Best vintage simphony bones

[senenttrombo]

for you, which are the best and the mythical tenor symphony trombones?

I am asking about vintage trombones, not modern models, like 70's-80's-90's models.

Conn: 88h Elkhart
Bach: 42 Corporation
King: 4B
Benge: 190
Holton: 150-156/256-158

Which more?

Thanks

[BGuttman]

Olds Opera O-15, O-23, and Symphony O-25
Reynolds Contempora

And Jacob Raichman played Principal in the Boston Symphony on a Bach 36 (probably New York).

At one time a Symphonic Tenor was much smaller bore. Some older Conn and King symphonic models were around 0.500" (12.7 mm) bore.

[senenttrombo]

Thanks! Great to know about Old models!

Any more Vintage models to play now in orchestra?

[BGuttman]

Note that at one time what we call the Conn 88H was a "special" 8H with F attachment.

The preference to using 0.547" (13.9 mm) really dates to the 1950s and later.

[MrHCinDE]

I wouldn‘t limit the Bach 42 to the Corp era, some gems to be had from all eras, plenty of dogs also. It‘s almost not worth naming a particular vintage. The late 80s/early 90s ones are seemingly not so highly sought after as the Corp. ones but good examples from that era hold up well against any other renowned „vintage“ horn I‘ve tried.

Could say the same about the Elkhart Conns. There are some very nice Abilene and Eastlake ones out there from the given timescale as well.

[Chatname]

And Jacob Raichman played Principal in the Boston Symphony on a Bach 36 (probably New York).


I am curious about Raichman, don’t know anything about him other than I assume he was Rochut´s successor and sat next to Georges Mager. What can you tell me about him?
And regarding instruments, I think Yeo has an article describing the french trombones used in Boston in the twenties. It seems both Mager and Raichman played Bach. Was there a general shift from french brass instruments to Bach in the thirties in Boston?

[BGuttman]

Doug Yeo published an article in the ITA Journal (around 1985, I think) of the Boston Symphony low brass going as far back as he was able to trace. Very interesting article. He included a picture of the entire BSO brass section from 1921 which I have adopted as my wallpaper on my computer screen. This is pre-Rochut and shows Carl Hampe as principal, August Mausebach as 2nd, and Leroy Kenfield as bass. By this time Georges Mager was principal trumpet and Georges Wendt was principal horn. Eugene Adams, former Principal Trombone (and fired for being a member of the Union) was playing tuba at this point. If I get a chance I will try to add the picture to this post.

In another picture Raichman was shown as a percussionist. I guess he had to wait to become a member of the trombone section.

[hyperbolica]

I would argue that a straight Bach 42 is probably the best. I play an 8h or even a 79h when I do that kind of thing. The Holton 156 is a great horn, but it takes I think special chops to get the most out of that horn.

It really depends on the size of the orchestra (how loud you need to play) and the period of the music (the character of the sound). For general purpose playing, I would pick an 8h because to me it can be colored more easily. The 42 will be a more solid sound that we would normally associate with 19th century (even though they didn't come close to playing anything like a 42 in the 19th century).

On smaller and lighter works, I play a 79h.

[sf105]

There's a photo somewhere of Simone Mantia with a Conn 44H (the Art Deco horn) when he was with the Met Opera in the 40's. Things didn't used to be so loud.

[Kbiggs]

What's your definition of "vintage"? Up to the 40's and 50's, American trombonists were primarily using small bore horns, even for the big Romantic and Modern literature. Holton, Conn, H. N. White, Boston, etc. and many other American makers (even Olds) considered a .500 or .508 bore horn to be big. Conn mostly offered a #2 (.485 IIRC), #2 1/2 (.495 IIRC), or #3 (.500 IIRC) bore on their horns through the 40's and 50's. Using a .547 bore on a tenor trombone is a recent development in the history of the trombone and music.

