 Keepers
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-18 12:36
According to the Buffet web site, the R-13 was first developed in 1950, but I have seen so many differing years of it's beginning, mostly indicating that it was first developed around 1955. Also, just exactly what is the difference between the R-13's and the older models? Just exactly what does a poly-cyclindrical bore mean in layman's terms? I own a Buffet R-13 with a serial number of 48829 and I absolutely love it, but I wonder for sure if it's an R-13 or earlier model. Thanks for any help.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2005-12-18 13:16
The Buffet site I am looking at lists about 3,000 buffets per year produced but not listed between 1945 and 1957. Serial number 48829 falls into that catagory. According to the Buffet site that I looked at it would make your Buffet being produced around early 1952. The bulletin board pro's could better explain the pros and cons of the poly-cylindrical bore that wasnt introduced until after 1952. Your buffet may play as well or better than some newer R13s of today. Happy Holidays and Happy tootin.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-12-18 13:31
The way it's been explained to me (and makes sense) is that while Carrée developed the polycylindrical bore in the early 1950s, it did not appear in production lines until the mid-1950s. There have been a few reported clarinets that seemed to have been produced prior to 1954, but are scarce and experts have had little opportunity to examine them.
It is often with a new idea that it is held back until marketing, advertising, and existing stocks catch up.
This is not to be confiused (!) with the Model R13 as Buffets were labelled in the US. The importer in the US created a model name for the standard Buffet called the R13; that designation was around well prior to the polycylindrical Buffet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-12-18 13:50
And the various numbers of R Clarinets such as R-14, R14 1/2, 15, 16 (don't remember if 14 was a 1/2 or not, but I have seen 1/2 numbers of the R series in ancient buffet booklets.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-12-18 15:22
This has been discussed frequently in the past, especially on the Klarinet mailing list.
There seems to be no definitive answer as to when the R13 began. Pre-Carre (non-polycylindrical) Buffets had an R-13 catalog number, even though it was not the official model name.
Ken Shaw has noted that one reasonably reliable difference is the shape of the key guide for the two top trill keys. On the non-polycylindrical instruments, it was flat sheet metal bent in a flat-bottomed "U" shape and tapered toward the top, in a blunt triangle. On the Carre R-13s, the guide became a cylinder with a slot cut down through it.
Also, on the pre-R13's the throat A and Ab keys were either connected with a single L shaped type post, or two separate posts (R13).
Adding to the confusion is the fact that the Carre changes to the bore and keys were not introduced simultaneously, and there were various experimental models in the early 1950s.
Various postings on the clarinet archives have listed serial #48707 (1954 or 1955) is the highest verified pre-R-13.
The earliest verified R-13 serial number reported on the mailing list has been #48830 (1955).
However, there were frequent prototypes of the new design sold around that time the 1954-1955 time period and earlier...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2005-12-18 15:35
Your clarinet is right on the cusp. The lowest polycylindrical R-13 serial number I have previsously heard of is 48830, one number higher than yours. The highest pre-R-13 serial number I know of is 48707. See the discussion at http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=141259&t=141247.
According to Vytas Kras, Robert Marcellus's A clarinet was number 45451, which he says was also an R-13. However, that instrument has to have been one of the transitional ones. Also, it had been remade by Hans Moennig. See Alvin Swiney's description at http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/05/000596.txt.
There were a number of changes in key design on the R=13. See http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=41228&t=41179, http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=11130&t=11130 and http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=40375&t=40375.
The easiest changes to see are these:
On the pre-R-13, the guide for the two top trill keys is a flat piece of metal cut into a diamond shape and bent into a flat-bottomed "U." The sides are pyramid-shaped. On the R-13, the guide is a cylinder with a slot cut down through it.
On the pre-R-13, the bottom end of the throat A key and the right end (looking from the front) of the throat Ab key are mounted on a single post. On the R-13, they have separate posts.
And of course, all that counts is whether your particular clarinet plays well.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2005-12-18 16:37
GBK said:
"The earliest verified R-13 serial number reported on the mailing list has been #48830 (1955). However, there were frequent prototypes of the new design sold around that time the 1954-1955 time period and earlier..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Shaw added:
"According to Vytas Kras, Robert Marcellus's A clarinet was number 45451, which he says was also an R-13. However, that instrument has to have been one of the transitional ones. Also, it had been remade by Hans Moennig. See Alvin Swiney's description at http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/05/000596.txt. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When this discussion started taking place several years ago, I added my observations about Marcellus' A clarinet in hope of providing some information to help piece the answer to this puzzle together.
