laser engraving

[bisontuba]

When someone labels their stencil brand of a widely-offered make/model of tuba after a famous player - particularly when that player never played that make of tuba, and died decades before the manufacturer rolled out the model - how does that come off, in your view?

Joe-
It comes off the same as say the Arnold Jacobs stamped solo tuba mouthpieces.....
Mark

[Ken Herrick]

Not quite with you, Joe. Do you have a particular make/model in mind?

If one had the MW "Bell" model in mind there would not be a problem as Bill himself stated they were copied from his King - in other words a stencil - and he was promoting them in the mid 60s.

The "Fletcher" model Chinese Eb 3+1 compers, "clones" of the Besson model he used to play would be a bit of a stretch but not TOO far off base.

Now, somebody could in theory copy an old 3+1 Martin Eb (not the monster) and call it a Bill Bell model as I saw him playing one of those while touring late in his career - just before the MWs came out in fact.

If someone were to produce a "Helleberg" it could be a copy of any of several different Conns. Among others he had a small 4v detachable bell Conn which had a smaller bore than the 2J and was finished in matte gold. Harvey had that one, along with other horns which had belonged to Helleberg. Then of course there were the Conn "Donatelli" models - which leads one to wonder what would have happened to the Yorks had he found them better ergonomically.

Fred Geib had a Cerveny Kaiser, which I bought from him, so it would be possible for somebody to label a large 4rv Kaiser style tuba a Geib model.

More info?

I am sure the french horn fraternity would be waiting for the revival of the famous Shcmutzig models.

[ghmerrill]

Well, we've got all kinds of manufacturers turning out "Helleburg" mouthpieces. I kind of doubt that most Kaiser model tubas were actually used by a Kaiser. In woodworking, a number of planes are referred to as "Krenov planes" although Krenov never touched them himself and they may deviate in some details from his own. Various rifles are referred to as having "Mauser" actions despite the fact that the Mauser boys had nothing to do with their design or manufacture, and their designs (again) deviate from the classic one. We name high schools after people who in fact never went to high school. The Edsel model of the Ford had nothing to do with Edsel Ford.

There are primarily three reasons for these kinds of product naming: (1) the name indicates a "type" (with a set of associated more or less distinctive features), or (2) the name is a marketing move to attract buyers to the product. The first of these can be helpful and more or less accurate, or (3) to honor someone. The second is largely a marketing ploy. It is problematic in a legal sense only if the name is currently owned by a living individual or his heirs or some such.

My own feeling is that, as adults, we know that people (i.e., marketeers) do this all the time. We typically know when they're doing it or rapidly discover that. So they don't really accomplish much and sometimes look quite silly. But they don't actually fool anyone, and I find that I have a lot more things to worry about than common marketeering practices. So unless such a product naming is genuinely and intentionally misleading, it doesn't bother me at all; and sometimes it's worth a chuckle.

[toobaa]

Not much different than Louisville Slugger turning out a 27" ARod bat. We all know damn well he's not swinging that matchstick, but nobody seems to care much. As y'all are always saying, play the horn first.

[Wyvern]

The simple fact is a name for a product is more attractive than a reference number, so manufacturers/sellers like to use to attract customers. If it matters if the name is after a famous player (e.g. Fletcher), a god (e.g. Neptune), a composer (e.g. Bruckner), or a piece of music (e.g. Petrushka) I don't know?

Regarding the use of 'Fletcher' - the 19" bell compensated EEb with straight leadpipe was developed by B&H specifically for John Fletcher of the London Symphony Orchestra and has ever since been known as the 'Fletcher' type. As far as I can see 'Fletcher' just describes a design of EEb tuba, much like 'Helleberg' describes a design of mouthpiece.

[UDELBR]

...a god (e.g. Neptune)...

Tooting our own horn, are we?

[Wyvern]

...a god (e.g. Neptune)...

Tooting our own horn, are we?

Still the Best!

[Wyvern]

Then the use of "Fletcher-style" (still inaccurate since the bore and leadpipe are dissimilar) would be more appropriate. The use of "Fletcher Model" implies too large of a connection John Fletcher while there is none.

Maybe of of the Chinese "Fletcher-style" Eb tuba sellers would like to contribute a portion of each Eb tuba sale to the John Fletcher Trust Fund?

As far as I know only M&M are actually today promoting as 'Fletcher model'. I did use the term for a short while (never had engraved on a model), but discontinued having decided it inaccurate because the JBEB-700 does not have the larger bore leadpipe characteristic of the original Fletcher EEb.

I am not sure about the different valve bore, according to the listing on Besson website the Jinbao is larger bore, but it has been pointed out to me that the Besson listing is inaccurate - so maybe they are the same? This needs clarifying.

[The Bone Ranger]

When someone labels their stencil brand of a widely-offered make/model of tuba after a famous player - particularly when that player never played that make of tuba, and died decades before the manufacturer rolled out the model - how does that come off, in your view?

It stinks.



Andrew

[imperialbari]

Brand names shouldn’t be abused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwW0g1Vy3Fw

[Rick Denney]

If I am every compelled to sell my Holton, I will call it the Arnold Jacobs Model Holton BB-345.

I have an ad picture from the 50's of him holding one, when Holton was sponsoring his quintet.