(And yes, you can play Wagner and Bruckner and Mahler on a small-bore horn. You need to adjust how you play a small horn-- air, embouchure, and resonance, are very different when playing a classical "forte" on a small horn. It's a different kind of loud from the modern large-bore horns, which require more air volume and sometimes... muscle. More like a .22 pistol than a .50 cannon.)

All that aside, I think the class American symphonic sound is a Conn 79H, 88H, and Fuchs-style bass or some kind of 70H, or 71 or 72. Bach was a relative late-comer in the symphonic world. And I'm a Bach guy.

[Posaunus]

All that aside, I think the class American symphonic sound is a Conn 79H, 88H, and Fuchs-style bass or some kind of 70H, or 71 or 72. Bach was a relative late-comer in the symphonic world. And I'm a Bach guy.

I'm in your corner Ken. That's the sound that I grew up with and still love.

I guess that's why I'm a "Conn guy!"

[BrianJohnston]

Mount Vernon Bachs without valves (WHEN you find the right one).

[hornbuilder]

If you take into account the instruments that were being played when the music was written, a Bach 42 is entirely inappropriate for the vast majority of music generally played.

[modelerdc]

Probably for most modern players vintage means before 1980 when axial flow valves and boutique horns like Edwards, Shires and Rath appeared. This would mean Conn, Bach, king, Holton and Olds, with a sprinkling of Williams. It's important to remember that the Conn 88H didn't even appear in the catalogue until about 1953, before that F attachments on tenors were rare. While large bore tenors have been around a long time, I once played a 1920s vintage 8H, it wasn't until the 1950s that they started being the norm. So the vintage instruments that most modern players are interested in are mostly from about 1953 though the 1970s or so. This is when the 88H became the norm, and Bach developed the 42b to compete. The King 1480 was considered a bass trombone and King didn't make the 4B untill the 1960s. The 5B was the 1480 bell on a 4B chassis. The Bach and Conn became the orchestral horns of choice, with a few Holtons in the mix. Olds became popular with Jazz players moving to larger bores, and Kings were popular with bands, but never really caught on in orchestra.
Before the 1950s many orchestra players played smaller horns, the Bach 36 and the Conn 78H are among the best. I used to study with Al Lube, and he said that he played a Conn 32H in the NBC Symphony under Toscanini, and only switched to the 88H when the large bore horns became the norm. BTW, back when players were using smaller horns on tenor the relationship between tenor and bass may have been different than it is today when everyone uses a large bore horn with F valve and larger mouthpieces, but that's a different story.

[JohnL]

The King 1480 was considered a bass trombone...

King did make a straight tenor version of the 1480, the 1410 (1460 in sterling bell form), though it seems to have disappeared from their lineup sometime between the 1946 catalog and the 1954 catalog.

There were larger bore straight tenors in use as far back as the 'teens (Conn 8H, Keefer "Simons model"), but they don't seem have come into general use until the 1950's.

[Garoissimo]

So, should I consider the 8H bells from early 1990's to be simply 'not comparable' in tone, character, and vibrance to those created in the 50-60's Elkhart era? I ask because I am thinking of picking up an 8H bell section to use with my 88H slide; but, this bell section is from early 1990's, and it is still lot of money to to spend if I am going to be disappointed.

Any thoughts? Forget it? Could be equally good? Depending on the particular bell? Wait and buy Elkhart? Shut-up Garo (a phrase all my closest friends eventually come to know and love) and go practice?

[atopper333]

So, should I consider the 8H bells from early 1990's to be simply 'not comparable' in tone, character, and vibrance to those created in the 50-60's Elkhart era? I ask because I am thinking of picking up an 8H bell section to use with my 88H slide; but, this bell section is from early 1990's, and it is still lot of money to to spend if I am going to be disappointed.

Any thoughts? Forget it? Could be equally good? Depending on the particular bell? Wait and buy Elkhart? Shut-up Garo (a phrase all my closest friends eventually come to know and love) and go practice?

I would take a look at the 8HT. Mine had a lot of character and a warm tone…but as they say…if you want the something you’ll never be satisfied if you settle for something else.