If you read the link that I've provided below (scroll about 3/4 way down the thread), you'll notice that Vytas Kras challenged the idea that the claim (mine from a previous thread) that RM's A clarinet serial #45451 was indeed an R13 polycyl. type. I proceeded to explain the process by which RM related to me how, when, and under what circumstances the clarinet was obtained.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=134961&t=134746
It was NOT a PRE - polycyl. instrument (later designated R13) simply because of it's seemingly low serial number. Mark's observations above seem to accurately describe why this is so.
Post Edited (2005-12-18 16:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2005-12-18 19:57
Hmmm. some excellent answers there.
But one of Bwilber's questions was:
"Just exactly what does a poly-cyclindrical bore mean in layman's terms?"
My understanding is that clarinet manufacturers realised that the sound could be improved by narrowing parts of the instrument. That's why our modern clarinet is not a perfect cylinder.
That's also why I laugh when people say to measure the bore diameter.
Where exactly do you measure it?
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-12-18 20:13
stevensfo wrote:
> Hmmm. some excellent answers there.
>
> But one of Bwilber's questions was:
>
> "Just exactly what does a poly-cyclindrical bore mean in
> layman's terms?"
A casual search here with
"polycylindrical description"
will bring up a wealth of information.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2005-12-18 20:57
Bwilber,
I took Mark's excellent advice and searched the archives for a layman's explanation of 'poly-cylindrical bore'.
Here is a nice post from Ron Berger in 1999:
>--- "I have a LeBlanc brochure which describes the bores of the Concerto etc series as polycylindrical [at least two cylindrical sections ] "in the upper third of the left hand joint, which is characterized by a series of cylinders connected by conical, stair-step-like reductions". Further, "basic bore size refers to the cylindrical part of the middle third of the French clarinet's bore". The latter range from 14.60 mm to 15.00 mm [for the P Fountain model. What other makers do is open to question, but you can see "what a can of worms" this opens!!" ---
So, the bore diameter has to be measured at the middle joint. Makes sense I guess!
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Shorthand
Date: 2005-12-18 21:03
OK, so this instrument could (and likely is) the new record holder. What would it take to verify that its polycylindrical?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2005-12-19 00:18
The French assert that Carre spent an entire week, less one day, creating the polycylindrical bore.
An Englishman claims that it reached its latest dimensions by a series of trial and error.
Recent documents show that there were many luthiers working at the same time for different companies, and having similar designs.
Carre's ideas were carried to other countries where developments in recordings allowed the concept to proliferate.
Carre's design did not achieve overwhelming success in his own country, except at Festival time, although a resurgeance has taken hold there as well, with a cultist like following surrounding his name. Other factions developed an Elitist following, but their hedonism gave way to extinction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-19 01:09
From what I have read from the board for some time now, I wondered if I had one of the earliest polycyclindrical R-13's and now I think that I might. So to answer the question, I need to measure the bore. When I measure the inside diameter of the top keyed section with my ruler, it looks to be 14.9 mm on the top and the bottom looks to be about 15 mm. However, when I stick my little finger in the top and bottom holes, I can actually get my little finger further into the hole with the 14.9 mm measurement. When I look at the 2 top trill keys, the guide looks to be a round cylinder with the center portion cut out to accomdate the keys. Thanks for all the help.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2005-12-19 22:33
Attachment: E&S_#B2262.JPG (36k)
Attachment: E&S_#B382.JPG (80k)
Attachment: Pre_R13_#48769_1954.JPG (38k)
Ken Shaw wrote:
****"The easiest changes to see are these:
On the pre-R-13, the guide for the two top trill keys is a flat piece of metal cut into a diamond shape and bent into a flat-bottomed "U." The sides are pyramid-shaped. On the R-13, the guide is a cylinder with a slot cut down through it."****
Sorry Ken, but you're mistaken.
The cylinder shaped key guide for the two top trill keys appeared on some Pro Buffet clarinets in 1954. Actually the cylinder shaped key guide has nothing to do with the polycylindrical bore. Buffet was using this type of key guide long time ago before the polycylindrical bore was designed. It was used on some B-series E&S clarinets made in 1930-1940.
Polycylindrical bore "R-13" was introduced 1955. BUT it doesn't mean that ALL clarinets made in 1955 are actually R-13. Some of them are not. The safest bet for a polycylindrical bore R-13 is: "separate posts" for the throat 'A' and 'G#'. THIS NEW KEY DESIGN SIGNIFIES the SWITCH from the master bore to the polycylindrical bore design.
