Shires mpc 5G

[Bach5G]

I took a horn in to the LMS and tried out a horn they had on display. I didn’t bring a mpc and they found me a Shires 5G.

I liked the mpc more than the horn.

Can anybody tell me anything about these?

[bassbone]

There are Shires current and former employees on the board that can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the design is by Shires and they are made by Pickett in Lexington, KY.

Significantly different design and playing from regular Pickett mouthpieces, though

[cigmar]

This brings up a thought I've been having. Considering the importance of matching the mouthpiece to the horn, would the Shires mouthpieces present additional benefit for use in a Shires horn? Did Steve design his mouthpieces to enhance the playing properties of his horns? Anyone have experience with this? Have done some A - B comparisons perhaps?

[Matt K]

I understand that there were some minor changes when the outsourced their production to Pickett but they largely are the same but I would not be dogmatic on that point. However, they have two basic lines: "New Classic" and Vintage, which honestly are a little confusing in their terminology...

The "Vintage" line are mostly copies of good examples of Mt. Vernon, NY, etc. Bach pieces. I believe the 5G is a Mt. Vernon copy and the 6.5AL(s) (as they have large and small shank versions) are basically a copy of the old Clarke ones that spawned the 6.5 variations. I have a small and large shank of the 6.5AL; the large one I had threaded for Elliott rims. The smaller one I was going to but I've been quite content wth my XTE/E4 for that so I haven't gone through with it yet. The large shank one with my 104N rim was my daily driver for awhile. It works really well on my setup that is otherwise quite open so can put most of the 'resistance' towards the shank... and there is a lot of resistance as it is literally the small shank on the inside, but made very thick so it fits in a large shank receiver. That makes sense as the "L" in the 6.5AL specifies a particular inner to the shank that is larger than the 6.5A in the small shank but smaller than the 6.5A in large shank.

Similarly, I have a small and large shank 5GS that I had threaded for a similar reason, prior to acquiring the 6.5ALs. They are somewhat similar to the 6.5ALs. When I was talking with someone up there about them, I'm recalling that they aren't copies of a MV 5GS (as it didn't exist at the time possibly?) but actually a combination of aspects of the 6.5AL (such as shape and cup depth) with aspects of the 5G (rim size) and something slightly different than both for the shank.

I obviously can't attest to the entire piece as I use rims that are 1.04 and larger and the ones that i have are threaded to accept those rims. However, I will say that the 6.5AL (large shank) provides something fairly unique because of the tightness of the shank. Even Doug doesn't have something stock that I'm aware of that mimics that. And it works very well with either the T62LW or T47LW, both of which have fairly open leadpipes in them. Although if I'm doing recording sessions, I tend to even open up the shank too and go for something slightly larger than the 5GS... so usually my XTG/G8. I only have to sound good for 6" after the bell, afterall!

The "New Classic" lines are basically modifications to older designs that they think offer a more 'modern' concept. So the "5" lineup they have, for example, are not copies of anything but they took elements of other 5 pieces they liked and made something out. Looking at the specification sheet, in a lot of cases this means opening up the throat a little and probably changes to the shank of the cup but it also probably depend son the piece for which it applies to.

So in short, they don't necessarily work better or worse on a Shires horn (or at least mine) than any other well made mouthpiece, but they do offer you the ability to go for something more contemporary or more legacy (terms for which I indent to be neither pejorative nor inherently positive). After all, there's a reason that people are clamoring for the MV pieces just in the same way that other contemporary manufacturers (Greg Black, Hammond, Elliot, etc.) are popular. And they all seem to be well made in the limited experience that I have with them.

I would very much like to get my hands on a 3G at some point... but I'm also getting to a point where I've done so much tinkering that I'm actually quite content with where I am equipment wise at the moment so I don't want to rock the apple cart too much. The comparable Elliott piece would be something like an XT104/I/I8... although if its a copy of an older one it would be more shallow, probably ~an XTG depth. I don't own an "I" cup in the XT series (yet...) so to do an A/B I'd probably have to shell out quite a bit. Then, of course, I'd want to compare it to a 3.5MD (which is the "new classic" version). And then, of course, I'd have to have both for them threaded to do a true comparison of just the underpart... then, of course... I'd... etc. etc. etc. too many rabbit holes!

[Bach5G]

I must have tried a New Classic, as it seemed more similar to Schilke than Bach (I’m playing a Bach these days). And not expensive. (Old stock perhaps)

[Matt K]

I must have tried a New Classic, as it seemed more similar to Schilke than Bach (I’m playing a Bach these days). And not expensive. (Old stock perhaps)

If you tried a 5G, you tried the "Vintage" one, which is a copy of a Bach piece. (Their "New Classic" ones have suffixes like "MD" for a similar depth). But then... which Bach piece? Bear in mind that the older Bachs had variation between pieces of even the same model. Then the difference between one of these vintage pieces and a contemporary one that are nominally the same are also different as well, so a Bach 5G you pulled off the shelf today is not going to be the same as a Bach 5G from 1960, though two 5G from 1960 also are likely also not going to be the same.

So if the 5G they based it off of had a slightly narrower profile (an attribute that I often associate with being closer to the "Schilke" side of the spectrum, though that isn't perfectly accurate obviously) then I can see how one might come to the conclusion. Who knows, maybe the piece they acquired was modified by someone to have a Schilke 51 rim profile at some point.

And then, what makes a Bach a Bach? Is it each individual model being what it is? So in other words, how do you compare a 3G to a Schilke 51? Is the Schilke 51 more Bach like than the 3G if your reference point is a Bach 5G? After all, the absolute difference between a 5G and a Schilke 51 is less than the difference between a 3G and a 5G, at least the contemporary versions.

That's a long way of saying that it's possible that they both have strengths and weaknesses, so using one over the other is really more what tradeoffs do you get with both and which set of tradeoffs do you prefer. It may well be contextually dependent too.

[euphoni]

I like my shires vintage 5g. That’s what I use as my lead mouthpiece bc I like the sound.

[bbalika]

My Shires 5G works great on my Shires. It had been sitting on my shelf because I thought I didn't like it, but seeing this post convinced me to try it out again.

I do not like the rim as much as my Hammond 12ML, but it slots well and has a nice sound. It beat out most of the other mouthpieces on my shelf when I did a quick back to back comparison.

[mrdeacon]

I have a friend who really digs his 5MD from Shires.

I also know at least one prominent studio cat who has been using a Shires 5G for the past few months on their big horn.

There's definitely some cats blowing them!