I'm a curious kind of guy. So sue me. Curiosity led me to the perfect small bore (Getzen 3508), the perfect large bore (Conn 88h). It has also led me down a bumpy back road looking for a bass bone that doesn't make me want to jump off a bridge. Medium bore has been a different experience - full of sunshine and butterflies. Anything medium bore has just been a joy to get to know. A favorite would be hard to pick (but the average best would probably be the Benge 175).

I just bought a King 607 (thanks @officermayo). And I've bought a couple of 3b+Fs in the last year. There has been a lot of talk on here recently about the 607 in particular. Direct comparisons have been vague. I really don't do vague. So here's the deal.

607 and 3b+F are both nice bones, certainly both worth owning and playing. They look similar with the same bore and bell size. They have interchangeable main slide, and tuning slides. Valve wrap looks identical. But they don't play anywhere near the same.

The 607 took a DE G4 sized mouthpiece without a worry. It could also play through the F and E on down to the D+4, but it started to get a little bright at that point. The G is what I put in the 88h w/525 when I want to play orchestra. The DE G didn't mind the high F and positively rocked on the low C.

The 3b+F isn't as crazy about the G, but loves the D+. It doesn't really like the E either. It can scream the high F, but goes pretty buzz saw on the low C.

The 607 is a student instrument, and as such is built a little heavier (ok, a lot heavier). It sounds nice, plays nice. On top of this, it comes with a counterweight. Its not a starter instrument due to the valve and the weight. It's probably best for a high schooler who has some muscle mass and hand strength.

3b+F is a pro instrument, and a little lighter. It feels more responsive and like it might be capable of more subtlety. In comparison it does feel a little unstable, although I wouldn't have said that before playing the 607. No counterweight. Mine had orange lacquer until yesterday. By the way, the sound difference between ugly orange lacquer and unlacquered is minimal.

The visible differences: gold brass bell and curved main bell brace on 3b+F, counterweight on 607. The cork barrels are slightly different in shape. 3b+F = 3lb 6 oz, 607 = 4lb 2oz. Big enough difference to feel. For reference the 88h is 3lb 12oz (all weights without mouthpiece). Also, the 607 was about 2/3 the price of the 3b+F (all of them used when I got them) and it was in really nice silver plated condition. The 3b+F had orange lacquer, and spotty condition.

607 sounds not quite as dark as a 36b, and has a very consistent sound/feel all the way up and down. 3b+F sounds not quite as bright as a 3b, and is maybe not quite as even as the 607. It might feel a little unstable in comparison, like you might have to learn how to play this specific instrument to get a really even scale out of it (I can say after a recent quintet gig that the 3b+F plays in tune very nicely). The 607 has a definite advantage in the low range, however. I would not be afraid to take the 607 on any classical gig, 1st, 2nd or 3rd parts, orchestra or concert band. 3b+F would be limited to 1st + 2nd in big band, maybe church gigs where you need to blend with trumpets, and maybe in a situation where you need a bright bone in quintet.

The weak spots for these horns are that the 607 is heavy. The weakness of the 3b+F I would have to say is the partial where I play my high G and Ab. And you have to be careful that you don't get too laser bright in the upper range and volume. It's just a little squirrelly. And it can be hard to find.

Tldr: 607 almost a 36b. 3b+F much cozier than a 3b for large bore guys.

l to r: 3b+F, 607, 88h w/525

<ATTACHMENT filename="IMG_20250908_212619953.jpg" index="0">[attachment=0]IMG_20250908_212619953.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

I had similar findings. My 607s were big and loud, great low range. My 3B+F was brighter than my normal 3B/F but took more effort to play... Odd instrument.

I think it's just the counterweight and maybe the silver plating that's making your 607 feel heavier...my 3BF and 607 feel the same in the hand. The important parts were all made on the same mandrels, they just put a different stamp on the bell at the end. A good, early 607 is just a 3BF with a bit more room and an even beefier sound.

I think the 3B+Fs are the way they are because of the "gold" (really rose, as is tradition) bell. It would be interesting to compare a 3B+F to a 3BG (did they ever make 3BFs with gold bells?). I would wager that they would be more similar than the 3B+F is to a 3BF or 607.

Has anyone pulled a 3B+F pipe to see how it compares to a 3BF or early 607 pipe? That could be another source of the differences.

I don't recall - did King ever make a Silver Sonic 3B+F?

[quote="JohnL"]I don't recall - did King ever make a Silver Sonic 3B+F?[/quote]

Yes. I tried out an Anniversary Edition one. I was underwhelmed and didn't buy it.

The bells were probably made of thicker material, which could have easily been done on the same mandrel. I weighed the bell sections without the tunung slide, and the 3b+F was 2lb 1oz, the 607 was 2lb 4oz. The slides were also different 3b+F 1lb 2oz vs 607 1lb 4oz. The cork barrels are different shapes, and the 3b+F outers are nickel silver (so probably lightweight). It's not just the difference of the counterweight. I'd remove the cw except that King put the screws behind those foil decals which are tough to remove without destroying. The thickness of the bell and a heavier slide would be enough to account for the sound difference.

