 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: JackOrion
Date: 2002-10-03 06:21
I'm wondering about the consistancy with B&H horns. I'm finding my 2-20 to be a great clarinet.
It does not have the tight feel in the keys that a new horn has. Looking down the bore it isn't lined up perfectly.
It dances around in pitch, but never strays far from center on the tuner.
The plating is wearing through on the Reginald Kell key design, yet it still feels fine under the fingers.
As far as tone, it holds it's own. I have played it side by side with an E13 and R13. All three horns had a +/-. For Jazz the 2-20 is great.
My 2-20 can be a bit stuffy, depending on the reed.
I have a Stratford that needs a repad, though I am using it's ringless bell on the 2-20. Other then the Stratford, the 2-20 is the only B&H horn I have held. What have you found with various B&H models? Are they consistant within models?
The Regent, 2-20, Stratford, and Edgware seem to be on the same plane according to the Boosey forum.
The 10-10 and Imperial never seem to pop up when I have the money to grab em. BTW have you ever seen two of either of these models on ebay at the same time?
To add to the pot, I have read in very small print on the B&H site about a 4-20 model but have never seen or heard of it anywhere else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2002-10-03 13:17
Jack,
There are several 1010s currently advertised on the instrument sales section of
<www.musicalchairs.eu.com>
There's a link on Sneezy's homepage.
I think they're in the UK but seem reasonably priced and may be worth the shipping costs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2002-10-03 13:19
I don't know what happened to the address.
It's www.musicalchairs.eu.com
jez (useless with computer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2002-10-03 15:26
I've renovated seven or eight B&H clarinets within the last couple of years, two of which I played myself for extended periods of time, so I can say from a bit of experience that their clarinets do have a good deal of consistency, both model-to-model and within a model. The clarinets I've worked with have been:
-- Four or five Edgwares, including wood versions from 1947 to about 1959, and a hard-rubber 1954 version (my personal instrument for almost a year);
-- A Stratford wood model (my personal instrument for two or three months);
-- A hard-rubber 926 Imperial (just renovated for a gentleman), including the original mouthpiece which I refaced (one of the best instrument-mouthpiece setups, of any brand, that I've ever played);
-- A wood Symphony 1010 renovated a year or two ago for a gentleman in California.
I've found a surprising amount of similarity in acoustical design, keywork layout, and general feel between even the extremes of the model lines (e.g. comparing The Edgware to the 1010). An analogy in the car world might be BMW, where even the lowest-priced 3-Series car has a similar look and feel to the most expensive 7-Series.
Personally I like the old B&Hs very much -- they have some flaws, for sure, but most of those can be worked out and the clarinets are generally attractive and well-made, and hold up well over the years (the materials of the body, both the wood and hard rubber, in particular seemed to be of high quality). On the downside, they have some funky ergonomics (easily corrected), intonation problems which are different than those found in French clarinets (and sometimes not so easily corrected), and the nickle plating on those instruments having it is pretty much awful. Also, it seems that some years the keys were cast out of rather poor alloy and were brittle and porous -- I haven't seen that personally but have read about it.
But there are many of these around (especially Edgwares which are ubiquitous) and, except for the 926 and 1010 models, are very reasonably priced.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David
Date: 2002-10-03 17:11
I like my 926 Imperials. Personally, I'd go for them if given a choice between Imps and 1010s. (Also, I bet the 1010s are a lot more expensive.)
In the past, the 1010s were the Holy Grail for British players. I like their sound in the right hands, but I always found them really hard work to play. Enough resistance to make you check if the swab was still in.
Imperials can be blown by mortals.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keith Ferguson
Date: 2002-10-03 18:48
Two additional sites to check for 1010s and 926s are Howarths "http://www.howarth.uk.com" and a classifieds type of page "http://www.musicalinstrumentsales.co.uk/index/html".
My experience with my 1010 seems consistent with the previous comments re: intonation and stuffiness. I have heard that the 926 has better intonation characteristics. On the other hand, I think the 1010's tonal qualities are wonderful.
KF
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave S
Date: 2002-10-03 21:49
Wow, unless Dave Spiegelthal did two hard rubber Imperial 926's I just got called a gentleman. I purchased the clarinet at auction and commissioned Dave to do my overhaul. I couldn't tell what I had until I got it back from Dave. I have to tell you that between the clarinet, mouthpiece, and the overhaul Dave did, this clarinet is a stunner. It's a large bore clarinet, 0.593" I believe, with very good intonation and a big bore sound that is creamy with lots of color. While Dave was working on my clarinet, I jokingly referred to it as my preGreenline Boosey. I won't refer to it like that anymore because it gives up nothing to the my exceptional E13 and I mean nothing. I can't comment on consistency but if Dave says that the sound is very consistent through the line, it is worth spending a few dollars on it. It may not sound quite as good as this Imperial does but if it's characteristic, you could end up being a very happy camper. I will say that the clarinet is very sensitive to the mouthpiece you use. This is a B&H 926 mouthpiece and is a perfect match. Every other mouthpiece I have wants to play at least 20 cents sharp. It may difficult finding the right mouthpiece for it.
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JackOrion
Date: 2002-10-04 01:49
Right now I'm blowing through a Portnoy PB3. The intonation wavers above and below throughout, leaning towards sharp past the break. But it realy doesn't bother me, like the old joke goes, it's in tune enough for jazz. I am curious by Daves 926 MP. How are the MP's for the lower models? Do they match uo well? I would think they have a larger bore. Mr. Eaton said I would need a "special" bore for my 2-20, but 250.00 is a bit pricey. My purpose for posting this thread is I'm think of picking up another 2-20, and I have seen them with the original MP, but not always. So should I hold out for an all original?
Another note, the markings (label) on my 2-20 are different then any I have seen on ebay. It is low key, not the fancy markings that seem to be the norm. I'll have to check again, but I believe mine is from the early 70's.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2002-10-04 13:36
Jack,
Your 2-20 may be an odd bird somehow, but my understanding is that the 2-20 is simply the Edgware model renamed, starting sometime in the 1960s -- I think what B&H did was take the long-running Edgware design, make a plastic version which they called the 1-10, and continue the wood model under the new name 2-20. If so, that would make it a medium-large bore instrument, but probably not as large as the 926 bore (and certainly smaller than the 1010) --- I've found that Edgwares work pretty well with standard French-bore mouthpieces, so I'd venture a guess that your 2-20 should also. But, who know? Try a bunch of mouthpieces and see what works......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JackOrion
Date: 2002-10-04 18:55
Thanks David. I would venture to say your right about the 2-20 bore being the same as the edgware. I think the only real difference is in a few of the key shapes, which would be the Kell input. I read somewhere that Kell wasn't happy with the way Boosey produced the line, and felt they took shortcuts. It's not a perfect horn, but like you said for the price you can pick them up at and with some work, they can be very good. Are you still playing the Stratford? It looks like it has a bigger bore then the 2-20, what do you think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2002-10-04 21:52
Jack,
My former Stratford has been sold. I found it to be basically identical to the Edgware in every respect but the bell, which was the rimless 926/1010 design. Played just like an Edgware IMHO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JackOrion
Date: 2002-10-04 23:20
I figured it might be a larger bore. My Stratford came with two barrels, and both are very loose on my 2-20, yet the bell fits fine.
I'll have to use my friends micrometer. Thanks for all the input.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
