Large king trombones

8parktoollover · Post by **8parktoollover** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:29 am

Why are all the trombones king makes above the 3b so unpopular?

Post by **BGuttman** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:35 am

That's really tough to answer as somebody who plays a King 7B and used to have a 4B and a 5B.

The Conn 88H was pushed hard by Emory Remington at Eastman and for a while was the standard trombone for orchestral use. When Conn moved to Abilene and the quality began to suffer there was a move to Bach and many orchestras adopted the "Bach sound". One major exception was the Cleveland Orchestra (home of King) where the section used Kings.

King got a reputation of being more "commercial" and the large bores were considered "too light" for symphonic use.

Mind you, I don't believe a word of this. Kings are great trombones and it's sad that they fell out of favor.

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:38 am

Mainly, because they aren't a Bach 42 or Conn88H type horn, and never really caught on in that sense unfortunately. They are however, great horns, just not like other horns out there. The mainslide bow is VERY rounded on a 4B, which with the leadpipe makes it have a different type of response. I had a Benge 190, which was based heavily on the 4B, and it was interesting. The one I had was kinda beat up, so I never bonded with it due to my OCD tendencies. However, it was a great sounding horn, as are all of the King Trombones.

As for the other horns, the 5B is pretty much like a Bach 45, and neither really caught on. The King 6B "duo gravis" is a legendary Commercial Bass trombone, however it has been out of production for decades unfortunately. The 7B also never really had a lot of followers when compared to the other big bass trombone names.

So, if you look at the famous classic players of King trombones, people like Tommy Dorsey, JJ Johnson, etc. they were all playing the smaller bore horns like the 2B and the 3B. Those are the horns that got popular, so that's what Conn-Selmer has chosen to continue making.

walldaja · Post by **walldaja** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:58 am

With Bach, Conn, and King (and once Benge) being under the same corporate umbrella I wonder how much had to do with marketing and production choices. It's hard to gain market share when you don't make much marketing penetration which can be done through the combination of advertising and availability.

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:05 am

walldaja wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:58 am With Bach, Conn, and King (and once Benge) being under the same corporate umbrella I wonder how much had to do with marketing and production choices. It's hard to gain market share when you don't make much marketing penetration which can be done through the combination of advertising and availability.

Well, that's true, but they also are pretty much going with history as well. The King 4B never had the same legions of followers that the Conn 88H and Bach 42 did. As companies merged into UMI and then Conn-Selmer, they discontinued a lot of legendary horn lines in favor of streamlining marketing, which at the present seems to be Bach as the "high end" line of trombones, and virtually their only line of trumpets.

Conn trombones are just as professional as the Bach horns, but they are marketed and priced at a lower tier. Kings are marketed as specialty "jazz" horns. It's a shame, as Bach has some great smaller bore horns, as did Holton, Martin, etc etc.

DougHulme · Post by **DougHulme** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:29 am

Maybe its because I'm the other side of the pond but I dont recognise the scenarios that we are talking about here. The larger King Horns have always had a similar standing and popularity to Conns and Bachs, they might not have sold more (I dont have any figures so dont know whether we are working her on hard facts or just perceptions) I do know however that they made thousands of larger bore horns as is evidenced by the number for sale on (say) ebay. Where they do not sell for appreciable less than the other horns. Their reputation ever here is rock solid and on equal par with Conns and Bachs. I think what happened was just as we all started to get a bit more money and were in a position to choose more - Kings lost control of their own destiny. if you are selling a horn you made and believe in you do a far better job than if you are just a salesman for a group of companies. Whoever is then in charge of marketing also makes his own mind up on what your priority is on which horn you make. As mentioned earlier the Duo Gravis was second to none and to this day enjoys a fabulous reputation, second hand prices are way up on their original prices even now. With that sort of reputation and sales potential someone has to have made a decision to stop production for reasons that did not relate to that particular horn and its saleability or demand... its marketing and many of us have fallen for it. Large bore Kings are superb horns and can be used in Symphony, Brass Bands and other ensembles with great effect. Personally (being a Conn man) I think King horns knock the socks off of Bach any day of the week!

