Why no love for the King 607F/608F?

[blap73]

Given that I had my bore gauges out already...
Measured min leadpipe ID on a 607 as 0.382". Serial code 5 indicates 1996-2000 production.
Wondering how 'tight' that is, I checked the ending backbore on two Bach (small shank) mouthpieces, and found the end of the MP backbore on both is a bit smaller that the leadpipe ID.

Edit: total length from MP receiver to end of leadpipe is 9".

No idea if this is a tight leadpipe or not.

[MrHCinDE]

I just picked up a 607 which had been sold to the previous owner on the basis that it was a 3B/F and fully functional.

Aside from the different model, the original seller had tried to fix some holes on the outer slide with solder and only succeeded in soldering the inner and outer slides to each other!

The bell section is fine though and can be paired with the slide from the 3B+ I already had. First impressions are that it is so easy to play across the whole range, even a decent low C at the very end of the slide. Would probably be a great option for musicals. The mid and upper range is so easy to play, might be the easiest and cleanest playing horn I own.

I presume the 3B+ slide I’m using doesn’t have a tiny leadpipe.

[Burgerbob]

Yup, a 3B+ slide is going to make that quite a good bell section.

[Chazzer69]

Revisiting this thread as I'm intrigued by the discussion on the leadpipes. I noted Finetales' mention of the lead pipe change in the newer 607F. I recently ran across a Tempo II 607F. Any idea if this would be the older model with the 'better' lead pipe? I'm making an uneducated guess that the Tempo II designation would make it an older horn and possibly fall into that category.

[Finetales]

Yes, the 607s marked Tempo II are the oldest ones as far as I know - before they were just given the simple UMI block lettering stamp. My 607 (too old to be a 607F) is post-Tempo II.

[Chazzer69]

Groovy. Thanks Finetales! I might snag this one.