 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-16 23:14
I've purchased a few "standard" mouthpieces on eBay, or they've come with used clarinets. I've also purchased new. And I've noted that (at least for the Vandoren 2RV) there was quite a variety in the visible dimensions, not even considering playing qualities. And I've learned (guess I didn't always know) that folks often reface, refinish, alter mouthpieces in good or bad attempts to play better with them.
So that means a bunch of what's out there is no longer in original factory condition or even design / dimensions. Which is a real shame- all this product is now worthless to the rest of the playing community? To say that everybody has to "buy new" is not just silly, it's "un-green" and anti-recycling.
So I have a suggestion that is perhaps hopelessly naive. I would ask anyone who ever significantly changes a mouthpiece from its original design- to mark it in a permanent manner that all would recognize and know, that it is no longer standard. Suggestions for the mark? An etched skull and crossbones? Mr Yuck? Perhaps even buff off the original model number!
Further, I would like anyone who FINDS a mouthpiece that they figure out is no longer standard, to mark it the same way.
Of course what I am suggesting would immediately destroy the resale value of said mouthpiece, so few would want it to happen. But that's no different than the high odometer reading on a vehicle reducing its value. Honesty in selling!
Other than some kind of universally followed community agreement, how can you know whether a "5RV" you buy has or has not been monkeyed with? I don't even trust one I buy NEW.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2014-03-17 01:17
normally, a refacer would leave his name/tag/logo and maybe a number/reference on a mouthpiece. Else I'm sure the NSA has a track and record of it.
It's like with everything that doesn't come shrinkwrapped and sealed - we never know who else had their fingers in it. Could be new, could be a loan return, could be a restocked item, could be simply old and worn...we'll never know. But either we like and accept the item as is, or we reject it.
When you buy a used car, would you know if at some time in its history a kid got sick on the back seat, or the previous owner and their then partner missed part of the drive-in movie because, er, uhm...
When I buy say a '60s Bundy clarinet, I often would look at the instrument and wonder who might have owned it, did s/he make district band with it, I see a freckled face or glasses, locker, and strewn music sheets fallen off a dropped folder. When buying used, you buy history, not just a deprecated, written-off product.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2014-03-17 01:20
Glen Johnston, one of my mentors, used to mark mouthpieces that he refaced well with his initials. Those mouthpieces are now worth a lot more than an equivalent new mouthpiece, if they ever come up for sale.
A lot of mouthpieces have come new from makers with inadequate facings. Those can play a lot better than new mouthpieces after being refaced, assuming the refacer knows how to do his job.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-03-17 01:24
Stan:
I think you realize this idea will never, at least fully, take, and that it's likely born more of frustration on your part, than demand/belief that it will.
The world will always have people who deviate from morale positions, and such people are, albeit sadly, not going to be incentivized to mark up things like mouthpieces to indicate that they've change from a standard if doing so is likely to fetch them less money than if they had let this fact go unknown before sale. By opposite analogy, the prices you pay in clothing stores reflect in part the countless times people wear an outfit once or twice, and then wrongly return it as new.
As good people, I'm afraid that the only tools we have are the law and caveat emptor (buyer beware). Since the latter serves to protect the costs associated with use of the former tool, I'll focus on that.
For the reasons you cite...and you probably realize this already...consider knowing your buyer, especially when buying used mouthpieces, know your mouthpiece lays as designated by the manufacturer, and buy in markets where if a mouthpiece differs from this lay, that you are entitled to a full refund, plus shipping. Communicate with the seller than you demand a mouthpiece that hasn't been altered (wear and tear notwithstanding) and require them to pay you back, plus a certain amount for shipping, as well as your time and inconvenience, if this is not the case.
Of course some people pay a premium for refacings done by certain tradespeople, but this fact is advertised so as to command a price premium, and the sale is transparent with respect to its terms.
I'm all for repurposing musical equipment rather than populating landfills. Mouthpieces though, aren't my "stock in [used and blind] trade" because of the issues you cite.
On the bright side Stan, with many problems comes the potential for a market. Although also a bit far fetched, consider opening up an internet used mouthpiece clearing house. Certify used mouthpieces to not be refinished. Take a cut of the transaction for your time and services. Do for mouthpiece trade what, for example, GIA certification seeks to do for diamonds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-03-16 21:59
I agree with Wes that the facings on many standard French mouthpieces (notably Vandoren and Selmer) were never very consistent or anything special. The rubber quality and tone chamber dimensions gave these mouthpieces whatever value they may have had. American mouthpiece techs like Glen Johnston, Everette Matson, and Robert Miller could always make the French blanks play better for Americans by revoicing, tuning, and refacing them. Old Selmers often had very good rubber and the Vandy 2RVs with the deep engraving often did too. Johnston, Matson, and Miller definitely "added value" to the mouthpiece by working on it. Lesser talents may have has less success and ruined the mouthpiece. Who can keep accurate track of such things?
