TromboneChat

Could someone explain why Mt.Vernon Bach equipment is like the Holy Grail? I haven't seen an explanation, but an really wondering why so much Bach equipment value doubles cause of the name/maker?

It is thought that when Bach moved to Elkhart they became "too large". Bach started in the Bronx (part of New York City, so horns were labeled "Vincent Bach, New York). In the early 1960s he moved to Mount Vernon, a northern suburb of New York City, so he kept most of his craftsmen. Moving to Indiana meant that some of his craftsmen didn't move west with him so there was a skill gap that needed to be filled.

Are New York or Mount Vernon instruments that much better? Dunno. There have been excellent instruments from Indiana. There have been duds from the Bronx and Mount Vernon. Big difference is rarity. There aren't many New York or Mount Vernon instruments (or mouthpieces) and all of them are now 50+ years old.

The Mt Vernon era was 1953-1961. That was the time when they were doing their best work, the craftsmen were experienced and knew what they were doing, they kept meticulous records on every instrument they build (shop cards), and Vincent cared about it.

It was 1961 when Vincent sold to Selmer and they moved it to Elkhart. The beginning of the Corporate bean counters.

You can think of that era as a small custom shop in comparison to the big factory juggernaut it became.

As per usual, there are good and bad horns from every era... but there are probably more good horns from the MV era than most others, and there are not many of them.

Everything else said above is 100%.
I do think it can not be emphasized enough that the Mt.Vernon stamps does not necessarily guarantee an instrument is going to be great. Just like a a post corporation era Bach can be unbelievably great, some vintage Bachs are frankly…not great.

I had a '63 MV 50B. It's nickname was "socks", because it sounded and played like there was a pair of socks stuffed in the bell. It's sister (next consecutive serial number infact!!) also lived in Sydney. It was a fabulous horn!! I didn't keep Socks for long...

I have a 1959 42B with a Rotax valve and copper reversed tuning slide, it plays great. On the Tonal Energy app, there is an analysis mode which allows you to see the overtone spectrum. My 42 compared to a new 42 is incredibly different, my MV has more higher overtones, the new 42 had a more even display of overtones but overall less. When im back from STS i will post screenshots

I knew someone would ask this question. LOL

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:45 am I had a '63 MV 50B. It's nickname was "socks", because it sounded and played like there was a pair of socks stuffed in the bell. It's sister (next consecutive serial number infact!!) also lived in Sydney. It was a fabulous horn!! I didn't keep Socks for long...

That's funny!

Do you know whether anyone tried to disassemble then reassemble Socks? I've often heard people say, and I've experienced this with some of my own horns over the years, that taking a horn apart and then carefully putting it back together can help. I suppose that if the bell is just not formed, spun, brazed, or whatever, carefully it might not make any difference.

Yes, I completely rebuilt it myself. Admittedly, when I did it, I didn't have some of the skill and knowledge I have now, (this was @20 years ago, before moving from Australia to the US and getting involved in manufacture full time) but I had rebuilt a good number of horns by that time, including many Thayer and Hagmann installations, with great results. That horn was just a lemon.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:45 am I had a '63 MV 50B. It's nickname was "socks", because it sounded and played like there was a pair of socks stuffed in the bell.

I had a 42 bell from around 1990, played beautifully focused in the high register, but everything in the mid to low was RIDICULOUSLY stuffy. Turned out someone had dropped or shoved a washer deep in the bell. Once I took that out, it was one of the better bells i've ever played. I'm sure that is NOT what the deal was with "socks"