TubeNet

Definately compensating.

Imperial wrote:Despite my nickname I actually don't know that much of this euphs.
My brass band owns one made 1950. What could be said of a B&H imperial from that year. is it copmensating?
It seems to me like the tuning could be a lot better on some notes. Otherwise quite a nice sound.
[/img]

I believe it was Art Lehman who first introduced the Boosey Imperials to the President's Own (if I'm remembering Glen Call's story correctly). They replaced Connstellations, as I recall the story. It was the Marine Band's first experience with large-bored compensated euphoniums, and it started a wave. The date 1950 comes to mind as the date the Marine Band started using them.

"Imperial" was apparently Boosey's top-end model name for quite a lot time, so it likely refers to an evolutionary range of instruments. It was replaced at the top end by the Sovereign, after the Boosey and Besson lines were officially merged (they'd been merged in practice for quite a while already).

I have a Besson euphonium that is unmarked as to model. It was made in 1974. It appears nearly identical to the later Sovereigns, and I believe it is a Besson New Standard, which was the same as the Boosey Imperials. I have seen reports of instruments marked both "Besson" and "Imperial", and I really think things got quite mixed up in the transition to the Sovereign model name.

I've never yet met a B&H instrument that didn't have some intonation eccentricities for one reason or another. I suspect that why the Prestige instruments have a tuning trigger, despite being compensated.

Rick "who thinks an 1950 Imperial was likely the foremost euphonium in the world at the time" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "who thinks an 1950 Imperial was likely the foremost euphonium in the world at the time" Denney

Very likely true, even if at least one non-French high end military band on the continent preferred the French Saxhorn basse en Si bemol as lately as 1973. That band now uses Hirsbrunner euphs.

The main problem with the British euphs, old or new, is the 5th partial being too flat and the 6th partial being too sharp. The problem is worst with the 1st valve activated. C becomes slightly flat and Eb immensely sharp. The latter problem for Steven Mead is the main reason for the application of a main tuning slide trigger.

If your actual old Imperial is a good player aside from the tuning problems, and if the valves are not in need of a major rebuild, then it may be worth considering two investments:

Replacement of the leadpipe with one from a Sovereign or Prestige.

Installation of a main tuning slide trigger. A good repairman should be able to adapt a commercially available kit to the Imperial euph body, which aside from the leadpipe, the bell, and maybe the bottom bow should be very much the same as in the modern Besson euphs.

Carolus Marximus Imperimus

Rick Denney wrote:I have seen reports of instruments marked both "Besson" and "Imperial", and I really think things got quite mixed up in the transition to the Sovereign model name.

You're telling me... I recently acquired a euph made in 1975 that is labeled "Boosey & Hawkes" and "Sovereign". There's no model number on it, but it's a compensating, 4-valve Sovereign with a 12" bell and a large (bass trombone) mouthpiece receiver. So I assume it's an early model 967.

I had an Imperial from 1946. It's the horn that got me back into playing several years ago. Four valves, compensating, medium shank receiver of course... It was in that old, leather case that opened at the bell (a nightmare!). It was a heavy instrument - heavy bell (11"), thick silver plating (original, yet almost 100% intact after nearly 60 years), wide bow guards... Solid stuff. Very sweet sound. I had the valves replated and it sounded great. I only parted with it because the valve action was somewhat rough and noisy - no modern valve guides - totally playable but nothing like a modern horn's valve action - I think that's come a long way. That sound was nice though - definitely "old school" - rich but focused, dark but not too tuba-like. I agree that it must have been the cream of the crop back then. Most of its qualities are quite desireable today, in my opinion.

Louis DeVizia
Baritone, Princeton Brass Band

Louis wrote:I recently acquired a euph made in 1975 that is labeled "Boosey & Hawkes" and "Sovereign". There's no model number on it, but it's a compensating, 4-valve Sovereign with a 12" bell and a large (bass trombone) mouthpiece receiver. So I assume it's an early model 967.

The combination of "Boosey & Hawkes" and "Sovereign" was the original one, when Denis Wich and B&H/Besson started up with the Sovereign trombones. The Besson equivalent was called "Mark II" or something similar to that.

As for the model number: the Brits used to stamp it into the bell stack right behind the stay between the top bow and the stack.

