The Conn Helleberg

[TexTuba]

Hello! I have a few questions and I am hoping those in the know might be able to answer them. I recently played on a Helleberg from the early 70s and I loved it! I have heard that there are some differences between the early Hellebergs and the ones they sale today. Is this true? And if so, what kind of differences? How hard are they to locate in good shape(the older ones that is)? I appreciate any info. that can be given. Thanks!!

Ralph

[Rick Denney]

Hello! I have a few questions and I am hoping those in the know might be able to answer them. I recently played on a Helleberg from the early 70s and I loved it! I have heard that there are some differences between the early Hellebergs and the ones they sale today. Is this true?

The tooling used by Conn was subject to wear and so there were always little trends in different batches produced.

But the Conn Hellebergs I've seen from the early 70's are intended to be identical to the current model, near as I can tell by looking. I think by "old", those who tell of differences mean mouthpieces produced before WWII.

There may have been some intentional changes in the shank dimensions since the early 70's, but I can't see any in the cup and rim shapes.

Rick "who suspects these designs stabilized in the early 50's at the latest" Denney

[Paul S]

Hello! I have a few questions and I am hoping those in the know might be able to answer them. I recently played on a Helleberg from the early 70s and I loved it! I have heard that there are some differences between the early Hellebergs and the ones they sale today. Is this true? And if so, what kind of differences? How hard are they to locate in good shape(the older ones that is)? I appreciate any info. that can be given. Thanks!!

Ralph

The Hellebergs that are out there today are not the Helleberg models Conn had out in earlier years. That said, the 1970s versions have extremely wide variations among themselves even beyond the gold versus two tone variants.

The current model maker seems to have watered down the rims to become more rounded and wider than the average older variants for some unknown reason. I suspect it happened when they began to push the model as a lower end and less expensive mass market piece in order to increase sales. I believe it was a terrible mistake.

In searching for a working replacement for my favourite old faithful, I never found another Helleberg type rim of the same width, shape or bite. I tried perhaps 30-40 different Conn Hellebergs from that era and I saw 30-40 different rims. As I understand it, this is the same for the 1930s versions as well in that, just as in purchasing a horn by trying many of the same model to see what fits you best, the variations of same model mouthpieces required the same trials.

Mass production using modern lathes can make mouthpieces in near exact duplication now but you do need to start with the best design to begin with. I do not think the chosen design variant for the modern flagship Helleberg today was a correct one.

I took what I thought to be an excellent rim type for superior articulation and control, used a standard Helleberg funnel type but with a slightly enlarged throat bore from the typical, enlarged and flattened the outer shape of the mouthpiece just below the rim for a tad more mass there and then had it produced in surgical stainless steel to achieve the benefits of putting more of your buzz into the horn while keeping a very colourful sound with less overall mass and more comfort against the lips.

[Paul S]

The tooling used by Conn was subject to wear and so there were always little trends in different batches produced.

But the Conn Hellebergs I've seen from the early 70's are intended to be identical to the current model, near as I can tell by looking. I think by "old", those who tell of differences mean mouthpieces produced before WWII.

There may have been some intentional changes in the shank dimensions since the early 70's, but I can't see any in the cup and rim shapes.

Rick "who suspects these designs stabilized in the early 50's at the latest" Denney

I am probably just too picky about what I could feel as differences in the rims but they did feel very different to me and especially in how I was able to play on them.



I suspect that although Conn did choose the "blueprint" of a standard Helleberg as the way to make the models and especially the current version, a problem similar to those in the Conn trombone mess occured in that makers sometimes made the pieces the way they did from eye or other familiar approach than by the exact specs.

I have often been told by trombonists how the instrument builders used points on a factory wall or from how they matched to their arm lengths and such in their daily work and when the factory was moved and "spec sheets" and new workers were used the horns became very different sounding beasts.

[TexTuba]

Thank you very much for some great information! The reason I am asking in the first place is because I want to buy a Helleberg. I borrowed my teacher's Helleberg and it's from 1974. I really like it and I wanted to see that if I bought one today, would it be the same. Again, thanks!

Ralph

[Rick Denney]

All my Conn Hellebergs are just like the middle one. I have several, but they aren't dated, of course, though I thought the newest one was at least early 90's.

