Real story on the 1480
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
I get confused with all of the claims and counter claims and contradictions when it comes to the King 1480. I know that there was some overlap in the naming and that it changed at some point into the 5B, but reading back through all the various bits and pieces about the history of this model, it's hard to tell what's what. Bass, small bass, dual bore, undersize bore, big tenor, tenor with a 9" bell... Can we once and for all lay out a chronology of dates and specs and playing characteristics for this model? I'd kind of like to get a small bass, but I don't want to have to sort through a couple of different models and a legacy of specs and buy 5 different horns to get what I'm looking for. What years were the "small bass" 1480s produced? And is there a way to tell the real thing from an imposter at sight without measuring tuning slides and bell throats?
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
Always was a small bass, which today spec-wise looks like a large tenor. But they have much larger throats than any tenor (including the more modern 5B) and really do want to sound like a bass.
That said, they did go through a zillion different configurations and slide bores... I'm sure someone knows better than I.
That said, they did go through a zillion different configurations and slide bores... I'm sure someone knows better than I.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Here's what I know.
The 1927 King catalog lists the "King Bb Bass Trombone" as .508" with 8" bell, but the drawing looks to have a much larger throat and faster taper after the valve than a 3BF (just like a 1480), as well as the 1480's dogleg neckpipe. It looks entirely like a 1480 with a smaller bell diameter.
The 1932 King catalog lists the Symphony Model No. 1480 as a 9" bell, no bore listed. However, the equivalent model without a valve (Symphony Model 1410) directly above is listed as .508" with 9" bell, so one would assume that applies to the 1480 as well. Oddly, in this catalog it has a pancake wrap F attachment rather than the usual closed wrap.
The 1946 King catalog lists the Symphony Model as .546" with 9" bell. Looks as you'd expect.
The 1953 King catalog lists the Symphony Model 1480 as .536" with 9" bell.
The 1962 King catalog lists the "Symphony (Bass) Trombone" 1480 as .536" with 9" bell.
Those are the King catalogs I've found online - I'm sure someone here has more. Note that none say anything about a dual bore, though I wouldn't be surprised if the oft-claimed .536"-.546" dual bore did get made at some point. My 1961 is definitely single bore as you can flip the outer handslide and it still works. It seems that a single .536" bore was the most common.
Regardless of year, the Symphony 1480/1485 (and 1410/1460) was always a bass trombone. I've owned two, and they do not like tenor mouthpieces. My current one is very happy with my Warburton bass trombone mouthpiece, despite it being way larger than what the 1480 was probably designed for. Even my 3G-sized large tenor piece doesn't play nice with the 1480 at all. I think a modern bass might have a better time with a tenor piece!
Over the years I've read that the 1480 was briefly also called a 2B and 5B in addition to the model number 1480, but I don't know when. Either way, I think this brief 5B designation is where people get confused. The actual King 5B, designed by George McCracken in the 1970s along with the 4B, still had a large throat bell, but lost the 1480's very fast taper after the valve. The large bell throat is only half the reason the 1480 plays and sounds like a bass. What I find amusing about the "5B is a bass" thing is that nobody ever says the Benge 190F or Conn 88HK are bass trombones, and those use/used the exact same bell (though only made to 8.5" in the Benge's case). While the 1480 and 5B share lineage, the 5B is a tenor while the 1480 is a small bass.
How to tell it's a 1480? The big thing is the dogleg neckpipe. I don't know of any other King that had that. Another good way is the very chunky upper slide braces - there is just one big oversleeve covering the whole brace instead of the notched braces of a 3B, 4B, or 5B.
If you want a small bass and not an extra-large tenor, your best bets are either a 1480/1485 or one of those B&H .555"-bore horns. One of those has been on sale on Trombone Chat for $450 shipped for about a thousand years!
The 1927 King catalog lists the "King Bb Bass Trombone" as .508" with 8" bell, but the drawing looks to have a much larger throat and faster taper after the valve than a 3BF (just like a 1480), as well as the 1480's dogleg neckpipe. It looks entirely like a 1480 with a smaller bell diameter.
The 1932 King catalog lists the Symphony Model No. 1480 as a 9" bell, no bore listed. However, the equivalent model without a valve (Symphony Model 1410) directly above is listed as .508" with 9" bell, so one would assume that applies to the 1480 as well. Oddly, in this catalog it has a pancake wrap F attachment rather than the usual closed wrap.
