 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jim sclater
Date: 2022-04-15 02:26
Does anyone know of a currently produced mouthpiece which would duplicate the old Gigliotti "P" facing? I'm having trouble locating the specs for my old one. The mouthpiece equivalence charts I've seen haven't been much help.
Any information would be appreciated.
jsclater@comcast.net
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-04-15 04:25
The closer models of the Clark Fobes 10K mouthpieces, with the CF and CF* facings would be in the same ball park as the Gigliotti personal P facing, but the complete resistance curves might be different. Call Clark! Also Brad Behn would probably have the exact measurements of the P facing and he could easily put something similar on one of his models or on another mouthpiece that you sent him. Both Behn and Fobes are comfortable with close facings of that type, and their own personal choices in facings would be in the same ballpark.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2022-04-15 06:41
I have a couple of untouched Ps floating around and will look them out and measure them later. dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-04-15 07:11
The P facing when Gigliotti was involved with them directly (and using them in the Philadelphia Orchestra) were nominally .97 mm tip opening and 19 mm long. The only one of Clark Fobes's mouthpiece that comes close to that is the Europa 1. But you may find that they play quite differently in color or resistance compared to the P. The CF is similar in tip opening but shorter - Clark compares it on his facing chart to a Gigliotti P34, which was the same tip as a P but 34 mm in length. With the exception of Clark's Europa models, his facings range from 16 mm to 18 mm, a little short of the P facing's length.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2022-04-15 09:49
I believe thy e P34 is 17mm length - t h e 34 is referring to the measurement of tge thinnest gauge in the Morgan kit, "34"=17mm
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-04-15 11:44
Yes, 17 mm. I always think in terms of Eric Brand's measuring glass (1 mm = 2 units) and forgot to translate. The AG P34 curve is 17 mm, which is 34 on a Brand gauge, which was the reason for the name P34.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2022-04-15 22:45
I agree with Seabreeze- contact Clark. He makes a great mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2022-04-19 07:07
Jim, you might perhaps also be interested in having a look at Ryan Pereira's 3D clarinet mouthpieces:
https://www.pereira3d.com/product-page/pereira-3d-bb-clarinet-mouthpieces
The standard facing is a 1.00 tip opening with a medium-long lay, which is close-ish to the Gigiotti P (and even closer to the Fobes CF). In the photos they look pretty similar to the Gigliotti P (I have a P and a P34), but then I guess a lot of mouthpieces will look similar, even to the thickness of the tip and side rails.
With the Pereiras, however, you can order a customised facing, so if you wanted a .97 tip and a 19mm lay, you could get one. I have read, though, that the Gigliotti mouthpieces were rather inconsistent and that the tip opening could actually vary from .97 to 1.02, so if you wanted a Pereira exactly like your old Gigliotti P, you might need to locate those specs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim sclater
Date: 2022-04-19 16:28
Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge about mouthpieces. This has been really helpful.
jsclater@comcast.net
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2022-04-19 17:07
It is helpful to have those facing numbers, but internal dimensions as well as the exact curve all affect how the mouthpiece will play and respond.
If I were concerned with getting something as similar as possible, I would probably consider sending it to a mouthpiece maker and ask to try to duplicate it.
Another option is to contact one of the mouthpiece guys out there and have a conversation about your style and tastes and see what he suggests. I mentioned Clark Fobes earlier. He has a range of options, makes great mouthpieces and is very easy to work with, so he would be a great option. There are countless others if you like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-05-27 11:59
I just got a new-old-stock, unaltered Gigliotti P. Never had one before and it had a good price so went for it.
Based on this thread I expected the mouthpiece to be comfortable with 3.5 reeds in general, but I had to go down to blue box 3.
I measured it, and the tip is just above 0.94, the facing (rounded values, disregarding asymmetries) is: 31.5 (!), 21, 12-, 5
I knew the quality control was not that strict with these pieces, but holy cow. My biggest surprise was the facing length for sure.
Despite all of these, the mouthpiece has a good potential, so I will reface it to a more efficient curve.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-05-28 02:27
sonicbang wrote:
> I measured it, and the tip is just above 0.94, the facing
> (rounded values, disregarding asymmetries) is: 31.5 (!), 21,
> 12-, 5
>
Mark, you're missing a number. The AG P facing was I think, in theory, 5-12-22-28-38. The AG P34 was basically the same but with a 34 length. Are you using a .0015" feeler for the long number? It almost seems as if your 31.5 could be a longish 28 and you aren't getting the last measurement.
> I knew the quality control was not that strict with these
> pieces, but holy cow. My biggest surprise was the facing length
> for sure.
>
Quality control was always a problem, but while he was alive Gigliotti had the mouthpieces checked by hand and sent them back to the manufacturer (I think Babbitt back at the beginning) for correction.
I have no idea what the quality control was like after Tai Ling, his 2nd wife, took over the mouthpiece distribution when he died.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-05-28 02:34
sonicbang wrote:
> Based on this thread I expected the mouthpiece to be
> comfortable with 3.5 reeds in general, but I had to go down to
> blue box 3.
FWIW, Gigliotti used V.12 4.5 on it. I think the reeds may have changed since then - I used to use #4 or #4.5 on a P facing and now can barely make a #4.5 vibrate on my old one. Coupled with my first reply above, if you're measuring accurately (31.5 with a .0015" feeler), I really can't help thinking, whether or not it was sold as "new," that someone tried to shorten it and then returned it when the result turned out not to be what was expected.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2022-05-28 04:07
Reeds have changed over time. Years ago I had a stock of old VD 5 from the purple boxes. As I was running low I bought some 5's in the newer blue boxes. They were like bricks and pretty much unplayable.
