Rath?
-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:57 pm
- Location: Central Pennsylvania
Re: Rath?
Yup, as Burgerbob, said, you benefit from Rath design and John Packer does a pretty good job of inspecting. I had their 236 alto for awhile and was pleased. Very good fit and finish and play-ability. I imagine there is some financial link or co-ownership, but don't know for sure. If you want a Chinese price point, its a good way to go.
- BoomtownRath
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:17 pm
- Location: Brakel, Netherlands
Re: Rath?
I 2nd that........ I've played on a JP Rath 400 (tenor) and found it played as well as my custom R4F at the time but costs a fraction of the price. The quality is very good for the price point.dcslideman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:22 pm Yup, as Burgerbob, said, you benefit from Rath design and John Packer does a pretty good job of inspecting. I had their 236 alto for awhile and was pleased. Very good fit and finish and play-ability. I imagine there is some financial link or co-ownership, but don't know for sure. If you want a Chinese price point, its a good way to go.
- DougHulme
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:54 am
- Location: Portsmouth UK
- Contact:
Re: Rath?
It's a pretty similar deal to that which Steve Shires did with Eastman all thsoe years ago. Michael took time out to go to China and 'educate' them on quality control and how he would build instruments. John Packer markets them. Result is a much better quality of Chinese Instruments. I am not offering an opinion on Chinese instruments just sayig thats how it is. I have blown a chinese instrument or two at Mick Raths factory - they are good instruments. I would agree with Burgerbobs assesment of them and his comparison to Micks 'home made' instruments... Doug
- Finetales
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:31 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Re: Rath?
The Rath 00-series (including the 400; just Rath, no JP) is somewhere in between the JP Raths and the full custom Raths. Still Chinese with Rath oversight, but the 00-series I've played are closer to the real deal.BoomtownRath wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:01 amI 2nd that........ I've played on a JP Rath 400 (tenor) and found it played as well as my custom R4F at the time but costs a fraction of the price. The quality is very good for the price point.
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:00 pm
Re: Rath?
Finetales wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 9:06 amThe Rath 00-series (including the 400; just Rath, no JP) is somewhere in between the JP Raths and the full custom Raths. Still Chinese with Rath oversight, but the 00-series I've played are closer to the real deal.BoomtownRath wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:01 amI 2nd that........ I've played on a JP Rath 400 (tenor) and found it played as well as my custom R4F at the time but costs a fraction of the price. The quality is very good for the price point.
Yeah, I always thought the tiering was like this, comparing Rath (and JP) to Shires (and Eastman):DougHulme wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:50 am It's a pretty similar deal to that which Steve Shires did with Eastman all thsoe years ago. Michael took time out to go to China and 'educate' them on quality control and how he would build instruments. John Packer markets them. Result is a much better quality of Chinese Instruments. I am not offering an opinion on Chinese instruments just sayig thats how it is. I have blown a chinese instrument or two at Mick Raths factory - they are good instruments. I would agree with Burgerbobs assesment of them and his comparison to Micks 'home made' instruments... Doug
JP basic ~ Eastman basic (300-500 series)
JP Rath/Sterling/Smith-Watkins/Taylor ~ Eastman by Shires (that influence from the past seems to have continued to this day in the current Eastman 800 series instruments) and Shires Bravo, I suppose
Rath 00 series ≈ Shires Q series
Rath R series ≈ Shires custom
Of course, there are two very different design philosophies between the UK and US brands, so it's more quality, and general features and options being compared.
Kevin Afflerbach
'57 Conn 6H, Warburton 9M/9D/T3★
'62 Holton 168, Bach 5GL
Getzen 1052FD Eterna, Pickett 1.5S
F. Schmidt 2103 BBb Tuba, Laskey 30G
Wessex Tubas TE360P Bombino, Perantucci PT-84-S
John Packer JP274MKII Euphonium, Robert Tucci RT-7C
'57 Conn 6H, Warburton 9M/9D/T3★
'62 Holton 168, Bach 5GL
Getzen 1052FD Eterna, Pickett 1.5S
F. Schmidt 2103 BBb Tuba, Laskey 30G
Wessex Tubas TE360P Bombino, Perantucci PT-84-S
John Packer JP274MKII Euphonium, Robert Tucci RT-7C
- spencercarran
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:02 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Rath?
I recently play tested a John Packer (no Rath) 232 bass trombone and a JP Rath 333 bass trombone. The JPRath was noticeably superior to the 232 in build quality and playing characteristics. I actually think JP Rath can stand reasonably well against many stock Western trombones. Good response, nice sound, efficient blow, valve register was open enough. Bad ergonomics for my size hands, which could probably be fixed easily enough with a grip or a slight modification by your tech. The 232, on the other hand, felt and played like a budget horn.
-
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:31 am
Re: Rath?
content deleted by author
Last edited by musicofnote on Sun Jun 30, 2024 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:31 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Re: Rath?
The 232 is no slouch though...I would take one over a Xeno 830.spencercarran wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 4:06 pm I recently play tested a John Packer (no Rath) 232 bass trombone and a JP Rath 333 bass trombone. The JPRath was noticeably superior to the 232 in build quality and playing characteristics. I actually think JP Rath can stand reasonably well against many stock Western trombones. Good response, nice sound, efficient blow, valve register was open enough. Bad ergonomics for my size hands, which could probably be fixed easily enough with a grip or a slight modification by your tech. The 232, on the other hand, felt and played like a budget horn.
- spencercarran
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:02 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Rath?
I would agree that the 232 at least isn't bad, and in particular had a pretty good high register. Especially with the convertible tuning option and the favorable price, it would be worth consideration.Finetales wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:40 amThe 232 is no slouch though...I would take one over a Xeno 830.spencercarran wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 4:06 pm I recently play tested a John Packer (no Rath) 232 bass trombone and a JP Rath 333 bass trombone. The JPRath was noticeably superior to the 232 in build quality and playing characteristics. I actually think JP Rath can stand reasonably well against many stock Western trombones. Good response, nice sound, efficient blow, valve register was open enough. Bad ergonomics for my size hands, which could probably be fixed easily enough with a grip or a slight modification by your tech. The 232, on the other hand, felt and played like a budget horn.
- BoomtownRath
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:17 pm
- Location: Brakel, Netherlands
Re: Rath?
That is correct. I play in a british style brass band but an american instrument suits me better, I get a better sound from a Bach or shires than a Rath and has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of Michael's instruments which is first class but the instrument design which doesn't quite suit me personally.