The 1946 King catalog lists the Symphony Model as .546" with 9" bell. Looks as you'd expect.
The 1953 King catalog lists the Symphony Model 1480 as .536" with 9" bell.
The 1962 King catalog lists the "Symphony (Bass) Trombone" 1480 as .536" with 9" bell.
Those are the King catalogs I've found online - I'm sure someone here has more. Note that none say anything about a dual bore, though I wouldn't be surprised if the oft-claimed .536"-.546" dual bore did get made at some point. My 1961 is definitely single bore as you can flip the outer handslide and it still works. It seems that a single .536" bore was the most common.
Regardless of year, the Symphony 1480/1485 (and 1410/1460) was always a bass trombone. I've owned two, and they do not like tenor mouthpieces. My current one is very happy with my Warburton bass trombone mouthpiece, despite it being way larger than what the 1480 was probably designed for. Even my 3G-sized large tenor piece doesn't play nice with the 1480 at all. I think a modern bass might have a better time with a tenor piece!
Over the years I've read that the 1480 was briefly also called a 2B and 5B in addition to the model number 1480, but I don't know when. Either way, I think this brief 5B designation is where people get confused. The actual King 5B, designed by George McCracken in the 1970s along with the 4B, still had a large throat bell, but lost the 1480's very fast taper after the valve. The large bell throat is only half the reason the 1480 plays and sounds like a bass. What I find amusing about the "5B is a bass" thing is that nobody ever says the Benge 190F or Conn 88HK are bass trombones, and those use/used the exact same bell (though only made to 8.5" in the Benge's case). While the 1480 and 5B share lineage, the 5B is a tenor while the 1480 is a small bass.
How to tell it's a 1480? The big thing is the dogleg neckpipe. I don't know of any other King that had that. Another good way is the very chunky upper slide braces - there is just one big oversleeve covering the whole brace instead of the notched braces of a 3B, 4B, or 5B.
If you want a small bass and not an extra-large tenor, your best bets are either a 1480/1485 or one of those B&H .555"-bore horns. One of those has been on sale on Trombone Chat for $450 shipped for about a thousand years!
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
The easiest comparison is to the Bach 45, which is also a rare bird. The 1480 is also a better designed and playing instrument FWIW.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
I should point out that originally 2B meant dual bore and there was a 2B Liberty (comparable to a modern 2B 2102) and a 2B Symphony (the .536"/.547" dual slide). Eventually King decided to leave 2B as the model number for the Liberty, with 3B as the model number for the Concert, 4B as the model number for the Sonorous, and 5B as the model number for the Symphony.
The Symphony works well as a bass trombone in a Big Band section consisting of 3 small bores and the Symphony. I believe this is the setup Bart Varsalona used with Kenton in the 1950s. Modern Big Band music is written expecting a much larger instrument, preferably with 2 triggers.
The Symphony works well as a bass trombone in a Big Band section consisting of 3 small bores and the Symphony. I believe this is the setup Bart Varsalona used with Kenton in the 1950s. Modern Big Band music is written expecting a much larger instrument, preferably with 2 triggers.
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Finetales"]Here's what I know....[/quote]
Thanks, that's helpful.
I'm assuming that the smaller bore horns still have the qualities you associate with a bass?
The Holton tr181 also has a dogleg neckpipe.
I found that B&H thing. Looks like it's overseas somewhere. Maybe a little sketchy.
Thanks again.
Thanks, that's helpful.
I'm assuming that the smaller bore horns still have the qualities you associate with a bass?
The Holton tr181 also has a dogleg neckpipe.
I found that B&H thing. Looks like it's overseas somewhere. Maybe a little sketchy.
Thanks again.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="hyperbolica"]
I'm assuming that the smaller bore horns still have the qualities you associate with a bass?
[/quote]
...yes, as said already in this thread multiple times
I'm assuming that the smaller bore horns still have the qualities you associate with a bass?
[/quote]
...yes, as said already in this thread multiple times
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="hyperbolica"]I'm assuming that the smaller bore horns still have the qualities you associate with a bass?[/quote]
The .536"s, yes. I've never so much as seen a surviving example of the earlier .508" 1480s. I would absolutely love to try one...it's sort of a sleeper white whale for me.
Yes, but it has 2 valves and is a Holton. Not exactly something you could mistake for a 1480. I have thought about adding a 2nd valve to my 1480 though...hopefully it's possible while preserving most of the ultra-tapering dogleg.
There's one someone's trying to gauge value of on Facebook as well. 1480s don't show up for sale super often, but those B&Hs are pretty rare.
The .536"s, yes. I've never so much as seen a surviving example of the earlier .508" 1480s. I would absolutely love to try one...it's sort of a sleeper white whale for me.
The Holton tr181 also has a dogleg neckpipe.
Yes, but it has 2 valves and is a Holton. Not exactly something you could mistake for a 1480. I have thought about adding a 2nd valve to my 1480 though...hopefully it's possible while preserving most of the ultra-tapering dogleg.
I found that B&H thing. Looks like it's overseas somewhere. Maybe a little sketchy.
There's one someone's trying to gauge value of on Facebook as well. 1480s don't show up for sale super often, but those B&Hs are pretty rare.
- ithinknot
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Jul 24, 2020
[quote="Finetales"]My 1961 is definitely single bore as you can flip the outer handslide and it still works.[/quote]
That alone doesn't prove it, though, as King has form using inners of differing ID but with shared stocking ODs... that's how the 2B was designed.
That alone doesn't prove it, though, as King has form using inners of differing ID but with shared stocking ODs... that's how the 2B was designed.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
Interesting. I have an 88HK bell, which I understand to be identical to the 5B bell and am under the impression it doesn’t have all that large of a throat. I went to put a bass tuning slide receiver on it and my tech did some measuring and told me it probably won’t work because it’s so small. Granted, I was trying to mount it to a Shires so perhaps the shires tuning slides are just a lot larger?
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="Finetales" post_id="223854" time="1698701953" user_id="136">
My 1961 is definitely single bore as you can flip the outer handslide and it still works.[/quote]
That alone doesn't prove it, though, as King has form using inners of differing ID but with shared stocking ODs... that's how the 2B was designed.
</QUOTE>
Good point. I'll have to measure with calipers!
My 1961 is definitely single bore as you can flip the outer handslide and it still works.[/quote]
That alone doesn't prove it, though, as King has form using inners of differing ID but with shared stocking ODs... that's how the 2B was designed.
</QUOTE>
Good point. I'll have to measure with calipers!
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]Interesting. I have an 88HK bell, which I understand to be identical to the 5B bell and am under the impression it doesn’t have all that large of a throat. I went to put a bass tuning slide receiver on it and my tech did some measuring and told me it probably won’t work because it’s so small. Granted, I was trying to mount it to a Shires so perhaps the shires tuning slides are just a lot larger?[/quote]
That's because the throat isn't that big, just more in line with something like a Bach 42.
That's because the throat isn't that big, just more in line with something like a Bach 42.
- JohnL
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Measurements straight from my 1485 (1480 w/sterling bell) s/n 294xxx
Stocking OD, upper and lower: .579" (measured with dial caliper)
Stocking wall, upper: .022" (measured with ball micrometer)
Stocking wall, lower: .017" (measured with ball micrometer
That gives us an ID of .535" on the upper tube and .545" on the lower tube; close enough to the .536"/.546" of legend.
This instrument is not marked as a "2B".
As an FYI: the f-attachment bore (measured on the ID of the tuning slide) runs around .560"; it's a little grungy in there, but it's certainly larger than the .547" you'd find on a 4BF-based 5B.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to compare my 1485 with a mid-1970's 4BF-based 5B and took some pictures. I will have to try to find them, but I do remember that the neckpipe side of the tuning slide was significantly larger on the 1485 than on the 5B. They both end up the same size eventually, but the 1485 gets bigger sooner.
There were several variations of the 1480. I've seen one with no tenon nut or slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve "intverted" so that the stop arm and bumpers were toward the player (consistent with the illustration from the 1946 catalog on hnwhite.com). Mine has a tenon nut but no slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve is in the conventional orientation (i.e., the stop arm and bumpers face away from the player); this does not match any of the catalog illustrations on hnwhite.com. I've seen later ones with both slide lock and tenon nut, conventional valve orientation, and two tuning slides on the attachment (similar to the early 3BF's); this is consistent with the description in the 1963 catalog on hnwhite.com).
When King introduced the 4B and 4BF, they decided to hang the "5B" name on the 1480; I suppose they were trying to be consistent. That's why I try to always make it clear whether I'm referring to the 1480 (which was also called a 5B for a few years) or the later 4BF-based 5B.
Hey, if someone can tell me if the 4BF-based 5B ever had a model number other than "2105", I would appreciated it!
