Build quality Shires, Rath and Greenhoe

SwissTbone · by **SwissTbone** » 2018-11-18 9:33 a.m.

Looking for some comparison on build quality between Shires, Rath and Greenhoe (before Schilke).

Not speaking of playability, only build quality, what are your experiences with those makers? Of course, I expect really good quality from all of them, but a maker always has to make some compromises. Where are those compromises with those makers?

aasavickas · by **aasavickas** » 2018-11-18 9:59 a.m.

See my post on Shires. In my case, they have let build quality ship(horn was purchased about 5 years ago). and that was before they almost went bankrupt and were bought out and started selling horns assembled in Asia. So I suspect it has gotten worse since then.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2018-11-18 10:20 a.m.

With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.

SwissTbone · by **SwissTbone** » 2018-11-18 10:24 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.[/quote]

No, you select the parts you want to use, but you don't build the parts.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2018-11-18 10:41 a.m.

[quote="cozzagiorgi"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="71326" time="1542554408" user_id="3642">
With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.[/quote]

No, you select the parts you want to use, but you don't build the parts.
</QUOTE>

See his post on modding a Shires, sight unseen, before he even playtested it....

I thought it was a good joke. "My bell is on crooked! Shires build quality is terrible!"

SwissTbone · by **SwissTbone** » 2018-11-18 10:49 a.m.

Thats not what I am talking about.

blast · by **blast** » 2018-11-18 11:58 a.m.

I have never had any build issues with Raths. I have watched Mick build parts for me and no one is a better craftsman. Other people may have had issues as no factory is glitch proof and I can only speak for myself.

Chris.

Mv2541 · by **Mv2541** » 2018-11-18 12:04 p.m.

The only horn I have seen that has comparable build quality to the Raths is M&W. Their Bach-like tenor is out of this world.

SwissTbone · by **SwissTbone** » 2018-11-18 12:13 p.m.

Oh and there is m&w of course! How do they compare to the original greenhoes?

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2018-11-18 12:38 p.m.

New Greenhoes are built very well. Top of the heap for sure.

greenbean · by **greenbean** » 2018-11-18 12:43 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.[/quote]

What are you smoking?!.. :shock:

greenbean · 2018-11-18 12:46 p.m.

I have experience with Shires slides and bells only. Well-made, for sure.

Original Greenhoes - yup. Top-notch workmanship. (I haven't played a current Greenhoes, so I can't say anything about those.)

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2018-11-18 1:06 p.m.

:trumpet: :trumpet: [quote="greenbean"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="71326" time="1542554408" user_id="3642">
With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.[/quote]

What are you smoking?!.. :shock:
</QUOTE>

It was a joke. This is kinda one of those questions. The serious answer is always -- go there and buy the one that you approve of.

pfrancis · by **pfrancis** » 2018-11-18 1:51 p.m.

I own and play a Shires .547 (& have owned another; sold for unrelated reasons) and have never had any problems with workmanship.

As for Greenhoe trombones currently being produced:

Why should quality of build be diminished? Schilke produces some pretty meticulously made trumpets! Why would the new Greenhoe trombones be any different?

I understand wanting to delineate between new production and old production (Gary era vs Schilke.) I personally believe that anyone suggesting the build quality is lesser because a reputable maker is now producing Greenhoe is a little off the mark.

Bach5G · 2018-11-18 2:03 p.m.

Shires - I dunno. There was a screw on my bass that would work itself loose. There is acid bleed on the bell of one of my tenors. A slide had to go back to Shires for repairs due to manufacturing issues. Not perfect I guess.

How about Yamaha build quality? It’s usually held up as the gold standard among the large manufacturers.

greenbean · by **greenbean** » 2018-11-18 2:06 p.m.

[quote="pfrancis"]I own and play a Shires .547 (& have owned another; sold for unrelated reasons) and have never had any problems with workmanship.

As for Greenhoe trombones currently being produced:

Why should quality of build be diminished? Schilke produces some pretty meticulously made trumpets! Why would the new Greenhoe trombones be any different?