Rick "who has now gotten used to the Laskey rim" Denney

[Haugan]

Paul S and Rick Denny cover the topic in great depth. There is not much more anyone can add to their posts. For mouthpiece and history enthusiasts here is some additional info: August Helleberg was not only a great tuba player, but a somewhat competent machinist,as well. He would "turn out" a new mouthpiece for each of the many different tubas he played during his career. The "Standard" is a postwar copy of the "Model H"; the first massed produced Helleberg made in the very early 20th century. It was revolutionary at the time in it's large size and depth, dwarfing by comparison the "Conn Standard" and the "Conn Giant" (a mouthpiece similar in inner dimensions to a large modern Bass Trombone mouthpiece) both long since discontinued. I have only seen ONE of these Model H mouthpieces outside a very old Conn catalog, and it was given to me by Arnold Jacobs in about 1980. There are most certainly others in existence somewhere, but I've never come across one and I've been "tracking down" old Hellebergs for over 30 years. The Model H was replaced by the "Conn-Helleberg" (on a "blank" that resembles the old Mirafone C2 mouthpiece, which in turn is PROBABLY a copy of Conn's original design) - Mirafone is a post-war cooperative of a group of insrument builders largely from Graslitz, Czechoslovakia that was formed in Waldkreiberg under the "Marshall Plan": This might explain the "American design" of their mouthpiece "blanks". The current 7B is a copy of this Conn-Helleberg , which in the 30s & 40s was Conn's largest selling "signature series" mouthpiece. Though still uncommon today, there were probably MANY more made than the "Model H"; I've managed to collect 10+ of this model. This was the Conn-Helleberg that Arnold Jacobs used the bulk of his career. His was a "stock" model chosen from nearly 100 during a visit to the Conn factory in the early 30s. There were GREAT varients in mouthpieces at that time, and the one he used was unique in several ways. He guarded it closely, but I was able to convince him to let me borrow it overnight in 1976, when I notated it's differences from the others in my collection. I made a single copy which I later gave to Arnold. He used it in his studio for @10 years, and I was flattered when he told me that he'd chosen this mouthpiece to use in the CSO when his "Old #1" dissappeared for a time years later. I would be happy to discuss the differences between his "Old #1" and the others sold as "copies" with anyone SERIOUS about actually making a copy for distribution. The fact that the "Conn-Helleberg" remains today as the "sole survivor" of a long line of preWW2 "signature series" is a testament to it's popularity. The current (postWW2) Helleberg line was reintroduced after WW2 when the "Conn 2" was percieved by tubaists to be "unlike" the former "Conn-Helleberg" dispite it's [nearly identical] inner dimensions. Distribution of mouthpiece "mass" is probably a factor in this still percievable difference. Since it's reintroduction, the "Conn-Helleberg" went through several different "style" changes due largely to where they were produced. Though using the same tooling (for the most part), different practices in the preparation and buffing was responsable for a number of variants. Initially the gold plate didn't extend beyond the shank of the mouthpiece. Interestingly enough (Paul S), the ones with a "bite" to the rim were produced by DEG music of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin for a time when Conn was "underway" to Abiline, Texas. They are also characterized by a [thin] gold plate over nickel plate that covers the entire body of the mouthpiece, though not ALL "solid gold" Conn Hellebergs were produced by DEG. Researching and tracing the "evolution" of Conn's mouthpiece line is difficult, especially in view of the fact that one point before the move to Abilene, Conn for some [unfathomable] reason intentionally and systematically destroyed its historic records. Although UMI (the current conglomerate) may be a financial success, the (morally criminal) destruction of so much information representing the collective knowledge of so many generations of musicians, scientists and craftsmen represents a tremendous loss to our art. In closing , there have been many "variants on an old theme" when it comes to Helleberg mouthpieces, and those variants (even within like models) may allow you to choose one that 'fits you to a T". I've always felt it somehow strange that a great Tubaplayer's legacy should end up so closely tied to his talents as a designer/machinist. In the era of recorded music, we're fortunate that we no longer need to put our stamp on a piece of metal to achieve recognition beyind the grave.