Stocking OD, upper and lower: .579" (measured with dial caliper)
Stocking wall, upper: .022" (measured with ball micrometer)
Stocking wall, lower: .017" (measured with ball micrometer
That gives us an ID of .535" on the upper tube and .545" on the lower tube; close enough to the .536"/.546" of legend.
This instrument is not marked as a "2B".
As an FYI: the f-attachment bore (measured on the ID of the tuning slide) runs around .560"; it's a little grungy in there, but it's certainly larger than the .547" you'd find on a 4BF-based 5B.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to compare my 1485 with a mid-1970's 4BF-based 5B and took some pictures. I will have to try to find them, but I do remember that the neckpipe side of the tuning slide was significantly larger on the 1485 than on the 5B. They both end up the same size eventually, but the 1485 gets bigger sooner.
There were several variations of the 1480. I've seen one with no tenon nut or slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve "intverted" so that the stop arm and bumpers were toward the player (consistent with the illustration from the 1946 catalog on hnwhite.com). Mine has a tenon nut but no slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve is in the conventional orientation (i.e., the stop arm and bumpers face away from the player); this does not match any of the catalog illustrations on hnwhite.com. I've seen later ones with both slide lock and tenon nut, conventional valve orientation, and two tuning slides on the attachment (similar to the early 3BF's); this is consistent with the description in the 1963 catalog on hnwhite.com).
When King introduced the 4B and 4BF, they decided to hang the "5B" name on the 1480; I suppose they were trying to be consistent. That's why I try to always make it clear whether I'm referring to the 1480 (which was also called a 5B for a few years) or the later 4BF-based 5B.
Hey, if someone can tell me if the 4BF-based 5B ever had a model number other than "2105", I would appreciated it!
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Interestingly, the 1932 catalog that lists the 1410/1460/1480/1485 family as .508" with 9" bell specifically says "Bore upper slide .508", so it's possible that even the earliest ones were also dual bore and just never explicitly advertised as such. Knowing now that the inner slide outer diameters are identical regardless of interior bore, the simplest explanation might be that (apart from the smaller very early ones) they are all dual bore .536"-.546" and King just usually only listed the upper slide bore.
- Mamaposaune
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Sep 22, 2018
This may help some, since my husband still owns his 1480 that he bought new in 1969 when he started high school, his first pro horn.
For years, he thought it was a straight .536 bore because that is what the catalogs listed them as at the time. It was marketed as a symphony tenor/bass.
Anyhow, thanks to an old discussion on the forum, I suggested to him it may be a dual-bore despite being able to flip the slide over; and this was confirmed by (gently) inserting a mouthpiece into the stockings of each inner - the lower one was clearly larger.
Here are the official measurements:
Upper inner: .536
Lower inner: .547 (could be .546)
Outer stocking thickness top, .025
Outer stocking thickness lower, .019
(This is why the slide can be flipped over and still fit.)
Other "funfacts" - the cases are a clue to the vintage. His, from 1969, has a chocolate-brown outer and green interior.
His cost $350., maybe a little less, brand-new.
For years, he thought it was a straight .536 bore because that is what the catalogs listed them as at the time. It was marketed as a symphony tenor/bass.
Anyhow, thanks to an old discussion on the forum, I suggested to him it may be a dual-bore despite being able to flip the slide over; and this was confirmed by (gently) inserting a mouthpiece into the stockings of each inner - the lower one was clearly larger.
Here are the official measurements:
Upper inner: .536
Lower inner: .547 (could be .546)
Outer stocking thickness top, .025
Outer stocking thickness lower, .019
(This is why the slide can be flipped over and still fit.)
Other "funfacts" - the cases are a clue to the vintage. His, from 1969, has a chocolate-brown outer and green interior.
His cost $350., maybe a little less, brand-new.
- stewbones43
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Oct 25, 2018
Sorry, I have no interest in King trombones, I think I must be allergic to them.
But I do have a couple of the B&H/Besson small basses with the 0.555in bore and the 9in bell, which are mentioned earlier. They are not common even here in the UK but they are nice instruments for certain scenarios. I use mine for playing the bass part in Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann et al when the other trombones are alto and tenor. It is also very good for accompanying in choral works, such as Haydn's "Creation"-The bass trombone solo in "Achieved is the Glorious Work" can be played without the fear of drowning the singers and the first phrase, from bars 1 to 11, can be played in one breath, I can't do that on my large bass-too old!!
If anyone is looking for one of these models, there is one for sale on John Packer's web site
<LINK_TEXT text="https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-o ... s-trombone">https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-owned-b-h-imperial-bb-f-bass-trombone</LINK_TEXT>
If it is of interest, make an offer.
Cheers
Stewbones43
But I do have a couple of the B&H/Besson small basses with the 0.555in bore and the 9in bell, which are mentioned earlier. They are not common even here in the UK but they are nice instruments for certain scenarios. I use mine for playing the bass part in Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann et al when the other trombones are alto and tenor. It is also very good for accompanying in choral works, such as Haydn's "Creation"-The bass trombone solo in "Achieved is the Glorious Work" can be played without the fear of drowning the singers and the first phrase, from bars 1 to 11, can be played in one breath, I can't do that on my large bass-too old!!
If anyone is looking for one of these models, there is one for sale on John Packer's web site
<LINK_TEXT text="https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-o ... s-trombone">https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-owned-b-h-imperial-bb-f-bass-trombone</LINK_TEXT>
If it is of interest, make an offer.
Cheers
Stewbones43
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="stewbones43"]Sorry, I have no interest in King trombones, I think I must be allergic to them.
But I do have a couple of the B&H/Besson small basses with the 0.555in bore and the 9in bell,
If anyone is looking for one of these models, there is one for sale on John Packer's web site
<LINK_TEXT text="https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-o ... s-trombone">https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-owned-b-h-imperial-bb-f-bass-trombone</LINK_TEXT>
[/quote]
Interestingly, the trigger mechanism, the way the valve is rigged, the nut on the slide side of the assembly all resembles the King arrangement.
But I do have a couple of the B&H/Besson small basses with the 0.555in bore and the 9in bell,
If anyone is looking for one of these models, there is one for sale on John Packer's web site
<LINK_TEXT text="https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-o ... s-trombone">https://johnpacker.co.uk/products/pre-owned-b-h-imperial-bb-f-bass-trombone</LINK_TEXT>
[/quote]
Interestingly, the trigger mechanism, the way the valve is rigged, the nut on the slide side of the assembly all resembles the King arrangement.
- sf105
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
I greatly regret missing not one but two bass 2B's a couple of years ago. Haven't seen one since.
- GarySloane
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Jul 08, 2024
I wish I still had the King Symphony that I sold over 20 years ago. It was manufactured in 1960 or 1961 and came in a King faux-alligator slim-line case. According to the discusion here, it would have been a 1485. I understood that this model was originally designed for the Cleveland Symphony and was used for a while in the Kenton bands: a small bass trombone at the time.
This one was in pristine condition, with one of the 9" sterling silver bells clearly engraved "2-B", which I thought meant it must have been engraved on swing shift Friday night but later learned in meant "dual-bore", which it was: .536/.547. It had a large shank receiver, slide lock and spring-loaded barrels. I had Dick Akright move the F-attachment tubing from the right side of the bell to the left to keep it from interering with my left ear. He also ported and polished the valve to open up the sound a bit in the trigger register.
I mostly used a 6 1/2AL on it, occasionally to play big band lead at outdoor gigs, where the sound would carry forever. Unfortunately, it was nose-heavy and always wanted to point down, no matter how many counter-weights I attached. Ultimately it became too much for my left wrist. Still, it was a beautiful horn.
<ATTACHMENT filename="Symphony3.JPG" index="0">[attachment=0]Symphony3.JPG</ATTACHMENT>
<ATTACHMENT filename="SymphonyBell.JPG" index="1">[attachment=1]SymphonyBell.JPG</ATTACHMENT>
This one was in pristine condition, with one of the 9" sterling silver bells clearly engraved "2-B", which I thought meant it must have been engraved on swing shift Friday night but later learned in meant "dual-bore", which it was: .536/.547. It had a large shank receiver, slide lock and spring-loaded barrels. I had Dick Akright move the F-attachment tubing from the right side of the bell to the left to keep it from interering with my left ear. He also ported and polished the valve to open up the sound a bit in the trigger register.
I mostly used a 6 1/2AL on it, occasionally to play big band lead at outdoor gigs, where the sound would carry forever. Unfortunately, it was nose-heavy and always wanted to point down, no matter how many counter-weights I attached. Ultimately it became too much for my left wrist. Still, it was a beautiful horn.
<ATTACHMENT filename="Symphony3.JPG" index="0">
<ATTACHMENT filename="SymphonyBell.JPG" index="1">
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
I briefly had a 1480(0.536" single bore with 9" bell) and a Bach 45(0.547" single bore with 9" bell)
In my opinion, they both fell into tweener territory, but 1480 leans a little more to tenor, while 45 leans a little more to bass.
Tenor mouthpiece was not a great match with a 1480, but larger tenor mouthpice definetely works. from maybe 3G to 1.5G I think it was a good match.
For a Bach 45, 3G still feels small, from 2G to 1.5G it felt great.
Totally arbituary scoring, I'll rate 1480 a 3/5 tenor and 2/5 bass, while 45 is a 2/5 tenor and 3/5 bass.
In my opinion, they both fell into tweener territory, but 1480 leans a little more to tenor, while 45 leans a little more to bass.
Tenor mouthpiece was not a great match with a 1480, but larger tenor mouthpice definetely works. from maybe 3G to 1.5G I think it was a good match.
For a Bach 45, 3G still feels small, from 2G to 1.5G it felt great.
Totally arbituary scoring, I'll rate 1480 a 3/5 tenor and 2/5 bass, while 45 is a 2/5 tenor and 3/5 bass.
- KingThings
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Feb 13, 2024
[quote="Doldom"]I briefly had a 1480(0.536" single bore with 9" bell) and a Bach 45(0.547" single bore with 9" bell)
In my opinion, they both fell into tweener territory, but 1480 leans a little more to tenor, while 45 leans a little more to bass.
Tenor mouthpiece was not a great match with a 1480, but larger tenor mouthpice definetely works. from maybe 3G to 1.5G I think it was a good match.
For a Bach 45, 3G still feels small, from 2G to 1.5G it felt great.
Totally arbituary scoring, I'll rate 1480 a 3/5 tenor and 2/5 bass, while 45 is a 2/5 tenor and 3/5 bass.[/quote]
I use my 1480 for 1st and 2nd chair in symphonies with the stock King 29 mouthpiece, which is about a 3F size I would say. I have lots of other mouthpieces I can use with it as well, but I agree that a bigger mouthpiece suits the instrument best. Your 1480 would have been a .536/.546 as they were all dual bore, with the outer diameter of the inner slide identical so you can flip the slide and it still fits. I modified mine to be both .546 on both just to open it up a bit. It works fine for me as a tenor horn and I like the mellow quality when playing quietly and it can honk when needed.
In my opinion, they both fell into tweener territory, but 1480 leans a little more to tenor, while 45 leans a little more to bass.
Tenor mouthpiece was not a great match with a 1480, but larger tenor mouthpice definetely works. from maybe 3G to 1.5G I think it was a good match.
For a Bach 45, 3G still feels small, from 2G to 1.5G it felt great.
Totally arbituary scoring, I'll rate 1480 a 3/5 tenor and 2/5 bass, while 45 is a 2/5 tenor and 3/5 bass.[/quote]
I use my 1480 for 1st and 2nd chair in symphonies with the stock King 29 mouthpiece, which is about a 3F size I would say. I have lots of other mouthpieces I can use with it as well, but I agree that a bigger mouthpiece suits the instrument best. Your 1480 would have been a .536/.546 as they were all dual bore, with the outer diameter of the inner slide identical so you can flip the slide and it still fits. I modified mine to be both .546 on both just to open it up a bit. It works fine for me as a tenor horn and I like the mellow quality when playing quietly and it can honk when needed.
- KingThings
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Feb 13, 2024
[quote="GarySloane"]I wish I still had the King Symphony that I sold over 20 years ago. It was manufactured in 1960 or 1961 and came in a King faux-alligator slim-line case. According to the discusion here, it would have been a 1485. I understood that this model was originally designed for the Cleveland Symphony and was used for a while in the Kenton bands: a small bass trombone at the time.
This one was in pristine condition, with one of the 9" sterling silver bells clearly engraved "2-B", which I thought meant it must have been engraved on swing shift Friday night but later learned in meant "dual-bore", which it was: .536/.547. It had a large shank receiver, slide lock and spring-loaded barrels. I had Dick Akright move the F-attachment tubing from the right side of the bell to the left to keep it from interering with my left ear. He also ported and polished the valve to open up the sound a bit in the trigger register.
I mostly used a 6 1/2AL on it, occasionally to play big band lead at outdoor gigs, where the sound would carry forever. Unfortunately, it was nose-heavy and always wanted to point down, no matter how many counter-weights I attached. Ultimately it became too much for my left wrist. Still, it was a beautiful horn.
Symphony3.JPG
SymphonyBell.JPG[/quote]
Yes, they are nose heavy but I put two large counter weights on mine so it is perfectly balanced (but mine is not a silver bell so its lighter). I have a 6 1/2 and a few other mouthpieces but I prefer the stock King 29. To me its a big tenor and that is what I use if for . George Szell had all three chairs use it with the Cleveland symphony in the '60s as you mentioned, and they sound great on the recordings. In Kenton's band it only played bass. It would be too small to use in the orchestras on bass now.....but I love it on tenor. That one you had looks great.
This one was in pristine condition, with one of the 9" sterling silver bells clearly engraved "2-B", which I thought meant it must have been engraved on swing shift Friday night but later learned in meant "dual-bore", which it was: .536/.547. It had a large shank receiver, slide lock and spring-loaded barrels. I had Dick Akright move the F-attachment tubing from the right side of the bell to the left to keep it from interering with my left ear. He also ported and polished the valve to open up the sound a bit in the trigger register.
I mostly used a 6 1/2AL on it, occasionally to play big band lead at outdoor gigs, where the sound would carry forever. Unfortunately, it was nose-heavy and always wanted to point down, no matter how many counter-weights I attached. Ultimately it became too much for my left wrist. Still, it was a beautiful horn.
Symphony3.JPG
SymphonyBell.JPG[/quote]
Yes, they are nose heavy but I put two large counter weights on mine so it is perfectly balanced (but mine is not a silver bell so its lighter). I have a 6 1/2 and a few other mouthpieces but I prefer the stock King 29. To me its a big tenor and that is what I use if for . George Szell had all three chairs use it with the Cleveland symphony in the '60s as you mentioned, and they sound great on the recordings. In Kenton's band it only played bass. It would be too small to use in the orchestras on bass now.....but I love it on tenor. That one you had looks great.
- rzeilinger
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Apr 04, 2022
I must be the odd man out.
My 1480 has a .546 single bore slide and .562 F-Tubes which makes it a dual bore.
Big throat bell taper 9" bell flare.. sounds like a bass with a shilke 59 in it.
Many of you speak of a dual bore hand slide, mine isn't
The bell says King made by HN White Cleveland Ohio
But only has a 4 digit serial on the top of the hand slide with the letter "M" above it.
I know this wasn't made in 1900 so...I can't date this trombone.
Any ideas out there?
My 1480 has a .546 single bore slide and .562 F-Tubes which makes it a dual bore.
Big throat bell taper 9" bell flare.. sounds like a bass with a shilke 59 in it.
Many of you speak of a dual bore hand slide, mine isn't
The bell says King made by HN White Cleveland Ohio
But only has a 4 digit serial on the top of the hand slide with the letter "M" above it.
I know this wasn't made in 1900 so...I can't date this trombone.
Any ideas out there?
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="rzeilinger"]I must be the odd man out.
My 1480 has a .546 single bore slide and .562 F-Tubes which makes it a dual bore.
Big throat bell taper 9" bell flare.. sounds like a bass with a shilke 59 in it.
Many of you speak of a dual bore hand slide, mine isn't
The bell says King made by HN White Cleveland Ohio
But only has a 4 digit serial on the top of the hand slide with the letter "M" above it.
I know this wasn't made in 1900 so...I can't date this trombone.
Any ideas out there?[/quote]
Newer 1480s had a single bore slide (0.547", 13.9 mm). Somewhere there should be a 6 digit number. On my 7B it was on the slide receiver (bell section) near the bell nut.
My 1480 has a .546 single bore slide and .562 F-Tubes which makes it a dual bore.
Big throat bell taper 9" bell flare.. sounds like a bass with a shilke 59 in it.
Many of you speak of a dual bore hand slide, mine isn't
The bell says King made by HN White Cleveland Ohio
But only has a 4 digit serial on the top of the hand slide with the letter "M" above it.
I know this wasn't made in 1900 so...I can't date this trombone.
Any ideas out there?[/quote]
Newer 1480s had a single bore slide (0.547", 13.9 mm). Somewhere there should be a 6 digit number. On my 7B it was on the slide receiver (bell section) near the bell nut.
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
HN White went up to 1965, so your bell is at least that old. The slide might be newer or might have seen some work. My 61 definitely has a 536/546 slide.
