TubeNet

FYI, the old Bessons have the same bore size as the current 968/967 models. Besson has been building euphs with the .580" bore for a VERY long time. Your 1968 Besson is very similar to the modern 968. Same bore, same bell size, different leadpipe, different mouthpiece reciever, and different metal thickness. The old horns are excellent instruments and based on your description I would say the horn is worth around $1600-$2000....maybe a little less.

For mouthpieces try the Wick SM4M or SM3M (medium shank). Good Luck!

titanbandman wrote:How are these overall when compared to larger bore horns like a Willson or a Sovereign 968/967?

TMG and Buffet Sovereigns are much lighter both in weight and sound (lacking in warmth and core) than '60s-70s New Standards/Imperials and '70s Sovereigns. Intonation on Buffet Sovereigns, however, is noticably better on the problem partials, as is slotting above the 8th partials is more secure. And the Buffet valves run rings around anything pre-Buffet.

Were there different levels/models at this time? How can I tell what mine is?

Besson/Boosey & Hawkes had two different levels of 4-valve comp euphs (actually, three, but AFAIK, 4-valve Class C were all non-comp) at the time: Class A and Westminster (B&H Regent).

Assuming the valve caps and finger buttons are original, if your horn has caps & buttons like the ones shown here, it's a "New Standard" (sometimes referred to as "Imperial," although "Imperial" was the designation of the Boosey & Hawkes version, and the B&H version had the traditional, straight-sided valve caps and finger buttons.)

Is my serial number dating correct?

Looks to be in the ballpark, although the numbering here differs somewhat from the list that The Music Group maintained before they sold Besson.

What are these worth? Mine is in good condition. It as about 75% of the laquer remaining....(it's laquer)

The last 3-4 New Standards that sold on ebay went for $1000-1500.

[/quote]What mouthpiece could help me open up the lower register?[/quote]

Wick 4AM, SM3M/4M, Schilke 52E2 (special order = very $$$), BB1.

Are these sought after AT ALL? I do like the horn, but want to know if I really have something of value, or a dime-a-dozen, hard to resell instrument.

Not as much demand as a couple of years ago, i.e., before Buffet, York, et al. got up and running, but still very desirable horns.[/url]

You have a great horn. As stated, same size and bore as current 968. Really nice silver ones have brought 2000-2500 on ebay. Great sound with sm3 or sm4 mp. Keep it and it will serve you well for a long time.

I have a Besson New Standard from about 1974. I know it's a New Standard because it has original New Standard valve caps, though it only says "Besson" on the bell.

I once compared mine to a brand new Sovereign (ca. 2004). Other than condition, finish, valve cap style, and extra inch of bell diameter, the only difference was that the Sovereign had water keys on all the valve slides, while mine only has a key on the main and first slides. There may have been differences in the profile of the leadpipe--I didn't make measurement.

Mine is new enough to have the large receiver, and I use either an SM4 or an SM3 depending on mood.

When comparing the Sovereign to my old New Standard, I could detect very little difference in playability or tone. The pitch was a little different, but one was not better than the other and both had small issues.

Rick "who prefers certain Willson models, but not by enough to pay for them" Denney

titanbandman wrote:Are these worth more in the original finish, or stripped/relaquered?

Very few tubas or euphoniums are sold because of their value as antiques, where the original finish would be preferred. Their value is solely in making music. Therefore, condition counts.

A properly restored instrument that looks new will always be worth more for instruments sold as instruments and not museum pieces. The emphasis is on the word "properly". Do not strip and relacquer an instrument that still has dents. It will make those dents and scratches glow in the dark. You're better off leaving the instrument with its history in evidence.

If you go to the trouble (expense) to fully restore it to like-new appearance and then refinish it, it will fetch the highest price. Will that price be higher than what it costs to restore it properly? Probably not. Most full restorations are done by people who intend to keep the instrument.

If you just want to make it look good in pictures in preparation for selling it, then strip it and polish it with something like Nev-R-Dull. That's safe enough to prevent damage and leaves the buyer free to decide what further repair to make without undoing your work.

I have seen instruments buffed to the point where engravings disappear, and the brass is thinned by this process severely. That improves its value only as a wall-hanging. Better to sell it as-is to someone who wants to make music.

