TromboneChat

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I'll give it a try.

For those that know about King trombone history, my question is this. Was the Duo Gravis the first two valve bass trombone for King? If not, what came before it and since the Duo Gravis is also a 6B, was there ever a 6B that wasn't a Duo Gravis and visa verse? I'm sure that the distinctions here may not be clearly defined but at the least maybe I can learn something from those in the know.

Thanks,
Robert

The 6B was the first dual valve bass made by King.

The Symphony (dual 0.536/0.547) was considered a single valve bass, but by today's standards is way too small.

The 7B and 8B were introduced in the mid 1970s as independent dual valve basses (the difference being bell diameter).

BGuttman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:21 pm The 6B was the first dual valve bass made by King.

The Symphony (dual 0.536/0.547) was considered a single valve bass, but by today's standards is way too small.

The 7B and 8B were introduced in the mid 1970s as independent dual valve basses (the difference being bell diameter).

Not a King but very close to it and as I've heard built on the King tooling is the Benge 290 indi dual valve bass. It is a better version of the 8B. It has been said "Benge is the best of King and Conn" and that is indeed true. From what I've heard Benge was a successful trumpet brand and did not build trombones before they were bought by King and later when King, Conn and Benge were under the same roof they used King and Conn parts to build their best indipendent double valved bass ever, the Benge 290. Unfortunately the Benge brand was abandoned and the bass model was put into the grave. Not because it was bad but because of tactic and strategic reasons. The company decided all basses and large bore trombones should be Conns and small bores should be King. They kept some popular models but all the King basses were abandoned and all the Benge instruments. The Benge bass is more of a symphonic King than close to a Conn when it plays.

/Tom

Tom, the question was "which was the first". The Benge 290 came much later -- after I bought my 7B.

I agree with your assessment. Benge trombones were excellent. It's a shame they didn't sell better.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:30 am Tom, the question was "which was the first". The Benge 290 came much later -- after I bought my 7B.

I agree with your assessment. Benge trombones were excellent. It's a shame they didn't sell better.

Agreed!!!

Benge are WAY underrated horns!!! Just sold a 290 to a local high school, and the assistant, also a trombone player, was amazed at the playability & sound!!


Eric

BGuttman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:30 am Tom, the question was "which was the first". The Benge 290 came much later -- after I bought my 7B.

I agree with your assessment. Benge trombones were excellent. It's a shame they didn't sell better.

The question was the "History of King Bass trombones". I know the Benge 290 is not a King and I also know it came after the King 8B. Still I think it is related to the history of King bass trombones because it feels and plays very King like and it is built on King parts and with King tooling. All these trombones are now history and the Benge 290 got in the mix a while before the end of all the King basses and all the King basses and the Benge 290 were put in the grave by the same company at the same time. That's also history they share.

Since the Benge are underrated and people don't know much of them they go under the radar. They do deserve better on the after market. I have a King 6B and a Benge 290 and at least one of each of the Benge tenor models. I can compare them with a 2b, 2b+, a Silvertone 2b, and a couple of 3b's and the memory of 4b's and 5b's I've tried. The Benge share essentially much the same characteristics with King. The large bore Benge, 547 and bass are a tad more symphonic and the triggers and valves are much better. That's the main difference.

/Tom

Was the 6B called the 6B at first? I was under the impression it was just the Duo Gravis for the first few years.

imsevimse wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:35 pm

BGuttman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:30 am Tom, the question was "which was the first". The Benge 290 came much later -- after I bought my 7B.

I agree with your assessment. Benge trombones were excellent. It's a shame they didn't sell better.

The question was the "History of King Bass trombones".

Eh, not so much: the TOPIC is "History of King bass trombones"; the QUESTION(S) was (were):

Was the Duo Gravis the first two valve bass trombone for King? If not, what came before it and since the Duo Gravis is also a 6B, was there ever a 6B that wasn't a Duo Gravis and visa verse [sic]?

The relative merits of the Benge and this Conn/King/Benge history are interesting tangents (and probably worthy of their own threads), but they're not really relevant to the OP's question.

I personally dont have any knowledge of a double valve king before the Duo Gravis. But what do i know!

I have never heard of a King double-valve bass marketed before the Duo Gravis!...

But I do remember reading on the old TTF that the Duo Gravis was designated the 7B for a brief period. Why?... Just to confuse future generations, I am sure!

