TromboneChat

Looking for some comparison on build quality between Shires, Rath and Greenhoe (before Schilke).

Not speaking of playability, only build quality, what are your experiences with those makers? Of course, I expect really good quality from all of them, but a maker always has to make some compromises. Where are those compromises with those makers?

See my post on Shires. In my case, they have let build quality ship(horn was purchased about 5 years ago). and that was before they almost went bankrupt and were bought out and started selling horns assembled in Asia. So I suspect it has gotten worse since then.

With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:20 am With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.

No, you select the parts you want to use, but you don't build the parts.

cozzagiorgi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:24 am

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:20 am With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.

No, you select the parts you want to use, but you don't build the parts.

See his post on modding a Shires, sight unseen, before he even playtested it....

I thought it was a good joke. "My bell is on crooked! Shires build quality is terrible!"

Thats not what I am talking about.

I have never had any build issues with Raths. I have watched Mick build parts for me and no one is a better craftsman. Other people may have had issues as no factory is glitch proof and I can only speak for myself.

Chris.

The only horn I have seen that has comparable build quality to the Raths is M&W. Their Bach-like tenor is out of this world.

Oh and there is m&w of course! How do they compare to the original greenhoes?

New Greenhoes are built very well. Top of the heap for sure.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:20 am With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.

What are you smoking?!..

I have experience with Shires slides and bells only. Well-made, for sure.

Original Greenhoes - yup. Top-notch workmanship. (I haven't played a current Greenhoes, so I can't say anything about those.)

greenbean wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 am

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:20 am With Shires, you build it yourself, so the build quality is on you.

What are you smoking?!..

It was a joke. This is kinda one of those questions. The serious answer is always -- go there and buy the one that you approve of.

I own and play a Shires .547 (& have owned another; sold for unrelated reasons) and have never had any problems with workmanship.

As for Greenhoe trombones currently being produced:
Why should quality of build be diminished? Schilke produces some pretty meticulously made trumpets! Why would the new Greenhoe trombones be any different?

I understand wanting to delineate between new production and old production (Gary era vs Schilke.) I personally believe that anyone suggesting the build quality is lesser because a reputable maker is now producing Greenhoe is a little off the mark.

Shires - I dunno. There was a screw on my bass that would work itself loose. There is acid bleed on the bell of one of my tenors. A slide had to go back to Shires for repairs due to manufacturing issues. Not perfect I guess.

How about Yamaha build quality? It’s usually held up as the gold standard among the large manufacturers.

pfrancis wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:51 am I own and play a Shires .547 (& have owned another; sold for unrelated reasons) and have never had any problems with workmanship.

As for Greenhoe trombones currently being produced:
Why should quality of build be diminished? Schilke produces some pretty meticulously made trumpets! Why would the new Greenhoe trombones be any different?

I understand wanting to delineate between new production and old production (Gary era vs Schilke.) I personally believe that anyone suggesting the build quality is lesser because a reputable maker is now producing Greenhoe is a little off the mark.

I wasn't delineating new vs old. I was simply commenting on the ones that I have owned. I clarified my post above to reflect that.

My comment was not specifically aimed at you greenbean, more just in general.

Also, holding any manufacturer to “perfect” as a standard is not realistic, as blast already pointed out.

I took delivery of a Shires a couple years ago, and the bell had an odd deformity which couldn't be shipping damage. It was as if the wrong flare was put on the instrument. Never got an explanation, I just sent it back for a refund. It played well, but was oddly shaped. I've also seen what seems to be a lot of Shires with acid bleed at the bell rim that other makers seem to be able to avoid. Again, doesn't effect playability, it's just not something you expect from a top line horn. If I buy another new horn, I'm more likely to buy a Rath.

My R4F has been top notch - it is one of the earlier modular instruments that Mick made and I can't envisage me buying anything other than Rath if I ever replace her.

I own a new greenhoe, and it's built pretty flawlessly. Might have been bumped at some point, because until I disassembled it to clean it, the bell wasn't on right, and the tuning slide was a hair short of frozen. Put everything back together nice and tight, and it's as right as rain.

The only other thing is a slight fleck of chrome missing from one of the inners right up by the cork barrels. IMO not worth sending in to get replaced, especially since the slide is so good I don't want to have it disassembled.

The attention to detail is pretty amazing. The tubing is beveled in some places where it joins to the ferrules. The outer slide legs are PRECISELY the correct length and have been filed where they join to the ferrules just above the oversleeves. Also it has the best trigger/linkage you can get on a trombone.

