TubeNet

This weekend I made a trip to Switzerland (from the Netherlands) to pick up a Besson 3 valve compensator. I bought it trough Ebay and the pictures showed that it was in great condition. Pictures are sometimes hard to judge from, but I was astonished about the condition when I arrived. It’s just perfect.




I have two questions about this tuba. The serial is 669886 and I can’t find anything about the age. I found charts, but not anything within this range. Who can help me with this?

The second one is about the choices of mouthpieces. I will probably have to get the Denis Wick 1. The DW3 and DW2 are too small for my taste (tried the DW3L and DW2L on other Tubas).
Or should I change the leadpipe so I can use any mouthpiece I want? Any disadvantages of having the leadpipe changed?

looks like a 785- I m guessing from the late 60s , early 70s ...but IIIPopes and Imperialbari will have more on this . Beautiful horn ! Good luck !

This one looks like a sample from the transitional years between the old Besson New Standard and the Boosey & Hawkes Imperial series (which ran through 1978) and the Sovereign series, which were issued in 1983.

Some of these were engraved with the cross-over name of Besson Imperial. In the case of yours the cross-over feature is the discrepancy between the Besson engraving and the valve caps & buttons which are not the old slant profile Besson ones, but the more standard ones used on the B&H series.

I have the 3+1 Besson New Standard version from 1970, which has the exact same main bugle as yours. I find the DW #1 being way too small for this tuba. I have used other mouthpieces, all with large stems. They sit a bit further out in the receiver, but aside from potential flatness with some players I don’t think this is a problem. Recently I changed to the Orchestral blokepiece. The adaption process is not over, but I like the low range fullness. The blokepiece #2 has less of this feature, but is easier in the upper midrange. The blokepiece #1 barks too easily. The Sidey Classic worked well, but was a bit bright for me.

Congratulations!

Klaus

The definitive source for information on Boosey & Hawkes production housed in the Boosey & Hawkes Archive at the Horniman Museum, London, which includes technical drawings, production records from 1857-1985, stock lists, and minute books.

The catalog of Instrument Production Records dates this instrument to between July 1980 and Sept 1981. Additional production details may be found in the following volume:

‘Instruments brass 39’ (82.120) A227/083
Instrument numbers: 659450-674099.
c Jul 1980 - c Sep 1981

These tubas usually have the smaller receiver. A Wick 1 (no letter) is the definitive mouthpiece designed for this and similar models of tuba, including mine, to get the darker brass-band tuba sound. A really deep rounded cup, like a Kelly 18, will get a brighter "Our American Cousin" tone out of it.

Fingering differences: because of the comp loops, preferred fingering for G & D is 3 alone instead of 1+2. Fifth partials are usually right on or at least usable without alternate fingerings. False pedals can be problematic, so the lowest normally usable note is the 1+2+3 low E nat below open BBb.

If it has been changed to the larger, now standard receiver, then a Wick 1L is the preferred mouthpiece.

On mine, 1+3 C is a little stuffy, but low F 1+3 is really open sounding. The rest of the range is damn near perfect for intonation, which is should be, after over 100 years of perfecting this particular layout with the 17 inch bell.

Congrats on an absolutely steller specimen of an instrument.

Thanks for the details. I guess I'm going to check whether the Denis Wick 1 is my thing. I hope so because mouthpieces for larger receivers don't fit in a way I feel comfortable (meaning that I will consider a new leadpipe).

Thanks!

Hi P@rick

I had a larger reciever fitted to one of these. I only use it for marching a couple of times a year and I'm not that in touch with it so I can't give you a detailed before and after report. The tech who fitted the reciever is a tuba player and felt that it opened it up a bit.

Regards

Gerard

My "local" musicstore Adams doesn't have the mouthpiece in stock so they had to ordered it.
I realy want to "try before buy" so I will have to wait...

I've got a '71 New Standard Comp similar to yours that I bought used in '81. Over the years I've tried a variety of mouthpieces including the Wick 1 and Wick 2. I personally found the mouthpiece that worked best was a modified Schilke 67 that I originally bought in 1972 and Schilke himself modified for the horn. Unlike some others my horn has an easy low range that rocks and even has pedals and the top end just sings. Other than the ergonomics and weight it just rocks with a great sound that blends so well with trombones and euphs and excellent intonation. I use a portable stand and removed the bottom ball to solve the ergonomic challenges.

