Denis Wick and Schilke Mouthpiece
adefrost
answer to make a decision. I want a Bach 5G similarly sized mouthpiece from
either Denis Wick or Schilke, but I'm unsure of the cup depths. I've played
a Schilke 51D and my tone in the high range suffers too much playing first
part-it's just too awkward with a cup that deep. The 5G is not as deep and
has the depth that I prefer, and it doesn't affect my upper range in the
slightest in comparison to a 6 1/2AL. So, from the specs, my Schilke option
would be a 51, but I don't know the depth of the cup. Is it the same as a 5G
or is it shallower? Also, the Denis Wicks are confusing to me; I could pick
either a 6ABL, 6AL, 5ABL, or 5AL. I've tried a 6BL, which is the shallowest
of the three cup depths, and not deep enough for me. So, how do the ABL and
AL cup depths compare to the Bach 5G? Is an ABL still more shallow than the
5G? Is an AL deeper than a 5G? The same? Which one is closest?
Can anyone help me out?
Thanks
Frosty
Mark Chittenden
It's difficult to accurately compare the sizes of different makes of
mouthpiece as there are so many different variables. And anyway it all
really comes down to how the mouthpiece feels and works for you. I'm not an
expert but from my own observations the Wick numbering system goes as
follows:
front number (eg 4, 5 or 6) = diameter
following letter (eg A or B) = cup depth - A being the deepest and C being
the shallowest
next letter (eg L or S) = shank - large or small
I've found the 5AL to be closest in depth to a Bach 5G, perhaps a fraction
deeper, with a slightly larger cup diameter. The 5BL is quite shallow for a
large bore mouthpiece and is probably meant for constant high range playing
and has a brighter tone. The 5ABL is in between the 5AL and 5BL and is
perhaps slightly shallower than a Bach 5G, closer perhaps to a 5GS. I
suppose the Bach 5G is in between the Wick 5AL and 5ABL in terms of depth,
with the Wick being slightly wider in cup diameter (although we're talking
about very small differences here). (Incidentally, the Wick rim is somewhat
flatter than either a Bach or Schilke and for some this is more
comfortable). I've found the shape of the cup to be slightly different
between, say, the Wick 5AL and the Bach 5G - the Bach is more conical and
the Wick more cup-shaped. The Wick 6AL/BL's are similar in size to a Bach 6
1/2AL. All the Schilke 51's are slightly smaller in diameter than a Bach 5G
or Wick 5AL, but larger than a Bach 6 1/2AL or Wick 6AL. The Schilke 51D is
much deeper than a 5G - too deep for many, the 51C4 is shallower with a
slightly wider and flatter rim, the 51B has a much shallower cup than a 5G
and quite a small throat, the 51 is closest in depth to a 5G, but perhaps
slightly less conical. You could try going to a Shilke 52 which is larger in
diameter than a 5G and only slightly larger than a Wick 5AL.
I hope this helps a little, but the best test is how a mouthpiece feels and
plays for you.
Actikid
the 5C is equivalent to his "G" cup. The Bach 6-1/2AL has a slightly
smaller rim, but a considerably smaller cup, comparable to the Elliott
"E". In that same "E" cup size he includes Schilke 51C4 (with a rim
equal to the Bach 5GS). He lists the Schilke 51 as an "H" cup, one step
larger than the 5G. He doesn't list the ABL.
Other options in the 5G cup size are Wick 5BL, Remington and Giardinelli
Symphony T.
Tim Dowling
25.4 and feels even narrower than my 6璀L. My 51 is slightly wider. What
is not satisfying you about the 5G? With me I could imagine a slightly
easier upper register, but I didn't find the Schilke 51 much easier, and
went back to 5G. I tend to find I get dissatisfied with my mouthpiece
when I haven't practiced enough. I'd say try the 51 or the Wick 5ABL and
go from there. I always end up back at square one BTW, and just got my
5G gold plated to encourage me to stick with him and not to blame him
for my shortcomings!
BTW you might like to consider Curry's 5G which is apparantly a copy of
an excellent old Bach example played by a famous US 1st trombonist. I
once played on another old 5G which belonged to another famous player
and it was magic all over the horn. Alas not for sale. Some 5g's are
real easy up high, some are less so. Now Bach has CNC production but
they didn't use a good old 5G to copy. The new ones are bigger.
adefrost
<tdow...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> I found 5G's to be very inconsistant, mine has a diameter of less than
> 25.4 and feels even narrower than my 6璀L. My 51 is slightly wider. What
> is not satisfying you about the 5G? With me I could imagine a slightly
> easier upper register, but I didn't find the Schilke 51 much easier, and
> went back to 5G. I tend to find I get dissatisfied with my mouthpiece
> when I haven't practiced enough. I'd say try the 51 or the Wick 5ABL and
> go from there. I always end up back at square one BTW, and just got my
> 5G gold plated to encourage me to stick with him and not to blame him
> for my shortcomings!
>
> BTW you might like to consider Curry's 5G which is apparantly a copy of
> an excellent old Bach example played by a famous US 1st trombonist. I
> once played on another old 5G which belonged to another famous player
> and it was magic all over the horn. Alas not for sale. Some 5g's are
> real easy up high, some are less so. Now Bach has CNC production but
> they didn't use a good old 5G to copy. The new ones are bigger.
>
Unless your 5G really is off from the published dimensions, it may be the
sharper edge and flatter rim that make it seem narrower than the 6.5 AL.
What dissatisfies me about Bach 5Gs is that they have a smaller throat and
narrower back bore than I'd like for my .547 tenor, and so I feel that the
low range is thin and weak and the high range airy. In comparison to the UMI
5G, the UMI is darker and cleaner, which might be because of the extra mass
by the rim, but it also has a much larger bass throat and a wider back bore.
Only problem for me is the narrower cup diameter on the UMI in comparison to
the Bach. The Bach isn't bad, but I feel it could be better. I'm hoping that
either a Schilke or Wick will be better because of the extra mass near the
rim on the Wick and general high quality of the Schilke. In any case, I may
as well also buy a Faxx 5G and hope that it comes out a bit ahead of the
Bach. After all, it's so cheap. Is the Curry 5G any more shallow than the
Bach or is it nearly the exact same depth?
Thanks
Frosty
matt
most of the plating is worn off the rim, and it has a couple nice
"traction divots" on the rim to keep it locked in place when marching.
I have found the Schilke 51 to be a good replacement for the 5G, even a
nice upgrade. I like the thinner shank and the rim of the Schilkes
better. When I compare my 51 and my 5G side by side, I find the 51 to
be slightly shallower. I find it easier to play in tune with the
Schilke. The 51D is nice for 2nd parts, and I play a 52E2 for 3rd parts
on an 88-H.
Papagrizbone
the contours inside & out, these feel & play, VERY much like the equally sized
Wick, or Giardinelli - I wondered if either of these mfrs actually produced
them for King - does anyone know?
These Kings, are CONSTANTLY being offered..."BUY IT NOW!"..., for $34.00,
brand new...
I love mine enough to get it Au-plated!
My point? NOTHING!