I know that the Greeenhoes were kind of a legend by the few folks who could get their hands on one. Kinda has the same legendary reputation as good Mount Vernon stuff.

I've never played one or been around one. For the folks who played them, do you think the new Shilke ones are as good as the old ones?

They sure look pretty and you can see that there is an attention to detail, design and aesthetics. Which seem above other makers. Reminds me of how ugly computers were until Apple figured out that people like their tools to work and look good.

I've owned all three, Shires, Rath, and now a Greenhoe/Schilke. I can say that in my case the Greenhoe is the best made of the three.

The only brand I have ever seen come in that never had a defect... Rath. Now I have only seen one M&W come in a few times and the owner is trashing it.

One of the joys of being a manufacturer is having no control over how the client treats your product. And btw, that treatment has nothing to do with the original build quality.

I played Shires for many years... their build quality is high... ive been playing Rath tenors and basses for the past 6 years... the build quality is superb...

Honestly, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the three as far as build quality.

I used to play an early Rath made in the old shop, and compared to the ones made ~6 years ago I'd say his quality improved. That's pretty unusual.
The German-made horn I use now is unusually well-built, best I've ever owned. Makes me consider the quality of my own work.

down8ve wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:58 am I used to play an early Rath made in the old shop, and compared to the ones made ~6 years ago I'd say his quality improved. That's pretty unusual.
The German-made horn I use now is unusually well-built, best I've ever owned. Makes me consider the quality of my own work.

Interesting. Would you mind telling us what brand that german trombone is?

A B&S Sarastro. It's a strange beast, you play it a bit differently than an Eddie/Bach/Shires deal. I also have a student with one. The only duets ever heard with these critters, I bet, they are rare. Ordered it via Schmitt Music's Trombone Pro Shop in the Twin Cities after two years of carefully comparing instruments (Keith Hilson is the manager).

The case is also a stunner, along with the tools, extra leadpipes and G crook. Why don't other manufacturers care about presentation? If it works for Apple....

When handled correctly they really change the timbre of the low brass. Listen to Mark Gaal in Vienna. Maybe it ain't everyone's cup of tea, but I grew tired of sounding like everything else.

They are not that rare here in europe. Cool horns!

Worth Remembering that the guys at M&W were the guys making The Greenhoes when Garry shut up shop and when you put your own name on a horn you have a thrice increased incentive to make it good. This can be said of Mick Rath too and formerly Steve Shires. They are all great horns though I have only picked up and looked at the new Greenhoes. The rest I have either owned or extensively play tested and at the end of the day they are all great horns well produced. You pick the one that feels the best on your face - you wont be dissapointed. Interesting to say that all of the men who put their names to or are behind the production of the horns are all perfect gentlemen and good company.

hyperbolica wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:07 pm ... I've also seen what seems to be a lot of Shires with acid bleed at the bell rim that other makers seem to be able to avoid. Again, doesn't effect playability, it's just not something you expect from a top line horn ...

I have to agree with the acid bleed problem on Shires. I have seen more of their soldered bells with the problem than without. Although I have not seen every King made, I have never seen one with acid bleed. I also don't like that you can see the seems so easily on a Shires bell. I know it's a puny point, but if Jupiter XOs (the newer ones) can come with invisible seams, why can't an instrument that costs at least twice as much. Not that the Shires is badly made. Not in the least, but it's not any better put together than my 80's King 4B or my Jupiter XOs. I like my Shires a lot, but I'd say it's strongest points are not in it's build, but int he way it plays.

Oh, one other thing. I feel they use cheap linkages for the valves. Mine wore out prematurely (yes, I lubed it, but I got it used) and cost $40 to replace. What they sent me was the same no-name crap it came with. I use it to help stuff a drawer and went and bought myself a genuine Minibal which actually cost a whole lot less. To their credit, Ben G. said they were in the process of switching over to Minibal linkages.

I feel some of the more mass produced horns worry more about the finish then the assembly of a horn.

BillO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:15 pm I know it's a puny point, but if Jupiter XOs (the newer ones) can come with invisible seams, why can't an instrument that costs at least twice as much. Not that the Shires is badly made. Not in the least, but it's not any better put together than my 80's King 4B or my Jupiter XOs. I like my Shires a lot, but I'd say it's strongest points are not in it's build, but int he way it plays.

You do know that seams are good things, right?

Means the bell was given a seam by hand. They cut the bell and basically stitch the seam and bell flare together. It adds some inconsistency to the build process, it's a good thing and almost every major pro horn manufacturer does it with their bells. Everything from Bach, vintage Conns to Rath has a visible seam.