2bobone · Post by **2bobone** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:17 pm

Yeah --- "Chevrolet v/s Ford" --- "Budweiser v/s Miller" --- "Apple v/s PC" --- There will always be different camps for different marques. That's just the way it is. I started as a Conn devotee' and switched to King when I first heard the sound of a "Silver Sonic King Duo Gravis" ! I put a lot of mileage on both a Duo Gravis and an 8B, and as I've said many times on TromboneChat, I firmly believe I could have played my entire career on the Duo Gravis. It was a versatile voice that refused to be covered up or assimilated in a brass choir --- and I mean that in a good way.
Chuck Levin, who owned the Washington Music Center once flew his wife to California, rented a car and drove her to a rather decrepit industrial building where he shocked her by telling her he'd bought the Benge factory ! Mrs. Levin related the story during sitting Shiva after Chuck passed away. He'd saved a great brass manufacturer from an unkind demise. Those Benge horns were really Kings --- looked like them --- sounded like them. My guess is that "Word of Mouth" was just not enough to boost sales by getting the word out about what great horns those really were. RIP !

castrubone · Post by **castrubone** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:45 pm

Imagine a world where brands were independent private companies that cared about research and development, not just money. It's hard to find in America.

Burgerbob · Post by **Burgerbob** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:52 pm

The big Kings are good horns, but pretty different than anything else out there. Why switch when there are plenty of other options, all based on the 88/42 designs?

Post by **BGuttman** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:07 pm

castrubone wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:45 pm Imagine a world where brands were independent private companies that cared about research and development, not just money. It's hard to find in America.

R and D is an expensive proposition. It's like trying to find a prince by kissing frogs. You gotta kiss a lot of frogs. Similarly, when doing R and D you have to make a lot of expensive mistakes till you dial in that great product.

There are a few instrument manufacturers doing R and D. I can think of Shires, Edwards, Lawlor, M and W, and BAC just to name a few. Also look at the thread on the Db bass trombone from LI Brass.

castrubone · Post by **castrubone** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:19 pm

BGuttman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:07 pm
castrubone wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:45 pm Imagine a world where brands were independent private companies that cared about research and development, not just money. It's hard to find in America.
R and D is an expensive proposition. It's like trying to find a prince by kissing frogs. You gotta kiss a lot of frogs. Similarly, when doing R and D you have to make a lot of expensive mistakes till you dial in that great product.

There are a few instrument manufacturers doing R and D. I can think of Shires, Edwards, Lawlor, M and W, and BAC just to name a few. Also look at the thread on the Db bass trombone from LI Brass.

My point exactly

mrdeacon · Post by **mrdeacon** » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:41 pm

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:05 am Conn trombones are just as professional as the Bach horns, but they are marketed and priced at a lower tier. Kings are marketed as specialty "jazz" horns. It's a shame, as Bach has some great smaller bore horns, as did Holton, Martin, etc etc.

They still make small bore Bachs... The 16M and others still sell like hot cakes.

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:55 pm

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:41 pmThey still make small bore Bachs... The 16M and others still sell like hot cakes.

I know they still make them, but I rarely see them "in the wild", while I see lots of King horns in Jazz bands, as well the usual custom horns. I don't see that many big bands though.

JohnL · Post by **JohnL** » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:33 pm

I think the 4B and 4BF suffered from being "late to the party". The 88H set the the standard in the mid-1950's, and Bach responded with the 42B. King already had their Symphony model, but it was a very different beast from the 88H. The 4B didn't arrive 'til the 1960's; by then, the two "schools" were pretty well defined, and the 4B didn't fit either one.

King wasn't the only company with a good design that just never really got traction with big name players. The Olds Opera family was pretty much an also-ran. Holton had some adherents, but never enough to really be a threat to the Bach/Conn duopoly.

Posaunus · Post by **Posaunus** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:01 pm

JohnL wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:33 pm I think the 4B and 4BF suffered from being "late to the party". The 88H set the the standard in the mid-1950's, and Bach responded with the 42B. King already had their Symphony model, but it was a very different beast from the 88H. The 4B didn't arrive 'til the 1960's; by then, the two "schools" were pretty well defined, and the 4B didn't fit either one.

King wasn't the only company with a good design that just never really got traction with big name players. The Olds Opera family was pretty much an also-ran. Holton had some adherents, but never enough to really be a threat to the Bach/Conn duopoly.

Having lived through much of that history, I'd say that John is spot on! When I purchased a large-bore tenor in the early 1970s, the local symphony trombonists (in Boston) told me I had two options: Bach 42B or Conn 88H. [I chose the 88h!

