 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-09 13:05
My question regarding the Boosey and Hawkes 1010 and 593 clarinet mouthpieces is: was the Number 2 model the only one produced?
I have read somewhere that there were 1s and 3s, but I'm beginning to think that is supposition, perhaps based on other makers' models (Portnoys, for example), because I have been searching for some time now and have not found a 1 or a 3 for sale (either 1010 or 593) anywhere, but there are loads of 2s. It's always a 2!
I have three no.2s myself.
So can anybody please tell me for sure that there were models with a different number? Even better, can somebody point me to a source of, preferably, a 1010 no. 1?
Cheers!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nelson
Date: 2021-11-09 13:44
In my old B&H catalogues, in 1964 the 1010 m/pieces were listed as 1, 2 and 3 configurations. Another brochure from the 80s clearly stated 3 facing options are available.
Nelson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ebonite
Date: 2021-11-09 14:24
I think the models with the "2" lay were the ones that were issued as standard with new instruments. That's probably why there are so many around.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-10 06:31
Thank you both for that, Nelson and ebonite! Nelson, did the catalogue mention tip-openings for the different models/configurations? And/or facing length?
I'd love to hear from somebody who has actually seen a non-2 mouthpiece, though, just to prove that what exists on paper does really exist.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nelson
Date: 2021-11-10 09:01
B&H regrettably gave no further details in any of the catalogues I have retained...just the reference to 1, 2 or 3 . When I approached B&H about their m/p many years ago they mentioned that the 1010 'No 2' specs were
Tip Opening: .0465"
Length: 16.5 mm
I agree with Ebonite. I have three stock as issued 1010 m/p and all are No 2 although I have found Ed Pillinger products as well as those by Peter Eaton are better (for me) by a mile.
Nelson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ebonite
Date: 2021-11-10 11:32
The B&H mouthpieces weren't very consistent, so you would probably find quite a lot of variation in tip opening and facing length, among the 1 2 and 3 versions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-10 11:54
I have read that the 1010 mouthpieces before some time in the late 1940s were rather different from those that came later. The earlier ones did have the 1,2 and 3 designations, but the difference, apparently, was only in the facing length, while the tip remained a comparatively close one for each model, perhaps exactly the same (I'm not quite sure on that point), whereas from, say, 1950 on the difference was mainly in the tip opening, while, I assume, the facing length stayed the same.
But where are those 1s and 3?. I want to know who the collector is who's hoarding them.
(Nelson, do you by any chance have a Pillinger or an Eaton spare that you wish to offload by way of a sale to an interested party?)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2021-11-10 13:54
If you go to the UK website for Clarinets Direct you’ll see a B&H 1010 No.3 for sale for £50.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-10 14:28
Is that clarinetsdirect.net? I've just looked through their offering a few times and can't spot the No.3, unless it is one of the pre-war 1010s - my eyes aren't good enough to see a model number on those. I'll try it again, but in any case, that's a fascinating collection of mouthpieces with a couple of Pillingers, a Morgan and two Gleichweits, all with 1010 bores! Very interesting...Oh, and a Pillinger/Meinl: an Austrian facing with a 1010 bore!! That makes sense, I suppose, as the prewar 1010 mouthpieces were apparently very close in their tip opening.
Thanks very much for that!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-10 15:32
Ah, I've spotted the 1010 No. 3 mouthpiece on Clarinets Direct - there is a little drop-down menu that mentions it, whereas if one clicks on Clarinet Mouthpieces, there are two pages of mouthpieces - none of which is the No. 3. The one in the drop-down menu has already been sold, in any case, but at least there is a photo of a No. 3!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2021-11-10 23:52
B&H regarded the #3 as a solution to some players’ issues, rather than as a choice to suit the mainstream player. I heard somewhere (forgotten source) that the numbering was based on three facings from mouthpieces owned by Sid Fell. I have a #2 but haven’t had it measured.
The 593 is a cheap version of a 926.
graham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RWodkowski
Date: 2021-11-11 00:15
I have worked with more pre-war 1010 and post war mouthpieces than most, so I think I can comment here.
Pre-war mouthpieces made by B&H had a variety of markings. Those that came with a clarinet had that instruments serial number stamped on it. Some did not and were purchased individually, and had their facing number. Others had nothing, just the old B & H script.
