Bach 3G "shallow" variant?

[Burgerbob]

Hey all,

I've had a few 3Gs lately. Small shank "B" model (posted about that one), one I borrowed from a friend (Corp, nothing special about it) and another I bought, also older, that is much shallower than even a modern 4G. It's like a Bach 3G/5G. it has one of the easiest and best sounding high registers of any large tenor piece I've used.

I heard that this was an option at some point, never marked... Anyone have any more info?

[bimmerman]

Hey all,

I've had a few 3Gs lately. Small shank "B" model (posted about that one), one I borrowed from a friend (Corp, nothing special about it) and another I bought, also older, that is much shallower than even a modern 4G. It's like a Bach 3G/5G. it has one of the easiest and best sounding high registers of any large tenor piece I've used.

I heard that this was an option at some point, never marked... Anyone have any more info?

I don't have any answers on option, but am curious if you can take some depth measurements.

I have a Mt Vernon 3G that looks like it was converted to a small shank in the past....I'm curious how it stacks up. It's the only 3G I have to compare with though.

[Burgerbob]

I don't have any good ways to measure them. Here's some eyeballing, but if course they have vastly different finishes as well.

[Doug Elliott]

When I was in college I had a 3G that was pretty shallow that I played on for a while. It also had a really flat rim with a sharp inner edge, not at all like any other Bach mouthpieces. I don't still have it.

[Burgerbob]

This may be very similar. The rim is way different than the other Corp I have.

[blast]

That looks the same as my New York 3. Before WW2 this was THE Bach bass trombone mouthpiece.... large shank and simply marked 3. How times have changed.

Chris

[Burgerbob]

That looks the same as my New York 3. Before WW2 this was THE Bach bass trombone mouthpiece.... large shank and simply marked 3. How times have changed.

Chris

That would be interesting. It has a great core down there, but not the same sound that it does above the staff, almost like a dead zone.

[HawaiiTromboneGuy]

Back when I had my Williams 9, I used to use it with my Bach Corp 1.5GB and it made for a great mini bass.

[pjanda1]

I only discovered these a few weeks ago and have since purchased three through the forum. I'm surprised for a few reasons.

I had a Corp. 3G for a long time. It wasn't a useful mouthpiece for me--too tubby sounding and hard in the high register for tenor. These "shallow" 3Gs, as noted above, are entirely different beasts. The cup is in fact much shallower than the Corp. 3G I had before and while each of the three I've had is a little bit different, the rims are all flatter and sharper than I remember my old 3G being. The result is that for me, at least, these are really nice tenor mouthpieces.

The three I've had are within tolerances of what I'd consider normal Bach production variances of each other. But, it seems like they are entirely different, and deliberately different, mouthpieces from what I thought a "normal" 3G was. A "normal" 3G and these are more different than a 5G is from a 5GL or a 6.5A is from a 6.5AL, at least in my experience. In my limited experience, this is essentially like comparing a Schilke 51C4 to a 51.

Or, maybe this is how modern 3Gs are? I don't think I've ever tried, or even held, a 3G made after the 80's. (So, tell me if I'm just a goofball and modern 3Gs are all this shallow).

I also recently picked up a minty MV 3 small shank (no letter). These 3Gs are a little bit deeper, but not much. The throats are a lot bigger though, as the MV 3 is pretty tight for this size of rim and cup.

These can't be that rare if I quickly found 3. I sold one to a local guy who said it was like one he had in high school. I've emailed a couple of people about them. From all of that, it seems like there must have been quite a few made.

My questions are, A) why didn't they distinguish the model number somehow; B) why aren't they still making them (assuming they aren't), and C) why isn't this common knowledge (unless it is)?

To the first question, mine are labeled identically to any other 3G. If the boxes were labeled the same, how confusing would it have been to go to a music store looking for a small bass trombone or big(ish) euphonium mouthpiece and find this shallower cup thing that doesn't work at all? Or, what if you picked two off the shelf and one was shallow and one was deep? Why didn't they just call them something different to avoid confusing people? A 3 with no letter would have made sense. But there is the different rim, too ....

Regarding the second question, wide cup diameters are all the rage now. These are pretty darn good, in my opinion. I like them much better than some of the boutique wide diameter tenor mouthpieces. It would seem quite topical if Bach made them now (and doesn't).

Finally, did everybody know about these two separate "3Gs" back in the 80s? Did teachers tell students to look for a shallow or deep one ? Or, were these shallow ones something that were custom ordered by folks in the know? The different rim shape makes me wonder if these were something commonly made at the request of one pro or teacher. But again, why not put another stamp on it? For example, like the 4GB variation of the 4G.