[LIBrassCo]

There's a photo somewhere of Simone Mantia with a Conn 44H (the Art Deco horn) when he was with the Met Opera in the 40's. Things didn't used to be so loud.

He played an 80H SPEC gold plated. Noah Gladstone owns it.

http://www.brassark.com/museum/conn80hmantia.html

[JohnL]

There's a photo somewhere of Simone Mantia with a Conn 44H (the Art Deco horn) when he was with the Met Opera in the 40's. Things didn't used to be so loud.

I believe it's in his book The Trombone Virtuoso.

[flotrb]

"King did make a straight tenor version of the 1480, the 1410 (1460 in sterling bell form), though it seems to have disappeared from their lineup sometime between the 1946 catalog and the 1954 catalog."

This is from the 1948 H. N. White Handy Pocket Catalog No. 50...note that the King Symphony model 1480 w/F-att and the 1410 wo/F-att are listed as .546" bore with a 9" bell. The "New" 1963 King Symphony model is listed as .536" with a 9" bell.

King$$.JPG

https://www.saxophone.org/museum/publications/id/648

[JohnL]

..nlievvvote that the King Symphony model 1480 w/F-att and the 1410 wo/F-att are listed as .546" bore with a 9" bell. The "New" 1963 King Symphony model is listed as .536" with a 9" bell.

Which is curious, because the common wisdom is that the vast majority of 1480's are dual-bore .536"/.546".

I believe the "new" part of the 1963 Symphony was a redesigned wrap. The older ones have only one tuning slide in the f-attachment; the 1963 version has two.

[dbwhitaker]

...until about 1953, before that F attachments on tenors were rare.

I've always understood this to be true so I'm surprised by the photo of the 1921 BSO brass in this thread that includes a tenor with an F attachment. It even looks like it has a "modern" wrap.

[BGuttman]

...until about 1953, before that F attachments on tenors were rare.

I've always understood this to be true so I'm surprised by the photo of the 1921 BSO brass in this thread that includes a tenor with an F attachment. It even looks like it has a "modern" wrap.

It's actually a tenor with an E attachment. It's described in Hampe's trombone method. Bass trombonist Kenfield has an F attachment operated by a thong.

[dukesboneman]

If ou can get your hands on an Elkhart 88H/8H or a New York/Mount Vernon or beyond Bach 42B/42 , do it.
There`s a reason why the Boutique companies have "Conn" set-ups and "Bach-like" horns.
They are still the benchmark for the "American Symphonic Trombone Sound".

[BGuttman]

What's interesting is Conn had a virtual lock on the market (yes, Olds, King, and Holton had a little piece each) but they lost it when they moved to Abilene Texas. Then all the symphonic guys suddenly switched to Bach.

[elmsandr]

What's interesting is Conn had a virtual lock on the market (yes, Olds, King, and Holton had a little piece each) but they lost it when they moved to Abilene Texas. Then all the symphonic guys suddenly switched to Bach.

Did they? Who switched? Or was is more that new players taking the same jobs now had Bach horns as those were what was available with quality?

For example, Frank C in Chicago didn’t suddenly switch to a Bach, did he? Was he always on his Holtons?

I don’t think many folks dropped their Elkharts at the curb and picked up a Bach, though I imagine we can find some examples there. I imagine if we pulled all the data that we’ll see more replacement players just have Bachs because they could get a good one as a student. I know when I was meeting with different teachers in the 80s, the guys who had gone to school in the 50s and 60s mostly had Conns and the guys who went to school after that had Bachs (probably ~10 guys I’m thinking of total, but still anecdotal at this point).

Cheers,
Andy

Cheers,
Andy

[bbocaner]

You have to consider regional preferences as well, players in France used small-bore instruments much longer than elsewhere. Germany and Austria still largely although not exclusively play smaller-bore German-style dual-bore instruments with larger bells. In the UK they used small Boosey and Hawkes instruments (often with G bass trombones) until Denis Wick started bringing Conns over in the 1960s. I'm sure there are more examples? To some extent it's a shame these differences in color and character are gone.

