 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rgoldem
Date: 2018-04-17 15:22
How old could it be a Leblanc LL serial 1311. It seems to be from the fifties but I am not sure they existed then. Are these good instruments? Comparable to the more modern LL's?
Thank you
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2018-04-18 00:18
No 1311 seems very early, probably very early 50s.
I didn't think that LLs were introduced until very much later.
Is LL actually engraved on the top joint ?
My instruments are serial 14xxx and bought new in 1960.
Double check the serial in case there may be another number eg 1311x
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-04-18 23:07
Would be interesting if rgoldem could verify the serial number. I have seen several examples of old serial numbers on later Leblanc clarinets.
I would think Leblanc kept the design of the LL fairly constant, i.e. a slightly conical bore. Other models were born and died during the LL's life time. Personally I prefer the L300 for tone and L27 for intonation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2018-04-18 23:21
The bore of the LL is absolutely parallel at 14.8 mm throughout the upper joint and most of the lower joint.
There is a very slight reverse taper in the barrel, on my instruments this is typically about 0.008 thou.
As far as I understand Leblanc only started to introduce tapered and poly-cylindrical bores from about the L7 onwards.
I have seen many Leblancs from the 50s and 60s and all have had parallel bores
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: richard smith
Date: 2018-04-19 18:22
LL3 were bored out in the USA. could not played mine in tune., even with long barrel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-04-20 00:09
Caroline, I have measured a few LLs. The conicity is very slight but seems to be consistent. It also is quite linear making me think it was a design and not an effect of the wood swelling.
Here are a few examples from my notes. Upper joints, top - bottom:
Bb 19xxx: 14.75 - 14.84
Bb 46xxx: 14.80 - 14.85
A 40xxx: 14.70 - 14.75
A 45xxx: 14.81 - 14.83
C 59xxx: 14.6 parallel
Eb 59xxx: 13.20 - 13.30 (at corresponding position to an upper joint)
Post Edited (2018-05-20 22:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-04-20 00:16
Richard, I have heard that story but not seen any evidence. It seems so irrational that one division of a company manufactures a clarinet that the other division disassembles (including removing the thumb and register tubes), reams to a different dimension and then assembles again.
The 46xxx clarinet in the list above is an LL that I bought 2nd hand from the US.
Post Edited (2018-04-20 00:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2018-04-20 13:31
Lee Gibson wrote about the Leblanc "re-boring" of the L300/200 (I'm pretty sure it wasn't the LL model) in The Clarinet in the 1980s, it's probably not that difficult to find this- it would have been in his "Clarinalysis" column.
I don't recall what his sources were.
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-04-20 16:57
I found a review by Gibson of the Leblanc LX clarinet in the Feb-Mar 1990 issue of "The Clarinet":
"At last U.S.A. players have an opportunity to discover the Leblanc which should have been available to them long ago. This reviewer has in the past noted that such instruments as the LX, advertised with a bore of 14.6 mm., were actually measured at bores as large as 14.73 mm. as delivered by
Leblanc U.S.A. No more; the practice of reboring at Kenosha, done for whatever unlikely reason, has apparently ceased. Perhaps it came from a long-held belief that the 15 mm. soprano clarinet was still the best for all clarinetists, which has not been true for almost 40 years."
If this reboring theory was right there should be LL instruments with 14.6 mm bores, especially outside the US. I haven't seen any such instrument yet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2018-04-20 23:49
Gibson may have said that by 1990 the practice of reboring at Kenosha had ceased, but others say reboring routinely occurred until Tom Ridenour insisted that it be stopped. When did Ridenour come on board at Leblanc? Was that after 1990? See https://clarinetcorner.wordpress.com/20098/09/1/its-really-a-big-bore/ Scroll down to the bold type "I have it from the source of Tom Ridenour that..." to read the relevant passage.
At any rate, Gibson is not the only clarinet scholar to assert that the American branch of Leblanc was reaming some of the French clarinets to increase the bore measurements.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2018-04-21 00:58
Donald and Seabreeze: I've had a tough time finding out much information about the L200 and L300. Was the LL produced over a longer time-period than the L200 and L300. What was the idea behind the L200 and L300 as compared to the LL?
Thanks,
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2018-04-21 07:19
Fuzzy,
Someone must have the statistics on that but I don't. I do know that the LL was, at least during the late 1950's and early 1960's a very popular clarinet played by Jimmy Hamilton for sure, and I believe, by Buddy DeFranco. I was proud to get an LL as a high school junior. When I was in the 4th Army Band, 1965-1967, the supply sergeant ordered a large number of them, and I recall that Pete Fountain was visiting music stores for LeBlanc promoting the LL model before he got the personalized Dynamic H LeBlanc with the gold keys. The L200 and L300 were ephemeral by comparison with the LL, just flashes in the pan. That's why LLs turn up regularly on the famous auction site and one rarely sees an L200 or L300 there. The other L(x) series instruments (where x is a variable, not a model) after LL are very hard to keep track of since a new number for the variable x seemed to appear almost every year (including the L7 which was fairly popular and the L200 and L300 which were less so). I heard lots more people complain that they thought the L(x) models put out AFTER the LL (including the LX) were the ones that Vito liked to rebore, and he mostly left the LLs as they were; but I can't verify that.
Post Edited (2018-04-21 07:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-04-21 11:00
seabreeze,
Thanks for that link to Sherman Friedland's blog post.
The text indicates that some clarinets were rebored to 15.00 mm, contrary to Gibson's belief of 14.75 mm. If Vito was looking for a "big sound" it makes more sense to make the bore 15.00 mm, like the Pete Fountain, rather than just enlarging it 0.14 mm, from 14.61 to 14.75.
Considering most of the LLs I have measured are European, I think it is safe to say that the LLs were made with a bore of 14.75 mm. It would be interesting to have someone in the US measure a rebored LL.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2018-04-21 15:25
Hi All,
I have an L200 with a like new Leblanc case. As I recall, I got it on eBay about 15 years ago for about $100. Although a Yamaha CS Custom is my primary Bb soprano clarinet my L200 is a tremendous backup. The intonation is perfect from top to bottom, the ergonomics are excellent, and the sound is assertive.
Many years ago, GBK sent me a copy of an ad in the Clarinet magazine of Drucker playing an L300. That model had a different bell and may be an even rarer.
HRL
PS Sorry, my L200 is not for sale.
Post Edited (2018-04-21 18:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
