 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2001-09-28 12:23
Has anyone ever seen an Evette Schaeffer Master (not an Evette Schaeffer or Evette Master) with a K series number over 10,000 or 15,000?
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2001-09-28 14:34
Yes,
I have an Evette & Schaeffer Master Model K227xx. (Actually the upper joint is a master model. Apparently, something serious happened to the lower joint because it was replaced with an Evette & Schaeffer lower joint (not from a master model) numbered about 50 higher. The existence of the upper joint is proof that such instruments exist, however.) I have also seen a couple of E&S master models on eBay that had serial numbers above K15,000. (One was around K16000 and the other in the 20's if I remember correctly.
Here is my latest (unconfirmed) theory on Master Models numbered from around K5000 to around K11000. There are non-master models with lower numbers (if my memory serves, I have seen/heard owners' reports of K3xx and K3xxx) and eventually sometime above K11000 (possibly not until around K15000) non-master models begin to reappear. I have never seen a non-master model between K5000 and K11000 (maybe higher). That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that every E&S I've seen in that range has been a master model. I wonder if the designation master model refers to the bore, i.e., identifies it as a master bore instrument (rather than a polycylindrical bore instrument). For the most part, my understanding is that the E13 has had the same bore as the R13. However the numbers K5000 -- K11000 run from 1953 to around 1961 and therefore roughly correspond to the early years of the polycylindrical R13. Could it be that Buffet did not adopt the polycylindrical bore for its E&S at the same time it introduced the polycylindrical R13 but waited for several years? That would explain the eventual dropping of the master model designation (and the very low K-series E&S might not carry the designation because Buffet wasn't using a polycylindrical bore on any instruments when they were made. Probably not any more true than the "rejected R13" theory but, IMHO, more plausible and something to think about.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2001-09-28 15:47
What is the difference between a master bore and a polycylindrical bore?
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2001-09-29 06:17
I was hoping your question might bring an answer from someone with more technical knowledge than I have but, since no one else seems to be responding, I'll tell you what I know and what I think. The master bore was Buffet's (professional) bore from at least 1941 (and probably earlier) until around 1955. As near as I can tell, it was pretty much a typical cylindrical French small bore. In 1955, Buffet introduced a new polycylindrical bore designed by Robert Carree. The name implies multiple cylinders. I suspect Buffet began using different reamers that changed the size of the bore cylinder (perhaps very slightly and probably "smoothly") to create a tapered bore whose aim was to improve intonation and possibly tone. This is conjecture on my part, however. (BTW, the various bore designs appear to manifest themselves primarily in the upper joint.) Many (most?) professional clarinets are now made with tapered bores of one sort or another. There are still small bore cylindrical student models being made, however. Also, while some manufacturers have adopted the polycylindrical design, at least for some models, there are other competing designs such as the reverse cone.
That's my understanding of the difference. If it's not correct, I hope someone who knows more will correct me.
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2001-09-30 02:16
Perhaps this information from a 1960's Buffet brochure will help clarify what "master model" means in relation to the Evette & Schaeffer clarinets: "Instruments that embody considerable hand-craftsmanship, as do all the Buffet products, will vary slightly from instrument to instrument. Those Evette & Schaeffer Clarinets that surpass the superb quality characteristic of all Evette & Schaeffer instruments, are set aside to comprise the ME-13 Master Model Evette & Schaeffer Clarinets." The usual Evette & Schaeffer clarinet is listed in this brochure as E-13 and priced $250 (1968 price list) while the Evette & Schaeffer Master Model ME-13 is priced $299.50. Jack Kissinger is correct that the term master bore is the bore used for both the R-13 and the E-13. Considering Buffet's financial difficulties at that time, it would be hard to imagine that they would have bothered with different bores and the expense of different machining for the R-13 and the E-13. Please note that just as Buffet designated their top clarinet R-13 long before it was marketed with a polycylindrical bore, the Evette & Schaeffer was designated as E-13 long before it was given a Buffet logo in the 1980's. I believe the information about Evette & Schaeffer is included in the brochure S. W. Franklin posted here recently.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2001-09-30 05:26
Douglas,
Another puzzle piece in place! Thank you for this information. The brochure certainly does explain the difference in the higher-numbered E&S instruments. (1968 would have started in the mid 18000's.) Now, if someone could come up with a brochure from the mid-50's! There is a period from around K5000 +/- to K10000 +/- (Dave extends this to 15000 and I don't have evidence to dispute him) where evidence suggests that all E&S instruments were designated master models. There have been numerous E&S instruments in the K5000 to K10000 range on eBay and I have yet to see one in that range that was not a master model. (I have two in the K10000 range, myself. If I only had the tools and skill to measure the bore precisely.)