The past is past and nothing can be done about it. For now, perhaps clarinetists might take a clue from coin collectors and buy the best blanks to be saved for resale later. But is there anything like a "mint" clarinet mouthpiece that would be worth saving like a mint coin? Are the proprietary rubber blanks produced today by Omar Henderson, Chris Hill (Chadash/Glotin) and Brad Behn good enough to stash away as "mint" items to be worked on and played by later generations? Are the Zinner blanks that good? Should someone have saved thousands of Cheveville blanks from the 1930s as un-faced, un-circulated mint items? I honestly don't know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-03-17 03:08
fskelley wrote:
> Of course what I am suggesting would immediately destroy the
> resale value of said mouthpiece,
Well, no, although it might limit the market for resale to players who know something about the mouthpieces and the blanks they were made from. Often, as already noted, a skilled refacer can improve a great deal on what came off of the manufacturer's assembly line. Sometimes a person who buys old mouthpieces expects to put a favorite facing on anything he buys and isn't concerned about what the measurements are when he buys it.
If you buy used mouthpieces, you may not be getting a Vandoren 5RV, but you are getting a 5RV blank, which can be expected to have a set of timbral, tuning and internal resistance characteristics that you may hope to optimize by changing (or having someone else do it) the actual facing measurements if they aren't satisfactory. If you buy "premium" old mouthpieces (particularly those with the two magic names Chedeville or Kaspar on them or ones that were perhaps made from their blanks) you're gambling that you've stumbled on a treasure. Most of the time, as in any other gamble, you loose. Sometimes not.
Players alter mouthpieces not to defraud any possible future user but to try to improve them over what the manufacturer originally put out.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-17 03:35
Thanks for the comments- you were kinder than I was afraid you might be.
I'm actually assuming that the innards of the mouthpiece, obviously very important, haven't been bothered. I'm only concerned with the tip opening and lay length. Aren't those actually rather tough to measure without good equipment, and doesn't a little bit of change makes a big difference in response? By my notes, both 2RV and 5RV are supposed to be 1.065 and 19.5. How could I verify those dimensions on one I buy, whether used or NEW? Do those also vary all over the place in "factory new" samples?
And am I correct in worrying that those 2 measurements could be significantly changed by refinishing?
Why does EVERY aspect of clarinet playing resist scientific analysis for consistent play? ![[huh]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie11.gif)
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-03-17 03:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2014-03-17 18:34
I'm not sure science is the answer. Your second measurement seems suspect to me. A facing length of 19.5mm is very long. You should acquire some mouthpiece facing equipment.. feeler gauges, glass with Eric brand markings. Look into yahoo group.... mouthpieceworks They have the lots of information on the topic.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-17 19:16
http://www.clarinetperfection.com/clmpcvandoren.htm
is one reference for the 2RV and 5RV being 1.065 / 19.5, and I think I've seen others- though of course incorrect info has a way of being passed around and repeated.
And your suggestion of obtaining dedicated equipment for measuring these dimensions just reinforces my contention that the ordinary player would be clueless whether a given mp matches its specs or doesn't. I'll have to go see if mouthpieceworks can help in this regard.
My own history is this. Initially (in 2010) I restarted clarinet with an old TR147 (which I now know was probably one of the finest examples of that model- many are not as I discovered later) which came with a 2RV and a couple of no name mp's. At the same time I bought a new Ridenour RE10 student mp, that was my primary for a good while. But eventually I tried them all and the 2RV won handily.
Later I bought a new 2RV, which played identically. Maybe that was an accident, but silly me- I assumed it would be that way with all 2RV's. Later I got others that were not so nice. Also later I learned about the tip dimensions and figured I must like numbers close to 1.065 / 19.5- and looked for other similarly dimensioned models. Closest I've found to date is the Selmer C* at 1.05-10 / 19, and a used example (correct dimensions? who knows?) plays OK for me, not as good as my 2RV but better than all the other 10 or 15 mp's I've tried since 2010. I did recently sample 2 new Ridenour Encore (student) mp's that did not work for me at all- tip dimensions not published but I assume not near my ideals.