As far as the facing, that would not be unheard of. I have heard from a mouthpiece maker years back that sometimes customers would send a mouthpiece of he which was bought from an online retailer and when he measured it they found someone had altered it considerably, which was why it did not play for the customer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2022-05-28 09:48
'Based on this thread I expected the mouthpiece to be comfortable with 3.5 reeds in general, but I had to go down to blue box 3.'
My Gigliotti P is quite nice and plays well on anything from a Vandoren Traditional 3 up to a Traditional or V12 5. For it I'd normally choose a Traditional 3.5 or 4, but sometimes I've tried a 3 and detected almost no difference from a 3.5 (which admittedly may have something to do with inconsistency in the reed strengths). The tone can be something special with a 5 reed, but it's just not as easy to play that as on my normal mouthpiece (a Krass V1).
Mark, will you be doing a before-and-after video of your work on your Gigliotti P? I'd be keen to see it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-05-28 13:59
Karl,
I was using .0015, .010, .024 and .035 feelers. So I got 31.5, 21, 12-, 5 plus the tip which is about 0.94mm on a Music Medic wand. I use more reference point when I actually do the refacing. On which feeler gauges would you get 38-28-22-12-5? I assume you add one more gauge of .016 or .017 for the break point. The mouthpiece looks completely untouched, the original tool marks are all there typical to all Babbitt-faced mouthpieces. There are no marks of sanding or filing whatsoever.
Ed,
You are right about the changes regarding reed strength. Also, I think the mouthpiece is stuffy because the lay is short and asymmetrical at many points. I just didn’t include the left-right values and gave some rounded ones to give a hunch of the nature of the curve.
vintschevski,
I will try to make a video of the refacing and will post a link here as time permits. BTW I could play this mouthpiece with a 3.5 or 3.5+ reed but there is too much noise. I usually go down by .5 strength to get a more pure sound without all the unwanted noises, as long as the intonation remains correct and the high notes are available.
Post Edited (2022-05-28 14:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-05-28 17:42
sonicbang wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I was using .0015, .010, .024 and .035 feelers. So I got 31.5,
> 21, 12-, 5 plus the tip which is about 0.94mm on a Music Medic
> wand. I use more reference point when I actually do the
> refacing. On which feeler gauges would you get 38-28-22-12-5? I
> assume you add one more gauge of .016 or .017 for the break
> point.
I get 38 with a .0015" feeler, 28 with .005", 22 with a .010", 12 with a .024 and 5 with a .032".
Your mouthpiece is an outlier - even the P34 is longer than 31.5. If it came out of the factory that way, I wonder how many others like it were actually sold. I strongly doubt that it was produced while Gigliotti was still actively involved.
There was a series of facings that were applied to the Gigliotti mouthpieces apart from the P facings. The original facings had numbers - #2, #3, maybe #4 - and were different in length and tip from the P series (P or P34). They predated the P, which he evolved after the line was already in production. It wouldn't surprise me if the original "#2" facing was meant to be a 32 length. I think the Chedeville that was the original model may have been 32 or 34. I have an actual pre-production prototype (similar to the original #2) that is 34-28-22-11+-6 with a 1.02mm tip (.040+" on my taper gauge). But if your mouthpiece were one of those, it wouldn't be identified as a "P" facing. He was trying to develop something that would take a stronger reed and after a couple of years of experimenting arrived at 38 (19mm for non-Brand fans). The P34 was meant for players who liked the blank but not the 19mm curve.
A mystery!
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-05-29 20:59
Karl,
FYI here are two pictures of the mouthpiece. I think I could catch the patterns typical Babbit's facing machine reasonably well. I'm 100% sure the facing and the table is untouched.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-05-29 21:01
I can't upload any pictures for some reason. Anyway, here are two direct links to them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/149rPilUF5B78zBNMS4Mw2hSQL0jQEY5O/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sq0Ht5n7m-WDo_khJDHgaFPCTxA7LMQz/view?usp=sharing
Post Edited (2022-05-29 21:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-05-30 01:16
sonicbang wrote:
> I can't upload any pictures for some reason. Anyway, here are
> two direct links to them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/149rPilUF5B78zBNMS4Mw2hSQL0jQEY5O/view?usp=sharing
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sq0Ht5n7m-WDo_khJDHgaFPCTxA7LMQz/view?usp=sharing
>
I'm not able to explain why the mouthpiece measures as it does, but the P facing was designed and manufactured with a 38 (19mm) curve length. I don't know how yours came out at 31.5. Somebody at Babbitt goofed.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-05-30 02:09
One thing I noticed after my last post is that the machine lines go straight down the length of the table. The original AG mouthpieces had a "French curve" in the table - a concave area beginning a short distance below the window. Can the machine that makes those lines cut a dip like that without showing an interruption in the lines? My original (from the late 1970s or early '80s) has a shiny area where the curve is. I wonder how new yours is?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-06-10 23:40
I examined the mouthpiece various ways and the table is totally flat. There is no shiny area on the spot you described, and the machine lines are uniterrupted indeed. I think a facing machine could make a concave are easily without any visible change in the tool mark pattern. I will create a refacing video soon on this one, I'm curios about how this one will turn out.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
