finished making them in the 80s
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-10-26 15:02
Now, was the Acton vent first fitted to B&H clarinets or did reform Boehms have it before?
It's an excellent invention nonetheless - not only does it allow full venting for a clearer B and F# but it also allows altissimo Eb to be played up to pitch using the short fingering (oxx|oxoAb/Eb).
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2012-10-26 15:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-10-26 15:14
I don't think Imperial 926 clarinets had it - only the large bore 1010s.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2012-10-26 20:30
My 1967 A 1010 has the first version and my 1973 Bb has the second version of the Acton vent.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Late_returner
Date: 2012-10-26 23:18
How do you tell which of the 2 versions of Acton you have ?
I guess I have the second on my Bb due to a late serial no : 514023 , marked Symphony Boosey & Hawkes London 1010 ( bell and barrel) and Made In England on lower joint.
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William S
Date: 2012-10-27 09:00
As to Chris P's point about the Acton Vent helping to play a short altissimo Eb. It seems to me that the Eb/Ab key contributes nothing at all to the intonation of the altissimo notes on my Acton 1010 - although I key it out of instinct, more than necessity. Bill
Post Edited (2012-10-27 09:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-10-27 09:43
Apart from the effect on the sound, the Acton vent also allows the RH rings to be brought closer together. It's particularly noticeable on the A, where normal instruments to have an especially big gap between the first 2 holes. I suspect this difference must have been appreciated by a lot of female players, or anyone with small hands. Does the vent on reformed Boehms have the same effect on spacing?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-10-27 10:32
Have to admit I included the Ab/Eb key in the altissimo Eb fingering as a matter of course - I had my doubts if it was really needed as it isn't needed for altissimo D on 1010s (and Selmer CTs) as they're very well in tune without it.
Just found the comment Jack Brymer made about the regular altissimo D fingering:
"On some instruments the normal fingering includes 8b [Ab/Eb key]. This is a nuisance and should not be"
Next time I have a 1010 come in I'll compare the distance/spread of the RH chimneys with a 926 to see if they're different.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2012-10-27 15:08
John, I find my A with the first type of Acton vent much more comfortable to play than my Bb with the second type. This is because on the A there is one straight 'bar' which the R hand keys are attached to and on the Bb there are two 'bars'. The latter is not great for my small hands as it is harder to wrap my hand around. My Eaton 'pre-war' copies don't seem much different in terms of the spread of the RH tone holes. My Eatons are very well in tune across most of the range although my L thumb F seems a little sharp. I also need to use the Eb/Ab key on my Eatons for altissimo D, E. Obviously the Eatons do not have the Acton vent. On my 1010s the tuning is not bad at all, perhaps a little sharp in the RH chalumeau B, A, G but perfect lower down. I don't need to use the Eb/Ab for altissimo D or E as these are fine without.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-10-27 19:36
I'll save Chris the wait as I have a pair of 1010s and 926s both dating from the late 1970s to hand.
the distance between the 1st and 2nd RH finger holes (centre to centre) on the Bbs as accurately as I can measure is:
926 - 24.8 mm
1010 - 24.5 mm
so not much in it.
The 1st finger hole diameter of 926 is about 0.5 mm larger than the 1010 but holes 2 & 3 are virtually the same.
I agree with Paula that the 2nd version of Acton mechanism feels very clunky under the fingers compared to the earlier. Unfortunately however the earlier version is mechanically so weak that it soon develops wear and movement in the pinned shafts which makes it very unreliable and obviously why they rapidly updated to a tougher version.
I was working on a pair of Schwenk & Seggelke reform Boehms just 2 weeks ago and the Acton mechanism on that is both far more finger friendly and also much better made and reliable.
They are however now about 15,000 Euros a pair !!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-10-28 11:16
Norman: interesting result for the 926. Compared to a Buffet, the 1010 RH rings are much closer together, and more symmetric - whereas the Buffet has a larger gap between the first two fingers. Here is a complete table of measurements showing what I mean. The effect is more marked for the A, where the difference matters most for small hands. I always assumed the lack of this effect on the 1010 was down to the Acton vent, so it would be interesting in the 926 showed no such difference, despite the lack of vent.
The pairs of figures are hole 1 to 2 and then hole 2 to 3
Buffet Bb 26.3 23.5
Buffet A 28.8 23.6
1010 Bb 25.0 22.5
1010 A 25.2 22.5
Hawkes Bb 32.5 30.5
Hawkes A 31.5 34.0
I also include a 1925 Hawkes simple system for comparison. The A on that requires a mighty stretch of 65.5 mm from finger 1 to 3 as against 52.4 for the Buffet and only 47.7 for the 1010. I find the Hawkes quite uncomfortable: you'd need huge hands to play it with ease. But even the Buffet-1010 difference is noticeable: I find the 1010 spacing is more where my fingers would naturally land. And the asymmetry is striking: the spacing ratio is 1.22 for Buffet A, as against 1.12 for 1010 A.
