TubeNet

Hi there,

I am a student who recently got his hands on an older Besson 982. By older, I mean circ. 15+ years.

Having never played Bass Tuba before, I naturally had a few questions! Normally, I would contact my professor to get these answered, but I believe he is on vacation for the next month, so I come to you!

1.) After searching long and hard for specifics, I have yet to understand what the true difference between a 981 and 982 is. The only thing I remotely comprehend is the fact that the leadpipe is different. Would this lead to the player having to use different mouthpieces on the horns?

2.) Unfortunately for me, my PT-84, which I used on my CC has gone inexplicably missing; what mouthpiece would you recommend for a Besson Sov. 982? I've seen countless amounts of people recommend the DW 3l, would this be a good fit for the leadpipe on the 982?

3.) The horn is badly tarnished. How would you recommend I get it off?


I apologize for the plethora of questions and I look forward to seeing your responses!

Thank you!

Hi and welcome to the forum!

I'm not sure either what the actual difference is between 981/2 but there should'nt be any differences in size in the leadpipe. I'm not sure though so I would'nt take my word for it...

Regarding mouthpieces you pretty much just have to try some out and decide what you think sounds the best and is the most comfortable for you to play. I have successfully used an old Perantucci 9 with my 982 (a modern PT-64 is about the same, and the still made Rudolf Meinl 9 is exactly the same). I think it makes the tuba sound a tad sharper, which I prefer since I mostly play german-style rotor tubas.

Regarding the tarnish there are probably numerous threads on the subject, but I would just wash the dirt off the tuba with water and soap and then use a polish such as Autosol. Also make sure to take care and actually wipe off the instrument every now and then to prevent future tarnish problems.

WiFiber wrote: 1.) After searching long and hard for specifics, I have yet to understand what the true difference between a 981 and 982 is. The only thing I remotely comprehend is the fact that the leadpipe is different. Would this lead to the player having to use different mouthpieces on the horns?

Yes, the leadpipe is different, but the receiver is the same. Try a Wick 3L or a Blokepiece Imperial with a standard/american shank.

The difference in playing between the 981 and 982 is probably too subtle to notice, the 981 is usually considered to be a concert instrument, it used to have a much lower lead pipe, the 982 had a higher lead pipe and carriage rings for marching,it was aimed at military bands and brass bands that marched.
In the UK, many players use the VB2AW, or a Denis Wick 3L or XL with good effect, one of the Alliance range of mouthpieces is now supplied as standard with new instruments, but I don't think the instrument is particularly sensitive to mouthpieces.
As for the tarnish, any proprietary silver polish will do, it is Goddards long term polish over here.

The only consistent difference between 981 and 982 is the 981 has no marching hooks and the 982 does with lyre block. In the 1980's the the 981 had straight Fletcher leadpipe and the 982 swan necked pipe to come up the bell higher, but in the 1990's they both had the higher pipe. However the expansion of the 981 pipe is also quicker giving it a bit broader tone than the 982.

It you are used to a PT-84, I would think you would find a Denis Wick 3L mouthpiece too small - I would suggest the larger 2L. Also I would suggest the new Heritage style mouthpiece, I find much better than the old style, now called Classic.

You will enjoy the 982...good horn. The previous notes on 981/982 differences are correct - I've owned both. Mouthpieces can really change the tonal quality and responsiveness of these horns. My observations are:

Dennis Wick - the standard: nice and gives the British Brass Band mellower sound. I own several, you can't go wrong.
Perentucci PT-64 - gives the 982 a bark and more aggressive edge. Great when you want to rip it up. I like this a lot.
Sheridan - used to be from Dillon's. Similar to the PT-64 but with a slightly lighter sound
Others - tried Bach, Yamaha, etc....all the usual. Some ok, some not so.

Mike Finn - these work great on the 982 and my 981. Once I switched to these I could not go back. Highly recommended for consideration.

I’ve been playing a Besson 982 from the same era for over a year now with the Fountain Creek Brass Band. I'm using the Sellsmenberger Imperial with the Fair Dinkin #2 medium round rim with great success. The PT you use to use with your CC will have too deep a funnel cup for the Besson. I've played the horn with the Wicks mouthpieces and I've found in my experiences the stainless steel of the Imperial seems to give a quicker response than the Wicks. While the Wicks mouthpiece was created for that particular horn the Imperial is still a bit better. And the Imperial is part of a two piece system that has about 20 different rims to help match what is most comfortable for your embouchure.

The creator of these mouthpieces likes to lurk around here under the name of Bloke. He is a TubaNet sponser and you can message him through our board here and he will be glad to talk with you directly about his mouthpieces.

charlieJ wrote: Sheridan - used to be from Dillon's. Similar to the PT-64 but with a slightly lighter sound

Where might I find this mouthpiece(s)? I've seen many people talking about them but came out cold when searching for it.

i always thought the 982 used the smaller receiver mouthpieces like the DW 3. I have an older Boosey and Hawkes Eb Imperial horn which originally had the higher leadpipe similar to the 982 but it also had a smaller receiver. Did they change the receivers on the Bessons? I have since changed my leadpipe to a 981 pipe and a regular sized receiver.
i believe my horn dates from the 70's, so it is older.
ken k

What's the serial number of your Imperial horn? There are list on the web that can better date it.