I understand wanting to delineate between new production and old production (Gary era vs Schilke.) I personally believe that anyone suggesting the build quality is lesser because a reputable maker is now producing Greenhoe is a little off the mark.[/quote]

I wasn't delineating new vs old. I was simply commenting on the ones that I have owned. I clarified my post above to reflect that.

pfrancis · by **pfrancis** » 2018-11-18 2:12 p.m.

My comment was not specifically aimed at you greenbean, more just in general.

Also, holding any manufacturer to “perfect” as a standard is not realistic, as blast already pointed out.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2018-11-18 3:07 p.m.

I took delivery of a Shires a couple years ago, and the bell had an odd deformity which couldn't be shipping damage. It was as if the wrong flare was put on the instrument. Never got an explanation, I just sent it back for a refund. It played well, but was oddly shaped. I've also seen what seems to be a lot of Shires with acid bleed at the bell rim that other makers seem to be able to avoid. Again, doesn't effect playability, it's just not something you expect from a top line horn. If I buy another new horn, I'm more likely to buy a Rath.

FeelMyRath · by **FeelMyRath** » 2018-11-18 4:33 p.m.

My R4F has been top notch - it is one of the earlier modular instruments that Mick made and I can't envisage me buying anything other than Rath if I ever replace her.

paulyg · by **paulyg** » 2018-11-20 2:37 a.m.

I own a new greenhoe, and it's built pretty flawlessly. Might have been bumped at some point, because until I disassembled it to clean it, the bell wasn't on right, and the tuning slide was a hair short of frozen. Put everything back together nice and tight, and it's as right as rain.

The only other thing is a slight fleck of chrome missing from one of the inners right up by the cork barrels. IMO not worth sending in to get replaced, especially since the slide is so good I don't want to have it disassembled.

The attention to detail is pretty amazing. The tubing is beveled in some places where it joins to the ferrules. The outer slide legs are PRECISELY the correct length and have been filed where they join to the ferrules just above the oversleeves. Also it has the best trigger/linkage you can get on a trombone.

aasavickas · by **aasavickas** » 2018-11-20 5:28 a.m.

I know that the Greeenhoes were kind of a legend by the few folks who could get their hands on one. Kinda has the same legendary reputation as good Mount Vernon stuff.

I've never played one or been around one. For the folks who played them, do you think the new Shilke ones are as good as the old ones?

They sure look pretty and you can see that there is an attention to detail, design and aesthetics. Which seem above other makers. Reminds me of how ugly computers were until Apple figured out that people like their tools to work and look good.

fwbassbone · by **fwbassbone** » 2018-11-20 8:44 p.m.

I've owned all three, Shires, Rath, and now a Greenhoe/Schilke. I can say that in my case the Greenhoe is the best made of the three.

ZacharyThornton · by **ZacharyThornton** » 2018-11-20 9:35 p.m.

The only brand I have ever seen come in that never had a defect... Rath. Now I have only seen one M&W come in a few times and the owner is trashing it.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2018-11-22 10:37 p.m.

One of the joys of being a manufacturer is having no control over how the client treats your product. And btw, that treatment has nothing to do with the original build quality.

deanmccarty · by **deanmccarty** » 2018-11-24 5:39 p.m.

I played Shires for many years... their build quality is high... ive been playing Rath tenors and basses for the past 6 years... the build quality is superb...

Honestly, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the three as far as build quality.

down8ve · by **down8ve** » 2018-11-27 7:58 a.m.

I used to play an early Rath made in the old shop, and compared to the ones made ~6 years ago I'd say his quality improved. That's pretty unusual.

The German-made horn I use now is unusually well-built, best I've ever owned. Makes me consider the quality of my own work.

SwissTbone · by **SwissTbone** » 2018-11-27 8:31 a.m.

[quote="down8ve"]I used to play an early Rath made in the old shop, and compared to the ones made ~6 years ago I'd say his quality improved. That's pretty unusual.

