It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen makers offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size! When I have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than about .015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like when reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how to open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state. 

Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table material) than cutting from the tip.

Thanks for your advice,

Matt

On metal mouthpieces is easy and require some pliers. I will leave to
someone with more eloquent English to explain the process.
Greetings,


On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Matt <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:

>
>
> It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece even more
> than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and making it a .125" or
> something. On the extreme end, I've seen makers offering their hand-made
> mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size! When I have opened mpcs in the past,
> it's usually not by more than about .015"-.020" at the most... And then it
> seems like you'd only have a little more material to work with at the tip
> before you run out! I am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the
> outside (like when reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the
> front of the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how to
> open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state.
>
> Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten it? Seems
> like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain flat as you do
> that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before and have read some of
> the threads about that, but it sounds like that opens mpcs much more slowly
> (and at the cost of table material) than cutting from the tip.
>
> Thanks for your advice,
>
> Matt
>
>  
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece even more than .030", 

It is not the ability of the refacer that determines how much a mouthpiece can be opened, but rather the thickness the tip of the mouthpiece.  If the tip is .025", obviously you can't open it.030", nor can you open it .020", as .005" is razor thin and the tip will break.

Paul C.

I stupidly opened up one of my Super Duck mouthpieces to . 
160.......just to see how far I could take it.....you could almost  
shave with the tip!


On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:25 AM, tenorman1952 wrote:

>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> > It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece  
> even more than .030",
>
> It is not the ability of the refacer that determines how much a  
> mouthpiece can be opened, but rather the thickness the tip of the  
> mouthpiece. If the tip is .025", obviously you can't open it.030",  
> nor can you open it .020", as .005" is razor thin and the tip will  
> break.
>
> Paul C.
>
> 

I generally do not bend the tip open unless it has been damaged from a drop.  I 
probably should consider doing it since dealing with a sharp tip is difficult 
too.  The problem with bending a tip open is that it often cracks the bite plate 
or "hinges" across the bottom of the bite plate where the metal is thinner.  If 
you are going to cast a new bite plate anyhow, then bending is probably a good 
thing to try to rough in the wide tip opening.  I think Nylon jawed pliers would 
be the tool of choice.  Some use a metal or wood rod stuck into the shank and 
press the tip on a flat surface.  There are many stories about how Frank Wells 
of Chicago used a ball-peen hammer across the bit plate of old close tipped 
Links to get them roughed opened.  I think this causes too much trauma to the 
mouthpiece... and the client.

As you mentioned, butt cutting can be used.  But you need to take .030"-.040" 
off the heel of the table to gain .010" at the tip.    


With extreme tip cutting, the tip will get too shape.  Then you need to trim it 
back; shortening the mouthpiece length.  This shortens the facing length too.  
With some mouthpiece tip geometries, you can get into a cycle of tip cutting 
and length trimming without making much progress on opening the tip.

If the inner side walls are concave, opening the tip a lot can make the window 
get too wide for a standard reed to reach from side rail to side rail.  Another 
good reason to try bending the tip open on vintage Links if they are way too 
small to be played.

If you are success full, you probably will have removed so much material that 
you have to reshape the outside to make the reed table and sidewalls closer to 
the width of a standard reed.  You may need to find a smaller ligature to use 
due to how much mouthpiece material has been removed.  

  




________________________________
From: Matt <mattmarantz86@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 11:21:03 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] How do you open a mpc more than .030" or so?

  
It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece even more than 
.030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and making it a .125" or something. 
On the extreme end, I've seen makers offering their hand-made mpcs can be 
ordered in a .160 size! When I have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by 
more than about .015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only 
have a little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I am 
aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like when reed-shaping 
the tip) which adds a little material to the front of the beak, and have done 
that before, but I am clueless about how to open mpcs to much greater 
proportions than their original state. 


Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten it? Seems like 
it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain flat as you do that, I've 
heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before and have read some of the threads 
about that, but it sounds like that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost 
of table material) than cutting from the tip.