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2005-12-19 22:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-20 11:39
So Vytas, my Buffet serial number #48829 shares the A throat key and G# post just as in the pictures, so does that for sure, make it a PRE R-13 with the polycyclindrical bore? If so, and it is for sure that the FIRST polycyclindrical bore on the production line that anyone know of was #48830, than does that mean that I have the last one of the pre R-13's? I really don't know for sure how to measure the bore. Thanks for your help. Bonnie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2005-12-20 16:00
The clarinet in the picture (bellow) is NOT an R-13. It's the Pre R-13 master bore clarinet seriel number 48769. My point was to show that the cylinder shaped key guide for the two top trill keys appeared on Pre R13 clarinets in 1954 and it was NOT the indication of the polycylindrical bore Buffet R-13 clarinet introduced latter in 1955.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/download.html/1,663/Pre_R13_48769_1954.JPG
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2005-12-20 16:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-20 16:54
Yes, I understood what you were getting at with the trill key guide and so I realized that that is not what would make it an R-13 or pre-R13 with the polycyclindrical bore. What I am saying is that I think that if you are correct about those two keys sharing the same post, is that I might have what would be the last one of the pre-R-13's since on my clarinet those two keys do share the same post. If we know for sure that there is a Buffet with the serial number 48830 that for sure is an R-13 with the polycyclindrical bore, do I perhaps have the last pre-R-13's (serial number 48829) without the polycyclindrical bore? I am having a hard time understanding the previous postings about how to determine bore size? It almost sounds like the bore is larger in the middle of the clarinet, which I don't understand could be possible. The bottom end does seem ever so slightly larger than the top end. If the difference is the size of the bore, can anyone give me a definative answer as to how to determine what is the difference between the pre R-13's polycyclindrical bore and the newer design? Thanks so much for any help you can give me. Bonnie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-12-20 17:32
Vytas wrote:
> Actually the cylinder shaped key guide has nothing to do
> with the polycylindrical bore. Buffet was using this type of
> key guide long time ago before the polycylindrical bore was
> designed. It was used on some B-series E&S clarinets
> made in 1930-1940.
Vytas is absolutely correct about the cylinder shaped key guide.
My everyday practice clarinet is an E&S clarinet (B10094) from the 1930's which has the same cylinder shaped key guide. It also has the shared post for the A and G# keys. It is identical to the photos that Vytas posted.
For an intermediate type clarinet from the 1930's, the E&S tunes well and actually plays quite nicely ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2005-12-20 17:59
Really determining the complete bore measurements is quite difficult, almost to the point of being impossible for the average person. When you see bore measurements stated, the accepted practice is that the measurement stated is at the bottom of the upper joint. That's not so difficult to determine. But what's going on between the top of the joint and the bottom of the joint is where the magic is, and for most of us . . . we don't have the equipment to get in there to measure.
And FWIW, meaningful bore measurements require a micrometer, not a ruler.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-20 19:23
My husband does have a dial caliper and said he can measure to a thousandth of an inch. I still don't understand though. Is the bore size of the top joint at the top, smaller than the bore size at the bottom of the joint? That to me, doesn't seem like it would be that difficult for me to determine if it's polycyclindrical, that is if we measure it with the dial caliper and and we see that the bottom bore is larger than the top bore. From earlier postings, it almost sounds like the upper joint's bore is larger in the center of the joint, which to me seems impossible..... Okay, my husband has measured the bore of the top joint and we see that over the years, the bore has gone slightly out of round. The bore of at the top of the top joint ranges in size from .583 to .586 inch and the bore at the bottom ranges from .574 to .577 of an inch. Can anyone tell me does this qualify as a polyclyclindrical bore or not? Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-12-20 19:35
bwilber wrote:
> The bore of at the top of the
> top joint ranges in size from .583 to .586 inch and the bore at
> the bottom ranges from .574 to .577 of an inch. Can anyone
> tell me does this qualify as a polyclyclindrical bore or not?
The bore generally is not a perfect cylinder, top or bottom joint, even if it's not a polycylindical bore; a polycylindrical bore has a small but distinct step in the upper bore; I can't remember offhand how far down from the top it is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-12-20 20:07
If I remember correctly, the R13 Bb polycylindrical bore gradually gets smaller by a few thousandths of an inch from the top of the upper joint to just below the left middle finger hole. The bore then gets larger from there to the bottom of the upper joint. This is done with a series of 3 cylindrical reamers, with the steps blended into each other...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-20 20:12
The odd thing is though is that the bore at the top of the joint is slightly larger than the bore at the bottom of the joint. At first, I thought that the top bore was smaller than the bottom bore size, but when we measured it, it was actually larger at the top. Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim S.