The German-made horn I use now is unusually well-built, best I've ever owned. Makes me consider the quality of my own work.[/quote]

Interesting. Would you mind telling us what brand that german trombone is?

down8ve · by **down8ve** » 2018-11-27 9:29 p.m.

A B&S Sarastro. It's a strange beast, you play it a bit differently than an Eddie/Bach/Shires deal. I also have a student with one. The only duets ever heard with these critters, I bet, they are rare. Ordered it via Schmitt Music's Trombone Pro Shop in the Twin Cities after two years of carefully comparing instruments (Keith Hilson is the manager).

The case is also a stunner, along with the tools, extra leadpipes and G crook. Why don't other manufacturers care about presentation? If it works for Apple....

When handled correctly they really change the timbre of the low brass. Listen to Mark Gaal in Vienna. Maybe it ain't everyone's cup of tea, but I grew tired of sounding like everything else.

SwissTbone · by **SwissTbone** » 2018-11-27 11:41 p.m.

They are not that rare here in europe. Cool horns!

DougHulme · by **DougHulme** » 2018-12-18 4:58 p.m.

Worth Remembering that the guys at M&W were the guys making The Greenhoes when Garry shut up shop and when you put your own name on a horn you have a thrice increased incentive to make it good. This can be said of Mick Rath too and formerly Steve Shires. They are all great horns though I have only picked up and looked at the new Greenhoes. The rest I have either owned or extensively play tested and at the end of the day they are all great horns well produced. You pick the one that feels the best on your face - you wont be dissapointed. Interesting to say that all of the men who put their names to or are behind the production of the horns are all perfect gentlemen and good company.

BillO · by **BillO** » 2018-12-18 6:15 p.m.

[quote="hyperbolica"]... I've also seen what seems to be a lot of Shires with acid bleed at the bell rim that other makers seem to be able to avoid. Again, doesn't effect playability, it's just not something you expect from a top line horn ...[/quote]

I have to agree with the acid bleed problem on Shires. I have seen more of their soldered bells with the problem than without. Although I have not seen every King made, I have never seen one with acid bleed. I also don't like that you can see the seems so easily on a Shires bell. I know it's a puny point, but if Jupiter XOs (the newer ones) can come with invisible seams, why can't an instrument that costs at least twice as much. Not that the Shires is badly made. Not in the least, but it's not any better put together than my 80's King 4B or my Jupiter XOs. I like my Shires a lot, but I'd say it's strongest points are not in it's build, but int he way it plays.

Oh, one other thing. I feel they use cheap linkages for the valves. Mine wore out prematurely (yes, I lubed it, but I got it used) and cost $40 to replace. What they sent me was the same no-name crap it came with. I use it to help stuff a drawer and went and bought myself a genuine Minibal which actually cost a whole lot less. To their credit, Ben G. said they were in the process of switching over to Minibal linkages. :idk:

whitbey · by **whitbey** » 2018-12-18 6:53 p.m.

I feel some of the more mass produced horns worry more about the finish then the assembly of a horn.

mrdeacon · by **mrdeacon** » 2018-12-18 7:47 p.m.

[quote="BillO"]I know it's a puny point, but if Jupiter XOs (the newer ones) can come with invisible seams, why can't an instrument that costs at least twice as much. Not that the Shires is badly made. Not in the least, but it's not any better put together than my 80's King 4B or my Jupiter XOs. I like my Shires a lot, but I'd say it's strongest points are not in it's build, but int he way it plays.[/quote]
You do know that seams are good things, right?

Means the bell was given a seam by hand. They cut the bell and basically stitch the seam and bell flare together. It adds some inconsistency to the build process, it's a good thing and almost every major pro horn manufacturer does it with their bells. Everything from Bach, vintage Conns to Rath has a visible seam.

Bells with invisible seams are plasma welded together if I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!). This makes the bells more consistent but they usually lose a little magic to them.

