Page 1 of 1

Re: Conn 1 (or Holton "Revelation" 52) vs. Parke

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:04 pm
by ginnboonmiller
Really?



Really?


Three approximate dimensions, no mention of cup shape, bore, anything.


And you designed and sell your own mouthpieces.

And you think, after designing your own mouthpieces that "4 inches long, 2 inches wide, and a half inch at the skinny end" can give you enough information to draw a conclusion about what the mouthpiece is like.


Really?

Re: Conn 1 (or Holton "Revelation" 52) vs. Parke

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:56 am
by Michael Bush
I have a Holton 52 sitting here. Never have found a use for it until now. It is 3 11/16" long.

Edit: Looking at it more closely than I have before, there appears to be a seam at the base of the shank, down in one of the "valleys" that are turned into it. So Maybe the shank is not original?

Re: Conn 1 (or Holton "Revelation" 52) vs. Parke

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:12 pm
by joh_tuba
I have an original Parke Offenloch and a Laskey 30H, both american shank, sitting here. The external dimensions of both are within 1/16" of each other. Pretty sure most all tuba mouthpieces would be described as 4" x2" by a non-musician. I have no personal experience with any of your reference mouthpieces or anything other than your original non-screw rim solo mouthpiece. Sooo... I'm probably not of much use to you.