EDIT: I just confirmed (an early 70's King catalog) that the Duo Gravis was introduced as:

1490 King 7-B Duo Gravis
1490S King 7-B Duo Gravis with sterling silver bell (no mention of "Silver Sonic")

sungfw wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:30 pm The relative merits of the Benge and this Conn/King/Benge history are interesting tangents (and probably worthy of their own threads), but they're not really relevant to the OP's question.

I should maybe apologise to the OP and start a new thread then? I know people get ideas for new threads by reading old threads. I have personally picked up a lot of things that is interesting in threads besides the first question. Anyway the title got me inspired to write about the 290 for anyone interested in the fate of the great King basses and their relationship to the Benge bass. There is not much more to add about doubled valved King basses before the 6b and not much to add about their relation with the Benge 290 either, if not some guy who knows specific details adds to this thread and that's when this thread could become interesting. Oh, wait he should make that note in another thread started by someone asking that specific question. Either that or be forever quiet You can be annoyed about anything apparently even thoughts shared for free in the wrong context

/Tom

imsevimse wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:42 am

sungfw wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:30 pm The relative merits of the Benge and this Conn/King/Benge history are interesting tangents (and probably worthy of their own threads), but they're not really relevant to the OP's question.

I should maybe apologise to the OP and start a new thread then?

No, just recognize/acknowledge that it's tangential to the question under consideration.

Tangents within a thread can be useful and informative, but, out of courtesy to the OP (which, on another occasion may be you or I), they should remain that: tangents. When they derail a thread to the point that they become a primary focus of discussion (like this is threatening to do, if it hasn't already done so), they probably should be forked to their own thread.

Your Honor: I would like to enter Exhibit A

Exhibits B & C:
https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php? ... trb#p92222

...and in; summation, King Symphony Bass trombones 1924-1964:

http://www.hnwhite.com/Trombone%20Page.htm#Bass

Thank you for your attention, I rest my case.

flotrb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:11 am Your Honor: I would like to enter Exhibit A
DuoGravis Patent.pdf

Not exactly a Duo Gravis patent, as the linkage described was never actually used. It does bear a resemblance to what's now called the Haynor (sp?) grip.

The fact that George McCracken went to the trouble of developing this design suggests that there were complaints about the DG linkage.

Another tangent: are there more desirable periods of Duo Gravis than others?

flotrb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:21 am ...and in; summation, King Symphony Bass trombones 1924-1964:

http://www.hnwhite.com/Trombone%20Page.htm#Bass

Thank you for your attention, I rest my case.

All the models mentioned were single valve instruments. Original question was whether the Duo Gravis was the first double valve bass from King (it was).

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

...and the winner!
I do not recall any of the King bass trombones models having the designation "Duo Gravis" (on the bell), with the exception of the 1490S 7B Duo Gravis Bb/F/D, which first appeared in the June 15, 1971 catalog.

George McCracken, who designed the Duo Gravis, and I think the 4B and 5B as we now know them (both .547, the 5B having the Larger "Symphony Bell"), is still alive, building custom French Horns. I have contacted him before, maybe I can get him to give me some information on the 6B development. I know for sure the valve attachments on the 4B, 5B, and 6B maintain their respective bore size. And that's how Mr. McCraken believed it should be, a true straight bore size. I read somewhere that his counterpart, who I think helped design the 7B/8B but definitely the Benge Bass, disagreed about the bore size, and maintained the standard .562/.580 was the best design.

flotrb wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:56 pm ...and the winner!
I do not recall any of the King bass trombones models having the designation "Duo Gravis" (on the bell), with the exception of the 1490S 7B Duo Gravis Bb/F/D, which first appeared in the June 15, 1971 catalog.

Oh, there are a LOT of Duo-Gravis engraved dependent '6B' type horns (if King had a consistent definition of 6B and 7B, that would be convenient here).

I would wager most engraved that way are the Dependent version rather than the independent version.

Cheers,
Andy

As far as I know the Indy 7B was never engraved "Duo Gravis". I have one from 1980 and I think it's early in the model run. Mine simply says "2107".

I think the Duo Gravis label was only applied to the Dependent model(s).

BGuttman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:33 am As far as I know the Indy 7B was never engraved "Duo Gravis". I have one from 1980 and I think it's early in the model run. Mine simply says "2107".

