Sax on the Web Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Modern & Historical / Charles Chedeville CC1 Alto MPC and Theo Wanne Ambika Soprano MPC
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It differs a bit from the J.A. faced Reso Chambers.
I have played Reso Chambers with the J.A. facing before and all played different, so really hard to tell
if there was a Meyer Bros - Otto link cooperation first before the Reso Chamber emerged with the J.A. facing.
There is one with Meyer´s TrueFlex facing:
https://www.saxophone.org/museum/mouthpieces/specimen/460

Here are photos of my #65 Alto mpc for those who look for infos on these.
Very nice playing mouthpiece.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Modern & Historical / Charles Chedeville CC1 Alto MPC and Theo Wanne Ambika Soprano MPC
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
So there are basically three Joe Allard LINK models over the 10-15 years approximately from 1937 - 1950s:

"Joe Allard" Model with "True Flex" cut out into the table (and like the later True Flex without the cutting, possibly same facing though in cooperation with Meyer).
"Reso Chamber with J.A. facing (from the 1940 onwards)
Early New York "Slant Signature with no USA" Model (made from 1946 onwards).

The Otto Link catalogues from this time show that the Allard Facing was availiable (Reso Chamber and Tone Edge) both for Hard Rubber and Metal.
Tip openings seem to have been approximately:
.065 (Otto Link 5) for Alto
.080 (Otto Link 5) for tenor.

I attach two pictures from the Otto ink catalogues from 1940 and 1946 - the Joe Allard 5 tip opening was of course considered to be quite open those days...
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,568 Posts
interesting info Uwe, thanks for sharing.

About the tip size of the Otto Link JA facing: Nicolas Trefeil reports that the tenor JA pieces are around 0.070" which is actually closer to a Link 4 opening. See this link:
https://www.nicolastrefeil.com/link-reso-chamber-joe-allard

From what I read about JA he was strongly against using bigger tips and since a Link 5 was considered big in those times I guess the value of Nicolas is more close to the reality (he has measured a lot of original facings and tip openings). The facing curve on the JA pieces was different from the standard Link 4 curve.
 

·
Premium Member
Modern & Historical / Charles Chedeville CC1 Alto MPC and Theo Wanne Ambika Soprano MPC
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Hi, thanks so much for your reply!

I have found though the .065 truthful for the reso chamber alto mpcs so far (and will get this one measured) - for Tenor I trusted Mark Overtons measurement on the Tone Edge which looked like a mint example (saxophone.org). Given that they have a shorter facing curve (Joe Allard: "I don't like to lip down") according to Brian Powell the pieces tend to feel smaller than the smaller tip openings in that time which had a large chamber, small tip but a long facing.
 

·
Registered
T880, YTS-82Z; B991; 'Crat 1 alto
Joined
·
1,333 Posts

·
Premium Member
Modern & Historical / Charles Chedeville CC1 Alto MPC and Theo Wanne Ambika Soprano MPC
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I was lucky to find a Joe Allard model in the case when I came upon an Aristocrat series one alto at the start of my sax journey.
Serial no. 45

Looks much like your no. 65
Would this then be the third of the models you mentioned, the slant sig no USA?

Pics are in this thread:
https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showt...940s-Otto-Link-Joe-Allard-model-MPC-showed-up
Hi, yes, I did see your post - I thought your and my model look exactly like the first early series modelled after the Meyer True-Flex (see the link to saxophone.org from Saxquest) except the cut in engraving. The Slant "Joe Allard" inscription looks identical as do the golden double rings on the shank. Saxophone.org mentions like Theo Wanne that the later True flex models got rid of the cut out in the table due to sealing/warping problems with the reeds, our mpcs would belong to that stock I assume.

The later models, Reso Chamber and Tone Edge (Otto Link Slant Signature) had only J.A. engraved on the side or on the table to indicate the facing.
What´s the tip opnening of your model #45?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,568 Posts
Hi, thanks so much for your reply!

I have found though the .065 truthful for the reso chamber alto mpcs so far (and will get this one measured) - for Tenor I trusted Mark Overtons measurement on the Tone Edge which looked like a mint example (saxophone.org). Given that they have a shorter facing curve (Joe Allard: "I don't like to lip down") according to Brian Powell the pieces tend to feel smaller than the smaller tip openings in that time which had a large chamber, small tip but a long facing.
Uwe, I always thought that a shorter facing makes a piece play a bit more resistant (the reed has to bend over a shorter radius), but easier to control (compared to a longer facing). Coltrane used small tips (5*) with shorter facings.
 

·
Premium Member
Modern & Historical / Charles Chedeville CC1 Alto MPC and Theo Wanne Ambika Soprano MPC
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Good point - I guess that largely actually depends on your physiognomy. (large lips / small lips etc.) and the way how you appraoch "embochure".
In my experience when I adjust to a say.060 tip (I had a Selmer C metal and several Links of that tip opening) I can sound quite open and project quite well with a small tip if the facing curve is long and I take the mpc a bit further in my mouth of course and move the lower lip along. On a shorter facing curve I rely on the tip opening much more for general dynamics/projection than on a smaller tip and have to work on the cavity of my inner mouth space to alternate the sound quite a bit...
So in general for me a 5-6 tip feels "small" with a short facing curve in comparison to a long facing curve with smaller tip. Coltrane added a baffle to his mouthpiece which also helps the projection factor a lot and I think that this corresponds with the idea of balancing resistance with easy and flexible control.

