Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:09 am
My galleries hold immense amounts of catalogue scans and other information on Besson/Boosey & Hawkes instruments.
At least since the WWII era the valve block through bottom bow have been identical on all versions aside from the shift from nickel plated to stainless steel pistons.
The variations are in the leadpipe and the bell dimensions, in the production methods, and possibly in the gauge of the metal especially in the bell area.
An expert repairman like Joe Sellmansberger warns about the immense cost of rebuilding the quite complicated valve blocks of worn out compensating euphoniums.
From my more modest point of view I would warn against the narrowness of the receiver/leadpipe areas of the pre-1972 samples.
Objectively the choice of mouthpieces is narrowed down. Subjectively I am a proponent of the large, that is modern bassbone sized, receivers.
But then my experience as a collector dictates me to tell, that the 80+ years old Bessons and other Brits are very alive instruments, even if my basis for that statement is limited to ownership of tuba, horn, tenor- and bassbone.
One often would like to kick the more modern Brits for their sloppy craftsmanship regarding especially their threading work.
But the older Brits knew something about treating sheets of brass in a way leading to very alive instruments.
One sometimes may doubt, whether intonation ever was a consideration of British brass makers. This being a very biased and certainly not totally fair statement. I have a very good, or rather excellent, Besson 981 Eb bass made to order in 1999.
However: in the euph matter anything but Yamaha or Hirshy is irrelevant to me.
Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre
At least since the WWII era the valve block through bottom bow have been identical on all versions aside from the shift from nickel plated to stainless steel pistons.
The variations are in the leadpipe and the bell dimensions, in the production methods, and possibly in the gauge of the metal especially in the bell area.
An expert repairman like Joe Sellmansberger warns about the immense cost of rebuilding the quite complicated valve blocks of worn out compensating euphoniums.
From my more modest point of view I would warn against the narrowness of the receiver/leadpipe areas of the pre-1972 samples.
Objectively the choice of mouthpieces is narrowed down. Subjectively I am a proponent of the large, that is modern bassbone sized, receivers.
But then my experience as a collector dictates me to tell, that the 80+ years old Bessons and other Brits are very alive instruments, even if my basis for that statement is limited to ownership of tuba, horn, tenor- and bassbone.
One often would like to kick the more modern Brits for their sloppy craftsmanship regarding especially their threading work.
But the older Brits knew something about treating sheets of brass in a way leading to very alive instruments.
One sometimes may doubt, whether intonation ever was a consideration of British brass makers. This being a very biased and certainly not totally fair statement. I have a very good, or rather excellent, Besson 981 Eb bass made to order in 1999.
However: in the euph matter anything but Yamaha or Hirshy is irrelevant to me.
Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre