TromboneChat

There are many who associate Elkhart-made Conn trombones with unsoldered bell rims; they are thought to be part of the classic Conn sound and response.

However, older Conn trombones (from the earliest days through at least the 1930's) have soldered bell rims. I've owned or played many such instruments. In fact, some of the very best Conn trombones I've played were made in the 1920's, and they all had soldered bell rims.

I don't know when the switch to unsoldered bell rims happened, but by the 1950's almost all Conn trombones were made this way, including models that had previously been made with soldered rims. There are examples of the 4H, 6H, 8H, 70H, etc. that have a soldered or unsoldered bell, depending on when they were made.

We often assume that the classic Conn unsoldered bell was an intentional design choice for its playing characteristics, and perhaps it was. But another thought has occurred to me: what if Conn switched to unsoldered bells simply to save money?

By leaving the bell unsoldered during production, you cut out the step of soldering, as well as extra buffing and cleaning up the flux afterward. The risk of acid bleed under the lacquer around the bell rim is also eliminated. Lacquer didn't become common until the 1930's, so that wasn't as much of a concern in the earlier days.

Multiply that over thousands of instruments and a significant cost savings is realized.

What do you think? Is it possible that the "classic" Conn unsoldered bell rim came about primarily because Conn was trying to save some money?

I know there are Conn fans who mostly think about really old small bore models, but when I hear the phrase "classic Conn sound", I immediately think of the 1950's 88H. Other than a few weird one-offs like the Brass Ark Museum's late 40's yellow brass 8H SPEC with a soldered bell, the 88H was unsoldered, thin red brass. They did unfortunately start soldering that model in the 80's or 90's, too.

I think you shouldn't discount the influence of Emory Remington on Conn's biggest winning product, and thus his influence on the general idea about what Conn was all about. He likely influenced what the Conn factory thought it was all about, if you think of how many players he got into the 88H. He was placing orders for students for 8H SPECs (88H) long before the 88H materialized as a product, and for the most part they were pretty much exactly like the 50's version. They had him come out in 1954 to help with the final 88H design, and even had a mouthpiece line released along with it -- I don't get the idea that Remington would make an important design choice like that just to save a dollar or whatever the savings would have been.

The move from soldered to unsoldered in general (as you describe it, I'm not too hip on non-symphonic Conns) coincided with Remington moving his studio onto the 8H SPEC and later the 88H.

The two best Conn trombones I've played from the 1920's were large bore tenors: a 76H, and a 12H. Both had soldered rims. That's my point of reference! (I'm more of a large-bore guy.)

Again, I'm not exactly sure when the switch happened, but my gut tells me it may have pre-dated Remington's involvement.

I'd also guess that Conn sold many, many times more small bore trombones in the 40s, 50s, and 60s than they did large bore trombones. Remington wouldn't really have been associated with the marketing of those models. Given that this change was made across the board, it would seem that there would be other factors at play.

Yeah, you seem to have a strong idea about it already, and I don't want to argue, but again ... I think the move started happening on the large bores in the late 40's, right around when the 8H SPEC started being made for those who were "in the know". Having a huge chunk of symphonic players and students move to the 88H would definitely affect the small bores back then. And in that case it may very well have been, "well this is what we are doing with the 88H, that thing is real hot right now, let's not have too many different ways of making a bell on the floor and just do everything like the 88H" or it could have been "the 88H is really hot right now, that's what everybody wants in terms of design."

But I think the 8H SPECs are the tell, here. They could have been had any which way. Look at that rare one with the yellow soldered bell. It was totally possible to get one soldered. But most of the horns coming out like that were red bells, unsoldered. Maybe people were special ordering horns and didn't care about what they were getting, but I doubt it. Especially Remington. Reading through that guy's book ... He's OCD. No way he didn't specify what he wanted to a T.

I guess I'd lean toward the view that having a soldered or unsoldered rim wasn't thought about or talked about nearly as much as it is today. If there was significant thought put into whether the bell was soldered or unsoldered from the standpoint of how it plays, given how Conn operated at the time, that almost certainly would have been worked into the marketing materials. "Conn trombones, now with an unsoldered rim for more immediate response!" Think about how much they played up the Vocabell models, and Coprion bells, for example.