Thanks for your advice,

Matt





      

With brass (or softer metals) you can show it the hammer.  With HR you can change the table angle.  A little trig will determine the angle change needed then put it on the mill at that angle.  Biggest PITA about it is narrowing the table back to reed size. Any way you do it there is only so far you can go, but these will get you more room than just sanding open the tip.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen makers offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size! When I have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than about .015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like when reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how to open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state. 
> 
> Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table material) than cutting from the tip.
> 
> Thanks for your advice,
> 
> Matt
>

I would really like to see some video of this "opening with pliers/ 
hammer" technique.......I must admit I am rather skeptical



On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Morgan wrote:

> With brass (or softer metals) you can show it the hammer. With HR  
> you can change the table angle. A little trig will determine the  
> angle change needed then put it on the mill at that angle. Biggest  
> PITA about it is narrowing the table back to reed size. Any way you  
> do it there is only so far you can go, but these will get you more  
> room than just sanding open the tip.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> > It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece  
> even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and  
> making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen makers  
> offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size! When I  
> have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than about . 
> 015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a  
> little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I  
> am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like when  
> reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of  
> the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how to  
> open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state.
> >
> > Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten  
> it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain  
> flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before  
> and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like  
> that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table material)  
> than cutting from the tip.
> >
> > Thanks for your advice,
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
>
> 

It's really not any more complicated than it sounds like.  Put it in the bench vice, give it a whack (I put a bit of drill rod against the baffle and hit that, rather than the facing), measure, repeat. It's only really scary the first time.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I would really like to see some video of this "opening with pliers/ 
> hammer" technique.......I must admit I am rather skeptical
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Morgan wrote:
> 
> > With brass (or softer metals) you can show it the hammer. With HR  
> > you can change the table angle. A little trig will determine the  
> > angle change needed then put it on the mill at that angle. Biggest  
> > PITA about it is narrowing the table back to reed size. Any way you  
> > do it there is only so far you can go, but these will get you more  
> > room than just sanding open the tip.
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@>  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece  
> > even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and  
> > making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen makers  
> > offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size! When I  
> > have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than about . 
> > 015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a  
> > little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I  
> > am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like when  
> > reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of  
> > the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how to  
> > open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state.
> > >
> > > Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten  
> > it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain  
> > flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before  
> > and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like  
> > that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table material)  
> > than cutting from the tip.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advice,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks for all great info everybody. Interesting stuff for sure. Mojo, that's a great point about watching out for the concave sidewalls, like those that are in Links, it would be a drag to open something up a lot and then realize there isn't enough inner rail width left to work with. I'll watch out for that. 
MFry, yes it's some work for sure reshaping the outside of the mpc. To me it's kind of fun in the end, but definitely takes some time with just hand files and sandpaper. That idea about putting the mpc on a mill sounds cool. May try that if I find out that a friend has a mill sometime. 
I've used pliers to fix a bent tip on a metal mpc before, but never tried to bend the tip more open with them. That sounds interesting, and it sounds like there's a lot to watch out for too. I guess one option on a metal piece would be to remove the bite plate, and then re-cast it later to avoid the hinging on the bite plate... My try that someday just for the learning experience on a junk piece. 
Well cool, sounds like there's a few options other than just tip cutting. 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I would really like to see some video of this "opening with pliers/ 
> hammer" technique.......I must admit I am rather skeptical
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Morgan wrote:
> 
> > With brass (or softer metals) you can show it the hammer. With HR  
> > you can change the table angle. A little trig will determine the  
> > angle change needed then put it on the mill at that angle. Biggest  
> > PITA about it is narrowing the table back to reed size. Any way you  
> > do it there is only so far you can go, but these will get you more  
> > room than just sanding open the tip.
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@>  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece  
> > even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and  
> > making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen makers  
> > offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size! When I  
> > have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than about . 
> > 015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a  
> > little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I  
> > am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like when  
> > reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of  
> > the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how to  
> > open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state.
> > >
> > > Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten  
> > it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain  
> > flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut" before  
> > and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like  
> > that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table material)  
> > than cutting from the tip.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advice,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

seeing is believing......



On Jan 29, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Morgan wrote:

> It's really not any more complicated than it sounds like. Put it in  
> the bench vice, give it a whack (I put a bit of drill rod against  
> the baffle and hit that, rather than the facing), measure, repeat.  
> It's only really scary the first time.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON  
> <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> >
> > I would really like to see some video of this "opening with pliers/
> > hammer" technique.......I must admit I am rather skeptical
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Morgan wrote:
> >
> > > With brass (or softer metals) you can show it the hammer. With HR
> > > you can change the table angle. A little trig will determine the
> > > angle change needed then put it on the mill at that angle. Biggest
> > > PITA about it is narrowing the table back to reed size. Any way  
> you
> > > do it there is only so far you can go, but these will get you more
> > > room than just sanding open the tip.
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece
> > > even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and
> > > making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen  
> makers
> > > offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size!  
> When I
> > > have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than  
> about .
> > > 015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a
> > > little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I
> > > am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like  
> when
> > > reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of
> > > the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how  
> to
> > > open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state.
> > > >
> > > > Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten
> > > it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain
> > > flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut"  
> before
> > > and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like
> > > that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table  
> material)
> > > than cutting from the tip.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your advice,
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> 

This is a video I'm looking forward to seeing...


