Besson Anniversary Euphonium, York, Prestige, and relative merit

[miketeachesclass]

So Besson did a handful of Besson 180th anniversary euphoniums in the frosted finish; I believe they are sovereigns with an added trigger.

I saw Lee Harrelson playing one this weekend with Fountain City rather than his prestige; I found it odd but I thought it was interesting.

Does anyone know whether the sovereign is differently constructed than the prestige? Is this a simple instance of a preferred finish?

I’ve played a handful of prestige horns, and I own two German made baritones. With the two baritones, they play significantly differently. Of the 3 prestige euphoniums I’ve played, they also play significantly differently. (All are German made).

Is it possible the sovereign is more consistent somehow?

When York was producing the eminence was there also such a huge variance?

Am I just being over sensitive?

SO MANY QUESTIONS!!

Thanks for indulging me!
Mike

[ydave]

Hi Mike
ive only seen sponsered players on the aniversary euph so far. Tryed one against many others earlier this year. From memory: german sov bassed so 1st comp loop now has no slide so you cant easily check valve alingment. A tech friend also told me something about the way the frosted finish is applied therefore difficult to hide repairs. It had a nice sound almost imperial on steroids but nothing like as big as the german prestige which i have sold on as its a little bright for me!

German sov is very flexible but even brighter than german prestige with the exception of the triggered sov which can be darker than the prestige.... they all varry so much! My Emminence is like a uk prrestige on a good day... dark sounding like a round stamp.....
back to work.....

[superted]

I play tested an Anniversary Special and a regular 967 in April this year.
Loved the feel and sound of the regular 967 I tested, it sounded big and sonorous.
I didn't love feel or sound of the Anniversary model - it had an airy sound.

Not sure if it's me preferring one model over another, or if it's just inconsistencies between one Besson and another.

[miketeachesclass]

I have the same curiosity - Definitely my two besson baritones are very different despite both being of German manufacture.

Is besson still reputed to be inconsistent in quality, I wonder? Obviously any two horns will be a bit different, but wildly different seems odd.

I play tested an Anniversary Special and a regular 967 in April this year.
Loved the feel and sound of the regular 967 I tested, it sounded big and sonorous.
I didn't love feel or sound of the Anniversary model - it had an airy sound.

Not sure if it's me preferring one model over another, or if it's just inconsistencies between one Besson and another.

[bbocaner]

When I bought a Prestige in 2011 I tried six of them and five of them were almost indistinguishable and the sixth had some obvious quality defects (sharp edges on the guard wires, bottom vent hole on the 4th piston not completely machined out) but played ever so slightly better with regards to how it centered and responded. Once I got that stuff fixed on the sixth one it was a winner. I may not be the best player in the world, but I'm really sensitive to small changes in instruments. This is a fairly small sample size, but my conclusion from this is that they are pretty good when it comes to consistency but there still are slight differences. I think a larger factor is that they have been changing the design little by little of their instruments since 2007.

As a comparison, I got two Adams E3 euphoniums with identical specifications and the second one played like a whole different instrument!

[superted]

I saw Lee Harrelson playing one this weekend with Fountain City rather than his prestige; I found it odd but I thought it was interesting.

By the way I came across a Facebook post the other week which identified that frosted euphonium is a refurbished Besson New Standard with an 11" bell (and not a new 967 anniversary special).

[miketeachesclass]

In that case, I find it even more surprising!

By the way I came across a Facebook post the other week which identified that frosted euphonium is a refurbished Besson New Standard with an 11" bell (and not a new 967 anniversary special).

[joshealejo]

Why one would use an older Bossey Imperial (or Besson New standard as your prefer) rather than the Prestige? Not saying that the older Besson is bad but why? What one would use one than th other? Also, I asume that that New Standard have really nice tunning as the gentleman who is used to use a trigger on his Prestige would use a New Standard without one.

Very interesting.

[MichaelSchott]

Why one would use an older Bossey Imperial (or Besson New standard as your prefer) rather than the Prestige? Not saying that the older Besson is bad but why? What one would use one than th other? Also, I asume that that New Standard have really nice tunning as the gentleman who is used to use a trigger on his Prestige would use a New Standard without one.

Very interesting.

I can think of 2 reasons. First is cost. Second is the Prestige gives a big dark sound. Many prefer the old lighter classic Besson sound. I played a mid 70’s Boosey Sovereign in college which had that sound.

[daruby]

Why one would use an older Bossey Imperial (or Besson New standard as your prefer) rather than the Prestige? Not saying that the older Besson is bad but why? What one would use one than the other? Also, I assume that that New Standard have really nice tuning as the gentleman who is used to use a trigger on his Prestige would use a New Standard without one.