That 1947 Conn 8H with F-attachment may actually help support my point. Not only does that one have a yellow brass bell with soldered rim, the throat is larger than the typical 8H (and later 88H) bell. Many Conn .547" bore trombones in the early 1920s (like the 12H I had, which is now also owned by Noah Gladstone) were exactly like this: yellow brass, soldered rim, large throat. Someone could have contacted Conn in 1947 and said, "I'd like to order a .547" bore trombone like you used to make them, not like you're making them now," and that's what they got.

I did a little internet sleuthing just now. The earliest Conn with an unsoldered bell that I could find was a 4H from the "mid 1940's." I've had a hunch that the switch to unsoldered rims started right around the end of WWII, presumably when Conn resumed full-scale instrument production. If that's the case, then the general switch to unsoldered rims happened before Remington started ordering 8H's with triggers. If there are others on here with Conn instruments from this time who can provide some data points, please do!

I just keep coming back to the economics in my mind. For a company like Conn, in the post-WWII era, I can totally see the corporate mentality looking for ways to cut costs. Saving $0.50 per trombone may not seem like much, but that's thousands of dollars per year. John Deere doesn't include a $0.50 drain plug on the transmissions of the the riding mowers they sell at Lowes (while other manufacturers using the same transmission do), because...it saves them thousands of dollars a year. I'd be curious to know if Conn trumpets/cornets, horns, euphs, and tubas also went from soldered to unsoldered rims, but I have little experience with them.

Remington helped tweak the design of the 88H, but I have a hard time seeing him having an influence on the design of other Conn trombones. The late forties were on the tail end of the big band era, and jazz (and other popular music) trombone players were more famous, more influential, and probably better paid than symphonic players in America at the time. We live in a different era now.

The old soldered bells from Conn also had a hand hammered flare as well as opposed to have a spun disc flare. This process distributes the thickness in another way (closer to one-piece bells), which means that an unsoldered rim would make the bell sound too unfocused...Note also that the rim on these oldest Conn's are stainless steel.. This way of making bells are more time consuming wich means more expensive so this could a reason to the advent of unsoldered bells as You mention..Worth noting is that unsoldered rims usually is combined with nickel silver slide crooks, offsetting the more "fluffy"sounding unsoldered bells with more clarity

So, when I got home this evening I checked the other non-trombone Conn instruments and parts that I have. It turns out that I have another interesting data point!

I have an 1889 Conn B-flat tenor horn and a 1919 Conn E-flat alto horn, both of which have soldered bell rims (but that doesn't tell us anything about the question at hand). However, I also have two Conn mellophones, one playable and one for parts. (These aren't marching mellophones, but rather the older style F/E-flat horns wrapped like a French horn and used as French horn substitutes.) One was made in 1929, and the other was made in 1955.

Guess what?

The one from 1929 has a soldered rim, and the one from 1955 has an unsoldered rim!

Now go ahead and try to convince me that Emory Remington had an influence on the design of Conn's mellophones.

Tbarh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 12:57 pm The old soldered bells from Conn also had a hand hammered flare as well as opposed to have a spun disc flare. This process distributes the thickness in another way (closer to one-piece bells), which means that an unsoldered rim would make the bell sound too unfocused...Note also that the rim on these oldest Conn's are stainless steel.. This way of making bells are more time consuming wich means more expensive so this could a reason to the advent of unsoldered bells as You mention..Worth noting is that unsoldered rims usually is combined with nickel silver slide crooks, offsetting the more "fluffy"sounding unsoldered bells with more clarity

This is a good point about the rest of the bell's construction: seamed flare vs. spun flare. I'm more of a euphonium and tuba player than I am a trombone player, and you see the same sort of thing with Boosey & Hawkes/Besson euphoniums and tubas. Through at least the mid-1970s, they were actually made from three pieces: one long rolled seamed sheet with two large triangular gussets inserted at the end to make the flare. In more recent years B&H switched to a two piece construction with a spun flare, like modern two piece trombone bells. Again, knowing Boosey and Hawkes, I can almost guarantee that this change wasn't due to improved playing characteristics; it was probably because the new construction technique, once they tooled up for it, allowed them to manufacture bells more quickly and easily.

We place a lot of emphasis today on construction techniques and the effect that they have on the instrument's playing characteristics. However, especially with large manufacturers historically (like Conn or B&H), these decisions and changes were almost certainly driven just as much if not more by economics and production considerations as they were by considerations about how the instrument played.

funkhoss wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 5:44 pm We place a lot of emphasis today on construction techniques and the effect that they have on the instrument's playing characteristics. However, especially with large manufacturers historically (like Conn ... ), these decisions and changes were almost certainly driven just as much if not more by economics and production considerations as they were by considerations about how the instrument played.

(Without any personal knowledge of Conn, et al. - but a with fair amount of manufacturing experience) I'd bet 10:1 that you are correct.

By the late 40’s big band’s circling the drain and it’s no mystery why. The Petrillo Strike (1942-44) locks in royalty agreements but has the unintended effect of pushing labels to back singers, leaving the big bands to wither on the vine. The public shifts its gaze and all of a sudden guitars and singers are the main attraction. Rock ‘n’ roll!

With this shift, an entire industry of “old” instruments starts to nosedive in sales. The mid-50s roll in, and everyone’s obsessed with Elvis. Conn, like anyone else with a nose for survival, pivots to things like “home electric organs” in the early 50s. They’re trying to ditch the old Sousa and big band markets, but hey maybe Emory Remington is up to something with the 8H SPEC?

In short, both ideas are probably right. Conn’s cutting costs for band instruments and shifting production elsewhere to keep up with the times. Concurrently, could be that Remington’s approach injects much needed vision into Conn’s band instrument factories (Selmer TKO’d the American sax market), propelling through the orchestral world, which aggravates Vincent Bach, but that’s beside the point.

Even though Conn’s putting out killer small horns in the 50s and 60s, the company’s burning cash trying to keep up with a new type of consumer base constantly looking for the next best thing. Might as well streamline the process, people love the 88H, unsoldered bells it is! It’s why I love the mid 50s-early 60s 6H. To me that horn is more like a little yellow 8H than a 78H which is its own thing.

Try as they might the tuners and octavers never took off (but are super cool!) blah blah new owners, move to Abilene…we know the rest!

The post WW II period saw the rise of school band programs, and Conn no doubt got most of the revenue by cranking out Conn Directors by the thousands.

wayne88ny wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 5:52 am The post WW II period saw the rise of school band programs, and Conn no doubt got most of the revenue by cranking out Conn Directors by the thousands.

On the West Coast, Olds flourished in the student instrument market.

I grew up in the Midwest in the 1950s and 60s.

Lots of Conn Directors and at least one Connquest, but also a fair number of Olds horns among the kids I played with as well. I remember one Reynolds because of the distinctive R counterweight.

Most of the step up horns we saw were Conn-- 6H and 48H, but occasionally an Olds-- Super, Special or Recording with their tri-color scheme. One of my section mate bought a Holton large bore. 1st time I had ever seen an F attachment. I saw 88Hs at a local jazz band festival, but no one played one that I knew.

I never saw a King until I was in college and a section mate had a 3B.

My band director had me start on a 6H-- I didn't know how good a horn it was and I was pretty rough on it. I later got a 48H that I still have and I've kept it in great shape. I had the option of getting an 88H, but passed because the large bore sound was just foreign to me and my teacher, J Cimera said I didn't need an F attachment.

I have a 72H that had a very loud buzz in the bell rim when playing an A, all octaves - audible to listeners, not just the person playing it. Local tech tried to fix it, but nothing worked except soldering. So I now have a 1966 72H with a soldered bell rim, no other modifications except that it clearly has had repairs done.

It still plays fine. Much better in fact, because that buzz was awful, and it still has a very resonant bell. I could try to find another one to compare it with. Although it could very well be that there are other factors contributing to larger sound differences, especially with 60 year old trombones.