[nvilletele]

In most cases I've seen mention, along with tip size, of "facing length" which I understand to be the length of the facing curve, from the break point break to the tip. As explained here: https://theowanne.com/knowledge/mouthpiece-facings/

That is simple enough. My simpler question is, what about "table length?" I seen some mouthpiece specs showing table length, and not facing length, but the numbers seem to reflect facing length, and are clearly much shorter than the length of the actual table of the mouthpiece.

From their names, these two things sound very different, but from the numbers I've seen, they seem similar if not the same. I haven't found any explanation of table length like that for facing length as in the above link.

I note that in catalogs for Selmer pieces, some mouthpieces show a table length (soloist), and some show a facing length (supersession). See https://www.howarth.uk.com/acrobat/selmerparismouthpieces 4.pdf

Would I be correct in thinking table length and facing length are the same measurement? If so, why would they use different terms in the catalog? (Ok, inconsistencies happen.) If not, what is the difference between them, and why show only one or the other for each piece and not both?

 

[pontius]

"Table Length" seems like a typo to me. I think they meant facing length.

 

[nvilletele]

I think that's likely right, since in the catalog, right above the chart showing "table length" the text mentions the chart shows "facing length." So a mistake is likely.

But it seems I am not the only one confused, as the term Table Length has been used elsewhere . . . and I just found a good explanation of this from Pete Thomas over at cafesaxophone.com:
https://cafesaxophone.com/threads/table-length-effect-on-a-mouthpiece.28077/

According to that info, the confusion seems to have arisen from an overly literal translation from French of "Longueur de table."

Seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

 

[MojoBari]

Selmer facing lengths measure (when using a .0015” feeler) less than what is shown in these charts. I suspect they are intended to be lengths to the tangent point between the curve and flat table. That would be closer to curves I have analyzed but there is still a lot of facing length variation. More than tip opening variation, which also exists.