I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber.  I love it when that happens.  

I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side.  I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe.  When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece.  The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height.  That raised two questions.

1.  Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?

2.  When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement.  Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?

Mark

Dukoff SPCs has high rollover baffles.  Too high IMO.  They often are so high that it does make it difficult to measure the tip opening inside the tip rail.

I think most makers and refacers measure inside the tip rail.  But a significant amount list tip opening specs to the very tip.  I think some of them measure to the inside for internal control.  For example, Babbitt sells tip wand gauges which naturally measure to the inside of the tip.  But they appear to list all their tip specs to the very tip.  You need to measure a bunch and average them to tell.  Maybe their tip wand scale is offset a bit to read higher.  I have not seen one up close.

If you measure inside the tip rail, you need to account for tip rail width when you graph or calculate the facing curve.  But I think this is better than trying to measure the very tip.  It is tough to get a probe right on the very edge.

PayPal as "gift" to: sabradbury79@...
Checks and mail to:
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St.
Vineland, NJ 08361

On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:35 PM, "Mark" <marklfleming@...> wrote:

> I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber. I love it when that happens. 
> 
> I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side. I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe. When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece. The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height. That raised two questions.
> 
> 1. Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?
> 
> 2. When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement. Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

Yes, Dukoff SPC becomes crooked. I recently worked on a Dukoff SPC tenor 8M that a pro saxophonist in my hometown have used both on CD with Mezzoforte and tour with Randi Crawford. It had been dropped so many times that the tip  was bent about 0,5 mm to the left side. Tip opening on the left side was 102 on the right side was the 076. He also had recorded two solo DC's with this crooked thing that once upon a time had been a Dukoff SPC. And the owner did not have any backup mpc..... I made him a backup that he immediately defined as his main mpc. I tried to save his old mpc , (he is testing it now), but I reckon that it ends up on the local "jazz museum". It was perhaps not worth spending time on it.




--- In MouthpieceWork@...m, "Mark" <marklfleming@...> wrote:
>
> I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber.  I love it when that happens.  
> 
> I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side.  I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe.  When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece.  The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height.  That raised two questions.
> 
> 1.  Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?
> 
> 2.  When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement.  Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?
> 
> Mark
>

Keith,

I was using my new tip wand from Music Medic.

http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/products/tool-mp100.html

After messing with the wand a bit, I thought the easiest way would be to "zero" the inside tip rail through my glass gauge and then insert the wand and read the opening at the zero line.  The wand gives consistently lower readings than my depth caliper, even on mps with no baffle.  I'm baffled.

I looked at your curves for Jumbo Javas in the Files section.  Maybe the "two tip" measurements are what's confusing me.  File 2854.xls has a curve that runs to .100, but a tip opening of .84.  Is this the inside rail at .84 and the outside at .100?  Also, it's a T55, which normally has an opening of .98, so is the opening smaller than "stock?"  Likewise, the curve for a Jumbo T90 shows a tip of .84, much smaller than stock.  Have the openings been reduced on the Jumbos, or am I reading the curve data incorrectly?.

The Dukoff was fairly straight side-to-side, but it has a weird flat spot at about .024 on the gauge or it has one curve above .024 and another below.  I don't imagine that's part of some secret Dukoff lay, so I'll take the lumps out of the curve and see if I like the piece better.  Any suggestions on alterations to the baffle to make it less shrill or should I just sell it to somebody who wants shrill?  It's a D5 with a stock opening.