I could care less about ugly seams to be honest... for what every reason for me bells with visible seams always seem to play better than bells with invisible seams.

BillO · by **BillO** » 2018-12-18 9:09 p.m.

[quote="mrdeacon"]

You do know that seams are good things, right?[/quote]
Who, me? Naw - I just started playing trombone a week ago. Pfft - what do I know from seams? :twisted:

Means the bell was given a seam by hand. They cut the bell and basically stitch the seam and bell flare together. It adds some inconsistency to the build process, it's a good thing and almost every major pro horn manufacturer does it with their bells. Everything from Bach, vintage Conns to Rath has a visible seam.

Like I said, it was a puny point.

Yeah, most trombones I've seen have visible seams. Some play great, some just crap. But most of the ones I've seen with invisible seems (from outside ... more later) are better than average, like the pro Yamahas and the Jupiter XOs. In the end though, I don't think it's the technology used to fuse the seam, but the care taken in shaping the bell, tapering the metal and the 'quality' of the seam. Then there is the 1-piece/2-piece bell debate - which do you feel is better? (ret)

Bells with invisible seams are plasma welded together if I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!). This makes the bells more consistent but they usually lose a little magic to them.

I have no idea whether they are plasma welded or not. I don't think plasma welding is even possible with brass (temperature too high), but I could be wrong. I do know that if you look on the inside of one of my XO bells, you will see the same tabbed seaming that you see on the outside of other horns. I don't know what they do to hide it on the outside surface, I just think is a nice touch. It's nice to have nice touches when you are paying thousands of dollars for an instrument, but again, nice, not necessary. All that said, I don't think consistency needs to exclude character. Spend some time with a XO 1632RGL-LT and see if it doesn't have character.

I could care less about ugly seams to be honest... for what every reason for me bells with visible seams always seem to play better than bells with invisible seams.

As they say, your mileage may vary ... but in the end, build quality is a subjective thing, but it must be mentioned, I'd never make my buying decision rest on whether I could see seams or not unless everything else was equal.

PaulT · by **PaulT** » 2018-12-18 10:26 p.m.

mrdeacon · by **mrdeacon** » 2018-12-18 11:08 p.m.

I meant no offense! In my defense, you did mention a Jupiter instrument as a sign of quality :pant: (Just kidding!!) I know their quality is better now but for anyone who has had experience with old Jupiter horns, that statement is enough to trigger someone haha.

Like I said I could be wrong about plasma welding but it is 100% a different process. I will mention again though... that while that process is not as clean, it is not at all a sign of "build quality" just a different process to make a bell.

Schlitz · 2018-12-18 11:47 p.m.

DougHulme · by **DougHulme** » 2018-12-19 1:46 a.m.

Yes nothing wrong with present day Jupiter horns

BillO · by **BillO** » 2018-12-19 9:27 a.m.

[quote="mrdeacon"]I meant no offense![/quote]No offense taken. :good:

Bassbonechandler · by **Bassbonechandler** » 2018-12-23 9:52 p.m.

[quote="down8ve"]A B&S Sarastro. It's a strange beast, you play it a bit differently than an Eddie/Bach/Shires deal. I also have a student with one. The only duets ever heard with these critters, I bet, they are rare. Ordered it via Schmitt Music's Trombone Pro Shop in the Twin Cities after two years of carefully comparing instruments (Keith Hilson is the manager).

The case is also a stunner, along with the tools, extra leadpipes and G crook. Why don't other manufacturers care about presentation? If it works for Apple....

When handled correctly they really change the timbre of the low brass. Listen to Mark Gaal in Vienna. Maybe it ain't everyone's cup of tea, but I grew tired of sounding like everything else.[/quote]

How open are the valves on it?

Mikebmiller · by **Mikebmiller** » 2018-12-24 11:13 a.m.

I am going on 3 years with my Rath R3/4 and it has been great. Lacquer is still 100% and slide is smooth as a baby's butt. It is likely the last symphonic horn I will ever buy, unless of course, I change my mind.

