Conn 1

[hrender]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/USED-CONN-1-TU ... 5015164452

Good price.

[donn]

Whoosh, that went fast. It's a great mouthpiece, and not common.

[DandyZ629]

I have one in horrible shape, that I still use because it sounds so damn good for some things. I need to get it either copied or restored.

[donn]

It's too bad you missed out on the James R New C-1 copy. I had four of them and sold off all but one at cost plus postage. If I remember right, at least two of them went to bass tuba players, which to my mind is not really the ideal use for it, and one of them had some issue with the shank size, which is really just the same as any Conn or Schilke mouthpiece. The copy is very nice quality and plays just like the original - an older Conn 1 than the one sold here, which appears to have the "Improved Precision" shank shoulder. Tuba mouthpieces are definitely not his thing, and later I heard mostly reports of such propositions being refused, but I must have just been very lucky; if you decide to try it, I'd suggest something like I did, order a batch of them and unload them here. They went pretty fast - it's a really high quality item and quite a distinctly different design. Failing that, I guess you may be able to get a Chinese copy from Wessex, if the Chief is close enough.

[DandyZ629]

It's a lot of fun on my Rudy 5/4, that's for sure. I would really like one in stainless, with a bit larger shank. Incidentally, the Holton Revelation 52 I have, is really similar. Both straight funnels. The 52 may actually be a little deeper. Unfortunately it's in worse shape that the Conn.

[donn]

Is the Holton 52 reasonably substitutable, i.e. plays the same? Or are we talking about two mouthpieces in the same genre so to speak, but not exactly the same? I'm curious because I've heard a lot about this similarity, but not so often from someone who actually has both, and there's certainly a great distance between "looks like" and "plays like". (I think I've had the opportunity to acquire the Holton, but never been quite sure - any "52" is guaranteed to be the same thing?)

[TheConnsequence]

I own both (and actually 3 Holton 52's) and they do play different from what I have experienced. The Conn 1 feels like it has an easier articulation but does not feel as robust. A smooth sound for sure. My Holton feels more robust which may or may not have to do with the added mass around the cup. However, all three of my Holton 52's play different from each other so I cannot attest to QC within one mouthpiece even. I am also sure the way the bore was drilled out in the Holton 52's left a lot of scarring (all three of my mouthpieces have it and the same marks), so that could also be why it feels slightly more resistant than the Conn as well.

I prefer playing on the Holton 52 because it is more common (relative to a Conn 1) and because it is fairly comfortable.

I remember reading somewhere in Tubenet that the Holton 52 is closer to the Conn Chief and the Conn 1 is "just" a large funnel shaped mouthpiece that may or may not be loosely based on a Conn Chief.

Short answer: probably not a substitutable as you would like.

[DandyZ629]

I prefer the sound of the Conn 1 on my Rudy. It has a more dense sound, but is much more free blowing, and the rim is more comfortable. The Holton 52 doesn't play as open, but again the throat isn't as open. I need to measure it to be sure. The Holton plays really well on my 3J incidentally. It's a really unique sound. That I happen to really like

[donn]

The Conn 1 has a large throat by ordinary standards, 9mm if I remember right, but it's so far down there and the transition is so gradual, that I think it just works out. Honestly I can only just tell the difference, vs. say a Schilke 67 that has a similar rim - not as radical a difference as one might expect from the shape. Not sure what "robust" means here.

New's contour analysis:

[TheConnsequence]

The Conn 1 has a large throat by ordinary standards, 9mm if I remember right, but it's so far down there and the transition is so gradual, that I think it just works out. Honestly I can only just tell the difference, vs. say a Schilke 67 that has a similar rim - not as radical a difference as one might expect from the shape. Not sure what "robust" means here.

New's contour analysis:

I'd love to see a contour analysis of the Conn 1 with the Conn Chief.

As far as "robust" goes, I meant that as a little grittier with some more power/width behind the sound, but this is only what I hear/feel. I'd love to hear what others feel/hear on the other side of the horn.