Date: 2005-12-21 03:47
Lee Gibson's "Clarinet Acoustics" has a table which shows dimensions for a sample R-13 with (if my conversions of the millimeters are correct) measurements of .588" at the top of the upper joint and .576" at the bottom. He measured a quick reduction in the first centimeter, then a smaller reduction of the bore in the next centimeter, a straight section for the next 3 centimeters then a very small reduction in the next centimeter, a sharp reduction in the next centimeter and then only a very slight reduction in the next 14 centimeters. He obviously just arbitrarily measured at even centimeter points. He doesn't give the serial number or date of this R-13, only says it is "post 1950". He seemed to feel that the R-13 design began some time in about 1950 and was developed from that point onward.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-21 11:56
I have been reading as much as I can about what makes my clarinet a "pre" R-13 or not and from what I have gathered, my clarinet is a "pre" R-13 with a polyclyclindrical bore. What makes it a "pre" is that those two keys share the same post. Do we know for sure that the next serial number #48830 has 2 separate posts for those 2 keys? If so, than is my clarinet the last one of the "pre" R-13's and the next serial number is when they started with the separate posts and was then designated as R-13's? Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler ★2017
Date: 2005-12-21 13:38
Bore measurements are easier with a plug gage set since, as stated previously, the cylinder is not perfectly round. Dial calipers can get varied readings. The next best instrument for measuring is the hole micrometer, but plug gages are much easier for the novice.
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2005-12-21 16:07
Unless you call it "prototype" there is no such thing as "Pre" R-13 with a polyclyclindrical bore. Very few of these prototypes were available for testing by top artists/players. One of these Buffet/Moennig R-13 in key of A, belonged to Robert Marcelus (#45451)
I have many reasons to believe that your clarinet is (master bore) Pre R-13 even though it was made in 1955 and it's definitely not the last clarinet "when they started with the separate posts and was then designated as R-13's"
Your clarinet falls into category: "Without measuring the bore no one can tell".
http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=101034&t=101034
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2005-12-21 18:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-21 18:48
If we can accurately measure the bore, what are looking for exactly? Are we trying to determine if it's polycyclindrical or what? I was looking on completed auctions this morning on Ebay and saw an R-13 with a serial number in the 50,000 range and it had a shared post for those two keys. I could tell from that, that my clarinet is not that important, but I was just wondering exactly what I had. When we measured it, we could see that the top hole was definately larger than the bottom hole and it seems to me that if it's not polycyclindrical, it would be the same on both ends. So, I do think that my clarinet has a polycyclindrical bore. Do I have what is just considered a prototype then? And if so and the determining factor was the change to 4 posts and not 3, then the change has to go way into the 50,000 mark, because of the one that I saw on Ebay this morning. Thanks, Bonnie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2005-12-21 20:37
Bonnie, polycylindrical is more complicated than just the top measurement vs the bottom measurement. It's the step changes that go on within that one section that matter. And those are the ones that are hard to measure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2005-12-21 22:20
So, then is it important whether or not it is truely polycyclindrical? If it is truely important, than I will take it some place where they can measure it. Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-12-22 00:15
Since earlier, Steve dug up an old post of mine, I'll jump into the hot water again. The purpose of these "modified" bores is of course to make a well-in-tune [12ths] clarinet [read Gibson], so, to me, how it is accomplished is quite unimportant, its playing characteristics are important. While I'm NOT a machinist [some of our BB'ers may be, if so, please comment], these many/variously-possible bore configurations seem to approximate a [very slightly] conical upper section of the Upper Joint, and IMHO would be much easier to form by reaming/drilling several sections of VERY SLIGHTLY differing diameters, hence the poly cylindrical areas. Some may be visible in a very clean, nearly new bore, in older horns, its doubtful. Why measure, just play it. "Nuff for now, Others Please HELP, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2005-12-22 01:12
I quite agree, Don. The only reason to subject the clarinet to intricate measurements is to be able to say "It is an R13" or "It is not an R13". You have to know that the bore is polycylindrical to make that determination. But if you did have the measurements, what would you compare them against? I have several R13's, but don't have the foggiest idea what the measurements "x centimeters from the top of the joint" are. And unless you are good and used to that type of measurement, I fear that experimental error might easily mask the true measurements of the bore.
But hey . . . I'd love to see the figures if Bonnie is willing to go to the trouble to acquire them!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