The facings that were standard with the pre-war designs were BM1, BM2 and BM3. I have seen others but forget what they were. According to the adverts, which I can safely say is mostly true, they had the same sort of tip openings, but different lengths. These early mouthpieces were very different designs compared to the later post 1950 mouthpieces.
Around the time of the B & H makeover, near to 1950, we started to see different facing styles, and eventually the 1, 2 and 3 as they came to be known. Those had very different facings from each, from close to more open. Boosey stopped stamping the serial numbers into the mouthpieces, and were using French made blanks.
Graham is correct, the 593 was a cheaper version. Some earlier examples were just like a 926 mpc, while others were made from cheaper materials.
From my many years living in London, working as a professional player and working with many with their mouthpieces, I can safely say that very few if any use the B&H mouthpieces today. The quality of facing was quite haphazard, and internal work could be horrendous. But, in good working order they are fine mouthpieces, you just have to find one and have it worked on properly. I believe the last major professional to use B&H mpcs in London was Tony Lamb, principal of the ENO. I worked on many of these for him, for use with his 1010 clarinets.
R Wodkowski
Post Edited (2021-11-11 00:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-12 12:59
Thank you so much, Ramon, for your comments. It's great to know that somebody is studying the history of such things so closely and carefully.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2021-11-13 12:38
I have a B&H 1010 mouthpiece with the #2 lay and also a Selmer mouthpiece rebored by Ed Pillinger. The Pillinger piece is by far the better for me. Note that the 593 was the basic B&H plastic mouthpiece provided with the Regent student model, normally with the #2 lay. The Edgware, Emperor and 926 came with the 926 mouthpiece, which was dimensionally the same but made from Ebonite. The 593 and 926 have conical chambers and are not suitable for the 1010 unless it has been rebored with a cylindrical chamber. I think the required drill for this is 15.3mm. I have somewhere a 1010 mouthpiece with a #1 lay, but I find it almost unplayable.
Tony F.
Post Edited (2021-11-13 12:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vintschevski
Date: 2021-11-13 14:02
Tony F, your comparisons aren't entirely accurate for the full history of these mouthpieces. There certainly were plastic 593s, but the 593 mouthpiece was also produced in other materials. I have one (a number 2, of course) that to all appearances is made of the same material as the two 1010 mouthpieces that I have. It actually plays quite well and is the reason why I included the 593 in my original post, because despite the difference in bore size, my 593 tunes better on my 1010 Symphony than the 1010 mouthpieces. Perhaps that shouldn't be so, but it is.
I also have a 926 mouthpiece and it is rather different, the tuning when I play it on my 1010 is way out, not acceptable. It also seems to be the same material as the 1010s, but has turned a rather bilious shade of brown. It is internally different from my 593 and has thin tip and side rails, whereas the 593 has really wide rails.
Now the main point is that all of these mouthpieces were around for decades and seem to have varied, at different times, in materials and quality and maybe dimensions as well. It can be difficult to generalize from a small sample. One is probably tempted to think that the lesser quality 593s came along later, but from what I have read, the quality could vary a lot from one mouthpiece to another in a batch produced at the same time - and this applies to the 1010 mouthpieces, also.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2021-11-13 15:22
If it helps the 593 debate, I got a new pair of Emperors in around 1973 (cannot recall exact year) and these came with a 593. I later upgraded to a 926, and it was a decent improvement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2021-11-13 17:40
Vintschevski,
You started me on a voyage of discovery in the deepest depths of my junkbox. I have a drawer full of assorted mouthpieces and I was able to assemble a selection of 953's, 926's and some unmarked B&H mouthpieces, plus my previously-mentioned 1010 mouthpieces, along with a 1010, a 926 and an Emperor. All are in good playing order and I spent an interesting couple of hours with a Korg tuner. The conclusions were not entirely what I expected. The best tuning was obtained with a hard rubber Emperor using a 926 mouthpiece, but a similar 926 mouthpiece produced different and inferior tuning.
A plastic 593 on an Edgware also worked well where the 926 mouthpiece worked less well. A hard rubber 926 clarinet tuned better than a wood 926 using the same mouthpieces. My 1010 tuned quite well with both the B&H 1010 mouthpiece and the Pillinger, although the Pillinger was slightly better. None of the 926 or 953 mouthpieces tuned well on the 1010, but a Lelandais that I bored out myself works well.
You are right about the 953's being made in both plastic and hard rubber, and also about the varying types of architecture , although the 926's were much more consistent in design.
An interesting evening.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