If you want to keep the instrument and play it, then take it to a qualified repair dude and ask him to restore it to playing condition. Worry about making it look new only when you are prepared to invest more than it's worth.

Rick "wondering if we are talking to an antiques dealer and not a euphonium player" Denney

titanbandman wrote:Are these worth more in the original finish, or stripped/relaquered? Some sax guys (Selmer), claim that old Mark VI's and Balanced Actions are better sounding with the old finish. Mine has probably 80 to 85% of the original finish - it looks pretty good, but it is really yellowing.

Any lacquer will yellow with age: it's the nature of the beast.

I happen to prefer the yellow/gold look to the bright brass look, if I were in the market for a vintage lacquer Besson, I'd pay more for original finish, but OBMMV.

I've heard plenty of people swear that their horns sounded better/warmer/fuller/richer before they were refinished than after; conversely, I've heard plenty of others swear that their refinished horns sound better than before. Never seen objective before/after data that shows a difference in sound profile or resonance attributable primarily to the finish, though. I suspect that the buffing process, which thins the metal, (not to mention cleaning and alignment of valves/ports) has a much bigger effect on the sound than the finish itself.

I hope the rim is larger and cup deeper than the Schilke 51D #1 it came with.

SM3M definitely has a larger rim and deeper cup than the 51D.

Rick Denney wrote:I have a Besson New Standard from about 1974. I know it's a New Standard because it has original New Standard valve caps, though it only says "Besson" on the bell.

I always thought my 1975 Besson was a New Standard, based on the valve caps and finger buttons (all original), but at USABTEC earlier this year, several people who should be knowledgable about such things looked it over (including a former Besson shop foreman) and said it's a Sov, so now I'm not sure what it is!

sungfw wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:I have a Besson New Standard from about 1974. I know it's a New Standard because it has original New Standard valve caps, though it only says "Besson" on the bell.

I always thought my 1975 Besson was a New Standard, based on the valve caps and finger buttons (all original), but at USABTEC earlier this year, several people who should be knowledgable about such things looked it over (including a former Besson shop foreman) and said it's a Sov, so now I'm not sure what it is!

(Per your other post--I did not mean to suggest that good lacquer be stripped to leave it bright brass. I was assuming that the existing lacquer was unsightly, and I rather think bright brass looks better than patches of lacquer separated by patches of brown. On the other hand, I just described at least a couple of my tubas.)

They don't make it easy when they don't put a model name or number on the instrument. I had always thought the Sovereign was the first compensator with the large mouthpiece receiver, but I've been corrected on that assumption, too.

I know mine plays pretty well considering the bell was flattened and straightened with a pair of pliers, flattened again, and then sold to me for a few bucks. I was able to reshape the bell but not remove the plier marks. Lacquer is waaaaay down the priority list on that instrument.

Rick "who just wanted a player" Denney

Hi Fred Dart,

Happy to see that you were able to join TubeNet Fred.

Fred Dart is good friend of mine, mentor and director of one of the bands I play in. Fred has played the same Besson euph for almost 50 years. He used to play in the U.S. Air Force Band under Col. Howard. I can vouch for the fact that his old Besson still sounds wonderful as Fred still performs solos in front of several bands in the South Florida area.

Welcome to Fred Dart!

Three out of four Marine Bandsmen prefer vintage Sovereigns (1973,1975,197?) for their smooth, satisfying sound...

(51D, SM3, BB1 for those who wonder...)

dartf wrote:I purchased mine in the l960 era and the serial number is 403707. [snip] I would love to find out exactly when my horn was made.

Assuming this serial number chart is accurate, it appears that your horn was made sometime between '67-'68.

charlittle wrote:I don't mean for this to be sarcastic or rude, but the upper register on any horn requires a lot of fast air. So, I wouldn't consider that something you need to find a new mouthpiece to fix.

But the problem isn't just the need for fast air in the upper register, it's also stuffiness in the low register, and there is no question in my mind that the narrow throat and shallow bowl of the 51D contribute significantly to that stuffiness.