I played for a while a Fred Rast re-faced Soloist where he broadened the table and increased the tip to .096 but did no prolong the facing (but so the overall "sounding material" was enlarged - and I was able to play the (for me) huge tip opening with my normal reeds which I would use normally for smaller tips - so I cannot say I felt more resistance because of the short facing and larger tip - but I am fishing in the dark here, based on my own limited experiences and perception...

I hope the tip openings at least show that there was some sort of variety in the Joe Allard models in terms of openings according to the needs of the players.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,568 Posts
Many good points Uwe. I'm not a mouthpiece technician, but now from playing a lot of different types and reading a lot about them that many factors play a role in how a mouthpiece plays/performs/sounds. I'm more of a metal big tip Otto Link player and have examples of almost all models in my collection (see one of the links below my post). I have an original Tone Master 5* with a long facing curve and a STM NY Double Ring 4* (which one of the first STM models coming diretly after the Tone Masters) with a shorter facing curve. I also have to play the TM 5* with more mouthpiece into my mouth to get it speaking well, but the shorter facing and smaller tip NY DR 4* plays with about the same resistance (even while the tip is smaller), but with more control. The TM doesn't have a baffle, the NY DR has a slight roll-over baffle and a smaller chamber compared to the TM. I guess for you HR pieces the Resochamber corresponds with the TM and the Slant Tone Edge with the STM. NY DR.
 

·
Registered
T880, YTS-82Z; B991; 'Crat 1 alto
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
It differs a bit from the J.A. faced Reso Chambers.
I have played Reso Chambers with the J.A. facing before and all played different, so really hard to tell
if there was a Meyer Bros - Otto link cooperation first before the Reso Chamber emerged with the J.A. facing.
There is one with Meyer´s TrueFlex facing:
OTTO LINK Reso Chamber/Tru-Flex Joe Allard Model | Saxophone.org

Here are photos of my #65 Alto mpc for those who look for infos on these.
Very nice playing mouthpiece.
Hey Uwe (and otherJA model fans),

The recent thread on the the JA facing on reso-chamber mouthpiece got me thinking about my JA (#45) and I looked again at the info you gave in this thread and in the other thread (with much the same info as here) where you sold your #65:

I was hoping you could possibly add some further insight regarding a couple of questions I still have.

You said there: “I have played Reso Chambers with the J.A. facing before and all played different, so really hard to tell. This model #65 is supposedly older than the other Reso Chambers and based on a Meyer Bros - Otto link cooperation first before the Reso Chamber emerged with the J.A. facing - it might have the Meyer True-Flex facing without the cut out "True Flex" on the shank. Here is one with Meyer´s TrueFlex facing: OTTO LINK Reso Chamber/Tru-Flex Joe Allard Model | Saxophone.org

So from our prior discussion about the similarity of my #45 and your #65, I understand that mine “might” also have the Meyer Tru-Flex facing without the cut out "True Flex" on the shank. My question here: Is there some method (measuring the facing?) by which one could determine if this is indeed the Tru-Flex facing?

Next, in talking about any identity or similarity of the early JA models (with or without “Tru-Flex” cut out) with the Reso Chamber model, you’ve said it is really hard to tell (so often the case with these things, I suppose). In the link to the saxophone.org page on Otto Link Reso Chamber/Tru-Flex Joe Allard model however, they call it a Reso Chamber and state “The blank is that of a Reso Chamber . . . .” So my question here is whether the statement re it coming from a Reso Chamber blank can be reasonably taken as accurate, and whether any further determination can be made, through measurement or otherwise? I note that the JA model pictured on saxophone.org does not itself bear the “Reso Chamber” marking, yet they clearly state in their heading that theirs is a Reso Chamber.

None of this is really critical info, of course, and perhaps reflects either too fine or completely unimportant distinctions for any practical playing purpose. Nevertheless, I am still just curious if there is any way to further address these two points, or is it, as I expect, to remain that my #45 “might“ have the Tru-Flex facing and “might” be the same as a Reso-Chamber.

EDIT: In looking now at Theo Wayne’s page on Meyer, I see this old ad copy from Meyer, which makes it sound pretty clear that essence of the Tru-Flex is actually in the cut-out itself, and not related to any facing length/curve at all. Is it fair to assume then that absent the cut-out, it cannot be a Tru-Flex, regardless of any other connection re facing length/curve? Or did Meyer, as implied by Uwe in post 3, market a Tru-Flex model that had no cut-out? If that was the case (and I haven’t looked into this at all yet), then wouldn’t that effectively contradict how they define the Tru-Flex “principle” in this ad copy?

Font Material property Symmetry Number Monochrome
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2015-
Joined
·
34,573 Posts
You said there: “I have played Reso Chambers with the J.A. facing before and all played different, so really hard to tell. This model #65 is supposedly older than the other Reso Chambers and based on a Meyer Bros - Otto link cooperation first before the Reso Chamber emerged with the J.A. facing - it might have the Meyer True-Flex facing without the cut out "True Flex" on the shank. Here is one with Meyer´s TrueFlex facing: OTTO LINK Reso Chamber/Tru-Flex Joe Allard Model | Saxophone.org

EDIT: In looking now at Theo Wayne’s page on Meyer, I see this old ad copy from Meyer, which makes it sound pretty clear that essence of the Tru-Flex is actually in the cut-out itself, and not related to any facing length/curve at all.
Thanks for piecing this all together - in summary, the True-Flex feature is the mother of all concave tables.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top