Mark

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Dukoff SPCs has high rollover baffles.  Too high IMO.  They often are so high that it does make it difficult to measure the tip opening inside the tip rail.
> 
> I think most makers and refacers measure inside the tip rail.  But a significant amount list tip opening specs to the very tip.  I think some of them measure to the inside for internal control.  For example, Babbitt sells tip wand gauges which naturally measure to the inside of the tip.  But they appear to list all their tip specs to the very tip.  You need to measure a bunch and average them to tell.  Maybe their tip wand scale is offset a bit to read higher.  I have not seen one up close.
> 
> If you measure inside the tip rail, you need to account for tip rail width when you graph or calculate the facing curve.  But I think this is better than trying to measure the very tip.  It is tough to get a probe right on the very edge.
> 
> PayPal as "gift" to: sabradbury79@...
> Checks and mail to:
> Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
> 2925 Crane St.
> Vineland, NJ 08361
> 
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:35 PM, "Mark" <marklfleming@...> wrote:
> 
> > I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber. I love it when that happens. 
> > 
> > I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side. I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe. When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece. The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height. That raised two questions.
> > 
> > 1. Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?
> > 
> > 2. When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement. Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Inside vs outside tip opening readings are usually .003-.005" different.  It depends on the width of the tip rail.

You can check the width of you tip wand in a few spots using the calipers or a micrometer.  But how do you know if the calipers or micrometer is right?  For that you need find someone who has a set of gage blocks (precision standards to measure). I picked up a set from a machine shop that no longer needed them.

When you measure to .001", it is very difficult to get two different gages to read the same.  But getting within .001" or .002" is reasonable to expect.  My two tip gages do not agree well when there is concave or warped table.  They each have a different base size that sits differently on the tables.   

From: Mark <marklfleming@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 11:06 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Correct tip opening measurement


  
Keith,

I was using my new tip wand from Music Medic.

http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/products/tool-mp100.html

After messing with the wand a bit, I thought the easiest way would be to "zero" the inside tip rail through my glass gauge and then insert the wand and read the opening at the zero line. The wand gives consistently lower readings than my depth caliper, even on mps with no baffle. I'm baffled.

I looked at your curves for Jumbo Javas in the Files section. Maybe the "two tip" measurements are what's confusing me. File 2854.xls has a curve that runs to .100, but a tip opening of .84. Is this the inside rail at .84 and the outside at .100? Also, it's a T55, which normally has an opening of .98, so is the opening smaller than "stock?" Likewise, the curve for a Jumbo T90 shows a tip of .84, much smaller than stock. Have the openings been reduced on the Jumbos, or am I reading the curve data incorrectly?.

The Dukoff was fairly straight side-to-side, but it has a weird flat spot at about .024 on the gauge or it has one curve above .024 and another below. I don't imagine that's part of some secret Dukoff lay, so I'll take the lumps out of the curve and see if I like the piece better. Any suggestions on alterations to the baffle to make it less shrill or should I just sell it to somebody who wants shrill? It's a D5 with a stock opening.

Mark

--- In mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Dukoff SPCs has high rollover baffles. Too high IMO. They often are so high that it does make it difficult to measure the tip opening inside the tip rail.
> 
> I think most makers and refacers measure inside the tip rail. But a significant amount list tip opening specs to the very tip. I think some of them measure to the inside for internal control. For example, Babbitt sells tip wand gauges which naturally measure to the inside of the tip. But they appear to list all their tip specs to the very tip. You need to measure a bunch and average them to tell. Maybe their tip wand scale is offset a bit to read higher. I have not seen one up close.
> 
> If you measure inside the tip rail, you need to account for tip rail width when you graph or calculate the facing curve. But I think this is better than trying to measure the very tip. It is tough to get a probe right on the very edge.
> 
> PayPal as "gift" to: sabradbury79@...
> Checks and mail to:
> Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
> 2925 Crane St.
> Vineland, NJ 08361
> 
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:35 PM, "Mark" <marklfleming@...> wrote:
> 
> > I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber. I love it when that happens. 
> > 
> > I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side. I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe. When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece. The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height. That raised two questions.
> > 
> > 1. Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?
> > 
> > 2. When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement. Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <marklfleming@...> wrote:
>
> I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber.  I love it when that happens.  
> 
> I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side.  I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe.  When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece.  The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height.  That raised two questions.
> 
> 1.  Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?
> 
> 2.  When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement.  Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?
> 
> Mark