I think a search of the Klarinet archives would turn up a message from Francois Kloc stating that Buffet adopted the R13 designation when it introduced the polycylindrical bore model in 1955. Prior to that the designation was used in its catalog by Buffet's importer, Carl Fischer, to identify the 17-key, 6-ring Buffet master bore instrument (Carl Fischer also introduced the E13 designation). These were Fischer's designations, however, not Buffet's.
When Buffet introduced the polycylindrical instrument, they would already have had the tooling in place to do the master bore. If they were still in financial difficulty in 1955 (were they?), that could actually explain why they might not have adopted the polycylindrical bore for the E&S immediately in that they might not have changed over all their tooling immediately (or trained all their workers) because of the cost. It would then make sense that, in those early years, they might have limited the use of their new tooling and undoubtedly more complex machining process to the production of the higher-priced R13 while continuing to turn out (no pun intended) E13's (and E12's) with their old tooling. As I said before, though, the delay in changing the E&S to the polycylindrical bore is pure speculation on my part.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2001-09-30 15:26
I hope we are not running this Evette & Schaeffer thing into the ground, but I, at least, find it interesting. So, here's a bit more. I recently came across an E & S, serial K10593 which was NOT marked Master Model. This dates to 1961 and it was definately not a polycylindrical bore, but the older "master bore", so if Buffet started marketing the polycylindrical R13 in 1955, Jack K is correct that the company did not immediately use the poly-bore on the E & S. Just to clarify dating a little: the Buffet price list I mentioned is 1968, but the separate brochure predates this, but I don't know by how many years. I do recall seeing it in dealerships for quite a long time. It may, in fact, be identical to the one Franklin posted which is from the late 40's. I find it hard to separate "Buffet" from "Carl Fischer" during the period Fischer imported Buffets to America. The only information in the U.S. about Buffets came from Fischers, so R13 may be Fischers designation, but it is the designation universally used in America at the time. One could not buy a Buffet in Europe and bring it to America without Fischers' approval or having the serial number removed. In Europe, if an American clarinetist wanted to try Buffets, s/he needed to ask for an "American model". Anything else had a serial number beginning with F. I am not trying to downgrade M. Kloc's statements, but remember he is also the one who stated that the Evette & Schaeffers were R-13's with blemishes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-09-30 19:15
[ I think the E & S thing has had the FEATHERS beat out if it. I don't know why we have such a preocuupation with these instruments? Sorry, no offense intended to everybody].
Doug, I wonder if the manufacturing location enters in things, in some way. Paris, France versus Germany. That would account for WHY things might be done differently.
Let's remember, too, that the Buffet E-11 does _NOT_ have a poly-cylindrical bore. Specifically, which bore the Buffet E-11 uses has never been discussed by Francois or anybody else in a position to really dfiscuss it. Of course, it is a student/intermediate instrument.
best,
mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2001-10-01 00:17
Historians, professional, amateur, whatever, get pretty particular. Preoccupation? No, just occupation.
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2001-10-01 00:20
Please don't take my 15,000 as an assertion. I was just throwing out a number range I hadn't seen and my list is short.
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2001-10-01 00:56
Nobody on this thread has been writing about the Buffet E-11 until mw brought it up. The Evette & Schaeffer clarinets were and are E-13 and ME-13 both made in the Buffet factory in France. The orginal logo for the E-11 was Evette (only). Evette brand and Evette & Schaeffer brand are not the same at all, much like the older brands for Selmer, the Bundy and the Signet not being the same.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joseph O'Kelly
Date: 2001-10-01 01:18
Evette had a Master Model as well as the E&S. How do these two models differ. And as far as the Master Models being rejected R-13s Francois Kloc verified this as a fact.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-10-01 16:30
Did my introduction of "E-11" into this topic, strike a NEGATIVE chord? mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2001-10-01 17:18
Joseph,
I'm not sure what the difference is between the Evette Master Model and the other intermediate/student instruments of the time. It is generally regarded as the predecessor to the E12. Based on a cursory inspection of the small sample I have, the keywork between the Evette, Evette Master Model, E&S and E&S Master Model all appear identical. The differences may have been primarily in the quality of the wood and the extent of machine finishing vs. hand finishing. I am guessing here but I think the Evette master model was introduced much later than the Evette & Schaeffer master model. (The one I have dates to 1976.) Perhaps Evette Master Model bears the same relationship to Evette as E&S Master Model bears to E&S according to Douglas' brochure.