I think the Duo Gravis label was only applied to the Dependent model(s).

I have a picture saved of at least one early independent horn engraved Duo-Gravis. It is on a USB hard drive and my USB socket is out of commission or I'd post it..

Cheers,
Andy

euphobone wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:29 pm George McCracken, who designed the Duo Gravis, and I think the 4B and 5B as we now know them (both .547, the 5B having the Larger "Symphony Bell"), is still alive, building custom French Horns. I have contacted him before, maybe I can get him to give me some information on the 6B development. I know for sure the valve attachments on the 4B, 5B, and 6B maintain their respective bore size. And that's how Mr. McCraken believed it should be, a true straight bore size. I read somewhere that his counterpart, who I think helped design the 7B/8B but definitely the Benge Bass, disagreed about the bore size, and maintained the standard .562/.580 was the best design.

George is, indeed, building horns. And repairing all kinds of brass. And inventing new stuff.

The attached PDF is something I did after talking to him, Alan Raph, and the widow of Art Benade.

The patent noted above was not because of defects in the paddle system. George tried several things, and Alan LIKED (and STILL likes) the side-by-side. The revised triggers were for someone who could not hold a trombone the regular way. And this was not the first mod George made to accomodate a physically challenged player, whether on trombone, or horn, or whatever.

And his counterpart is the emminent Chuck Ward, who George brought into King. Since ALL the work on Benge horns was from a King designer, and on King equipment and tooling, with King employees, I don't understand how a discussion of the Benge 290 is a tangent to the history of King bass trombones

I'm pretty sure Mr. McCracken would enjoy chatting with you about the Duo Gravis. He came up with that name before King decided EVERYthing had to have a number + letter "name." He still has a print of his drawing of the bell mandrel. And tons of great stories about this horn and the business!

Thank you so much for sharing this! It's a shame King no longer makes basses, and doesn't really meet the "market standards" anymore beyond their smaller "jazz" horns.

euphobone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:35 pm Thank you so much for sharing this! It's a shame King no longer makes basses, and doesn't really meet the "market standards" anymore beyond their smaller "jazz" horns.

This was due to the Conn-Selmer consolidation. The smaller bore Conns were dumped, the larger bore Kings were dumped. some of the Bach models were dumped. It's just C-S trying not to compete with itself too much.

Full disclosure: I play a 1980 vintage King 7B.

When were the King basses discontinued?

boneagain wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:28 am
George is, indeed, building horns. And repairing all kinds of brass. And inventing new stuff.

The attached PDF is something I did after talking to him, Alan Raph, and the widow of Art Benade.

Attachments

The Duo Gravis Trio.pdf

Boneagain,

Interesting narrative. Thanks. Is this something you wrote recently?

Bach5G wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:47 pm When were the King basses discontinued?

The 8B was out of production by the late ‘80’s, the 7B and 6B continued until the late ‘90’s, maybe a few 7b’s were made in the very early 2000’s. The Benge 290 continued on a little longer, but that was gone by the mid/early 2000’s.

And his counterpart is the emminent Chuck Ward, who George brought into King. Since ALL the work on Benge horns was from a King designer, and on King equipment and tooling, with King employees, I don't understand how a discussion of the Benge 290 is a tangent to the history of King bass trombones

Chuck Ward told me the Benge horns were originally going to marketed as new King models, but they decided to use the Benge name because Symphonic players had a pre conceived notion about Kings. He said when they took the first King branded prototype of the 190 to the ITA, players wouldn’t even consider trying it or didn’t like it when it was branded as a King. But he said when the exact same horn was branded a Benge, they liked it. For all intents and purposes, Benges are Kings. Same tooling, 90% same parts, designed on the same patterns as the King, same designer, same factory, same workers building them.

Thanks CB.

chromebone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:56 pmFor all intents and purposes, Benges are Kings. Same tooling, 90% same parts, designed on the same patterns as the King, same designer, same factory, same workers building them.

They're more a King product than a Benge product, certainly. At the same time, I don't think any Benge model is identical to a King model. The 290 is clearly a sibling of the 8B, but it's not a twin.

It’s interesting from the perspective of King, realizing its bass trombones weren’t particularly popular in orchestral circles, designed a horn it thought would appeal to that market. Big bell, increased bore through the valves.

