TubeNet

Has anyone ever had the opportunity to compare a REAL PT-50 against the Kelly plastic copy? I've played one of the KT-50 plastic prototypes for quite a while. I like it. Would I be wasting my time and bucks to try to find a good used PT-50 (or buy a new one)?

G H Boyd wrote:If you like getting new tools get a new mouthpiece.
However, a used mouthpiece can be as good as any new mouthpiece.

I have a new Kelly 18 polycarbonate, and a 36 year old Blessing 18 mouthpiece.
I like the Blessing better. But that's just my preference.

Hope this helps.
GHB

Yup, the is nothing like aged brass!

Klaus

G H Boyd wrote:If you like getting new tools get a new mouthpiece.
However, a used mouthpiece can be as good as any new mouthpiece....

I suppose part of my question was phrased poorly. I wasn't asking about the virtues of used vs new. I want to know if anyone has compared the ORIGINAL PT-50 to the plastic copy.

Kelly makes a copy of the PT-50? It's not on the website. I see the word "prototype" in there, so when will it be available?

Nick Pierce wrote:Kelly makes a copy of the PT-50? It's not on the website. I see the word "prototype" in there, so when will it be available?

Probably never. Kelly made a few copies of the PT-50 a couple of years ago off of what I suppose was a prototype injection molding tool. Usually, when a tool is prototyped, the cores and cavities are made of lesser materials than production tools would be and the life of the tool is short. Also... there is usually more finishing work that has to be done by hand... driving up the cost of the prototypes. Kelly offered 'prototypes' for $50 each and apparently there wasn't enough interest to justify a production tool. I snagged one of the prototypes a while back in a trade deal. It works well for me. I'm considering buying a 'real' PT-50.

I can't answer the specific question, but I can answer some generalities about other Kelly mouthpieces compared to the subject mouthpieces they are modelled after.

Lexan has a lower set of resonance frequencies, so the tone of a Kelly is not as consistent from register to register, although it does have the same general character as the mouthpiece it is modelled after. As their website says, they are not identical in specification, because they are looking to emulate tone, not physical dimension.

Response, breath support and general feel are about the same; possibly a little less efficient with the Kelly. The dynamic range is limited unless you put a piece of golfer's lead tape around the throat to stabilize the mouthpiece.

I have found the main use of a Kelly is in inclement weather: too cold, too hot, too wet. For that they are great, and can actually be more comfortable than the subject mouthpieces. Every person should have the Kelly analog to their primary mouthpiece in order to have a spare and to deal with inclement weather if the player does ever perform outdoors gigs.

As usual, YMMV.