Tooloud · by **Tooloud** » 2018-12-27 1:09 p.m.

[quote="mrdeacon"]I meant no offense! In my defense, you did mention a Jupiter instrument as a sign of quality :pant: (Just kidding!!) I know their quality is better now but for anyone who has had experience with old Jupiter horns, that statement is enough to trigger someone haha.[/quote]

Sorry, if I am rude: But obviously you don't know enough of the things you talk about so self assuredly: The XO-line is not even comparable to the ill-famed 740 models.

The build quality - and this the topic here -is , at least!, on par with Yamaha in any respect.

And that is a very high standard.

I never encountered a Bach that was free of flaws. Indeed, the one 50 I once owned was the worst dog of a trombone you can imagine. The Kanstuls an Edwards basses, maybe the ones that come to Europe, are, as far as I have found, are of inferior quality, and every single instrument had any imperfection. (I play with two in different ensembles, so I am aware of their flaws, my teacher has one, that can only be used with a screwdriver at hands, and I tested three in a large shop here in Germany. They are still for sale today....)

My current XO has no imperfection, as far als build is concerned. It's heavy like a baby elephant and that's annoying, but other than that: No complaints!

mrdeacon · by **mrdeacon** » 2018-12-27 1:23 p.m.

[quote="Tooloud"]<QUOTE author="mrdeacon" post_id="73296" time="1545192486" user_id="3239">
I meant no offense! In my defense, you did mention a Jupiter instrument as a sign of quality :pant: (Just kidding!!) I know their quality is better now but for anyone who has had experience with old Jupiter horns, that statement is enough to trigger someone haha.[/quote]

Sorry, if I am rude: But obviously you don't know enough of the things you talk about so self assuredly: The XO-line is not even comparable to the ill-famed 740 models.

The build quality - and this the topic here -is , at least!, on par with Yamaha in any respect.

And that is a very high standard.
</QUOTE>
I'm glad you've had good experience with your XO bass!

You should reread the exact post you quoted, I mentioned I was joking with my comment. I do agree their quality has come a long way!

I'll have to give the XO basses another chance one of these days after hearing you guys say such good things about them!

Tooloud · by **Tooloud** » 2018-12-27 2:16 p.m.

Sorry, if I misunderstood your intentions. In fact, I read your post thoroughly, but the smiley seemed to turn the meaning to the opposite.

In fact, we did not talk about the sound - the main aspect of our business. The XO is great, when it roars,but tends to sound a bit hollow, so to say, when played piano. Takes a bit more of conscious embouchure and breath control to keep core to the sound then.

So, back to topic! :hi:

ssking2b · by **ssking2b** » 2018-12-28 1:46 p.m.

With regard to the XO bass bone...I have played a Holton TR180 picked out for me by my teacher, the designer, Van Haney. I've had other basses over the years, but always came back to the Holton! I switched recently to an XO bass to compliment my XO tenor, and can say not only is the build excellent, but the horn is one of the finest I've ever played. I won't be going back to my Holtons. XO was conceived to be an upscale instrument line, not just a pro version of Jupiter. The XO horns are as well built as the best of anyone's horns!

down8ve · by **down8ve** » 2019-01-02 9:24 p.m.

[quote="Bassbonechandler"]<QUOTE author="down8ve" post_id="71932" time="1543372160" user_id="3383">
A B&S Sarastro. It's a strange beast, you play it a bit differently than an Eddie/Bach/Shires deal. I also have a student with one. The only duets ever heard with these critters, I bet, they are rare. Ordered it via Schmitt Music's Trombone Pro Shop in the Twin Cities after two years of carefully comparing instruments (Keith Hilson is the manager).

The case is also a stunner, along with the tools, extra leadpipes and G crook. Why don't other manufacturers care about presentation? If it works for Apple....