[hyperbolica]

So, should I consider the 8H bells from early 1990's to be simply 'not comparable' in tone, character, and vibrance to those created in the 50-60's Elkhart era? I ask because I am thinking of picking up an 8H bell section to use with my 88H slide; but, this bell section is from early 1990's, and it is still lot of money to to spend if I am going to be disappointed.

Any thoughts? Forget it? Could be equally good? Depending on the particular bell? Wait and buy Elkhart? Shut-up Garo (a phrase all my closest friends eventually come to know and love) and go practice?

Sometime in the 90s the bells got thicker, not sure exactly when. The classic Elkhart thickness bell became classified as the T (for thin) version (8hT). I owned a ~2005 8hT and it was very nearly as good as my Elkhart. But now I own a 58 8h and a 68 88h. If you can't test that bell section and don't know for sure it's the thin bell, I'd pass on it.

Once I had a custom 8h that I thought was going to be perfect - 8" bell and 525 slide, formerly owned by a famous west coast player. But it had a thicker GenII bell, which made it a bit dead. Sold it down the line. It's not so much the sound as the feel. I would challenge anyone to actually hear a difference. But you'll feel the difference immediately, and clear as a bell .

Some people with the large bore horn fettish don't realize how good the old instruments were. 79/78h, 32h were (and still are) fantastic instruments. But even they were so much larger than the instruments that existed when the great classical/romantic works were written and originally performed - Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Sibelius, etc. My 79h is still probably my #1 favorite horn if I could only pick one.

[BGuttman]

What's interesting is Conn had a virtual lock on the market (yes, Olds, King, and Holton had a little piece each) but they lost it when they moved to Abilene Texas. Then all the symphonic guys suddenly switched to Bach.

Did they? Who switched? Or was is more that new players taking the same jobs now had Bach horns as those were what was available with quality?

For example, Frank C in Chicago didn’t suddenly switch to a Bach, did he? Was he always on his Holtons?

I don’t think many folks dropped their Elkharts at the curb and picked up a Bach, though I imagine we can find some examples there. I imagine if we pulled all the data that we’ll see more replacement players just have Bachs because they could get a good one as a student. I know when I was meeting with different teachers in the 80s, the guys who had gone to school in the 50s and 60s mostly had Conns and the guys who went to school after that had Bachs (probably ~10 guys I’m thinking of total, but still anecdotal at this point).

Cheers,
Andy

Cheers,
Andy

All I know is I was playing until the mid 1960s, then I laid off for almost 20 years and when I started back it was not Conn but Bach that was the choice of the orchestral guys. I doubt anybody simply dumped their Conns by the curb, but as the were replaced they were replaced by Bachs and all the younger players were choosing Bach. So like Rip Van Winkle, I emerged from my slumber to find the world changed.

[Garoissimo]

Yeah, the big symphonies have this thing where if you win the position you are required to use a certain type of horn, mfr I mean, to match the sound of the section. Shires seems to be the one now, but it probably varies.

What I notice is the price of these horns now lol It's like buying a car now. I am lucky to be able to afford a tuning slide. lol

[Oslide]

---snippet---
This is from the 1948 H. N. White Handy Pocket Catalog No. 50...note that the King Symphony model 1480 w/F-att and the 1410 wo/F-att are listed as .546" bore with a 9" bell. The "New" 1963 King Symphony model is listed as .536" with a 9" bell.

Perhaps it's only me, but in this cutout I see nothing about bores and bells, only prices?

[Kbiggs]

---snippet---
This is from the 1948 H. N. White Handy Pocket Catalog No. 50...note that the King Symphony model 1480 w/F-att and the 1410 wo/F-att are listed as .546" bore with a 9" bell. The "New" 1963 King Symphony model is listed as .536" with a 9" bell.

Perhaps it's only me, but in this cutout I see nothing about bores and bells, only prices?

