 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-08-24 21:20
I took a flyer a couple of weeks ago and bought a Boosey and Hawkes Edgware from David Spiegelthal. Some observations: The intonation is excellent. I assume this is because Dave undercuts and tweaks as needed. The sound is more full than the Leblanc Classic II I have been playing. In fact, it's the richest sound I have ever gotten from a clarinet. The wood is very close-grained, more so than the Leblanc. The altissimo is particularly strong. All this for a price not much more than a new Chinese CSO. Thanks, Dave, for your artistry. My GAS is in remission. Long live big bores (the clarinets, that is)!
Post Edited (2005-08-24 21:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-08-24 21:37
What's the serial number?
I had a 1966 Series 2-20 (#234701 - these had a metal bell ring but were the same as the Edgwares) I bought from a car boot sale which wasn't bad for $7.75 back in 1986 which was a pretty good instrument. I've got a B&H Marlborough which is all in bits, awaiting full restoration and replating in nickel.
The throat notes on these are a bit sharp with the barrel (67mm) all the way in, and pulled out by 2mm the intonation should be spot on.
The Emperor had silver plated keys and the Imperial 926 was the top model with the 14.9mm bore - the 15.2mm bore 1010 had a longer top joint and different tonehole layout, as well as the thick barrel and lighter bell (the Bb and A 1010s both had different length bells).
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2005-08-24 22:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-08-24 21:50
SN is 121xxx. Accoring to the list on this site it's from 1971 and yours would be 1983? As said above, I suspect Dave's modifications made a noticeable difference in this clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-08-24 22:02
The list on this site and most others I've seen are not correct - a clarinet (or any other instrument) made by B&H in 1983 would have the number 55xxxx, I've got a 1010 with the number 531xxx from 1982. 121xxx is from 1960 on Boosey's site
http://www.buffet-crampon.com/SerialNumber2_Strings.asp?marke=8
I had an official B&H serial number list back in the late '80s (including Boosey & Co and Hawkes & Son serial numbers), Brian Ackerman also had a copy of this pinned to his wall at Merton Tech.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RichardB
Date: 2005-08-25 02:25
I have one of these famed instruments too. Dave did a great job on a 2-20, which had been sitting unused at a relative's house for 20 years, before being given to me.
My son is currently using it. It is, I think, more accurate than my E11.
The only thing I have noticed is that it does feel quite different from my E11. I seem to have to change my throat position compared to the E11, even using the same mouthpiece. Once I have adjusted it sounds great, particularly the throat notes.
I too would heartily recommend a Spiegelthaled Boosey.
Richard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-08-25 10:21
I'm just wondering if he fills in the notoriously sharp throat note toneholes on these clarinets so they can be played with the barrel all the way in.
Dave?
Do avoid the older wooden bodied 'Regent' clarinets and the B&H '77' (the latter having ebonite bells) - they had the die-cast Mazak keys (the keywork has raised numbers on the underside, as opposed to the nickel silver keys which had numbers stamped into them). The later bakelite(ish) and plastic bodied Regents had sound nickel silver keywork though.
The Rudall Carte 'Starline' is also essentially the same instrument as the Edgware/2-20/Marlborough clarinet, and the Besson '55' I think.
The B&H '78' is a re-badged plastic Bundy/Buescher.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2005-08-31 21:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-08-25 13:38
RichardB, I also had to adjust my air stream for the Boosey. I had the same experience playing a 1936 Conn 10M tenor after being accustomed to a modern Yani. Could this have something to do with the larger bore sizes on the Boosey and the 10M? In both cases it was just a matter of practice. Once learned it seems to stay with me as I change instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RichardB
Date: 2005-08-26 23:20
Kel, I didn't think the 2-20 was much of a different bore than a Buffet. I thought the large bore models were the 1010 and Imperial?
Richard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-08-26 23:42
My Edgware is about .594, more than 15mm. My understanding is the 1010 is even bigger. So I guess Boosey made large bores and REALLY large bores.
Post Edited (2005-08-27 01:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-08-27 01:17
As I understand it Chris P has it about right --- I've read that (in English units) all the B&H models had .593" bores except the Symphony 1010, which had .600" (maybe .603"). Other than a couple of 1010s, the following models (the ones I've worked on) as far as I could tell were acoustically identical, differing slightly in keywork, body trim rings and bell ring (or lack thereof):
--The Edgware
--The Stratford (identical to Edgware but lacking bell ring)
--Series 2-20 (identical to Edgware but with "Reginald Kell" elongated lower r.h. trill key and "fingernail" l.h. C/F spatula)
--Series 8-10 (identical to Edgware but with different body rings)
--Imperial 926 (identical to Stratford but with different body rings and silver-plated keywork) -- also available in hard-rubber.
To me, the above are all variations on the same basic clarinet. The Symphony 1010 is the only truly unique model.
I've purposely avoided the Regent models because they are the plastic, bottom-of-the-line instruments. I've overhauled Edgware models in both hard-rubber (I believe they only made these for a couple of years in the mid-1950s) and wood models, and only once did I have a B&H with the dreaded pot-metal keys, I believe that was a wood, late-1940s Edgware (and yes, I did snap a key or two trying to bend them back to shape).
To answer Chris P's question, I have not had to fill in toneholes to correct sharp throat tones -- mildly undercutting all the toneholes generally seems to solve nearly all the intonation and response problems, although finding the right barrel for tuning is not always easy.
I may have some of the details of the various models a bit wrong, but this is what I've learned along the way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-08-27 09:21
I was warned that the top joint bores in some 1010s (and possibly the 14.9 bore instruments) do get wider with age, especially at the top end.
I'm taking the bore measurement from the middle tenon.