I switched from a 51D to a 52E2 about a year ago, and the difference in the compensating range was like night and day. More recently, I switched to a Yamaha 53H, and it all but eliminated stuffiness in the compensating range down to pedal E nat (BC, concert). And the ability to push more air through the horn with less resistance has resulted in greater endurance and more secure slotting in the upper register.

Yes, I've lost the bum-squeakers at the top of my range (E nat and F an octave above the staff, BC) owing to the switch, and the Eb isn't as secure as I'd like, but I'll take the open low register, more secure slotting, and greater endurance any day over a couple of bum-squeakers that I might have to play once every couple of years.

A Besson comp euph from 1968 is a New Standard whether the bell is inscribed so or not. There never was anything called a 1968 Besson 968.

When the 12" Sovereign euphs were first issued in 1970 (maybe a little later) not all players were happy about the broader sound. In 1978 I heard the Hendon band play in Royal Albert Hall. Their solo eupher, name sadly forgotten, had been a main reference person in the development of the Sovereign 967. In 1978 he still played an 11" Besson New Standard or a B&H Imperial (which one doesn't matter as the diference was down to valve caps and buttons plus the engraving). Latter on the Sovereign 968 was introduced to accomodate those with a preference for the 11" bell.

Neither the Regent series by B&H nor he Westminster series by Besson ever had compensating valves.

By 1978 the Sovereign line had no 11" euphs:

Boosey & Hawkes 1978 Euphs with specifications (2341KB):
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... t%20scans/

And there never was a 12" New Standard euph. So if one doubts whether a British euph from around 1975 is a Sovereign or a New Standard, then please measure the bell diameter.

Of course there might have been some after-market hybrid samples. The Sovereign parts then would be in bright silver plate and the New Standard bell would be frosted/sandblasted on the outside of the bell. The inner bell flare always was in bright silver plate.

Those wanting access to more catalogue scans and a whole lot of brass instruments photos may find them via the index of my brass project:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... 20formats/

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

Klaus,

Thanks for the info, but ... the bell on my horn (one owner, original bell, not special/custom order) is 11.75" and the finish is lacquer, which makes it a ????

sungfw wrote:Klaus,

Thanks for the info, but ... the bell on my horn (one owner, original bell, not special/custom order) is 11.75" and the finish is lacquer, which makes it a ????

It's a Sovereign. Sovereigns were available with lacquered brass finish. What Klaus meant was that if they came in silver plate, they were in bright silver. He's saying that the old Besson satin silver was never available on the Sovereigns.

Mine has an 11" bell so it must be a New Standard, even though it dates from about 1974 and has a large mouthpiece receiver. It was originally lacquered, but not it's mostly raw brass.

Rick "who really ought to resolder the one joint now sealed with electrical tape" Denney

If the whole unit clearly was made at the same time without being a custom order, then the bell is the factor telling the truth: It is a Sovereign.

Nowadays (or in the last years of B&H ownership) Sovereigns are Bessons. My first generation Sovereign tenor and bass bones were by B&H, as were all Sovereigns. Some few of the trombones were marked Besson Mark II. Your sample may have been an attempt to get an inroad on traditional Besson markets.

Klaus

Rick Denney wrote:It's a Sovereign. Sovereigns were available with lacquered brass finish. What Klaus meant was that if they came in silver plate, they were in bright silver. He's saying that the old Besson satin silver was never available on the Sovereigns.

I'm inclined to think it's a Sov, but I haven't been able to find any mention of an 11.75" bell on horns of that era, only 11" and 12". Maybe it's a mutant that escaped the factory? Wonder if that makes it more valuable?

Mine has an 11" bell so it must be a New Standard, even though it dates from about 1974 and has a large mouthpiece receiver.

Dave Werden mentioned in a post on his website that Besson switched from Euro- to Large receiver around March/April '74, and I've seen/played several large shank New Standards that were not retrofitted.

titanbandman wrote:Received my Denis Wick Mouthpiece today....I can't believe the difference it makes! Thanks for the recommendation! It gets easier to get around EVERYWHERE the more I play. I think a large shank with leadpipe would be the ultimate choice for opening up the low end, but this is good enough....I want to keep this one original. What a great euph folks - thanks for the great thread!

Congratulations!