They're more a King product than a Benge product, certainly. At the same time, I don't think any Benge model is identical to a King model. The 290 is clearly a sibling of the 8B, but it's not a twin.

I think the question was, “how do we make a King 4B and a 7/8B that can hold up in a modern orchestra“?
The answer was: “The basic design is good, but it needs a few tweaks“: Anneal the bell, brass outer slide tubes, redesign the leadpipe, open wrap/increase the bore of the trigger tubing, open the neck pipe. Viola, a horn that holds up.

Bach5G wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:18 pm It’s interesting from the perspective of King, realizing its bass trombones weren’t particularly popular in orchestral circles, designed a horn it thought would appeal to that market. Big bell, increased bore through the valves.

That was the thought process behind the 8B. A bigger instrument, but still with a lot of King design aesthetic.

I am searching for a benge 290 myself, as it was my 1st bass trombone in music school. I found one, but it looked like it was beat pretty badly from HS players. The search continues...

sithlord666 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:02 am I am searching for a benge 290 myself, as it was my 1st bass trombone in music school. I found one, but it looked like it was beat pretty badly from HS players. The search continues...

There if one for sale (not mine) in the classifieds

flotrb wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:56 pm ...and the winner!
I do not recall any of the King bass trombones models having the designation "Duo Gravis" (on the bell), with the exception of the 1490S 7B Duo Gravis Bb/F/D, which first appeared in the June 15, 1971 catalog.

I bought a brass Duo Gravis in 1990. The original owner bought it about 10 years earlier, then he set out to destroy it in a college marching band. This picture shows Duo Gravis on the bell, without a model number designation.

While I kept and played the horn for over 20 years, its condition led me to replace it with a new Xeno.

chromebone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:56 pm

And his counterpart is the emminent Chuck Ward, who George brought into King. Since ALL the work on Benge horns was from a King designer, and on King equipment and tooling, with King employees, I don't understand how a discussion of the Benge 290 is a tangent to the history of King bass trombones

Chuck Ward told me the Benge horns were originally going to marketed as new King models, but they decided to use the Benge name because Symphonic players had a pre conceived notion about Kings. He said when they took the first King branded prototype of the 190 to the ITA, players wouldn’t even consider trying it or didn’t like it when it was branded as a King. But he said when the exact same horn was branded a Benge, they liked it. For all intents and purposes, Benges are Kings. Same tooling, 90% same parts, designed on the same patterns as the King, same designer, same factory, same workers building them.

Just for some documentation that you are both correct on this point - Benge trombones were a specific line of rebadged King models.

spencercarran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:49 pmJust for some documentation that you are both correct on this point - Benge trombones were a specific line of rebadged King models.

Phrased that way, it sounds like King was marketing the exact same instruments under both brand names - which was decidedly not the case.

spencercarran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:49 pm Just for some documentation that you are both correct on this point - Benge trombones were a specific line of rebadged King models.

Benge trombones were indeed NOT "rebadged" King models, any more than a Lexus is a "rebadged" Toyota. It's true that Benge branded trombones were built by King employees in the King factory, and used many King components. But all Benge trombones had some particular design and manufacturing features that were specific to the Benge brand. Some Benges were more similar to King trombones than others. I believe there was no close King equivalent to the Benge 190 or the Benge 290 - both significant improvements to (and more "orchestral" than) the King trombones of that era.

Posaunus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:51 pm

spencercarran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:49 pm Just for some documentation that you are both correct on this point - Benge trombones were a specific line of rebadged King models.

Benge trombones were indeed NOT "rebadged" King models, any more than a Lexus is a "rebadged" Toyota. It's true that Benge branded trombones were built by King employees in the King factory, and used many King components. But all Benge trombones had some particular design and manufacturing features that were specific to the Benge brand. Some Benges were more similar to King trombones than others. I believe there was no close King equivalent to the Benge 190 or the Benge 290 - both significant improvements to (and more "orchestral" than) the King trombones of that era.

I was under the impression that the 290 is the King 8B with all the quirks ironed out, and the 190 is the 4B/F tweaked towards the orchestral side.

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:56 pm I was under the impression that the 290 is the King 8B with all the quirks ironed out, and the 190 is the 4B/F tweaked towards the orchestral side.