The only reason I want to try the 5RV is to compare tip shape- the 2RV seems to be an old fashioned shape that does not match well with current reeds and trimmers. I'm still waiting for an alto sax trimmer and an old vintage brevette trimmer from eBay that I can use to trim reeds to better match my 2RV, meanwhile I've been using sandpaper and butchering my reeds, but they seem to play better when the shapes match better. So many nasty details! All I want is to play and think about the music!
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-03-17 16:23
fskelley wrote:
> an old TR147 (which I now know was probably one
> of the finest examples of that model- many are not as I
> discovered later) which came with a 2RV and a couple of no name
> mp's.
So may or may not have been altered from original facing.
>
> Later I bought a new 2RV, which played identically. Maybe that
> was an accident, but silly me- I assumed it would be that way
> with all 2RV's. Later I got others that were not so nice.
I'm curious where you're buying these new 2RVs - they aren't listed among Vandoren's currently available models and haven't been within my recent memory.
In any case, Vandorens have a reputation for inconsistency - 3 of the same model bought new from the same reliable source can measure identically and still play differently. There are other internal dimensions that affect playing characteristics as much as the facing itself. Hand-finishers try to balance all these variations in the blanks they use to produce mouthpieces that sound and respond reasonably consistently (but even then, not identically) within a specific model. A mass-produced mouthpiece like those in the Vandoren line will only be consistent in direct relation to the number of hand finishers they have play-testing the final products and making needed adjustments to each mouthpiece before it is shipped.
>
> The only reason I want to try the 5RV is to compare tip shape-
> the 2RV seems to be an old fashioned shape that does not match
> well with current reeds and trimmers.
I've read here (on this BB) and other places that the 5RV *is* the 2RV with only the model name changed. You may be right about the tip shape - that might be true of all older (maybe pre-1990s?) Vandorens for all I know - all the ones I own dating from the early '90s are the same tip shape as the new ones. So the tip of an older 2RV may not be shaped the way a new 5RV is, but again, unless Vandoren is making them but not listing them in their offerings, new 2RVs must be a store's very old stock or previously owned, so what you might get is anything but certain.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-18 21:16
Attachment: 2RV-B-1.JPG (124k)
Attachment: 2RV-B-2.JPG (67k)
Attachment: 2RV-B-4.JPG (125k)
Attachment: 2RV-B-5.JPG (142k)
Attachment: 2RV-B-6.JPG (130k)
This is the 2RV I currently use 100% of the time. It's easily beat everything else I've tested against it. I purchased on eBay in Dec 2010 from seller "estorepartner"- advertised as new, and I had no reason to doubt that since it was in box and looked new. Now it does seem a bit tired- do any of you think it needs refacing or other attention?
Interestingly, the packaging does say, "World-famous 5RV...", in addition to being marked plainly as 2RV and a couple of places, also CM311. And it does suggest Vandoren reeds traditional, V12, or 56, with no apparent mention of tip shape.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-18 21:25
Attachment: 2RV-A-1.JPG (98k)
Attachment: 2RV-A-2.JPG (78k)
Attachment: 2RV-A-3.JPG (107k)
Here are my eBay sale photos from Jan 2011 of the 2RV that had come with the TR147, and made me go looking for a new one. Perhaps I should not have sold it!
I was still rather green and might not have noticed any differences between the 2 samples. But I was happy with the new one. And now I don't see any obvious diffs between the photos... do you?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-18 17:54
Mark- thanks for the post cleanup.
I'd appreciate anybody with a plain old 5RV to please compare to my photos and report similarity or differences, especially tip shape. If there really is no difference, I'll avoid the trouble of more mp purchases and returns. I do now have a reed trimmer that is a better match for my 2RV tip (an old Cordier Brevete).
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-03-18 21:56
fskelley wrote:
> Mark- thanks for the post cleanup.
>
> I'd appreciate anybody with a plain old 5RV to please compare
> to my photos and report similarity or differences, especially
> tip shape. If there really is no difference, I'll avoid the
> trouble of more mp purchases and returns.
There really is absolutely no difference inside or out ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-03-18 21:59
And I will take it at that and move on. Thanks.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-05-17 08:01
One more round. I saw a used 5RV cheap on eBay and grabbed it. It arrived today in better shape than I expected- it might as well be new.
Why, you might ask, would I buy a 5RV when I'm already happy with my current 2RV? To answer a couple of questions...