Paul

[harrisonreed]

Just eyeballing it, the one on the right (labeled "B" model) looks shallower but I'm guessing it's the one on the left that is the large shank shallow one you're taking about? The one on the left looks like an Alessi "B" cup, and looks like a steeper drop into the cup. The "B" model looks like a Doug Elliott C+ cup, not as steep a transition from the rim into the cup.

Really hard to tell from the pictures though.

[Burgerbob]

Or, maybe this is how modern 3Gs are? I don't think I've ever tried, or even held, a 3G made after the 80's. (So, tell me if I'm just a goofball and modern 3Gs are all this shallow).

Nope, modern ones are huge and pretty useless.

Just eyeballing it, the one on the right (labeled "B" model) looks shallower but I'm guessing it's the one on the left that is the large shank shallow one you're taking about? The one on the left looks like an Alessi "B" cup. The "B" model looks like a Doug Elliott C+ cup.

Really hard to tell from the pictures though.

The photo lies, the B model is quite deep, deeper than an Elliot G cup. The large shank version is more like an Elliot G or F+.

[Doug Elliott]

At one time I had a 3G from the early '70s that was quite shallow and it had a very flat rim. I played it for a short time in college but I didn't really like it. I'm not sure what happened to it but I don't think I still have it.

[Burgerbob]

I will say that I used this piece for a bit, but sold it pretty shortly after.

[harrisonreed]

Just realized this OP post was from four years ago and Doug is very consistent. Nearly a carbon copy post!

Why did this get resurrected lol!!

[Doug Elliott]

That's funny, I didn't even notice. But yeah, same answer.

[pjanda1]

Well, I resurrected it in the hopes someone might know something that wasn't written here already! Again, if I'm holding three of these mouthpieces, there must have been quite a few floating around at the time they were made. And indeed, Aidan confirmed that modern 3Gs are deep, so I, at least, learned something!

I don't have any DE cups in front of me. But, based on my memory and that fact that they are a tiny bit shallower than a Hammond ML, and between a Schilke 51C4 and 51 but perhaps a touch closer to a 51C4, the "shallow" 3Gs are somewhere in the neighborhood of a F-G cup in DE terms. (For shape, I'd say that these "shallow" 3Gs are more "bowl" shaped than a Hammond ML or DE, but I don't find "bowl" vs. "V" to be a particularly descriptive or binary distinction.) I note that Doug's LT series chart places the "old" 3G as a G cup, which roughly makes sense. But, the same era of Corp. 3G that I had before, which also counts as "old," would chart where Doug places the "new" 3G--maybe an I cup. Again, the curiosity is that there seem to have been two entirely different 3Gs that were made at about the same time.

Paul

[CalgaryTbone]

Maybe a custom order? It could be that someone asked for something different and then some students/colleagues tried it and wanted one too. Or maybe a new model that didn't get traction, so it was discontinued. Or - a mistake. I had a 5G where the shank had been shaved down to fit an old Besson Euphonium that I used a bit, early in my school years. It was nowhere near my regular 5G that I used on trombone - much closer to a 3G (rim and cup). Lots of variety in Bach mouthpieces of earlier eras.

Jim Scott

[pjanda1]

A forum post about a weird trombone mouthpiece is a bit like seeing a mouse--if you see one, there are surely more. And if you see four, there are likely A LOT. The three I've had plus examples that Aidan, Doug, and my neighbor all found ... there must have been (or still be) more than a few ....

None that I've seen or that anybody have mentioned have had markings to indicate they are custom. And, I also have seen very little buzz about unmarked Bach custom jobs. Maybe I'm mistaken, but hasn't it always been more common to order a custom from a custom maker or to have a stock Bach modified than to order custom from Bach?

As I wrote above, these seem like the sort of thing many folks would have been interested in had it been clear they existed. An old 3G rim size is remarkably similar to a Greg Black 4 rim. And as I understand it, the GB 4G-5G is an EXTREMELY popular mouthpiece and has been for quite a while.

In a post a couple of years ago, someone remarked that Bach "missed the boat" on the 3G-5G and 4G-5G. I'm wondering if they actually didn't, but haphazardly failed to sufficiently promote what they were making and selling after having long produced a small shank 3 that was too shallow for "medium" tenors and a 3G that was too deep for "large" tenors. Or, another motivation for this post--I'd love to learn how deep Mount Vernon 3Gs tended to be.

Paul