I'd say you can find just as big differences between two 981s as with a 981 and 982,
thou the 982 tends to be (or at least used to) a bit more edgy..

I just last week played a 982, and I felt the upper backbow (hand rest)
being a tad narrower (?)

I've never heard anything about it actually being so.

As a note...The guy playing it prefers it over a low leadpipe 981
(both owned by the band he is playing in)

I tried them both and clearly went for the 981, thou it felt quite a bit less efficient.
My own (older) 981 seems to resonate better and puts it selves in-between the two

Mouthpiece, yes....I was using the PT-84 my-selves for many years on the Besson
Had it bored up a tad and shaved a little of the shank to have a better fit in the receiver.
IMO, the Bessons are better of with am.shank

As Neptune is mentioning..The DW3L is a bit smaller and also a completely
different mouthpiece in geometry

How well and easily does the lower register come out on the 3l? PT-64?

For me the rim is too small on the 3L, but with the large bore
it still svould deliver if your chops can.

I've never really liked the 64(65)
Think it makes the instrument sund like a small f-tuba
Great for solostuff probably...and as another tubaplayer said:
Well.....you just have to learn how to play big on it.

I'll be the contrarian as always...

First, I like either a Miraphone C4 or Yamaha Self on these. I've always found Wicks to have substandard plating and excessive mass. Yuck! A Yamaha 67C4 is also a nice overall mouthpiece for these.

Second, I hate the 981 (Fletcher) as it is an ergonomic horror for me. My right wrist is cramped and pained, and the left arm stretched over-far. The 982 is an excellent beast which rests very naturally in the hands... even better with a tuba stand. However, I would move the bottom carriage ring in the the inside of the bottom bow... works well there still and won't dig into your navel.

J.c.S.

J.c. Sherman wrote:II've always found Wicks to have substandard plating and excessive mass. Yuck! A Yamaha 67C4 is also a nice overall mouthpiece for these.

Second, I hate the 981 (Fletcher) as it is an ergonomic horror for me. My right wrist is cramped and pained, and the left arm stretched over-far. The 982 is an excellent beast which rests very naturally in the hands... even better with a tuba stand. However, I would move the bottom carriage ring in the the inside of the bottom bow... works well there still and won't dig into your navel.

J.c.S.

I would agree with you over the old Denis Wick's, but the new Heritage mouthpieces are very different and much better. I am currently using Heritage 2XL for most of my EEb and CC playing (same rim 2SL for solo/quintet playing) and is good fit for me.

The bad plating was a single batch back in the 1990's and is a perfect example of how one slip can ruin a company's reputation

I would agree about the bad ergonomics of the Fletcher 981. I thought great when i had one in 1990's until I suffered severe neck problem due to the stooping to play the low leadpipe. Now much prefer a higher pipe as on the 982 and our new Wessex EEb

The new 981 has a high (long) leadpipe too, but it's difficult to call any TA tubas ergonomic

To each their own; I love the ergonomics of the TA 3+1s... except the 981

Euphers don't tend to protest TA much either...

J.c.S.

Neptune wrote: I would agree with you over the old Denis Wick's, but the new Heritage mouthpieces are very different and much better. I am currently using Heritage 2XL for most of my EEb and CC playing (same rim 2SL for solo/quintet playing) and is good fit for me.

The bad plating was a single batch back in the 1990's and is a perfect example of how one slip can ruin a company's reputation

I would agree about the bad ergonomics of the Fletcher 981. I thought great when i had one in 1990's until I suffered severe neck problem due to the stooping to play the low leadpipe. Now much prefer a higher pipe as on the 982 and our new Wessex EEb

the "New" Heritage mouthpieces are very expensive, costing around 40% more than the "old"heritage style or the classic (and I didn't care much for the classic style either), prices are around 109-115GBP, almost in the same price range as Mike Finn mouthpieces.

as for the ergonomics, I tend to have the instrument sat on my lap, rather than on the seat, so that the mouthpiece comes up to my face, rather than my face coming down to the mouthpiece, avoiding stooping and pains in the neck, but on my instrument, the lead pipe is lower than the 982, but not quite straight, like the old 981.

peter birch wrote:the "New" Heritage mouthpieces are very expensive, costing around 40% more than the "old"heritage style or the classic (and I didn't care much for the classic style either), prices are around 109-115GBP, almost in the same price range as Mike Finn mouthpieces.

In silver/gold as other retailers supply, that is the price - but Wessex Tubas (uniquely I think) in the UK sell the Heritage tuba mouthpieces in all silver for only £75 (£65 when bought with tuba), not much more than the old Classic style (which I also do not like).

J.c. Sherman wrote:To each their own; I love the ergonomics of the TA 3+1s... except the 981

Euphers don't tend to protest TA much either...

J.c.S.

What is TA?