Mark, by "probe" are you talking about a tip gauge wand?  If so, yes, they often strike the baffle of some high baffle, wide tip opening mouthpieces and cannot be used for an accurate reading.  I don't use them.  I use a fixture with digital depth indicator, previously held a dial indicator, from the old Winslow kit.  Theo Wanne makes a good gauge and fixture of this type.

http://store.theowanne.com/products/tip-opening-gauge-digital

I measure tip opening in the center of the tip rail.  A tip wand and glass gauge are best used to measure the outside edge of the tip rail by aligning the glass and tip of mouthpiece by pushing them against the edge of the work bench.  In this way you get consistent positioning of the glass gauge.  However, as you point out, the tip wand often strikes the baffle of some mouthpieces.

Also, I use only "zero end" glass gauges.  That is, the edge of the glass is zero, not set back.  This way the glass can be placed on the facing, the mouthpiece held so that the facing is horizontal, and pushed lightly against the edge of the workbench.  This aligns the edge of the glass with the tip.  Then firm pressure with your thumb holds the glass in position.  In this way you can get consistent measurements quickly.  No problem in lining up the tip with an etched line on the glass.  Why even use setback glass gauges?  I don't know.

I use glass gauges from J.J. Babbit.

Paul Coats

The advantage of using the set back glass gauge is that it offers more support surface for the feeler gauges near the tip.  Like if you are using a .100" feeler to check a facing curve that has a .105" tip opening.  

I also find it easier to align the glass gauge sideways and at the tip in front of my face by eye rather than against a table edge for the tip and by eye for the sides.  A set back gauge is easier to align by eye than a edge zero gauge.

It is also easier to make a set back gauge.  An edge zero gage needs to have its edge right at the edge of the glass.

On Jul 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <marklfleming@...> wrote:
> >
> > I just bought a horn off of Ebay that shipped with two mouthpieces that the seller didn't bother to mention: a blue Jumbo Java and a Dukoff Super Power Chamber. I love it when that happens. 
> > 
> > I thought I would measure the Dukoff, since I've read that the metal is so soft that dropping one could change the lay or make it unbalanced side-to-side. I started with measuring the tip opening by laying it on a piece of glass and using a thickness probe. When I moved to using the glass gauge to start measuring the curve, I could see a shiny spot on the baffle where my probe had contacted the piece. The baffle is so high that the probe hits the baffle before the tip rail, so I was measuring the baffle height. That raised two questions.
> > 
> > 1. Is this normal for a Dukoff SPC?
> > 
> > 2. When measuring the tip, I always assumed that the measurement was from the inside lip of the tip rail at it's highest point (i.e., the center). The outside edge of the tip rail would be higher and might effect playability, but would not be considered the actual tip opening measurement. Since my probe won't work, do I carefully site at the center of the inside tip rail with my depth caliper to measure the Dukoff?
> > 
> > Mark
> 
> Mark, by "probe" are you talking about a tip gauge wand? If so, yes, they often strike the baffle of some high baffle, wide tip opening mouthpieces and cannot be used for an accurate reading.  I don't use them. I use a fixture with digital depth indicator, previously held a dial indicator, from the old Winslow kit. Theo Wanne makes a good gauge and fixture of this type.
> 
> http://store.theowanne.com/products/tip-opening-gauge-digital
> 
> I measure tip opening in the center of the tip rail. A tip wand and glass gauge are best used to measure the outside edge of the tip rail by aligning the glass and tip of mouthpiece by pushing them against the edge of the work bench. In this way you get consistent positioning of the glass gauge. However, as you point out, the tip wand often strikes the baffle of some mouthpieces.
> 
> Also, I use only "zero end" glass gauges. That is, the edge of the glass is zero, not set back. This way the glass can be placed on the facing, the mouthpiece held so that the facing is horizontal, and pushed lightly against the edge of the workbench. This aligns the edge of the glass with the tip. Then firm pressure with your thumb holds the glass in position. In this way you can get consistent measurements quickly. No problem in lining up the tip with an etched line on the glass. Why even use setback glass gauges? I don't know.
> 
> I use glass gauges from J.J. Babbit.
> 
> Paul Coats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> But how do you know if the calipers or micrometer is right>