The Denis Wick SM series has been tested by a dedicated euphonium player. The series is acclaimed in its large shank version. And Denis Wick has an experience with backbores for these, which dates back 35+ years.

In 1974 I bought the DW4AM for my Imperial compensating baritone. I had to have the stem turned down to match the small receiver, but it worked well. Actually so well, that it was “stolen” out of my hands by the 1st trombonist at the end of the first rehearsal after I got it. He wanted it for his Bach 34(!) tenor trombone. I had a new one prepared and he paid. A few years later the DW4AY hit the market, and I have worn the gold of a few sample since then due to my extremely hard beard. Hence my current sample is in silver.

I stuck with the DW non-SM variant because it has the same rim as the 4AL, which I use for my 0.547 trombone.

As I mainly played bass trombone during the years up until I bought my YEP641 euph, I use a very large mouthpiece. It used to be the Schilke 60, but I wanted something with a DW-style flat rim. My main complaint with the DW trombone and tuba series is, that the largest models are not large enough for me. By accident I found the best DW bassbone/euph mouthpiece, that Denis Wick never made. It is the Yamaha Douglas Yeo signature. It has all the DW qualities just taken up to the right size.

This interlude to tell you, that the change of the leadpipe will not open up the low C and B natural just over the open pedal anyway. Even with my fairly large equipment these two notes were either sharp or stuffy. The tubing simply is too short for an in-tune resonance for these notes. This is a matter of rather simple mathematics, which has been covered in other threads some years ago. In short: a compensating euph with the 4th valve activated may be considered a small bore 3 valve F-tuba.

As I wanted to be able to play the same low scale exercises on the euph as on the bassbone, I had a main tuning slide trigger installed and that solved the problem.

This present thread has been interesting to me personally, as it led me to read about the full SM series. One certain model may be interesting for a few of my instruments. More on that if I get to test that option.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

I picked up on this thread a bit late. The original horn in question is certainly a New Standard (1968-ish) and the choice of a DW SM4M or 4AM would be awesome. I now play a Wick 4AL (original gold plating and 28 years old) as well as a 4AY on my older tenor shank American horns.

I personally have owned or played a 1969 New Standard (aka Imperial - brand new school horn at UC Berkeley), a 1980 Round Stamp Sovereign 967, and now a new 2007 Buffett-Besson Prestige 2051-2.

Each of these horns has been a favorite for various reasons. The 1969 (11" bell, medium shank) had the best natural intonation across the range and was very easy to play with a sweet singing tone. It was responsive and I could get high G at the end of the band version of Bydlo at a piano or even double-p without cracking or sounding pinched. I was playing a tenor shank Bach 6 1/2AL at that time rather than the Besson 10 that came with it.

The 1980 Sovereign (12" bell) had a magnificent huge dark tone but could be a tiger to tame for intonation in the 6th partial. It also was not terribly responsive in the low range. It also was much harder to play at low volume levels in the high range. I switched from the 6 1/2 AL to the Wick 4AL over a 2 year period when I got this horn.

The new 2051-2 (11.2" bell) is by far the easiest to play and has incredible response. I feel that I now have a very useable range down to pedal F and up to Eb above high Bb. The 4th valve notes between C and F above pedal Bb are just remakable for their intonation and warmth. The valve action is great (and quiet) and the sound very even across the range though much mor elike the New Standard than the Sovereign.

The new Prestige comes both with standard Besson valve caps (as used on the Sovereign)as well as a heavy weight set. I found that the heavy valve caps make a big difference in the low range response. I wonder if my old "round stamp" would have been better with heavy caps? Also, I now have a complete set of parts to convert an old 967 to the new style quieter plastic valve guides (new pistons, guides, rubber dampers and washers). I just don't have my old Sovereign, since I sold it to one of Dave Werden's students.

So one of these days I want to pick up an old metal-guide 967 and have it refitted with the new pistons by an expert. If I could get the new valve action in the old 967 and use the heavy valve caps, I would then have two great horns. A 967 for brass-band/large concert band and the 2051-2 for wind-ensmble/solo/quintet work.

Doug

P.S. I wish I had all three horns today, but then my wife would really complain (I already have 6 euphoniums and a trombone and have completely taken over the living room as my practice/office room).