Bells with invisible seams are plasma welded together if I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!). This makes the bells more consistent but they usually lose a little magic to them.

I could care less about ugly seams to be honest... for what every reason for me bells with visible seams always seem to play better than bells with invisible seams.

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:47 pm
You do know that seams are good things, right?

Who, me? Naw - I just started playing trombone a week ago. Pfft - what do I know from seams?

Means the bell was given a seam by hand. They cut the bell and basically stitch the seam and bell flare together. It adds some inconsistency to the build process, it's a good thing and almost every major pro horn manufacturer does it with their bells. Everything from Bach, vintage Conns to Rath has a visible seam.

Like I said, it was a puny point.

Yeah, most trombones I've seen have visible seams. Some play great, some just crap. But most of the ones I've seen with invisible seems (from outside ... more later) are better than average, like the pro Yamahas and the Jupiter XOs. In the end though, I don't think it's the technology used to fuse the seam, but the care taken in shaping the bell, tapering the metal and the 'quality' of the seam. Then there is the 1-piece/2-piece bell debate - which do you feel is better? (ret)

Bells with invisible seams are plasma welded together if I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!). This makes the bells more consistent but they usually lose a little magic to them.

I have no idea whether they are plasma welded or not. I don't think plasma welding is even possible with brass (temperature too high), but I could be wrong. I do know that if you look on the inside of one of my XO bells, you will see the same tabbed seaming that you see on the outside of other horns. I don't know what they do to hide it on the outside surface, I just think is a nice touch. It's nice to have nice touches when you are paying thousands of dollars for an instrument, but again, nice, not necessary. All that said, I don't think consistency needs to exclude character. Spend some time with a XO 1632RGL-LT and see if it doesn't have character.

I could care less about ugly seams to be honest... for what every reason for me bells with visible seams always seem to play better than bells with invisible seams.

As they say, your mileage may vary ... but in the end, build quality is a subjective thing, but it must be mentioned, I'd never make my buying decision rest on whether I could see seams or not unless everything else was equal.

I meant no offense! In my defense, you did mention a Jupiter instrument as a sign of quality (Just kidding!!) I know their quality is better now but for anyone who has had experience with old Jupiter horns, that statement is enough to trigger someone haha.

Like I said I could be wrong about plasma welding but it is 100% a different process. I will mention again though... that while that process is not as clean, it is not at all a sign of "build quality" just a different process to make a bell.

.

Yes nothing wrong with present day Jupiter horns

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:08 pm I meant no offense!

No offense taken.

down8ve wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:29 pm A B&S Sarastro. It's a strange beast, you play it a bit differently than an Eddie/Bach/Shires deal. I also have a student with one. The only duets ever heard with these critters, I bet, they are rare. Ordered it via Schmitt Music's Trombone Pro Shop in the Twin Cities after two years of carefully comparing instruments (Keith Hilson is the manager).

The case is also a stunner, along with the tools, extra leadpipes and G crook. Why don't other manufacturers care about presentation? If it works for Apple....

When handled correctly they really change the timbre of the low brass. Listen to Mark Gaal in Vienna. Maybe it ain't everyone's cup of tea, but I grew tired of sounding like everything else.

How open are the valves on it?

I am going on 3 years with my Rath R3/4 and it has been great. Lacquer is still 100% and slide is smooth as a baby's butt. It is likely the last symphonic horn I will ever buy, unless of course, I change my mind.

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:08 pm I meant no offense! In my defense, you did mention a Jupiter instrument as a sign of quality (Just kidding!!) I know their quality is better now but for anyone who has had experience with old Jupiter horns, that statement is enough to trigger someone haha.

Sorry, if I am rude: But obviously you don't know enough of the things you talk about so self assuredly: The XO-line is not even comparable to the ill-famed 740 models.
The build quality - and this the topic here -is , at least!, on par with Yamaha in any respect.
And that is a very high standard.

I never encountered a Bach that was free of flaws. Indeed, the one 50 I once owned was the worst dog of a trombone you can imagine. The Kanstuls an Edwards basses, maybe the ones that come to Europe, are, as far as I have found, are of inferior quality, and every single instrument had any imperfection. (I play with two in different ensembles, so I am aware of their flaws, my teacher has one, that can only be used with a screwdriver at hands, and I tested three in a large shop here in Germany. They are still for sale today....)

My current XO has no imperfection, as far als build is concerned. It's heavy like a baby elephant and that's annoying, but other than that: No complaints!