I'd never read anything that pointed out this size difference between simple system and Boehm. Normally you get the impression that Boehm took over purely because the fingering system is more logical, but I think just the feeling of not having to stretch your hand in order to cover the holes must be a big part of it, especially as there's a similar issue with the left hand. All this must be an issue with modern German instruments too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-10-28 11:19
Attachment: actons.jpg (273k)
Can someone post pictures of the versions 1 & 2 of the vent that are being discussed? My 1969 pair has a different appearance of the mechanism on A and Bb (see attached picture), but it sounds like this is not the difference that's being talked about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-10-28 13:19
The difference between the mechanisms pictured is largely due to the positions of the pillars already on the instrument - especially the cross B/F# key ('sliver' key) pillar which determines where the various parts of the mechanism are mounted, but they are both of the same (2nd version) design as they function in exactly the same way.
The earier design had a pinned steel (think of flute and some oboe keywork which is pinned) with a bridge and the Acton vent was mounted on a lengthwise key barrel running parallel with the RH main action barrel (similar to how piccolo thumb keys are mounted in relation to the LH main action) but it did cause a lot of friction between the linkages due to their short lengths and relatively large amount of travel.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2012-10-28 14:55
Attachment: Image2.jpg (49k)
Here is my Bb which is older than I thought initally. The serial number dates to 1971 so obviously the first Acton vent had disappeared by then.
I have the receipt somewhere from Geoffrey Acton's shop in Hertfordshire. The previous owner passed the receipt on to me. It cost £220 secondhand in the late 70s. Apparently Geoffrey Acton thought my Bb was an exceptionally fine example and was very excited by it and it is particularly nice, especially around the break.
Post Edited (2012-10-28 14:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-10-28 15:29
I've seen an even earlier version of the Acton vent, but can't remember what era the clarinet was from. It had the Acton vent key barrel running parallel to the ring key barrel and felt flimsy.
Having the Acton vent mounted perpendicular (like an oboe's F vent) is much better.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2012-10-28 16:25
I have found this link on the web. I know these have been sold so I hope the board doesn't mind me posting for historical interest.
http://www.clarinetsdirect.biz/Bundy1010s.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-10-28 16:34
Funny that considering they're both from the mid-'60s, the Bb has the earlier pointy C#/G# and smooth LH F/C touch and the A has two separate trill key guides with the later style long C#/G# touchpiece and cross-hatched F/C touchpiece. So it looks likey they were still using up existing earlier keywork pieces and previously set-out joints even by this point in time.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-10-28 16:38
Paula: thanks for the picture and link. In the non-Acton instruments, you can clearly see a big extra gap between the first 2 RH fingers on the A; looks very similar proportions to Buffet. I've never seen the earlier Acton mechanism before, and it looks much more elegant than the later version - a shame they couldn't make it reliable.
Interestingly, the vent mechanism on your 1973 Bb is the same as on my 1969 A (lower of the two instruments in the photo I posted), but my Bb is different. It's slightly earlier (312,000 series as opposed to 318,000 for the A), so maybe they were still experimenting with the revised design at the start of 1969.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2012-10-28 16:38
I have found this link on the web. I know these have been sold so I hope the board doesn't mind me posting for historical interest.
http://www.clarinetsdirect.biz/Bundy1010s.html ( Please can someone make the link live as I am not sure how to )
These have no Acton vent and according to the serial number dating, they date between 1960 and 1966. However the serial number for the A 251946 looks as it it was towards the end of this as the first number for 1966 is 265000.
http://www.clarinetperfection.com/clsnBH.htm
So according to my deductions the first version of the Acton vent could have been added in 1965 at the very earliest or even later still. My 1967 A is serial number 278266. Hmmmmmmmmm interesting!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-10-28 18:11
John,
the reason for difference between Boehm and simple system RH is primarily the RH 1 produces Bb on Boehm and B nat. on simple (and German) systems.
I too find the simple/German stretch extremely uncomfortable.
The Acton vent 2 design did go through a few subtle changes with the earlier having a round bar fitting into a semi circular recess between RH 1 and the first padded hole but the latter having a flat bearing on both surfaces.
The earlier version is more difficult to set up as a thin cork shim between the very close circular surfaces has to be sanded precisely.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
