I've been working things up for actual upcoming gigs (!) and discovered that a plain 11 fits me very well. There have been other mouthpieces that I've clicked with, but on this piece (with my unrefined chops) I'm able to attack without spitting, I'm able to actual include grace notes in my melodious etudes, I'm able to play quiet and lip slur, ... having a blast doing little style things that used to be relatively clunky for me.

I saw Posaunus threw a lot of great conversation topics in a recent thread, so why not include that here:

[quote="Posaunus"]Not that it's of world-shaking import, but I'd like some clarification about the Bach small-shank trombone mouthpieces and their history.

1. First, didn't the "Non-C" cups (e.g., 12, 11, 7, etc.) historically precede the "C" cups (12C, 11C, 7C, ...)?

2. Is it true that the C cups are a bit shallower than the non-C cups, giving a more "brilliant" sound and facilitating high range - but that the rims are (roughly - within Bach's rather wide tolerance range) identical to their non-C sibling? [So an 11C has the same rim I.D. and shape as an 11.]

3. I find it strange that about the only Bach mouthpieces discussed on this forum (probably representing what trombonists play) are the C version (12C, 11C, 7C). Why? [I tend to prefer 11 to 11C and 7 to 7C.]

4. I see these mouthpieces as being grouped by some into two "families" - I guess based somehow on cup (and rim?) shape:

• 12C / 7C

• 11C / 6½AL / 6¾C [I presume that the 6 (I've never seen one) and 6½A are also in the 11C family?]

5. I've recently tried a Bach 9 mouthpiece. It plays pretty nicely (though it's considerably bigger than Bach's Cup I.D. spec.). Which family does the Bach 9 occupy?

Thanks for any information you can provide.[/quote]

I now have two plain 11s, and in addition to the cup being deeper and more conical than my 11C, which just feels like a tight blow to me, the throat appears significantly bigger on both. I'm wondering if this is the aspect that is really resonating with me, the guy who barely thinks about airstream? The rims on my two samples are different: the 2000's one is larger/flatter than the Mt. Vernon. But they both play waaaay better on my .508 than anything else.

Yes, they are more mellow than the C. I can understand feeling buried in a brassy setting. But ... it's a different world now: I'm close mic'd and essentially 100% PA in the rock band this is all for, not something that was possible when the C took over the family. I really want this to work.

There's a 7 around here somewhere and maybe a 9. Probably worth finding them and taking another spin!

:good:

We had an 11 at my high school. Was my favorite mouthpiece back in the olden days. Seems too small now. I like 6 1/2 AL for .500 bore stuff. Might be the result of learning to play large bore instruments.

Bach originally had 5 cup depths: A (deepest), B, C, D, and E (shallowest). Bach chose to not label the B cup with a letter. So an 11 is really an 11B.

Conventional wisdom of the day was the B cup was for Euphonium/Baritone Horn and the C cup was for trombone. B cup could also be more for the Symphonic sound.

Note that AL is not a variant of the A cup -- it's one of the first "Artist Models".

Yep. I had trouble finding a mouthpiece that worked on my .508 trombone when I switched from large to small bore horns. I tried a 7C, 12C, and others with no luck. Doug Elliott suggested trying a Bach 5, and it worked great. I now play on one of his custom combos similar in characteristics.

I have a whole collection of no letter Bachs. I do like them, but the throats are a little small for the size of the rest of the mouthpiece. I eventually gave up on them because of this.

[quote="BGuttman"]Bach originally had 5 cup depths: A (deepest), B, C, D, and E (shallowest). Bach chose to not label the B cup with a letter. So an 11 is really an 11B.

Conventional wisdom of the day was the B cup was for Euphonium/Baritone Horn and the C cup was for trombone. B cup could also be more for the Symphonic sound.

Note that AL is not a variant of the A cup -- it's one of the first "Artist Models".[/quote]

And the "L" specifies the reamer used for the backbone, resulting in the large shank version having a tighter backbone than the large shank 6.5A and the small shank 6.5AL having a larger backbone than the small shank 6.5A. Obviously( :???: )

Only time will tell if my current fun on the 11 is just the next step on the lifelong journey back to 6 1/2.

:cool:

[quote="mwpfoot"]Only time will tell if my current fun on the 11 is just the next step on the lifelong journey back to 6 1/2.

:cool:[/quote]

Any updates on how the 11 is fairing out in the wild? I have an older 11 that feels great in the practice room, but hard work on gigs, even when micd.

Opening up the throat on an 11C the way Watrous, Fontana, and Fedchock had done will take away all the stuffiness. I play the 11C with the altered throat, and it it's the best piece I own. It's done with a particular sized drill bit.

[quote="ssking2b"]Opening up the throat on an 11C the way Watrous, Fontana, and Fedchock had done will take away all the stuffiness. I play the 11C with the altered throat, and it it's the best piece I own. It's done with a particular sized drill bit.[/quote]

I might do this. What's the particular size bit, and where do you get that done?

Is anybody familiar with a Bach 12SC? I’ve never been able to find out any meaningful info on it, but I do know it worked good for Dad and then for me in several baritones, and I really like it in my tenor trombone. Euph…forget it!

Oh yeah, here’s some pics of the 12SC

<ATTACHMENT filename="58D1D5E4-FCBA-409D-BB11-4C02C67DE8FC.jpeg" index="0">[attachment=0]58D1D5E4-FCBA-409D-BB11-4C02C67DE8FC.jpeg</ATTACHMENT><ATTACHMENT filename="83C33E94-5FFD-49CE-9A2E-D4CDF0D034DE.jpeg" index="1">[attachment=1]83C33E94-5FFD-49CE-9A2E-D4CDF0D034DE.jpeg</ATTACHMENT><ATTACHMENT filename="032A34E8-2C04-4789-977B-2B1E615E225F.jpeg" index="2">[attachment=2]032A34E8-2C04-4789-977B-2B1E615E225F.jpeg</ATTACHMENT>