Tooloud wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:09 am

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:08 pm I meant no offense! In my defense, you did mention a Jupiter instrument as a sign of quality (Just kidding!!) I know their quality is better now but for anyone who has had experience with old Jupiter horns, that statement is enough to trigger someone haha.

Sorry, if I am rude: But obviously you don't know enough of the things you talk about so self assuredly: The XO-line is not even comparable to the ill-famed 740 models.
The build quality - and this the topic here -is , at least!, on par with Yamaha in any respect.
And that is a very high standard.

I'm glad you've had good experience with your XO bass!

You should reread the exact post you quoted, I mentioned I was joking with my comment. I do agree their quality has come a long way!

I'll have to give the XO basses another chance one of these days after hearing you guys say such good things about them!

Sorry, if I misunderstood your intentions. In fact, I read your post thoroughly, but the smiley seemed to turn the meaning to the opposite.

In fact, we did not talk about the sound - the main aspect of our business. The XO is great, when it roars,but tends to sound a bit hollow, so to say, when played piano. Takes a bit more of conscious embouchure and breath control to keep core to the sound then.

So, back to topic!

With regard to the XO bass bone...I have played a Holton TR180 picked out for me by my teacher, the designer, Van Haney. I've had other basses over the years, but always came back to the Holton! I switched recently to an XO bass to compliment my XO tenor, and can say not only is the build excellent, but the horn is one of the finest I've ever played. I won't be going back to my Holtons. XO was conceived to be an upscale instrument line, not just a pro version of Jupiter. The XO horns are as well built as the best of anyone's horns!

Bassbonechandler wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:52 pm

down8ve wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:29 pm A B&S Sarastro. It's a strange beast, you play it a bit differently than an Eddie/Bach/Shires deal. I also have a student with one. The only duets ever heard with these critters, I bet, they are rare. Ordered it via Schmitt Music's Trombone Pro Shop in the Twin Cities after two years of carefully comparing instruments (Keith Hilson is the manager).

The case is also a stunner, along with the tools, extra leadpipes and G crook. Why don't other manufacturers care about presentation? If it works for Apple....

When handled correctly they really change the timbre of the low brass. Listen to Mark Gaal in Vienna. Maybe it ain't everyone's cup of tea, but I grew tired of sounding like everything else.

How open are the valves on it?

Sorry , took a while off for Christmas. The valves are quite open, the company's own design. They are simple and very musical. Very large progressive bore through the bell section.

-Scott Moore

down8ve wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:24 pm

Bassbonechandler wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:52 pm How open are the valves on it?

Sorry , took a while off for Christmas. The valves are quite open, the company's own design. They are simple and very musical. Very large progressive bore through the bell section.

-Scott Moore

Thanks for the info, no worry. I've become more interested in the b&s bass as I've looked more at it. Hoping I can try one at ITF.

I had a B&S bass for a while (which went to Scott's student) -- gorgeous horn, impeccable build. Different -- over the top in some ways. Most open valve section I've played - huge progressive bore. Solid, stable, thick sound.

I also have a Shires (with bell acid bleed issues), and have an original Greenhoe and an M&S on the way. Guess I have to get a Rath too ...

I play a shires mostly. I love their style and I love the sound I can make with it. The acid bleed on their bells bothers me though. I’ve heard it’s because they use such a thin coat of lacquer, but I gotta think there’s some way to tighten that part of construction up a bit.

My current bell is an SS1 solid sterling silver bell, and so far so good. No signs of any acids bleed.

“ Thanks for the info, no worry. I've become more interested in the b&s bass as I've looked more at it. Hoping I can try one at ITF.”

That seems so long ago.

Amconk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:23 pm I play a shires mostly. I love their style and I love the sound I can make with it. The acid bleed on their bells bothers me though. I’ve heard it’s because they use such a thin coat of lacquer, but I gotta think there’s some way to tighten that part of construction up a bit.

My current bell is an SS1 solid sterling silver bell, and so far so good. No signs of any acids bleed.

Acid bleed results from the flux from soldering the bell rim leaching out under the lacquer and oxidizing the brass. It's long been a characteristic of Shires trombones. I have a bell from the era when you paid in advance and waited 2 years for your horn. It has acid bleed.

Note that acid bleed shows up fairly quickly, but it doesn't spread very much. The acid bleed on my bell hasn't changed in some 15 years.

It can be eliminated either by better cleaning of the flux residues after soldering (maybe using ultrasound or solvents) or possibly converting to a less active flux. This has to happen before the lacquer is applied, though.