]

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:13 pm

I should mention, eventually I intend to get a Straight King 4B. Hopefully a silvertone, but there are also ones with rose brass bells out there. Anyone have any insight into the rose brass vs sterling silver bells?

Post by **BGuttman** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:19 pm

You can't find a 4B Silvertone. By the time that model was introduced it was Silver Sonic. King lost a trademark dispute with Sears in the early 1950s over the name Silvertone.

Silver belled Kings were not common so finding one may be a challenge. Also you have to pay a premium for one -- generally around $1000 more than the cost of a standard instrument.

Bach5G · Post by **Bach5G** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:28 pm

What was the difference between the 6B, 7B, and 8B?

Burgerbob · Post by **Burgerbob** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:36 pm

Bach5G wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:28 pm What was the difference between the 6B, 7B, and 8B?

Dependent/independent/totally new design

chromebone · Post by **chromebone** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:54 pm

Bach5G wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:28 pm What was the difference between the 6B, 7B, and 8B?

The 6B, originally named the Duo-Gravis, was the first true bass trombone made by King. It was designed for Alan Ralph in the late ‘60’s. He was one of the busiest bass trombonists in New York in the 1960’s -80’s. It was a dependent horn that was originally available with a Sterling Silver or Brass bell, in the later 70’s with a gold brass bell instead of silver when the price of silver went through the roof. Around 1980, it was renamed the 6B and was only available with a gold brass bell.

The 7B was essentially an in line version of the post 1980 6B. The 8B was originally intended as an orchestral in-line horn, similar to the 7B, but with a 10” rose bell and a larger throat, but it was short lived, being supplanted by the Benge 290 which had many similarities in its design, including the bell. The 8B is rare as hens teeth.

JohnL · Post by **JohnL** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:08 pm

I think the attachment tubing might be different sizes between the 7B and the 8B. Bruce, can you get a measurement on your 7B?

chromebone · Post by **chromebone** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:15 pm

At some point, the attachments on the 7B were redesigned, the later versions are more squared off on the bottom part, similar to the Benge 290. The same thing was done to the 4 and 5B’s. This was done to accommodate moving the cross brace back so the player could hold it like an 88h or a Bach 42 or 50. I think the 8B was discontinued before that happened. Maybe the diameter was changed at that time as well.

Bach5G · Post by **Bach5G** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:50 pm

What tunings?

Gatt · Post by **Gatt** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:09 pm

chromebone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:54 pm
Bach5G wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:28 pm What was the difference between the 6B, 7B, and 8B?

..............so the 'Duo Gravis' name only refers to the early 6B?

The 6B, originally named the Duo-Gravis, was the first true bass trombone made by King. It was designed for Alan Ralph in the late ‘60’s. He was one of the busiest bass trombonists in New York in the 1960’s -80’s. It was a dependent horn that was originally available with a Sterling Silver or Brass bell, in the later 70’s with a gold brass bell instead of silver when the price of silver went through the roof. Around 1980, it was renamed the 6B and was only available with a gold brass bell.

The 7B was essentially an in line version of the post 1980 6B. The 8B was originally intended as an orchestral in-line horn, similar to the 7B, but with a 10” rose bell and a larger throat, but it was short lived, being supplanted by the Benge 290 which had many similarities in its design, including the bell. The 8B is rare as hens teeth.

Post by **BGuttman** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:12 pm

The 6B was originally offered with flat E, then Eb and later a special slide for D.

The 7B and 8B (essentially identical except for the bell -- and the leadpipe apparently) was available in Bb/F/Gb/D

When I tested my 7B and an 8B at the same time the attachments were the same diameter tubing. I think they were larger than the 6B. When I get a chance I'll measure the inside of a tuning slide.

chromebone · Post by **chromebone** » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:20 pm

Gatt wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:09 pm
chromebone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:54 pm

..............so the 'Duo Gravis' name only refers to the early 6B?

Yes. Like all King Trombones during the HN White/early Seeburg era, the models all had names (Liberty, Concert, Sonorous, Symphony, Duo Gravis). The names were phased out in the late ‘70’s/early 80’s.

greenbean · Post by **greenbean** » Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:35 am

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:12 pm The 6B was originally offered with flat E, then Eb and later a special slide for D.
...

Actually, the D slide was available right from the start. And I have never seen an Eb. I have my doubts about that...