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> seeing is believing......
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 29, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Morgan wrote:
> 
> > It's really not any more complicated than it sounds like. Put it in  
> > the bench vice, give it a whack (I put a bit of drill rod against  
> > the baffle and hit that, rather than the facing), measure, repeat.  
> > It's only really scary the first time.
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON  
> > <saxgourmet@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would really like to see some video of this "opening with pliers/
> > > hammer" technique.......I must admit I am rather skeptical
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > > With brass (or softer metals) you can show it the hammer. With HR
> > > > you can change the table angle. A little trig will determine the
> > > > angle change needed then put it on the mill at that angle. Biggest
> > > > PITA about it is narrowing the table back to reed size. Any way  
> > you
> > > > do it there is only so far you can go, but these will get you more
> > > > room than just sanding open the tip.
> > > >
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <mattmarantz86@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that many people have the ability to open a mouthpiece
> > > > even more than .030", like taking an .085" tenor mouthpiece and
> > > > making it a .125" or something. On the extreme end, I've seen  
> > makers
> > > > offering their hand-made mpcs can be ordered in a .160 size!  
> > When I
> > > > have opened mpcs in the past, it's usually not by more than  
> > about .
> > > > 015"-.020" at the most... And then it seems like you'd only have a
> > > > little more material to work with at the tip before you run out! I
> > > > am aware that you can trim the tip rail from the outside (like  
> > when
> > > > reed-shaping the tip) which adds a little material to the front of
> > > > the beak, and have done that before, but I am clueless about how  
> > to
> > > > open mpcs to much greater proportions than their original state.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it anything to do with angling the table back as you flatten
> > > > it? Seems like it'd be rather difficult to get the table to remain
> > > > flat as you do that, I've heard it called a "biased-butt-cut"  
> > before
> > > > and have read some of the threads about that, but it sounds like
> > > > that opens mpcs much more slowly (and at the cost of table  
> > material)
> > > > than cutting from the tip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your advice,
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

> As you mentioned, butt cutting can be used.  But you need to take .030"-.040" 
> off the heel of the table to gain .010" at the tip.    


Cutting the table, changing the angle of the table in an effort to get more tip opening is a dangerous game.  At the best, you have to increase the length of the facing quite a bit in order to maintain a smooth curve.  If not, you end up with an abrupt change at the break, and a flattened curve after that.  Sketch it out, and use a straight edge to simulate the new table angle.  See?

This is not a method I use as the geometry does not work.

Paul

in the real world, increases in the tip opening exceeding 20/1000th  
are probably a VERY poor idea.....of course it's possible to increase  
the opening this much and more,
  but as the amount of tip is increased, so do the problems inherent  
with the procedure. IMHO, just not worth it.


On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:06 PM, tenorman1952 wrote:

>
> > As you mentioned, butt cutting can be used.  But you need to  
> take .030"-.040"
> > off the heel of the table to gain .010" at the tip.  Â
>
> Cutting the table, changing the angle of the table in an effort to  
> get more tip opening is a dangerous game. At the best, you have to  
> increase the length of the facing quite a bit in order to maintain a  
> smooth curve. If not, you end up with an abrupt change at the break,  
> and a flattened curve after that. Sketch it out, and use a straight  
> edge to simulate the new table angle. See?
>
> This is not a method I use as the geometry does not work.
>
> Paul
>
>
> 

This is why you have to overdo it then lengthen the facing back into place.  With too long a facing to begin with, you're right, it can be impossible to get a short or eccentric enough curve when you're done.  A little careful geometry will tell you what is possible.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> 
> > As you mentioned, butt cutting can be used.  But you need to take .030"-.040" 
> > off the heel of the table to gain .010" at the tip.    
> 
> 
> Cutting the table, changing the angle of the table in an effort to get more tip opening is a dangerous game.  At the best, you have to increase the length of the facing quite a bit in order to maintain a smooth curve.  If not, you end up with an abrupt change at the break, and a flattened curve after that.  Sketch it out, and use a straight edge to simulate the new table angle.  See?
> 
> This is not a method I use as the geometry does not work.
> 
> Paul
>