1) Are 5RV and 2RV really the same? Based on these samples, my old 2RV and new 5RV (really I don't know which is newer) are as identical as I could ask of manufactured products. They look alike in every respect, including the (non-standard?) tip that does not match any reeds I've yet tried. Of course, one says "2RV" and the other "5RV".
2) Even if 2RV and 5RV are nominally the same, might I find a better playing example than the one I already had? Or if it's worse, that would tell me something also. Well- I cannot detect any difference in play between these 2. Honestly, I wouldn't know which I was playing without looking at the number. So either these are truly identical examples, which is probably good news- or they're not identical but I'm not able to discern that, which I suppose would be bad news. Of course, 2 is not much of a sample size either- they could both be better or worse than average.
And none of this explains the marked inferiority of some of the other used 2RV's I've bought and quietly resold. Now I'll probably resell my remaining 2RV, for more than I paid for the 5RV.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-05-18 03:50
Ref the lay lengths of Vandoren mouthpieces.
I feel sure I read quite some time back that VD used to specify the lay lengths as the absolute length measured to point zero.
This is obviously very hard to measure without highly sophisticated tools so at a later time they started to quote the length in the way that most refacers would use e.g. the point at which a guage of 0.0015" stops.
The absolute measure is naturally quite a bit longer than the later so maybe the 19.5mm info comes from the earlier way of measuring.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-05-18 17:31
So, Norman- do you have the 2 styles of lay length measurement made on the same mouthpiece for comparison- what are the numbers? And has anyone recently measured a 2RV or 5RV per the newest standard, or compared them to the newer designs like the B30 B40 M30 M40 ilk? (Why would we just keep on quoting old references? Perhaps because the measurements are so stinking difficult to do? My point precisely.)
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-05-19 01:40
Stan, out of interest I just measured a VD 2V mouthpiece I bought new about 40 years ago and used for a few years but is essentially still like new.
The 2V is not too dissimilar from the 2RV/5RV model.
Using a 0.0015" guage gave a length of 16.8 mm
Using a (homemade) guage of 0.0005" gave a reading of 18.1 mm
So a 0.001" thickness difference increased measured length by 1.3 mm
Since curve here is section of an elipse it is reasonable to judge that the absolute zero point could be at least 0.7 - 1.0mm further along and this would give total length of approx 18.8 - 19.1 mm under old system.
So as rule of thumb old measure is about 2mm greater than the new system.
ps.
just found a chart from about 1980 (published in "Crescendo International") that quotes length of VD lays and claims these are VDs own claimed measurements and also notes the author was unable to replicate the actual measurements with feelers so wasn't sure how VD arrived at them.
The 5RV is listed as 0.748" which is exactly 19.0 mm.
Post Edited (2014-05-19 01:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-05-19 17:55
Norman- thanks for making a measurement and giving an approximate conversion between the 2 methods. Does this mean that previous charts from Vandoren or others may have had mixed methods and therefore been misleading?
http://www.vandoren.fr/en/fprod/Becs%20de%20clarinette%20Sib%20en.pdf
I think this is a newer chart than I'd previously seen. And I think it's interesting they don't even give facing lengths in mm, just a grading of M L S etc.
And on this chart, the 5RV is almost the SHORTEST facing (the only MS medium short other than the 11-6 which I've never even heard of). It is shorter than all the common M30, B40, B45, 5JB and such.
I play 2.5 blue's and have wasted way too much time and energy trying to go to higher numbers. Doesn't a short facing "play harder" so you need softer reeds? I know that's in conjunction with the tip opening. Which dimension has stronger influence on required strength? I have a mild interest in knowing whether my setup is actually more compliant than typical, or not.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-05-19 19:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-05-19 22:34
Stan, the complete list of VD mouthpieces current at the time that chart was published is (in lay length order) :-
17 mm / 0.669" = A2
18 mm / 0 708" = A1 - A3
19 mm / 0.748" = 5RV - B44 - B40 - B44
20 mm / 0.787" = 5RV Lyre - 11.6 - B46
21 mm / 0.826" = 11.1
22 mm / 0.866" = B45 - B45 dot - B40 - 5JB
I wouldn't think VD would have concurrently used both systems but switched to new style at one point - however no knowing what 3rd party quoters did.
How a short facing plays depends on shape of curve between tip and point where curve meets reed platform as much as on absolute dimensions so there is complex interaction between length/opening/curve shape.
I play mostly on Crystal A1 and used mostly blue box 3 or 3.5
On the A2 (which is shorter but also wider .047 vs .043) I use 2.5 or 3
On M13 (close and long) I use blue box 4 or 4.5
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