Carolus Marximus

KarlMarx wrote:As for the model number: the Brits used to stamp it into the bell stack right behind the stay between the top bow and the stack.

That's where the serial number is on this horn, but no model number. I know what you're talking about though - on my Sovereign baritone, which is much newer (1995), the model number and serial number are together in roughly the same position (i.e., 955-XXXXXX).

The serial number on the old Imperial was right below the horn's main engraving on the bell. And that engraving didn't face the front as it does on modern horns - I always thought it was very cool that it faced the mouthpiece receiver (i.e., on the left face of the bell if you're behind the horn).

Louis DeVizia
Baritone, Princeton Brass Band

Louis wrote:

KarlMarx wrote:As for the model number: the Brits used to stamp it into the bell stack right behind the stay between the top bow and the stack.

That's where the serial number is on this horn, but no model number. I know what you're talking about though - on my Sovereign baritone, which is much newer (1995), the model number and serial number are together in roughly the same position (i.e., 955-XXXXXX).

The serial number on the old Imperial was right below the horn's main engraving on the bell. And that engraving didn't face the front as it does on modern horns.

I'm not sure when Besson started to add the model number (probably late 90's) but these days, the serial and model numbers are back with the name stamp and facing the front again!

What I called the model number placed on the back of the stack really is the serial number. I am sorry for my mistake!

In the old days the serial number was supplemented by LP for low pitch (A=440) and HP for high pitch (A=459).

On the front side together with the general engraving the older British brasses had indications like Class A or Class B.

Imperial/New Standard was Class A, whereas Regent/Westminster was Class B.

I seem to remember, that there was a Class C also, but I am not sure I ever have seen a such engraving with my own eyes.

Carolus Marximus Amnesius

Yes, the Imperials of old where the finest euphs of their time, nothing came close believe me.

There are plenty of Class C models around, popular with all the manufacturers, Besson, Highams etc. etc.

Louis mentions the thickness and quality of the silver plating, this went a long way towards the life of the instrument in those days.

CB

In the baritones trough BBb tubas the most obvious differences between Class A and Class B was the compensating system most often applied in the Class A instruments (not always so with all the smaller often non-London makers through the early decades of the 20th century).

Most often the accoustic design (bore profile) was the same for alto horns, baritones, and euphs disregarding the class stamped on the bell. In the tuba area the non-Class A instruments often were considerably smaller and lighter, as they were intended for the school market.

I cannot deliver hard proof, but I suspect, that the Class A instruments were assembled by the master craftsmen, whereas the Class C instruments were more like apprentices work.

There also have circulated rumours, that if a given part (bell or bow or whatever) wasn't accepted for a Class A instrument, then it took the walk down to an instrument of a lower class.

Whereas many Westminster/Regent Class B instruments were very useable, then instruments stamped Cambridge were consequently extremely out of tune. I have played a Cambridge, or was it an Oxford, euph in a band, and it annoys me, that I cannot remember the class designation. My only excuse is, that the year was 1967.

Carolus Marximus Amnesius

Highams wrote:Yes, the Imperials of old where the finest euphs of their time, nothing came close believe me.

To further attest to how nice I thought my old Imperial was...

It was the horn I acquired when I got back into playing 4 or 5 years ago. I was doing great with it - had the valves replated as I mentioned before - but the valve action (before and after the replating) was a bit rigid and noisy - not terrible, but sub-par by the standards of modern horns - certainly in comparison to a friend's virtually-new Yamaha 642. So, even though I loved the Imperial's sound, I opted to sell it (and a few other things) to go for a newer horn. This was just last summer. Well, since then I'm on my THIRD horn now. I let a good one go. Valuable lesson learned. Your right sound is what matters, and it isn't easy to find. You should hang onto it when you do.

Louis DeVizia
Princeton Brass Band

Yes, Karl is correct, very much lighter, sometimes thinner metal instruments as well, without all the trimmings, viz; slide throws on cornets, even the lyre holder and finger ring or hook support for the little finger. On larger instruments, they were not only non compensating of corse, but would have probably on half the amount of 'stays' and 'braces' holding the thing together.

Louis, yes, at that time valves were bad & noisy, but they were a big improvement on most other brands believe it or not! The instrument did feel like a Rolls-Royce. We only complain about them because they have improved so much over the years.

CB