There's a link at the bottom of the post: https://www.saxophone.org/museum/publications/id/648

[elmsandr]

Yeah, the big symphonies have this thing where if you win the position you are required to use a certain type of horn, mfr I mean, to match the sound of the section. Shires seems to be the one now, but it probably varies.

I don’t think that is a thing. Cmon now.

What I notice is the price of these horns now lol It's like buying a car now. I am lucky to be able to afford a tuning slide. lol

Don’t look at the prices of new cars… you may be surprised.

Cheers,
Andy

[Posaunus]

Yeah, the big symphonies have this thing where if you win the position you are required to use a certain type of horn, mfr I mean, to match the sound of the section. Shires seems to be the one now, but it probably varies.l

Really? Just where is this the case? Not in the "big symphonies" that I'm familiar with.

[bbocaner]

My dad was a clarinetist in one of the top echelon of US symphony orchestras. There was, at one point, some pressure to be an "all buffet" section, but it never was more than gentle pressure. On trombone, you do see a few orchestras where all the players play the same marque, but I think there are more examples where they all play their own thing.

[MBurner]

It’s always been about making the best section sound you can with the equipment that best works for you.
Alessi played a straight 42 from Mt. Vernon (as I recall) in the NYP until it wore out- Edwards let him play with more presence than other brands in the former Avery Fischer/David Geffen I hall which was known for its dead acoustics. By comparison, Finlayson played an 8H and Benge 190 in the National Symphony, but switched to a pair of Corp Bach 42’s with various Thayer and K valves for 20 years in the NYP, before choosing Yamaha.
The same could be said for the Chicago symphony. Friedman has long played a .562 slide on the 42, and how his 45. Vernon plays (or played) a .562/.578 for a long time. And what of Jay’s Holton before that with cut bell and dual bore slide? All for the hall. Who would choose such a demanding blow?? You’ve got to make it work in the hall. I’m positive the remodels of Lincoln Center and Symphony Center have had a huge influence on every choice that our idols have made equipment wise. Not to mention the 3 ton word- age! Most get more efficient with equipment as they age. Jay must have to be insanely efficient to play a Bach 45 at 84.
I’ve joked with my colleagues that if any brand offered me money to endorse their product that I’d promote it shamelessly. Until then, I’ll take my Corp 42 against anything. One of my colleagues plays an Elkhart 62 on a modern setup. Most bells from the 70’s and earlier are desirable- it’s optimizing them now that’s the trick…

[greenbean]

..nlievvvote that the King Symphony model 1480 w/F-att and the 1410 wo/F-att are listed as .546" bore with a 9" bell. The "New" 1963 King Symphony model is listed as .536" with a 9" bell.

Which is curious, because the common wisdom is that the vast majority of 1480's are dual-bore .536"/.546".

I believe the "new" part of the 1963 Symphony was a redesigned wrap. The older ones have only one tuning slide in the f-attachment; the 1963 version has two.

I have read many times that 1480's are .536/.546, but I have owned 3 1480's and one 1485 and they were all straight .546-bore.

[flotrb]

---snippet---
This is from the 1948 H. N. White Handy Pocket Catalog No. 50...note that the King Symphony model 1480 w/F-att and the 1410 wo/F-att are listed as .546" bore with a 9" bell. The "New" 1963 King Symphony model is listed as .536" with a 9" bell.

Perhaps it's only me, but in this cutout I see nothing about bores and bells, only prices?

My submission was intended as a verfication of JohnL's statement Re: model 1410 straight symphony tenor, with references attesting to that fact. A reading of the numerous King catalogs/publications will give one insight to the historical progression and unfortunate demise of the King Symphony .536" Bb/F bass trombone.
[/img]
Thanks for reading my entries...

[BGuttman]

FWIW, I have a large bore King straight trombone from 1930. I think it's model 1115. Bore is 0.547" but the leadpipe took a small shank mouthpiece.

I often wondered what such an instrument would have been used for. I figured it would be used as the 3rd trombone in a Concert Band.