Olds receivers
- Macbone1
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Oct 01, 2019
Does anyone know the background on why the mouthpiece receivers on Olds trombones were smaller than the other big brands?
What was the science behind it? How did F E Olds decide on that size? Did he do the same thing with trumpets, cornets and baritones?
It occurs to me that Olds could have sold thousands more units if their instruments would simply have fit a Bach mouthpiece correctly, for example.
My apologies if this topic has already been covered in this forum.
What was the science behind it? How did F E Olds decide on that size? Did he do the same thing with trumpets, cornets and baritones?
It occurs to me that Olds could have sold thousands more units if their instruments would simply have fit a Bach mouthpiece correctly, for example.
My apologies if this topic has already been covered in this forum.
- JohnL
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
As far as large shank, the Bach design didn't become the de facto standard until quite late. There's a whole lot of Remington-shank Conns out there, as well as Kings that have a wobble with anything other than a King 29.
Small shank? I think some of that may be inertia. Some of the really old (i.e., late 19th/early 20th century) mouthpieces in my collection have underside shanks, so it would seem that Olds just didn't seem to be interested in changing. I think it might have also had something to do with the basic Olds slide design and there not being enough room in a .485"/12.3 mm upper inner to fit a leadpipe with a modern size receiver without thinning out the wall thickness more than they were willing to accept.
Bach specs the shank diameter at .476"/12.1 mm at one inch (25.4 mm); on a .485"/12.3 mm ID tube, that leaves a nominal wall thickness of .0045"/.114 mm (it would actually need to be a bit thinner than that to allow for tolerances and fitting). Other companies got around this by expanding the receiver end of the tube or not having the tube extend all the way through the cork barrel, but Olds just kept going with their smaller receiver.
Olds also used a proprietary receiver on some of their cornets, and King used a proprietary receiver on some of their French horns.
I don't think it was such a big deal back then; most people just used the mouthpiece that came with the horn.
Small shank? I think some of that may be inertia. Some of the really old (i.e., late 19th/early 20th century) mouthpieces in my collection have underside shanks, so it would seem that Olds just didn't seem to be interested in changing. I think it might have also had something to do with the basic Olds slide design and there not being enough room in a .485"/12.3 mm upper inner to fit a leadpipe with a modern size receiver without thinning out the wall thickness more than they were willing to accept.
Bach specs the shank diameter at .476"/12.1 mm at one inch (25.4 mm); on a .485"/12.3 mm ID tube, that leaves a nominal wall thickness of .0045"/.114 mm (it would actually need to be a bit thinner than that to allow for tolerances and fitting). Other companies got around this by expanding the receiver end of the tube or not having the tube extend all the way through the cork barrel, but Olds just kept going with their smaller receiver.
Olds also used a proprietary receiver on some of their cornets, and King used a proprietary receiver on some of their French horns.
I don't think it was such a big deal back then; most people just used the mouthpiece that came with the horn.
- Macbone1
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Oct 01, 2019
[quote="JohnL"]I don't think it was such a big deal back then; most people just used the mouthpiece that came with the horn.[/quote]
Thank you for this thorough explanation, l appreciate it.
Hard to believe nowadays that anyone beyond the beginner stage would be using the mouthpiece that came with the horn.
Thank you for this thorough explanation, l appreciate it.
Hard to believe nowadays that anyone beyond the beginner stage would be using the mouthpiece that came with the horn.