When handled correctly they really change the timbre of the low brass. Listen to Mark Gaal in Vienna. Maybe it ain't everyone's cup of tea, but I grew tired of sounding like everything else.[/quote]

How open are the valves on it?
</QUOTE>

Sorry , took a while off for Christmas. The valves are quite open, the company's own design. They are simple and very musical. Very large progressive bore through the bell section.

-Scott Moore

Bassbonechandler · by **Bassbonechandler** » 2019-01-02 10:07 p.m.

[quote="down8ve"]<QUOTE author="Bassbonechandler" post_id="73692" time="1545619959" user_id="3504">

How open are the valves on it?[/quote]

Sorry , took a while off for Christmas. The valves are quite open, the company's own design. They are simple and very musical. Very large progressive bore through the bell section.

-Scott Moore
</QUOTE>

Thanks for the info, no worry. I've become more interested in the b&s bass as I've looked more at it. Hoping I can try one at ITF.

pmgtrombone · by **pmgtrombone** » 2020-07-02 11:52 p.m.

I had a B&S bass for a while (which went to Scott's student) -- gorgeous horn, impeccable build. Different -- over the top in some ways. Most open valve section I've played - huge progressive bore. Solid, stable, thick sound.

I also have a Shires (with bell acid bleed issues), and have an original Greenhoe and an M&S on the way. Guess I have to get a Rath too ...

Amconk · by **Amconk** » 2020-07-03 3:23 p.m.

I play a shires mostly. I love their style and I love the sound I can make with it. The acid bleed on their bells bothers me though. I’ve heard it’s because they use such a thin coat of lacquer, but I gotta think there’s some way to tighten that part of construction up a bit.

My current bell is an SS1 solid sterling silver bell, and so far so good. No signs of any acids bleed.

Bach5G · by **Bach5G** » 2020-07-03 4:05 p.m.

“ Thanks for the info, no worry. I've become more interested in the b&s bass as I've looked more at it. Hoping I can try one at ITF.”

That seems so long ago.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2020-07-03 6:45 p.m.

[quote="Amconk"]I play a shires mostly. I love their style and I love the sound I can make with it. The acid bleed on their bells bothers me though. I’ve heard it’s because they use such a thin coat of lacquer, but I gotta think there’s some way to tighten that part of construction up a bit.

My current bell is an SS1 solid sterling silver bell, and so far so good. No signs of any acids bleed.[/quote]

Acid bleed results from the flux from soldering the bell rim leaching out under the lacquer and oxidizing the brass. It's long been a characteristic of Shires trombones. I have a bell from the era when you paid in advance and waited 2 years for your horn. It has acid bleed.

Note that acid bleed shows up fairly quickly, but it doesn't spread very much. The acid bleed on my bell hasn't changed in some 15 years.

It can be eliminated either by better cleaning of the flux residues after soldering (maybe using ultrasound or solvents) or possibly converting to a less active flux. This has to happen before the lacquer is applied, though.

modelerdc · by **modelerdc** » 2020-07-03 8:18 p.m.

I hardly think this question matters. All are considered top of the line, and most players will make their decision more on playing qualities than by comparing construction. This is different than a school band where instruments need to be robust and competitive in price.

Amconk · by **Amconk** » 2020-07-03 11:02 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]It can be eliminated either by better cleaning of the flux residues after soldering (maybe using ultrasound or solvents) or possibly converting to a less active flux. This has to happen before the lacquer is applied, though.[/quote]

Yeah, I figured there could be some extra step to take that would help clean up the flux residue. I know it probably has zero effect on the sound, but the little oxidized patches are just so ugly... I had a 2rvet7 bell that I loved that had zero acid bleed on the rim because it had an unsoldered rim, but it had a patch up by the tuning slide joint where flux had leached out and made an ugly spot. Just seems like you can’t win! I’ve had my current bell for almost a year and played on it fairly extensively so Im hoping by now if there was any flux trapped in the rim it would have worked out by now.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2020-07-03 11:14 p.m.

None of that stuff matters.