The New Standard/Imperial of the late 1950s through very early 1970s had an 11" bell and medium shank receiver. They had an absolutely beautiful, melodic, smooth sound in the hands of better players. Their intonation was MUCH better than later Sovereign and Prestige models with just a slightly sharp 6th partial. I tested my 1970 New Standard using a chromatic StroboConn back in the day. The horn was dead on across a 2 1/2 octave range except the Eb/E/F 6th partial which was just slightly sharp. Response was great and I never had a problem soaring above a wind band when doing solo licks in pieces like Bydlo, Holst Suites, etc.

These horns are very comparable to the Willson 2900 in sound and playability. If I had one in great condition today I would actually use it with a Wick 4AM (I use a Wick 4AL on my other horns). I would also convert the valves to plastic screw in guides and use modern felts. I would NOT convert it to bass trombone shank, however. It would be a fantastic solo, small ensemble, or wind band horn. I would not, however use it in brass band.

[joshealejo]

The New Standard/Imperial of the late 1950s through very early 1970s had an 11" bell and medium shank receiver. They had an absolutely beautiful, melodic, smooth sound in the hands of better players. Their intonation was MUCH better than later Sovereign and Prestige models with just a slightly sharp 6th partial. I tested my 1970 New Standard using a chromatic StroboConn back in the day. The horn was dead on across a 2 1/2 octave range except the Eb/E/F 6th partial which was just slightly sharp. Response was great and I never had a problem soaring above a wind band when doing solo licks in pieces like Bydlo, Holst Suites, etc.

These horns are very comparable to the Willson 2900 in sound and playability. If I had one in great condition today I would actually use it with a Wick 4AM (I use a Wick 4AL on my other horns). I would also convert the valves to plastic screw in guides and use modern felts. I would NOT convert it to bass trombone shank, however. It would be a fantastic solo, small ensemble, or wind band horn. I would not, however use it in brass band.

What about the later ones, the model 767, the ones that have large (bass trombone) shank? Do they sound different or have a different response? They always show up for sale at a reasonable prices, but people seem to pass them and always prefer to buy or to wait for an used Prestige or Sovereign. I also thought It could be a very nice instrument for solo as the smaller bell.

[daruby]

What about the later ones, the model 767, the ones that have large (bass trombone) shank? Do they sound different or have a different response? They always show up for sale at a reasonable prices, but people seem to pass them and always prefer to buy or to wait for an used Prestige or Sovereign. I also thought It could be a very nice instrument for solo as the smaller bell.

Several issues here.

1. Quite a few older Imperials and New Standard horns have been converted from medium shank to large shank.
2. The existing records show that serial number 481845 dates to January 1970 and 560000 dates to 1974. There is no clarity about serial numbers in between those two data points. These are the dates that the instrument was ordered from the factory and it generally is assumed the instrument would have shipped within a few months of that date.
3. The first Globe Stamp "Boosey&Hawkes" Sovereign 967's are believed to date to 1974. I know that my brass band has a Globe Stamp Sovereign tenor horn that has a serial number prior to 560000 so the name "Sovereign" must have been used prior to 1974.
4. It is hard to know at this point whether any given large shank New Standard/Imperial with a serial number that puts it in the early 1970s originally was medium shank or was a 767 that left the factory as a large shank.
5. The 767 was ultimately replaced by the 968. The 968 has a slightly larger bell than the New Standard/Imperial and a slightly different lead pipe than the 967.

I think ultimately it comes down to "knowing" what you are getting. If the horn has the medium shank receiver and appears to be unmolested and has a pre-1970 serial number, then it is more desirable because it will definitely be of the era and design that buyers are interested in.

Doug

[bbocaner]

Some of the recordings of Black Dyke and other British bands from the 1960s era show very clearly that they were grappling with much more than just "slightly" sharp 6th partial notes even then, suggesting that this wasn't just an issue that was introduced with the Sovereign!

[daruby]

Some of the recordings of Black Dyke and other British bands from the 1960s era show very clearly that they were grappling with much more than just "slightly" sharp 6th partial notes even then, suggesting that this wasn't just an issue that was introduced with the Sovereign!

Oh Barry, My memory must be getting flat!

[davewerden]

FWIW, I have heard from a few sources that the instruments were somewhat variable, even in those days. I had one from about 1971 that was a sweet horn, but was sharp on the 6th partial. My understanding, and it makes sense, was that when new batches of euphoniums were produced, the brass band guys who needed a new horn would descend on the factory and choose the best of the lot. At some point after that shipments to the USA were prepared. Could just be an urban-legend thing.

But I know that Custom Music would send batches of Hirsbrunners to Earle Louder for testing (I know because they sent me 6 one time when Earle was not available). The goal was to evaluate each horn and rate them from 1-6 (or however many there were). They also sought comments for things that their shop could fix or things they could pass along to Peter for future improvements. When the horns were back at Custom, they would send the 1's and 2's to the best pros who were currently looking for a horn. Someone got the 6, and it was still a good horn, but not as good as the 1.