Differences between older and newer Imperial euphoniums

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by MoominDave, Nov 4, 2012.

  1. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Late Imperials (60s/70s) as I recall blow larger than early Imperials (pre WW2 - often also labelled 'Class A' or 'Solbron') - am I right in thinking this? Does anyone have any bore size numbers? How about the bell? Is the needed mouthpiece shank size different? Been a long while since I had one of each on hand to compare...
  2. DMBabe

    DMBabe Supporting Member

    You're too young to talk about it being a long time since you handled older model euphs!:rolleyes:
  3. cockaigne

    cockaigne Member

    I played an Imperial on the TUC march the other week; not sure of its vintage but it certainly took a small shank mouthpiece. Probably just as well, as if I'd played on the 2G as normal I doubt I'd have had any lip left by the end...
  4. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Late Imperials took a medium shank mouthpiece, as I recall?

    And Di, it's been 20 years...
  5. GordonH

    GordonH Member

    I used to play Euphonium and I had a euph bought from Kitchens of Leeds around 1985 which was badged as "Imperial Besson by Boosey and Hawkes". It was identical to a Sovereign apart from the bell which was smaller. It took a bass trombone mouthpiece and it was in bright silver plate.
  6. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Interesting... Was it manufactured with a large shank mouthpipe or had it been retrofitted, do you know?

    My question originally arises from a potential interest in having this done to an Imperial euph.
  7. GordonH

    GordonH Member

    No, it was built that way in the factory.
    I have seen the odd one for sale and they go quite cheaply.
  8. simonium

    simonium Member

    That's the same set-up as a Besson Sovereign 966 banjo. 11" bell, medium bore (what it is I don't actually know) and a large mouthpiece receiver. I've had mine for about 3 months and absolutely love it - the band certainly prefer the sound over the 967 I was using.
  9. GordonH

    GordonH Member

    Actually, I think you are correct. After B&H stopped making the "Imperial Besson" I had there was a gap and then they reintroduced it as a sovereign because soem military musicians prefered the smaller euphonium. I might be wrong. I am sure a Euphonium nerd could comment.
  10. fsteers

    fsteers Member

    The 1978 B&H spec sheet lists the bore of the Besson Imperial as 14.72mm (.579") through the valve section and 16.mmm (.650") for the fourth valve.B&H switched to large shank receivers in 1974. Prior to that, Imperial receivers were medium shank. I have a copy of the letter to dealers announcing the change tucked away somehwere. I'll see if I can dig it up.
  11. Fat_Bari

    Fat_Bari Member

    I played on a pre 74 instrument with Dalkeith Burgh band many years ago, it was HP and came with a LP tuning slide, it took a medium mouthpiece 4AM if a recall.

Share This Page