BillO · by **BillO** » 2021-01-04 10:10 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]None of that stuff matters.[/quote]That's one way to look at it, but...

They do lacquer it to make it look good, right? So, presumably there is some value in that. Would anyone buy a brand new Shires with acid flux stains? likely not. So it is a real real disappointment when your kilo-dollar custom looks like a rust bucket after 3 years. Fixing this from their end would cost next to nothing (after all, the cheapest $700 Jupiters and Yamahas <I><U>JUST .. DON'T .. DO .. THIS .. EVER</U></I>).

So it does piss me off a bit when my $7000 Shires kit looks like it has leprosy.

My point is ... there is not excuse except complacency.

I'll never buy another Shires, just because, well, they don't seem to care much about anything except sales. Maybe I don't know one end of the trombone from the other after 50 years of this, but for my money my XO brass 1236 actually plays better. Plus it has the added bonus of less cost and no leprosy.

My Shires has sit in it's case for more than 2 years now. Can't seem to sell it even at less than 1/2 what it cost new. Oh, and not only does it have leprosy of the bell, but the lacquer around the areas where my hands touch it disappeared in what seems like weeks. So it has leprosy there too. And pretty bad to boot. Probably why no one will buy the ugly POS.

My oldest XO horn, my 1240 bass, which is like 4 or 5 years old now does not have a mark on it, despite many dozen a mid-summer night gig sweating all over it, not to mention the daily practice.

So, none of that stuff matters, except it really does in the end because it just demonstrates the complete complacency of the company making them.

This is an opinion piece from a Shires with leprosy owner. YMMD.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-01-04 10:22 p.m.

Update:

The best built, most beautiful trombone I ever held in my hands and played was from M&W at ATW. It was meticulous. And, take your pick. I tried their alto and every tenor setup they had on a stand. Each would have been the most beautiful, solid feeling, ergonomically awesome, well-built trombone I've ever seen or played.

I couldn't get any of them to speak for me that day. They felt stuffy and not fun to play. The ATW room is a terrible place to playtest trombones, so it could of just been the spot in the room where we were. For comparison, during my playtest of the Edwards Oft model there were strangers coming up to me going "oh my God!" and "you're not thinking of buying that are you? I might". I went "Oh my God!" after playing it too.

I don't buy trombones to look at them. I don't really buy trombones. Otherwise I'd own that edwards oft model. I'll concede that if I was in the market for a used bone, I'd avoid one with bad acid bleed. That's got to do with if the bell is soldered or not, right? Not an excuse, because there are ways to prevent it, but unsoldered bells are less likely to get this, right?

Bach5G · by **Bach5G** » 2021-01-04 11:00 p.m.

Did S E Shires Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eastman Corp., lose anything when Steve Shires left the building?

mbtrombone · by **mbtrombone** » 2021-01-05 12:49 a.m.

[quote="BillO"]They do lacquer it to make it look good, right? So, presumably there is some value in that. Would anyone buy a brand new Shires with acid flux stains? likely not. So it is a real real disappointment when your kilo-dollar custom looks like a rust bucket after 3 years. Fixing this from their end would cost next to nothing (after all, the cheapest $700 Jupiters and Yamahas JUST .. DON'T .. DO .. THIS .. EVER).[/quote]

I actually bought both of my Shires horns with acid flux stains brand new from a store. They discounted the bells a little bit, but mainly they threw in some valve oil, slide lube, a free old Bach case to store the other bells I had, and some lead pipes I wanted.

I really don't care how my horns look and actually prefer the look of un-lacquered bronze the most (too bad my bronze bell isn't from Shires and un-lacquered bells seem to lack some projections for the way I play). I also have to say that the horns are 13 and 15 years old now. The tenor has acid bleed on the bell, and the places where I touch lost lacquer in just a few months, even though it was wiped down daily. It also has really bad pitting on the neck pipe.

