TubeNet

I'm contemplating the purchase of a new King 625 Diplomat baritone horn. Bell front, three-valve horns work best for me for a variety of reasons and I'd like to have a brand spanking new one as a retirement present to myself.

I'd appreciate any observations/criticisms re: current King build quality. I'm assuming they are still made in the U.S.

Thanks!

A few years ago I purchased a bell-front American "hybrid" bari-euph. I tried the King, as I had played a really good one decades ago in high school band camp. After looking at the relative prices, and trying a few of different brands of different configurations still available, I purchased a Wessex BR115 instead. PM coming your way. Link for description and specs: https://wessex-tubas.com/products/front ... tone-br115" target="_blank

The bell on that Wessex is pointing in a strange direction.

How's the build quality of current King brass instruments? Are they still made in the U.S.?

I bought a new King 3B trombone about 5 years ago and it was great. AFAIK, it was made in USA.

mikebmiller wrote:I bought a new King 3B trombone about 5 years ago and it was great. AFAIK, it was made in USA.

Thanks!

King instruments are definitely still made in the USA. However they have been moving production of instruments such as trombones to the Elkhart Indiana factory from the Eastlake Ohio factory. I don't know what's still being made in Eastlake at this point. The current production 2341 tubas are relatively well regarded, as are the Euphoniums, though I'm not sure if they are still considered "pro-level". As part of Conn-Selmer that isn't Bach, they kinda get ignored.

All that is posted above. The bottom line is that the King is the only USA made bell-front instrument in current production. I would take bloke's comments seriously. If the OP wants a new 3-valve instrument, then the Jupiter or the Yamaha are better options, especially for the price. And better still, an older (preferably pre-cyborg) instrument in good condition will be better quality overall.

Also, I talked to the folks at Wessex. The reason for the bell angle is they believe that when you cant the instrument to the left to hold it, the bell should still point out, for projection, if not up. Were I still playing, I would simply have my tech unsolder the bell and brace and realign it forwards. Since the principals at Wessex are of BBB upbringing and do not necessarily have experience in playing in American concert band to any significant extent, they do not realize that being able to work with the horn, including leaning into the stand when indicated by the context of the music (as when you play a section that is doubling french horn parts), or up and out when tutti with trombones or saxophones, is as much a part of working with the horn to make the dynamics and timbre blend with the band, or give the option of solo work. I have even been known to use an H&B stone-lined mute to play bassoon parts in woodwind sectionals when no bassoons were available in band that season.

I agree with the OP's choice of instrument: to me, as I have posted elsewhere, the "American" style bell front "hybrid" instrument is a better choice in a typical concert band. In my over 40 years of experience in playing low brass, the "American" instrument can blend better with both brass and woodwinds than a euph, yet still have a distinctive tone that is not piercing like a BBB baritone or tubby like a BBB euph, and provide a distinctive tone in the tenor/baritone range of the orchestration, sitting nicely between the tenor saxophone and tenor trombone, with the ability to either blend with, or solo against, either, and this is where I would sit when I played one in community concert band.

Thanks everyone. It helps to have more to think about.