[TexTuba]

All my Conn Hellebergs are just like the middle one. I have several, but they aren't dated, of course, though I thought the newest one was at least early 90's.

Rick "who has now gotten used to the Laskey rim" Denney

Any chance you'd sell me one of yours?

Ralph

[Rick Denney]

Any chance you'd sell me one of yours?

I should have said that I HAD several. I only have one left of the standard model, and one 7B model. I'm keeping those.

I used to have a gold-plated one that I made the mistake of loaning out once upon a time, and it's now gone. No great loss: the Conn gold mouthpieces were plated over brass (at least this one was) and I'd worn through the plating in a year. I had at least two others, but I don't remember where they ended up.

Except for accidents, I tend to keep my old mouthpieces because I find the older I get the more I appreciate the old stuff, and they are lots cheaper to buy over again than to just keep.

You might also look into the Doug Elliot 130-4N rim. It has a narrow flat surface with a sharp inner edge to it. The 130 size is the same as the Conn. The R cup is a tad less deep, and the T cup is a tad deeper. The 4 shank seems about right. My 2N rim is just slightly rounder than the Conn, and the 4N rim was intended to be exactly like the Conn, or at least to fall within the range of that moving target.

Rick "finding things are always more expensive the second time around" Denney

[Haugan]

Just a quick note: All the Conn tuba mouthpieces were brass blanks or stock. There is a "flashing" (VERY thin plating) of nickel or silver between the gold and the brass blank; gold doesn't plate directly onto silver well. When you wear through the gold plate, the flashing (particularly if it's silver) is so thin that it can be undetectable. Nickel tends to be more detectable because it is a much harder element than silver or brass. Brass itself is not an element, but an alloy consisting of copper and zinc (usually 70/30) combined. "Gold brass" is a combination of the same two elements with a higher (varying proportions) copper content. If anyone out there knows of a way to plate gold directly onto brass, I would be VERY interested in the formula or method........

[Paul S]

............The Model H was replaced by the "Conn-Helleberg" (on a "blank" that resembles the old Mirafone C2 mouthpiece, which in turn is PROBABLY a copy of Conn's original design)................... Interestingly enough (Paul S), the ones with a "bite" to the rim were produced by DEG music of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin for a time when Conn was "underway" to Abiline, Texas. They are also characterized by a [thin] gold plate over nickel plate that covers the entire body of the mouthpiece, though not ALL "solid gold" Conn Hellebergs were produced by DEG. .........Researching and tracing the "evolution" of Conn's mouthpiece line is difficult, especially in view of the fact that one point before the move to Abilene, Conn for some [unfathomable] reason intentionally and systematically destroyed its historic records. Although UMI (the current conglomerate) may be a financial success, the (morally criminal) destruction of so much information representing the collective knowledge of so many generations of musicians, scientists and craftsmen represents a tremendous loss to our art. ...................

THANK YOU! Your informational post made my day. I am a sponge for historical background such as this and these were two pieces of information that I was unaware of.

I too feel more than a tinge of pain when corporations "lose" their history by forgeting the treasures they have in their own records have value.

[Rick Denney]

Just a quick note: All the Conn tuba mouthpieces were brass blanks or stock. There is a "flashing" (VERY thin plating) of nickel or silver between the gold and the brass blank; gold doesn't plate directly onto silver well. When you wear through the gold plate, the flashing (particularly if it's silver) is so thin that it can be undetectable. Nickel tends to be more detectable because it is a much harder element than silver or brass. Brass itself is not an element, but an alloy consisting of copper and zinc (usually 70/30) combined. "Gold brass" is a combination of the same two elements with a higher (varying proportions) copper content. If anyone out there knows of a way to plate gold directly onto brass, I would be VERY interested in the formula or method........

If there was a strike coat of silver or nickel (or even copper) on this mouthpiece before they plated the gold, then it really was undetectable. I have a gold-plated PT-48 that is wearing through to the silver underneath, so I know what that looks like. I knew my gold Helleberg had a problem when it started leaving a green ring on my lips and the surface became rough.

Silver is much harder than gold and even if the strike coat is only a few molecules thick it will look silver when the gold wears off. The color in the thin parts was brown--brass.