I am unclear when King offered the D slide vs D extension. Perhaps the extension was intended for buyers who opted for the E slide at the time of purchase and later wanted D.

2bobone · Post by **2bobone** » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:26 am

In response to "chromebone's" posting about the characteristics of the King 8B : I just put a tape measure to my 8B and it definitely has a solid 10 1/2" bell. I recall ordering the instrument with a gold brass bell, not the standard rose brass bell. It is a great horn with an awesome bottom end. Unlike my 7B "Duo Gravis Silver Sonic", the 8B could get out of hand at high dynamics so I had a detachable bell brace fitted between the mouthpiece receiver and a fitting on the bell about 6" from the end that tamed it sufficiently. My tech at the time was a pro trumpeter who pointed out the fact that trumpets had a similar bracing arrangement for the same reason. The idea transferred beautifully to the 8B. Of course it had to be detachable so the instrument could be disassembled to fit in a case. A wonderful axe !

imsevimse · Post by **imsevimse** » Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:32 pm

greenbean wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:35 am
BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:12 pm The 6B was originally offered with flat E, then Eb and later a special slide for D.
...
Actually, the D slide was available right from the start. And I have never seen an Eb. I have my doubts about that...

I am unclear when King offered the D slide vs D extension. Perhaps the extension was intended for buyers who opted for the E slide at the time of purchase and later wanted D.

I have seen them with E-slide and D-slide, never Eb.

/Tom

chromebone · Post by **chromebone** » Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:18 pm

In any discussion of large bore King trombones, we should probably include the Benge 190 and 290. They were for all intents and purposes Kings that were tweeked to compete with 88h, 42 and the 50. The 190 was basically a 5B bell, annealed, but with an 8 1/2 inch diameter instead of 9”, brass outer slide tubes, open wrap and a different leadpipe. It was very much in the same family as the 4B and 5B sound wise and shared many of the same components, like tuning slides, valve, end crooks and neck pipes, but with more heft and a bit more color to the sound. The 290 was basically a refined 8B. Both were great horns.

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:33 pm

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:19 pmSilver belled Kings were not common so finding one may be a challenge. Also you have to pay a premium for one -- generally around $1000 more than the cost of a standard instrument.

Yeah, Silver Sonic. I've been too much into vintage guitar amplifier tubes, many of which are labeled "Silvertone".

Of course, there is an Anniversary Silversonic Straight 4B at Dillon music right now... didn't need to see that.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:59 am

https://www.thebrass-exchange.com/conte ... eat-player

Came across this one too! It’d be a pretty fun horn to own, but I’m not sure how many situations I’d actually use it in

TonyNeal · Post by **TonyNeal** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:44 am

There is also a nice looking silver sonic 4b at Elbblech in Hamburg. I'd like to give that place a visit.

8parktoollover · Post by **8parktoollover** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:45 am

I actually really want a 3b silversonic. Do the still even make them?

JohnL · Post by **JohnL** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:13 am

chromebone wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:18 pm In any discussion of large bore King trombones, we should probably include the Benge 190 and 290. They were for all intents and purposes Kings that were tweeked to compete with 88h, 42 and the 50. The 190 was basically a 5B bell, annealed, but with an 8 1/2 inch diameter instead of 9”, brass outer slide tubes, open wrap and a different leadpipe. It was very much in the same family as the 4B and 5B sound wise and shared many of the same components, like tuning slides, valve, end crooks and neck pipes, but with more heft and a bit more color to the sound. The 290 was basically a refined 8B. Both were great horns.

Another major difference between the King large bores and their Benge cousins is the bore through the f-attachment. On the 4BF and the 4B-derived 5B, the f-attachment is .547" (George McCracken believed that f-attachment tubing should be the same size as the inner slide). My Benge 165F is larger (in the neighborhood of .562", which puts it in line with the 88H and the 42B); no reason to think the 190F is any different (though it'd be nice if someone could measure one).

chromebone · Post by **chromebone** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:36 am

I was talking about King vs Benge a few months ago with Chuck Ward, who designed the Benge line, and he said the diameter of the F attachment tuning was an issue he disagreed on with McCracken. He thought it was the major problem with the large King horns and contributed to their perceived stuffiness in the lower register and unpopularity in the US for orchestral playing.