- chromebone
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Apr 08, 2018
[quote="JohnL"]Measurements straight from my 1485 (1480 w/sterling bell) s/n 294xxx
Stocking OD, upper and lower: .579" (measured with dial caliper)
Stocking wall, upper: .022" (measured with ball micrometer)
Stocking wall, lower: .017" (measured with ball micrometer
That gives us an ID of .535" on the upper tube and .545" on the lower tube; close enough to the .536"/.546" of legend.
This instrument is not marked as a "2B".
As an FYI: the f-attachment bore (measured on the ID of the tuning slide) runs around .560"; it's a little grungy in there, but it's certainly larger than the .547" you'd find on a 4BF-based 5B.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to compare my 1485 with a mid-1970's 4BF-based 5B and took some pictures. I will have to try to find them, but I do remember that the neckpipe side of the tuning slide was significantly larger on the 1485 than on the 5B. They both end up the same size eventually, but the 1485 gets bigger sooner.
There were several variations of the 1480. I've seen one with no tenon nut or slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve "intverted" so that the stop arm and bumpers were toward the player (consistent with the illustration from the 1946 catalog on hnwhite.com). Mine has a tenon nut but no slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve is in the conventional orientation (i.e., the stop arm and bumpers face away from the player); this does not match any of the catalog illustrations on hnwhite.com. I've seen later ones with both slide lock and tenon nut, conventional valve orientation, and two tuning slides on the attachment (similar to the early 3BF's); this is consistent with the description in the 1963 catalog on hnwhite.com).
When King introduced the 4B and 4BF, they decided to hang the "5B" name on the 1480; I suppose they were trying to be consistent. That's why I try to always make it clear whether I'm referring to the 1480 (which was also called a 5B for a few years) or the later 4BF-based 5B.
Hey, if someone can tell me if the 4BF-based 5B ever had a model number other than "2105", I would appreciated it![/quote]
The .547 through the f attachment was a George McCracken thing, his philosophy was to keep the bore consistent through the valve section, the DG and 7/8B are the same, he started at King in the mid 60’s, so it makes sense the earlier 1480 had a larger bore through the valve section.
Stocking OD, upper and lower: .579" (measured with dial caliper)
Stocking wall, upper: .022" (measured with ball micrometer)
Stocking wall, lower: .017" (measured with ball micrometer
That gives us an ID of .535" on the upper tube and .545" on the lower tube; close enough to the .536"/.546" of legend.
This instrument is not marked as a "2B".
As an FYI: the f-attachment bore (measured on the ID of the tuning slide) runs around .560"; it's a little grungy in there, but it's certainly larger than the .547" you'd find on a 4BF-based 5B.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to compare my 1485 with a mid-1970's 4BF-based 5B and took some pictures. I will have to try to find them, but I do remember that the neckpipe side of the tuning slide was significantly larger on the 1485 than on the 5B. They both end up the same size eventually, but the 1485 gets bigger sooner.
There were several variations of the 1480. I've seen one with no tenon nut or slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve "intverted" so that the stop arm and bumpers were toward the player (consistent with the illustration from the 1946 catalog on hnwhite.com). Mine has a tenon nut but no slide lock, a single tuning slide on the attachment, and the valve is in the conventional orientation (i.e., the stop arm and bumpers face away from the player); this does not match any of the catalog illustrations on hnwhite.com. I've seen later ones with both slide lock and tenon nut, conventional valve orientation, and two tuning slides on the attachment (similar to the early 3BF's); this is consistent with the description in the 1963 catalog on hnwhite.com).
When King introduced the 4B and 4BF, they decided to hang the "5B" name on the 1480; I suppose they were trying to be consistent. That's why I try to always make it clear whether I'm referring to the 1480 (which was also called a 5B for a few years) or the later 4BF-based 5B.
Hey, if someone can tell me if the 4BF-based 5B ever had a model number other than "2105", I would appreciated it![/quote]
The .547 through the f attachment was a George McCracken thing, his philosophy was to keep the bore consistent through the valve section, the DG and 7/8B are the same, he started at King in the mid 60’s, so it makes sense the earlier 1480 had a larger bore through the valve section.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
Interesting comparison: King 1485 with Bach 45 at the tuning slide
1485 is just a titch less in span
Exact same lower leg size (Bach 50!)
Very similar crook to the eyeball
1485 is just a titch less in span
Exact same lower leg size (Bach 50!)
Very similar crook to the eyeball
- elmsandr
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Huh. Might need to pick up a 1480/5 to use with my 45s….
Cheers,
Andy
Cheers,
Andy