Good point.  I have an inexpensive "tire tread" gauge like this

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015DQ81G/ref=asc_df_B0015DQ81G2089932?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=B0015DQ81G&hvpos=1o2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=998104315910826533&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=

and a clear glass 50mm ruler with 1/2 mm etchings.  The ruler is about a quarter of an inch thick.  I place it on my glass-topped work bench and essentially measure the thickness of the ruler, which I then "zero out" and leave it set that way. I can then place the mouthpiece table on the glass ruler with the window hanging over the edge.  I extend the probe on the digital depth gauge into the window and slide the mouthpiece so that the baffle and then the tip slowly pushes the depth probe.  When the tip passes the end of the glass, I have the height of the tip opening (assuming the middle passes over the probe) relative to the glass ruler surface.  

Works with some fussing and usually takes me several passes to make sure I get consistent readings.  

What I haven't done is check the accuracy of the digital gauge itself.  I suppose I could stack several feeler gauges and check the accuracy at about .90 to make sure it's not way off and to make sure that it is consistant from reading to reading.  

Or, I could just figure that I'm getting relative numbers so that I know approximately what the opening is or how much I have changed the piece but not exactly whether the opening is .91 or .92.  I think I could live with that.  

Precise measurements that lead to accurate facings seems to be where I should worry about perfection.

Mark

Just be aware that feeler gauges are not gauge blocks.  I measured all my feeler gauges several times in 3 spots along the edge where I use them.  I use a digital micrometer that I checked for accuracy using gauge blocks.  Then I averaged the results and marked the actual sizes on the feelers and typed these sizes into my spreadsheet.  This may be overkill but it does no harm.  A lot of work passes through my feelers so I think it is worth it to check them for accuracy.

From: Mark <marklfleming@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 7:34 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Correct tip opening measurement


  


--- In mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> But how do you know if the calipers or micrometer is right>

Good point. I have an inexpensive "tire tread" gauge like this

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015DQ81G/ref=asc_df_B0015DQ81G2089932?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=B0015DQ81G&hvpos=1o2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=998104315910826533&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=

and a clear glass 50mm ruler with 1/2 mm etchings. The ruler is about a quarter of an inch thick. I place it on my glass-topped work bench and essentially measure the thickness of the ruler, which I then "zero out" and leave it set that way. I can then place the mouthpiece table on the glass ruler with the window hanging over the edge. I extend the probe on the digital depth gauge into the window and slide the mouthpiece so that the baffle and then the tip slowly pushes the depth probe. When the tip passes the end of the glass, I have the height of the tip opening (assuming the middle passes over the probe) relative to the glass ruler surface. 

Works with some fussing and usually takes me several passes to make sure I get consistent readings. 

What I haven't done is check the accuracy of the digital gauge itself. I suppose I could stack several feeler gauges and check the accuracy at about .90 to make sure it's not way off and to make sure that it is consistant from reading to reading. 

Or, I could just figure that I'm getting relative numbers so that I know approximately what the opening is or how much I have changed the piece but not exactly whether the opening is .91 or .92. I think I could live with that. 

Precise measurements that lead to accurate facings seems to be where I should worry about perfection.

Mark

It seems like the old school method of referring to a lay schedule with a 5 digit code has fallen into disuse. This code employed the first measurement or break followed by the tip opening in millimeters.

A great playing Kaspar, Cicero clarinet mouthpiece came to me engraved R.S. (probably Rick Sayre, Kaspar employee) along with 33104.  It seems that this method would be useful to help restore a table worn over time to it's intended break measurement.

Interesting. I've seen these  numbers on mouthpieces, but wasn't sure how
they worked. Thanks.