Generally the B&H clarinets here in the UK never have a bell ring, but a decorative turning. There are some Emperors (the silver-plated, up-market versions of Edgwares) that were also made entirely in the ultra-dense bakalite type stuff, and I know of a turned plastic bodied Emperor A which also had the German-type 'Reginald Kell' side Bb. The last one of these Emperors I worked on still had it's original leather pads (Hermes) - but they were all glued in with contact adhesive so they couldn't be adjusted.
Some pre-war 1010s had a bis key (as saxes), but no Acton vent.
My Marlborough (w/ bell ring) is from a post-transitional era(! I wonder where I can use the word 'existentialism'? Not that I can even spell it.) where some new key pieces (and setting out - the trill guide is single and in the later position) were being introduced - it has the longer C#/G# touch (as opposed to the earlier symmetrical one that had a sharp point on the touch), the singular curved F#/C# linkage arms (for the LH levers) but doesn't have the 'nail file' LH F/C touch.
The very late instruments had a recessed, screw in speaker bush rather than the plain tube, and a hollow on the underside of the LH lever heads.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2005-08-27 10:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2005-08-30 08:13
The Regent of the early 1970s out performed the equivalent Buffet plastic clarinet by a very large margin and all or some of them have the longer side B flat key. The Emperor lasted quite a while and replaced the Edgware. But early Emperors were better than later ones, as Boosey set to cutting costs around the mid 1970s (the UK economy was in a desperate situation around then). There was an increasing market for the Emperor amongst children so it gradually decended in quality to meet the lowering standard of the players who used it. This meant the key work went out of true very quickly, and the instruments played very sharp. So, beware late Emperors.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Malcolm Martland
Date: 2005-08-30 12:11
How late should we beware of Emperors?
I have an immaculate A from 1968 (with the Kell trill key), a well used Bb from 1973 and a not much used Bb from 1982. There are differences in the Bb's with the later one having finer grain and a "snub" A key which I find stiff to use - but still a good tone. These B&H's are not quite as smooth mechanically as my Leblanc LL but have a really rich dark lower register.
I sounds like I need them Spiegelthaled - when are you coming to the UK, David?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2005-08-30 13:06
Well, very roughly from 1975 onwards should be treated with caution. The lower joint keys in certain places have a hollowed appearance on the underside which I believe the earlier ones did not have.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-08-30 15:41
Hello Malcolm!
I wish I could come to the UK soon, but have no known opportunities coming up........... every time I've visited (for business or pleasure) I've had a wonderful time and met many terrific folks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-09-01 23:50
Pop round next time you're visiting the UK, I've got a 1010 that I just overhauled that you might want to see (all cork pads except the bottom four which are in leather), so you can show me what improvements you do on them.
Any good methods of cleaning heavily tarnished silver plated keywork that's non-abrasive? I've got an ultrasonic cleaner but don't know what solution to use for cleaning silver.
I've been boiling up the keys and other plated parts after using Duraglit in water and washing up liquid with rolled up pieces of aluminium foil, and this has good results in removing the tarnish in places that can't be reached, then finished off with a silver cloth.
But is there a way without initially having to use any silver polish at all (apart from a going over with a silver cloth right at the end)? The reason being that silver polish is obviously abrasive, and on older instruments there's the risk that the plating is already thin in places, and I don't want to remove any more.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2005-09-02 12:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-09-02 00:47
I've been using a silver polish that's readily available in the States, called "Wright's Silver Cream" --- it's hardly abrasive at all (if at all) and, although heavy tarnish may take several applications of the stuff, ultimately it does a very nice job. I'm using a lot of it lately as in the last couple of months I've renovated a silver-plated baritone sax, a clarinet with silver-plated keywork, and a silver-plated all-metal clarinet, the first and third of the aforementioned instruments having heavy tarnish. I really didn't see any plating removal during these operations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-09-02 11:47
I've never yet seen an Imperial 1010, I've seen many Impreial 926 (which have the 14.9 bore but have the thick barrel and smooth joint rings like 1010s) - but only Symphony 1010s.
Hang on - I think I might be wrong, there's an ex-Royal Marines musician (and an excellent musician at that) who has a whole load of ex-Royal Marines instruments (that were saved from being crushed) - among them a Rudall Carte Piccolo, B&H Imperial wooden Flute, silver plated (and early) Selmer Mk.6 Alto and Tenor and I'm wondering if his clarinets might be Imperial 1010s?
Is there much difference between the Imperial 1010s and the Symphony 1010s?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2005-09-02 13:03
Imperial 1010s were, I believe, a "period" of 1010s in the 1950s. They are pre-Acton vent. I think they were actually stamped both Imperial and Symphony. There are widely divergent views as to the quality of this period. Some say they were the worst ever produced. I have one and think it is different from and better than later ones, and certainly comparable with the much hyped 1930s 1010s. Certainly worth looking at (and listening to).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2005-09-02 13:28
I worked on a '30s 1010 about 10 years ago, and it played beautifully with very little resistance. Shame the keywork was worn out - the player went onto a pair of Leblanc Concertos not long afterwards.
This 1010 from 1982 I just overhauled was a pain! The long key barrels had as many bends in them as is possible, I eventually straightened them all out so a 2.2mm steel ran through smoothly. But the original steels that are only 2.2 at the ends had off-centre threads, in fact, all the steels had off-centre threads!
And the throat A key spring saddle was too near the barrel, so the A key would stay put when opened - I ended up filling the slot with a piece of blued steel that overhangs the saddle southwards (like on some Moennig oboe G# saddles) to utilise maximum spring length, and this now works nice and smoothly.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2005-09-02 13:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