I guess one person's "tweak" is another's "significant improvement."

In any case, the Benge trombones I've played are (if well-maintained) fine instruments.
Thanks, King, for making them and trying to develop that brand.

I have sent a 290 I acquired from a friend who never touched it again once he bought his Shires dream horn to R Partch in Toronto. After 10 years in storage in my friend’s laundry room, the horn needs a bit of TLC. Also, if possible, to have the lead pipe pulled.

Posaunus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:51 pm

spencercarran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:49 pm Just for some documentation that you are both correct on this point - Benge trombones were a specific line of rebadged King models.

Benge trombones were indeed NOT "rebadged" King models, any more than a Lexus is a "rebadged" Toyota. It's true that Benge branded trombones were built by King employees in the King factory, and used many King components. But all Benge trombones had some particular design and manufacturing features that were specific to the Benge brand. Some Benges were more similar to King trombones than others. I believe there was no close King equivalent to the Benge 190 or the Benge 290 - both significant improvements to (and more "orchestral" than) the King trombones of that era.

Besides all that's mentioned about the relation between King and Benge the similarities is also in how they play. The character of the sound and playing of a Benge is "King".

I have one Benge 170" Freelance" This horn plays very much like a King 2B+. The 170 has a 8" bell and I don't think any 2b had that. The 175 and 175f is very close to a 3b+. I have no 8b so I can not compare my Benge 290 with that horn. I have a Benge 190C and have also tried a 4b. Those play different. I have never been comfortable on a 4b,. The 4b is (to me) odd, that's why I never bought one. The 190 is King-like in the feel compared to the 2b and 3b I've played.

To me some vintage horns are more similar to play than others. King and Conn are more alike than a Bach for example. A Bach play and sound very different from both. A Yamaha, Holton and Olds are again different.

If I compare one King to another they are like two brothers. A King and Benge are like cousins. If I think of a King and a Conn they are in the same family tree. A King and a Bach are too different to be family. They are more like two friends.

/Tom

I think the could just have put the King name on many of the Benge horn. NO they did not all of the play exactly like King, but somtimes as a improved King. I allway though King Duo Gravis was a great trombone. But for me jus impossible to hold. Both 170 and 190 feels very King. But improved.

JohnL wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:53 pm

spencercarran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:49 pmJust for some documentation that you are both correct on this point - Benge trombones were a specific line of rebadged King models.

Phrased that way, it sounds like King was marketing the exact same instruments under both brand names - which was decidedly not the case.

Not the "exact same instrument" in the sense that a 175 is different model from a 3b+ and 190 from 4b, etc. But Benge was a brand name applied to a line of King-developed and King-made trombones. They're King horns for all purposes but marketing.

spencercarran wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:30 am

JohnL wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:53 pm
Phrased that way, it sounds like King was marketing the exact same instruments under both brand names - which was decidedly not the case.

Not the "exact same instrument" in the sense that a 175 is different model from a 3b+ and 190 from 4b, etc. But Benge was a brand name applied to a line of King-developed and King-made trombones. They're King horns for all purposes but marketing.

I think that King had a reputation of not being "legit" enough. The Benge was a little more like the Bach or Conn horns and with the different name King thought they could crack the symphonic market. Too bad it didn't work. They were great horns.

Posaunus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:51 pm Benge trombones were indeed NOT "rebadged" King models, any more than a Lexus is a "rebadged" Toyota.
...

What, exactly, do you think badge engineering is? Lexus IS a re-badged Toyota. There isn't some parallel company that makes only Lexus vehicles in separate buildings. They do common engineering and apply minor design elements to align to the marketing angle that they want for the brand name or for the product. That's badge engineering. Compared to say the merger of King and Conn to form UMI where the two have distinct tools and processes that were started separately. You could argue that they are converging, especially with Conn moving to soldered rims etc.., but they still function on separate tools with separate design goals.

Cheers,
Andy

chromebone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:39 pm I think the question was, “how do we make a King 4B and a 7/8B that can hold up in a modern orchestra“?
The answer was: “The basic design is good, but it needs a few tweaks“: Anneal the bell, brass outer slide tubes, redesign the leadpipe, open wrap/increase the bore of the trigger tubing, open the neck pipe. Viola, a horn that holds up.

The viola is a stringed instrument. No wonder no one wanted to try one at ITA.