Mayo said the 607 is from 1980. I don't know what that says about the leadpipe according to 607 lore, but I wouldn't be inclined to fiddle with the pipe in the horn I have. It plays nicely. Not sure what you could hope to improve.

607 wouldn't have had an SS version as a student horn. The bell is just marked 607, no ss or even sp.

They may have started making them heavier later as time went on. Mine is from 1967, so a good bit older - actually older than my loopy 3B and 3BF, funnily enough. I have another 607 in worse shape whose serial number is obscured, and does feel heavier. So it could just be that over time they made it heavier to better withstand school abuse, but I don't think very early ones like mine were made heavier. It really couldn't feel or sound any closer to my 1970 3BF, including weight. I would weigh them, but they are both a pile of parts at the shop now.

As for the pipe, I believe the leadpipe changed to the bad one when they changed the model designations from 607/609 to 607F/608F. If I recall from the sale listing, yours is a 607 (not F), so you should have the good pipe.

My 607s and 608 were all noticeably heavier. They also had larger valves than my 3BFs.

I have a later model 607F but mine didn't have a counterweight. I had the leadpipe replaced and like it much better. Thanks for the comparison.

I just updated my TC profile. It appears I have a problem. I have as many Kings as Conns now, so I can n o longer call myself a Conn man. Never saw this coming.

Anyway, so it sounds like we have 3 periods for 607s. The first includes 1967 and featured light horns. The second includes 1980 with heavy horns, and the third is somewhat later when they were renamed 607f with bad leadpipes.

[quote="hyperbolica"]I just updated my TC profile. It appears I have a problem. I have as many Kings as Conns now, so I can n o longer call myself a Conn man. Never saw this coming.
[/quote]

You could always buy another Conn… :D

[quote="hyperbolica"]Anyway, so it sounds like we have 3 periods for 607s. The first includes 1967 and featured light horns. The second includes 1980 with heavy horns, and the third is somewhat later when they were renamed 607f with bad leadpipes.[/quote]

I could also just have a heavy 3BF...you never know!

[quote="hyperbolica"]I just updated my TC profile. It appears I have a problem. I have as many Kings as Conns now, so I can n o longer call myself a Conn man. Never saw this coming…[/quote]

You could be the King of Conn men… ;)

[quote="walldaja"]I have a later model 607F but mine didn't have a counterweight. I had the leadpipe replaced and like it much better. Thanks for the comparison.[/quote]

I added the counterweight to balance out the nose heavy bell. It worked well for me for the two years I played it.

[quote="officermayo"]

I added the counterweight to balance out the nose heavy bell. It worked well for me for the two years I played it.[/quote]

I assumed it was stock. I can see it being nose heavy without it, but it's really heavy overall. I probably won't take it off.

[quote="Reedman1"]

You could be the King of Conn men… ;)[/quote]

Ok, you got me there.

[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="officermayo" post_id="285176" time="1757468373" user_id="12380">

I added the counterweight to balance out the nose heavy bell. It worked well for me for the two years I played it.[/quote]

I assumed it was stock. I can see it being nose heavy without it, but it's really heavy overall. I probably won't take it off.
</QUOTE>

Due to my arthritic left hand, I add counterweights to most of my Bones. It really helps my grip.

:D I can relate to ergo needs, but that 3b looks a little excessive. :D At some point isn't it just too heavy? I get it, balance is important, but so is overall weight. I've never used a cw on an f attachment horn, EXCEPT my King 1480, which is super front heavy (huh, another King) . I added a cw to my Olds Recording, even though it is a heavy instrument, it also needs balance.

I have several disabilities thar affect my playing. Balance is more important to me than weight.

[quote="officermayo"]I have several disabilities thar affect my playing. Balance is more important to me than weight.[/quote]

I did eventually take off the counterweight, and now I do see that it is slightly front heavy. I have an injury that makes me sensitive to weight. I can avoid the front heaviness, but avoiding the overall weight is less easy.

The more I play it, the more this is a fantastic horn. Somewhere between a 4b and a 42b. It plays much larger than you would think. Not like the 3b+F that plays a bit smaller than you might think.

Reading this thread..if you really are looking for a bass bone search for a Yamaha 613H. Possibly one of the best tenor/ bass doubler horns ever made. I do have a very highly modified king 606 with a satin annealed bell with a copper tone ring and modified Bach style wider slide!! If you are set on having 1 valve, I would suggest looking towards an older Roth/ Reynolds pre 1962 era horns in a 520 bore(absolutely not .515 later bore!!). Salsabone

[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="officermayo" post_id="285214" time="1757526575" user_id="12380">
I have several disabilities thar affect my playing. Balance is more important to me than weight.[/quote]

I did eventually take off the counterweight, and now I do see that it is slightly front heavy. I have an injury that makes me sensitive to weight. I can avoid the front heaviness, but avoiding the overall weight is less easy.

The more I play it, the more this is a fantastic horn. Somewhere between a 4b and a 42b. It plays much larger than you would think. Not like the 3b+F that plays a bit smaller than you might think.
</QUOTE>

So glad to hear you're happy with the horn. I enjoyed playing it.