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:38 am

chromebone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:36 am I was talking about King vs Benge a few months ago with Chuck Ward, who designed the Benge line, and he said the diameter of the F attachment tuning was an issue he disagreed on with McCracken. He thought it was the major problem with the large King horns and contributed to their perceived stuffiness in the lower register and unpopularity in the US for orchestral playing.

Definitely interesting! I know that many feel (myself included) that the .562 bore in the tubing for the Duo Gravis is what really gives it that legendary low range bite. Nothing else is quite like it.

The Benge large bore horns and basses were good horns. I remember a bunch of them in Dillon Music back in the late 90s when I was in high school and college. Such nice looking horns, and they had a lot to offer. Sadly that's not really something the current Conn-Selmer understands.

Posaunus · Post by **Posaunus** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:25 pm

chromebone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:36 am I was talking about King vs Benge a few months ago with Chuck Ward, who designed the Benge line, and he said the diameter of the F attachment tuning was an issue he disagreed on with McCracken. He thought it was the major problem with the large King horns and contributed to their perceived stuffiness in the lower register and unpopularity in the US for orchestral playing.

Makes sense to me. The 0.562" F-attachment tubing bore is probably (in addition to the slightly different, new-and-improved, larger-throat King 5B-derived bell and the free-blowing valve) why I prefer the almost-88H-like sound of the Benge 165F to any King 4Bs that I've encountered.

Were the Benge 165F / 190 bells developed by Chuck Ward or by Stan Matras?

chromebone · Post by **chromebone** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:49 pm

The entire Benge line was originally designed by Chuck Ward. Stan designed the 165 later on. It’s the same bell mandrel, but the bell is not annealed like the 190 was. The 165 also has a different leadpipe and obviously a different wrap. The 165 was intended to be more of a step-up instrument.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:02 pm

8parktoollover wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:45 am I actually really want a 3b silversonic. Do the still even make them?

There are plenty of older ones floating around for sale. I recently bought an Anniversary (‘93) model 3bf SS from a forum member.

They still do offer them new but I believe it’s just called a 3BS now, but still has the solid sterling bell.

Here’s a good comparison between a vintage and modern 3b silversonic. There’s another standalone review of the 3BS too.

JohnL · Post by **JohnL** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:01 pm

chromebone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:36 am I was talking about King vs Benge a few months ago with Chuck Ward, who designed the Benge line, and he said the diameter of the F attachment tuning was an issue he disagreed on with McCracken.

Funny thing is, the old King Symphony did have a larger bore f-attachment (though coupled with a small valve). I remember being quite surprised when I compared the attachment tubing of my Symphony with that of a late 1970's 5B.

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:38 amDefinitely interesting! I know that many feel (myself included) that the .562 bore in the tubing for the Duo Gravis is what really gives it that legendary low range bite. Nothing else is quite like it.

I think you kind of have to take the Duo-Gravis as a package. The leadpipe, the nickel outers, the valves themselves (excellent conventional rotors), the .562" valve wrap, and the tighter bell throat. The Olds S-23 is similar in some respects, but you'd never confuse the two...

Posaunus · Post by **Posaunus** » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:10 pm

chromebone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:49 pm The entire Benge line was originally designed by Chuck Ward. Stan [Matras] designed the 165 later on. It’s the same bell mandrel, but the bell is not annealed like the 190 was. The 165 also has a different leadpipe and obviously a different wrap. The [Benge] 165 was intended to be more of a step-up instrument.

Chromebone,

Can't thank you enough for your continuing insight into the (brief) history of Benge trombones. I strongly believe that these are seriously underrated instruments, and clearly preferable to the King 4B. If the 165F is a step down from the 190F, it is a small step indeed. [Is a Elkhart Conn 88H a "step down" from the later open-wrap 88H?] I actually prefer the "closed" wrap configuration of the 165 to the gawkier 190. I expect that the 165 – priced a bit lower – was easier to sell in the high school and college marching band market, where compactness is a virtue – and where Conn-Selmer was apparently trying to recoup their investment.

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:58 am

I saw a fair number of Benge instruments in the wild when I was in high school in the mid-late 90s. The small bore horns were well-regarded as well. It's a shame that when UMI merged with Bach-Selmer, that they discontinued them. They made a good medium bore horn, which is something that there just aren't enough of.

If I had room in the stable, i'd love to hunt down some Benge straight horns.