Tony F.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of gregwier
Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2012 12:43 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Correct tip opening measurement MM vs.
Thousands"

 

  



It seems like the old school method of referring to a lay schedule with a 5
digit code has fallen into disuse. This code employed the first measurement
or break followed by the tip opening in millimeters.

A great playing Kaspar, Cicero clarinet mouthpiece came to me engraved R.S.
(probably Rick Sayre, Kaspar employee) along with 33104. It seems that this
method would be useful to help restore a table worn over time to it's
intended break measurement.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Fairbridge" <tfairbri@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting. I've seen these  numbers on mouthpieces, but wasn't sure how
> they worked. Thanks.
> 
> Tony F.


The 5 digit "serial numbers" are facing descriptions.  The first two digits are the facing length, as measured with the .0015" feeler, in half mm's.  That is, a facing length of 24 mm would be "48".  

The last three digits are the tip opening mm's, without the decimal.  So, a tip opening of, say, .098" would be .098" x 25.4 mm/inch = 2.5 mm and be written as 250.

So, this facing, 48250 would have a facing length, as measured with a .0015" feeler with an Eric Brand type glass gauge a reading of "48", or 24 mm.  It would have a tip opening of "250" or .098".

The clarinet mouthpiece with 33104 would have a facing length of "33" as measured with the .0015" feeler and E. Brand type glass gauge, or 16.5 mm.  The tip opening would be "104", or 1.04 mm, or in inches, 1.04 mm / 25.4 mm/inch = 0.041".

Paul Coats

Exceptionally described

2012/7/13 tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Fairbridge" <tfairbri@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I've seen these numbers on mouthpieces, but wasn't sure how
> > they worked. Thanks.
> >
> > Tony F.
>
> The 5 digit "serial numbers" are facing descriptions. The first two digits
> are the facing length, as measured with the .0015" feeler, in half mm's.
> That is, a facing length of 24 mm would be "48".
>
> The last three digits are the tip opening mm's, without the decimal. So, a
> tip opening of, say, .098" would be .098" x 25.4 mm/inch = 2.5 mm and be
> written as 250.
>
> So, this facing, 48250 would have a facing length, as measured with a
> .0015" feeler with an Eric Brand type glass gauge a reading of "48", or 24
> mm. It would have a tip opening of "250" or .098".
>
> The clarinet mouthpiece with 33104 would have a facing length of "33" as
> measured with the .0015" feeler and E. Brand type glass gauge, or 16.5 mm.
> The tip opening would be "104", or 1.04 mm, or in inches, 1.04 mm / 25.4
> mm/inch = 0.041".
>
> Paul Coats
>
>  
>

Many thanks, Paul. Crystal clear now.

Tony F.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of tenorman1952
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2012 11:31 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Correct tip opening measurement MM vs.
Thousands"

 

  



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tony Fairbridge" <tfairbri@...>
wrote:
>
> Interesting. I've seen these numbers on mouthpieces, but wasn't sure how
> they worked. Thanks.
> 
> Tony F.

The 5 digit "serial numbers" are facing descriptions. The first two digits
are the facing length, as measured with the .0015" feeler, in half mm's.
That is, a facing length of 24 mm would be "48". 

The last three digits are the tip opening mm's, without the decimal. So, a
tip opening of, say, .098" would be .098" x 25.4 mm/inch = 2.5 mm and be
written as 250.

So, this facing, 48250 would have a facing length, as measured with a .0015"
feeler with an Eric Brand type glass gauge a reading of "48", or 24 mm. It
would have a tip opening of "250" or .098".

The clarinet mouthpiece with 33104 would have a facing length of "33" as
measured with the .0015" feeler and E. Brand type glass gauge, or 16.5 mm.
The tip opening would be "104", or 1.04 mm, or in inches, 1.04 mm / 25.4
mm/inch = 0.041".

Paul Coats

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Fairbridge" <tfairbri@...> wrote:
>
> Many thanks, Paul. Crystal clear now.
> 
> Tony F.
> 


Guys, you are very welcome.

But sometimes it really is a serial number.  ;-)

Paul Coats