Old Holtons Want "Long shank" Schilkes?

[pjanda1]

Hi,

I recently received a monster of a tenor--a 1980ish Holton 156 (actually a screw bell, but marked 156). I had read that these have large mouthpiece receivers (bigger than standard), and indeed, a standard large shank drops in fairly, but not unworkably, far.

I've got a few old "long shank" Schilkes, and to my surprise, they seem to fit perfectly. Not too far in like a normal large shank, not too far out, as a long shank Schilke is for me in a standard taper leadpipe. The Holton is definitely not a Remington shank--a true Remington fits to about the right depth, but wobbles like crazy. The long shank Schilke doesn't wobble--contrary to how it behaves in either a Remington or standard leadpipe (meaning any other pipe I've ever tried).

Were these horns were made for these shanks? The time frame and geography are just right.

I've posted many times about my love for these long shank Schilkes. In Remington leadpipes, they slot and respond much better for me than shoving in a standard shank or even some maker's attempts to have the right taper, but with less penetration. And this Holton 156/256, it indeed plays quite a bit better with a long shank Schilke 51 than with a standard large shank Schilke 51. (It feels great so far, and I may post more comments. But overall, this is quite a lot more horn than most any other tenor! It is definitely not for the meek.)

I'm clearly biased. But I thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone else is looking for something that is an exact fit for their old Holton.

Paul

[WGWTR180]

I will say the original lead pipes in old Holtons, like any old instrument, can wear causing the mouthpiece to go in further. But I still find a “regular” length shank to work just fine.

[DaveAshley]

My pieces seat a bit lower in my Holton 65.

Don’t know why.

[hyperbolica]

In ~1988 I bought a new 156, and I probably used it with a Schilke 52e2 (probably long shank) at that time. I was playing a lot and my chops were as strong as they ever were. I used that horn for lead bone in a large semi-pro orchestra. The sound was phenomenal. I'll bet with the screw bell, it's even bigger sounding. Great horn for steam rolling everything. I don't have the chops to drive like that today, but today I'd probably pick something more subtle. Subtle didn't really describe me at that time in my life. I'm sure it's still a great horn whether you flatten a sea of strings or not.

[spencercarran]

I will say the original lead pipes in old Holtons, like any old instrument, can wear causing the mouthpiece to go in further. But I still find a “regular” length shank to work just fine.

The stock Holton bass trombone mouthpieces (such as my VH-Bass mouthpiece) certainly do not have standard Morse taper shanks. It fits perfectly in my 180's receiver, so I suspect OP is right that Holton really was intending something other than Morse taper, rather than just that old Holtons are all worn.

[ithinknot]

So, for ridiculous reasons, I had two 156s and a 159 all at the same time.

All in good shape, and all fit Morse taper shanks with no wobble.

156 /1
90s horn, deep mpc fit, .468" leadpipe throat
Outer slide has drawn 'oversleeves'

156 /2
Also 90s, serial only a couple hundred away... normal 1" depth, .456 pipe

159
Early 80s, exact same deep fit depth as 156 no.1, .477 pipe
Different slide outers - looks like a lightweight sleeveless slide, but in fact drawn to the thicker 'oversleeve' diameter along the entire length. Different bracing design too, with a much thinner-walled full-width hand brace tube (think Edwards V or Getzen Bousfield grip). This combo of light grip and heavy tube walls ends up weighing exactly the same - to the gram! - as the later normal-looking slide outers, which I doubt is coincidental. Totally different feel in the hand, though.

(Kudos to Holton - all slides were consistent enough that you could swap outers and not be miserable.)

None of the combos sucked, but the best slide/bell pairings weren't necessarily the factory twins... The heavier of the 156 bells really came to life with the more open 159 slide. The 159 bell section plays more open than either 156 (the 156 design has a .525 choke in the neckpipe like a 36/42) so the tighter 156 slide helps keep it more efficient and tenorial. The least convincing bell section with any slide (or tuning slide) was the lighter 156. It really wasn't a bad horn, but the heavier bell seemed 'bouncier', cleaner, better slotting... these were all uncut bells, but it made me think the screwbell versions were probably quite successful (in a way that they might not have been if LW bell = Good News for this design).

I find both the 156 I kept and the 159 extremely easy to play. They're quite tiring, in that they take quite a bit of air, but not in an inefficient or uncomfortable way... they're just big.

Not sure we learned anything important here, but it's fun of a sort.

[WGWTR180]

I will say the original lead pipes in old Holtons, like any old instrument, can wear causing the mouthpiece to go in further. But I still find a “regular” length shank to work just fine.

The stock Holton bass trombone mouthpieces (such as my VH-Bass mouthpiece) certainly do not have standard Morse taper shanks. It fits perfectly in my 180's receiver, so I suspect OP is right that Holton really was intending something other than Morse taper, rather than just that old Holtons are all worn.

If you say so. My experience is different. Holton was consistently inconsistent.

[Doug Elliott]

Holton was consistently inconsistent.

That's been my experience too.

[brassmedic]

It was said in another thread that Holton made the 156 (and presumably other models, I guess) so that the mouthpiece inserts further. Assuming that's true, which would make sense, that is a design feature rather than a flaw. My 156 has an unusual leadpipe design where the receiver piece itself is actually part of the leadpipe. I always figured they did that to allow more expansion of the receiver, since it doesn't have to fit inside another part. I've never heard anyone say it was not a morse taper; only that the mouthpiece inserts further than other makers.

[Doug Elliott]

In their inconsistency, it's often slightly less taper, similar to the King large shank receivers.

[Retrobone]

It's plausible that the 156, having been designed together with Jay Friedman, would have been tested using his mouthpiece at the time.. which I believe was a long-shank Schilke 51B. Just a thought.
I also had a Holton mpc which came with a TR 150. It had a long shank as well. It was the van Haney model. I have a Tr 150 and it does seem to like a long shank piece, but it's definitely not the so-called Remington taper.

[hyperbolica]

This is probably apostasy, but that's just my thing. I've been using my 159 as a small bass. I used to use it's straight cousin the 156 as a tenor, but with the valve on it, it really does like that range down to low C. I like the way the Ferguson V plays in this combination. Ferguson V is a 1.5g size, maybe a little under, but with a V-ish cup. Highly "efficient", and a bit brighter sound although it gets the low notes just fine. This combo works well into the tenor range (above F at the bottom of the treble staff). It's a little front heavy, but I've got a plugin valve ready to go on it shortly which remedies a couple of issues. The Ferguson pieces are copies of Minick pieces, and I don't think they have any connection with long shank Schilkes. I don't have any long Schilkes any more, having gotten rid of them a long time ago.

I've also used the Ferguson L with this horn, a 1.25g size, and it works great, but takes something off the top end. I've tried my 2G here, and it's not really that great a combo, however my DE LB 112k8 and DE EUPH 104J8 also work nicely.

Just because of the number and range of mouthpieces that work so well with holtons in general, I'm not sure you have to have a long shank Schilke to get a good pairing.