Schilke 53

[Landok]

Is the schilke 53 cup similar to Bach 3G as far cup depth? Which is deeper?

[Burgerbob]

I think so, yes. As in a little too deep for tenor in most cases

[hyperbolica]

Schilke 53 (according to Doug Elliott's XT comparison chart) is approximately a 104 rim F cup. I play a 104G on large tenor. Several other people on this forum play the same or something similar.

But to your original question, according to Doug's chart, the Schilke 53 is shallower than current Bach 3G (f cup vs i cup).

But then again, even Doug will tell you that mouthpiece comparison charts aren't completely reliable.

[Doug Elliott]

That's based on one sample I measured. It may or may not apply to others, however I suspect Schilkes are a lot more consistent than Bachs.

It's not that comparison charts aren't reliable - it's that the mouthpieces themselves aren't always reliable when you see tremendous variability between samples

[modelerdc]

I had one once. Think a 5GS depth of cup, but with a wide rounded rim that feels bigger than a 3G. for me an odd duck, to big for small bore and cup too shallow for rim for large bore, and the rim felt like a cushion sort of rim.

[Landok]

Sounds like the 53 is very similar to an Bach 3 small shank.

[PhilE]

I found the 53 to be rather weird in all respects. But I'm sure someone liked it at some stage.

[Posaunus]

The Schilke 53 is indeed a bit of an odd duck - very large cup (~26.2 mm) for a small shank mouthpiece, similar to a Bach 3 (both rather deep), but with a larger throat (6.35mm) than the Bach 3 (5.85mm) for a bit better balance. I guess best use would be with a medium-bore (~0.525") trombone playing low (2nd or 3rd) parts in a concert band, big band, etc. I just received one, and find it a little awkward, but haven't given it a real workout.

[pedrombon]

My tech opened up the throat of my small shank Schilke 53 up to 6.9mm (~.270") and it works really well with my 525" and 525 "/547" Edwards slides.

It's for sale and it's like new, PM me if anyone is interested.