The only post I have seen from Francois on the "rejected R13 theory/legend" actually stated that *Evette* master models (not Evette & Schaeffer master models) were rejected R13's. Now, even if he was confusing his models (he was corresponding in English which is a second language for him), he never actually cited any evidence to support this assertion or indicated the source of his knowledge. I know from earlier personal correspondence with him that his knowledge is not from first hand experience. Keep in mind that, although he has been with Buffet for many years, he didn't actually join the company until the mid-seventies, (at the age of around 16, if my memory serves) the tail-end of the E&S's life so, he didn't observe much of the instrument's production first-hand and now, 25 years later, there are few, if any workers still with the company who actually worked on these instruments. Unless someone can show me plausible evidence to back up this assertion, I must regard it as a mistake on his part or, at least, that there are only a very few of these rejects salted in with the general population of E&S master models. One form of plausible evidence would be published Buffet promotional literature. Another form would be an example of an E&S master model that was identical in structure to R13's being manufactured at the same time. I have never seen one.
On the other hand, (and this issue that HAS been flogged to death in the past) there are numerous examples of Evette & Schaeffer Master Models from different time periods, all of which have significant structural differences from R13's being manufactured at the same time. Again, if E&S Master Models were R13's rejected on final inspection, they should be identical to R13's. All the available evidence indicates that they are not.
Doug,
Then K10593 sets an upper bound for my earlier observation that I have never seen an E&S between around 5,000 and 10,000 that was not a master model. Perhaps even lower examples will turn up.
Some additional observations. K10511 is a master model. It has undercut tone holes (but, of course, there is always the chance that they are not original to the instrument). K135xx is not a master model. It has undercut tone holes. I don' t have the tools or skill to measure the bores on these two instruments. On K10511, the opening at the bottom tenon of the upper joint is the same as the upper opening (within the tolerance of my plastic calipers) but so are the top and bottom openings of my assuredly polycylindrical R13 from 1968. (Is there an easy way to tell a polycylindrical bore from a cylindrical one?) FWIW, A1568 (probably from the 30's) also has undercut tone holes. Caree did not introduce that practice. According to discussions in the Klarinet archives, what made his instrument unique was that he combined undercut tone holes with a polycylindrical bore for the first time.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2001-10-03 04:01
Along with the polycylindrical change in the R-13 c. 1955, the bore is also smaller. Jack, this may be the way for you to determine pre-polycylindrical and post-polycylindrical instruments with the limited measuring tools you have at hand.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2001-10-04 01:14
There's an Evette & Schaeffer Master on ebay right now with a 51,xxx number with no letter in front of it. If it is an R13 type number it dates to 1955. How would this fit it in with the mix?
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-10-04 04:37
( a real close friend has that horn on the Block )
I believe the R-13 & 1955 date is off by at least 2 years, and probably 3 - 3 1/2. I have spoke to several individuals who either brought a REAL R-13 home by way of Paris or purchased a clarinet in NYC in the very early 1950's. Further, I think that 1955 represents a date when Buffet "woke up" for some reason (maybe) or possibly created or started a marketing plan for the R-13.
I, too, very seriously _doubt_ that every Evette & Schaeffer Master Model was an R-13 which was rejected for whatever reason prior to it's being offically emblazoned with a Buffet Crampon a Cie.seal & logo.
Somebody said:
"Nobody on this thread has been writing about the Buffet E-11 until mw brought it up"
--------------------------
Darn right. AND, since some think that made no sense .... let's toss the RC in too!
Query: Who has seen/owns/has heard of .... an Evette & Schaeffer Master Model with an RC Bore ? Or were the 2nds 100% reserved for North American distribution?
Note: "The RC design shares the same upper joint configuration of the R13 but the bore is reduced in size. The RC lower joint is 3 mm longer and has an extra four-stage reaming process to enlarge the conical portion of the bore. This design, along with a conical enlargement into the bore of the bell, produces a centered,
softer tone color with somewhat less resistence."
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}