The Bass has horrible acid bleed all the way around the entire bell rim, and has a really strange spotting of the acid bleed in 2-3 inch parts of the bell all over, but they are really tiny spots. The acid bleed in the rim got to it's worst stage in about 2 years. The spotting parts just happened in the last year or so. I also had the slide worked on by a very good tech twice to get the alignment perfect. The bass valve section also had two knuckles that were over buffed when the horn was polished before lacquering and they both blew our and ruptured on plane flights. I had the knuckles patched, and the horn sound great. As a tech once said though she isn't going to win any beauty pageants!

Nobbi · by **Nobbi** » 2021-01-05 2:16 a.m.

Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?

Elow · by **Elow** » 2021-01-05 2:38 a.m.

[quote="Nobbi"]Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

1000 million times better than a 3B. The MD+ is my favorite small bore. I don’t play any horn smaller than .547 enough to justify one but if i did i would buy one in a heart beat.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-01-05 2:57 a.m.

[quote="Nobbi"]Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

I tried one. It was good. Not really worth swapping my 3B out for.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-01-05 3:08 a.m.

[quote="Nobbi"]Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

Solid meh. Good horn but the 3B is 90 percent of one (or higher, if you find a banger) for like... 1/5th the cost.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2021-01-05 3:17 a.m.

[quote="Nobbi"]Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

I've played a couple and I didn't like them. Since we're talking about 3Bs, I'd pick a 3B over one even at the same price. MY 3Bs? No contest.

Point being...you'll get lots of different opinions here. Gotta find a way to play one yourself and see if you like it.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2021-01-05 11:58 a.m.

[quote="Elow"]<QUOTE author="Nobbi" post_id="136219" time="1609831017" user_id="10600">
Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

1000 million times better than a 3B. The MD+ is my favorite small bore. I don’t play any horn smaller than .547 enough to justify one but if i did i would buy one in a heart beat.
</QUOTE>

Many great players will disagree with you on this.

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2021-01-05 1:13 p.m.

[quote="Nobbi"]Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

I think the Michael Davis is a really, really good trombone.

I can also recommend the Shires tbsbsc, which I have myself. I have so much fun playing that one.

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2021-01-05 2:48 p.m.

By the way, MW was mentioned above in the thread for their build quality and beauty. For me they play equally well. Great instruments.

aboumaia · 2021-06-22 2:28 p.m.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2021-06-22 2:37 p.m.

[quote="aboumaia"]Does anyone know if the Shires Michael Davis (or Michael Davis+) have a thicker lacquer than the other Shires (TBSBSC for example) ? Or does it have a thin lacquer like the others ?[/quote]

I assume it's pretty thin. The ones I've seen have not been that old, and the lacquer wears quickly.

Rusty · 2021-06-23 11:52 p.m.

[quote="Nobbi"]Acid bleed or not .... I truly think about a Shires Michael Davis. Is it worth it? Did anyone ever pass or even play one?[/quote]

I can’t comment on the MD but I play the MD+ and came from 3Bs, and it’s just like the best 3B on steroids, seriously great at everything. Yes you can find a great 3B out there, but it could take a bit of searching. Much cheaper though! Also keep in mind although you can compare the two, its not a 3B and never will be. Maybe you would prefer a 3B?

Also keep in mind that for a mainly classical large bore or bass bone player it might not be worth it to them to spend extra on a Shires small bore, but for me, more of a lead/commercial player, even an extra 10% of refinement and eveness is a no-brainer.

You have to play one for yourself though. If I was looking for a cheaper option and without having to search for the perfect 3B, I’d go for the XO 1634 Fedchock horn.

Rusty · by **Rusty** » 2021-06-23 11:53 p.m.

[quote="aboumaia"]Does anyone know if the Shires Michael Davis (or Michael Davis+) have a thicker lacquer than the other Shires (TBSBSC for example) ? Or does it have a thin lacquer like the others ?[/quote]

Yep, thin lacquer, mine has quite a bit of wear at the contact points and across the horn.

aboumaia · by **aboumaia** » 2021-06-24 3:34 p.m.

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Build quality Shires, Rath and Greenhoe