It would be no more disingenuous than the Farkas Model Holton French Horn. Farkas played in that quintet, and the horn is the product of that effort just as is the tuba.

But if I did sell it that way, I suspect there would be complaints. Even so, my Holton (even in Bb) is closer to Jacobs than a Meinl-Weston Model 37 (Bell Model) is to Bill Bell.

I sorta think people are smart enough to see past such hype. But if they aren't, the lesson they learn will do them little harm in the long run.

Rick "some lessons in life are free but not all of them" Denney

[Wyvern]

Maybe I should just keep quiet, rather than keep this thread going, but while I did have the JBEB-700 called EEb 'Fletcher' on my website a renowned retired member of the London Symphony Orchestra who sat alongside John Fletcher browsed the Wessex Tubas website and then phoned me up - no not to criticise the use of the name 'Fletcher' but to voice his support for my new venture and to wish me all the best!

I think if the use of the name 'Fletcher' for the JinBao EEb based on his design causes no problem to players who actually worked alongside the great man and knew him well, then maybe friends over the pond are getting a little bit worked up over nothing

[Ken Herrick]

[quote="Rick Denney" Even so, my Holton (even in Bb) is closer to Jacobs than a Meinl-Weston Model 37 (Bell Model) is to Bill Bell.

It is pretty rare that I would disagree with Rick - especially to the point of stating my disagreement.

I think Meinl-Weston does have solid grounds for using the designation "Bell Model" for a few good reasons.
It was Bill's King which was used as the pattern (maybe King should get some mention in the designation) and Bill actively collaborated in the development of the MW. Further he actively promoted the MW when it came on the market and certainly consented to having his name engraved on it. I have previously made mention (in other threads) of having played one of, if not the first examples) in Bill's hotel room at the Conrad Hilton in Chicago about 1966 during MidWest Band Clinic.

Believe it or not, had Holton called the 345 the Jacobs model when it came out most people outside truly professional circles would have been inclined to say "Arnold, WHO????" as he was nowhere near as well know as Bill or Harvey. Jake did have considerable input into the production of the 345CC - similar to Bill and MW.

Some of the advertising for the Jin Bao "Fletcher" is a bit of a stretch, though, in my mind, it readily made me think of the original. Iain King - formerly of the Melbourne Symphony had a Besson which also had a recording bell, possibly even before Fletch had his.

Think of all the poor violinists who over the years have bought a "Stradivarius" only to find it was merely a Stradivarius "model" based on his variation in the design of the violin.

Actually, the post Klaus did about the Dodge puts this whole discussion in a good perspective.

Ken "not so much disagreeing as clarifying..........., maybe" Herrick

[TubaRay]

Not much different than Louisville Slugger turning out a 27" ARod bat. We all know damn well he's not swinging that matchstick, but nobody seems to care much. As y'all are always saying, play the horn first.

Are you trying to tell me that the Mickey Mantle model Louisville Slugger bat that I coveted so many yrs. ago(but never had), wasn't the ACTUAL bat that the Mick used to hit all those tape measure home runs? I'm devastated!

[TubaRay]

...a god (e.g. Neptune)...

Tooting our own horn, are we?

Still the Best!

LOL

[Dan Schultz]

Even so, my Holton (even in Bb) is closer to Jacobs than a Meinl-Weston Model 37 (Bell Model) is to Bill Bell.

Somewhere, I have an old mid-1970's color brochure of a very old/thin (yup!)/frail Bill Bell holding a Meinl-Weston 5-rotor "Bill Bell" Model.

Here's Mr. Bell holding an interesting horn. It's not a Marzan or Bohm & Meinl. Some have indicated that it is a Martin.

[Rick Denney]

Ken "not so much disagreeing as clarifying..........., maybe" Herrick

Yeah, plus I was being intentionally provocative. I think it's rather funny that I should attach Jacobs's name to my BB-345, though the connection is actually pretty solid. But if I did sell it, I would absolutely outline its lineage. It was assuredly intended to be a replacement for the CSO York, given that only two of those were made and Jacobs wanted something to recommend for his students. The Holtons were certainly imperfect in that regard, but that's another story. Jacobs himself vastly preferred his York to the Holton copies, but apparently he also enjoyed Holton's sponsorship money. Of course, Jacobs had no role in the development of the York, and the fame he attached to it was too late to save the product (or the company). He did have a role in the development of the Holton, even if that role was limited to holding one in a publicity photo (though he used his a bit more than that).

And having played some of Bell's Kings I don't think they are any more similar to a Meinl-Weston 37 than my Holton is to the York, maybe even considering the difference in pitch between Bb and C (more provocation there, I know). I do think they look similar, in both cases. Of course, one of those early Asian rotary tubas with the unplayable scales looks a lot like a Miraphone 186 from a distance.

Holton-ad-with-Arnold-Jacob.jpg

The big Holton was as connected to Jacobs as the Holton horn was to Farkas, it seems to me.

Holton-Ad_1953_CSO_brass.jpg

I looked all over mine, though, and I didn't see Jacobs's name engraved on it anywhere.

And to Bloke, I didn't think we needed a rule--that was my point--nor did I think you were asking for one. But there is some precedent for using names rather more liberally than our current expectations might suggest.

Rick "wondering how many violinists have bought a 'Strad model' by accident instead of a real Strad, absent intentional fraud" Denney