I personally think your horn looks so nice that it would be a shame to mess it up by replacing the receiver just to use larger shank mouthpieces. Any good mouthpiece guy can shave any existing shank down to fit. That's just a suggestion if you are looking for more alternatives than the currently offered small shank mouthpieces available.

tofu wrote:I've got a '71 New Standard Comp similar to yours that I bought used in '81. Over the years I've tried a variety of mouthpieces including the Wick 1 and Wick 2. I personally found the mouthpiece that worked best was a modified Schilke 67 that I originally bought in 1972 and Schilke himself modified for the horn. Unlike some others my horn has an easy low range that rocks and even has pedals and the top end just sings. Other than the ergonomics and weight it just rocks with a great sound that blends so well with trombones and euphs and excellent intonation. I use a portable stand and removed the bottom ball to solve the ergonomic challenges.

I personally think your horn looks so nice that it would be a shame to mess it up by replacing the receiver just to use larger shank mouthpieces. Any good mouthpiece guy can shave any existing shank down to fit. That's just a suggestion if you are looking for more alternatives than the currently offered small shank mouthpieces available.

Thanks for your advise. Do you mean that schilke modified the "large shank" mouthpiece to a "smal shank" mouthpiece by decreasing the outside diameter of the shank (and thereby decreasing the wall thickness of the shank)?

I did that once when i had a very old Besson (Class A Prototype). I've put my mouthpiece on a lathe and it worked fine. No plating on the shank, but the mouthpiece fitted fine and it worked also fine on that tuba.

This makes me wonder whether the inside shaft dimension of a wick 1 and wick 1L are the same and only the outside dimension of the shaft is different. Anyone knows?

I tried an late 70-ties imperial (4 valve) with a 19"bell and the small shank receiver a month ago. It was very good! Didn't work to well for me with a standard shank mouthpiece. I tried a heritage 2 with it and that was a good match. You'll lose focus if you use the incorrect shank size.

Wow! Nice horn.
I have a 3 and a 3L. They seem to be the same except for shank size. I would assume that the 1 and 1L would follow the same pattern.

b.williams wrote:Wow! Nice horn.
I have a 3 and a 3L. They seem to be the same except for shank size. I would assume that the 1 and 1L would follow the same pattern.

Yes. I used to have a 1L for my 186. They are the same except for the shank diameter. Of course, to retain the backbore geometry, the shank of the L is a tad longer.

The Wick arrived at Adams. Tried it - bought it. I like the sound and response but I dislike the rim a bit. This Wick is the "heritage" model. I played also a "pre heritage" 3L and 3SL on other tubas and i know i liked the rim on those better. Does anyone know whether the rim on a Wick "pre heritage" 1 is similar to these?

The rim on my "pre" and "post" Wick 1 is the same. Probably manufacturing tolerance. You can always have Vladimir @ Dillon Music recontour it for you, as he did for my Curry 128D, which was too wide for me, and he recontoured it to Mt Vernon 18 profile.

iiipopes wrote:The rim on my "pre" and "post" Wick 1 is the same. Probably manufacturing tolerance. You can always have Vladimir @ Dillon Music recontour it for you, as he did for my Curry 128D, which was too wide for me, and he recontoured it to Mt Vernon 18 profile.

I'm guessing the OP may be referring to the "cushion rim" of the old Wicks. I too prefer the old Wick cushion rim. Schilke made the same change and I much prefer the old Schillke 67 with a cushion rim (which resembles a Conn 1) then the new 67.

Isn’t the rim profile of all DW tuba mouthpieces the same (except for those designated with an X)?

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:Isn’t the rim profile of all DW tuba mouthpieces the same (except for those designated with an X)?

Klaus

Not necessarily. I was not familiar with the old "cushion rim" until the post above. Also please note that the Wick 1, 2, and 3 are all made on a blank with the same external diameter, so that the rim width is a function of the inside diameter of the cup, which, of course, would make the rims go from more narrow to more wide progressing 1, 2, 3.

Just to be sure we talk about the same:

This is the pre wick model:


This is the post wick model:


From the pre wick models I used the 5L, 3L, 3SL, and 3 so far.
From the post wick models I used the 2L and 1 so far.

My impression is that the feel of the rim (especially the inside contour) is very similar on the post wick 2L and 1.
The pre wick 3L, 3Sl and 3 feel also very identical (again especially the inside contour).

That’s why I thought that there might be a difference between the pre wick 1 and post wick 1 rim, but I didn’t have a comparison.

Did anyone ever try the pre and post wick 1 (or pre and post wick 1L, or pre and post wick 2L, etc)? Any difference?

P@rick wrote:Did anyone ever try the pre and post wick 1 (or pre and post wick 1L, or pre and post wick 2L, etc)? Any difference?

iiipopes wrote:The rim on my "pre" and "post" Wick 1 is the same.