Rick "who will not buy a gold-plated Conn mouthpiece again" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

The silly thing about paying the manufacturer's premium for gold plating is that the premium demanded by the manufacturer is often excessive.

Much better to buy a silverplated mouthpiece and send it off to someone who will overplate it with gold for much less than the additional premium demanded by the manufacturer.

The gold will wear through soon enough in either case. As Rick mentions, what you see under the gold in a Conn Helleberg is indeed raw brass. If there's s strike coat there, it's not visible.

At least with gold plate over standard silverplate, you've still got the full thickness of the silverplating after the gold wears through.

Does the plating on a gold-plated mouthpiece last longer for women than it does for men? I'd think that razor stubble does a number on gold plate.

[Haugan]

To Paul S. & interested others: There is a "new" tuba website that may be of interest to yourself & others on the "web". It is <www.TubaNews.com> run by tubaists Rose Schweikhart & Todd Cranson, who have recently returned from studying with Rodger Bobo in England. There is an article in a recent past issue about my "historic" tuba collection by Luther College's Sean Greene, as well as a "historical political satire & tuba" article by myself entitled "There is no Joy in Mudville" in an earlier issue. The December issue currently plans to run my article:"Bigger is Better???"; an article on BATs and some of my observations on being "oversized" (I'm 6'8") as opposed to normal (or "undersized") stature. Of SPECIAL interest are the numerous posts and articles from [Maestro] Rodger Bobo, who's apparent talents extend beyond tubaplaying (and music altogether - he's even posted a piece of his FICTIONAL writing!) A p.s. just to keep this "on thread": I purchased a gold/silver shank Conn-Helleberg in about 1970 that "lost" the plate WAY faster than the ones I had that were produced earlier. At this point (and for some 5 or so years thereafter) the plating had a tendancy to "bubble up" (for lack of a better term) and come off more easily than earlier. I wrote them a letter declaring my longstanding faith in the superiority of their products, and they had me send it back for "replacement". I got my original mouthpiece back within a week no charge , with a HEAVY gold plate that has not worn off (even on the shank!)in 35 years, dispite heavy and (sometimes abusive) use. Shortly after this, ALL Conn-Hellebergs were "completly" (shank also) gold plated, though not quite as "thickly" plated as mine had been. I think they were trying to "make a point" with me. It shows also that you can "Catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Can you imagine trying to make that kind of appeal to TODAY's manufacturers?

[twoconnguy]

So now I'm curious just which one of the Hellebergs does the Kellyberg most resemble? Like 'em or hate 'em, all the Kellybergs should be the same, unless there is variation in how the molds were polished, or are wearing through use. I liked my Kellyberg more than the two toned Helleberg I have, but I recently changed to a Loud LM5, which seemed to help me with a lot of the intonation quirks on my BAT Conns.

[Rick Denney]

So now I'm curious just which one of the Hellebergs does the Kellyberg most resemble? Like 'em or hate 'em, all the Kellybergs should be the same, unless there is variation in how the molds were polished, or are wearing through use. I liked my Kellyberg more than the two toned Helleberg I have, but I recently changed to a Loud LM5, which seemed to help me with a lot of the intonation quirks on my BAT Conns.

My Kellyberg seems quite similar to my Conn standard model Helleberg.

Rick "who can't compared directly--the Kellyberg is in the briefcase at the office" Denney

[Haugan]

Right on, Rick. As you probably well know, there is still a great deal of potential difference from one to another even in any ONE period in time. This SEEMS to be mainly due to variants in the length of the venturi in the throat of the mouthpiece. This variable seems to be the greatest single factor along with miniscule ANGLE varients of the venturi (that can be observed by holding a mouthpiece toward a lightsource and gradually turning the mouthpiece while scrutinizing the venturi) in why nearly ANY given mouthpiece differs from other "like models". In the past, this was nearly impossible to control. Of the different brands, Bach mouthpieces appear to be particularly subject to this inconsistancy, but even "computer cut" mouthpieces are not ALWAYS exempt.

[iiipopes]

Try a Mike Finn MF-3H:
http://www.mikefinnmouthpieces.com/tubampc.html