POLL ADDED !!! TWO prototype Sellmansberger mouthpieces...PRODUCTION MODEL PICS: PAGE 2

[bone-a-phone]

Got mine and played it some. I've got a couple of tuba gigs coming up that I have to get back in shape for.

[matt g]

@bloke, I clicked “no” in the poll. I dug through my email (including junk) and couldn’t find anything since mid July.

[bloke]

@bloke, I clicked “no” in the poll. I dug through my email (including junk) and couldn’t find anything since mid July.

I forwarded info to you.
I'm wondering if I missed putting a customer email address (for tracking info updates) when I was filling out the form for your particular shipping label (??)

[arpthark]

USPS says it's in Springfield (about an hour away) and that it'll be delivered by 9pm ... they got 7 minutes.

[bloke]

@bloke, I clicked “no” in the poll. I dug through my email (including junk) and couldn’t find anything since mid July.

I forwarded info to you.
I'm wondering if I missed putting a customer email address (for tracking info updates) when I was filling out the form for your particular shipping label (??)

Thank you!

Maybe my mouthpiece wants to pick up a few wives before it makes its way up here?

[Rick Denney]

Mine arrived, and I tried it out yesterday. It's an excellent mouthpiece--a little less full sounding than the Doug Elliot T cup with the T6 backbore I was using on the 184, but much more nimble and with much greater anti-clam power in the upper register (without losing a single thing in I can detect below the staff). The sound is a bit more (big) F-tuba-like on that instrument, which is a good thing for what I use it for and indeed is why I bought it.

It also works well on the old Giardinelli/B&S 101, for which it is probably the classical solution. I've been using a Doug Elliot R cup on that instrument--one that I originally bought for a Miraphone 186--and I would class this one as somewhat different but not necessarily better or worse. Doug's R cup is somewhat Helleberg-like, of course, and therefore also in the classical solution range, but perhaps with just a bit more bowl than a traditional Helleberg.

So, this is going to live on the 184 for the time being.

I have not made any measurements or done any physical comparisons--just my first impressions while playing on out-of-practice chops.

Rick "both needed the standard shank, which I don't have on several of the alternatives in my collection" Denney

[bloke]

Mine arrived, and I tried it out yesterday. It's an excellent mouthpiece--a little less full sounding than the Doug Elliot T cup with the T6 backbore I was using on the 184, but much more nimble and with much greater anti-clam power in the upper register (without losing a single thing in I can detect below the staff). The sound is a bit more (big) F-tuba-like on that instrument, which is a good thing for what I use it for and indeed is why I bought it.

It also works well on the old Giardinelli/B&S 101, for which it is probably the classical solution. I've been using a Doug Elliot R cup on that instrument--one that I originally bought for a Miraphone 186--and I would class this one as somewhat different but not necessarily better or worse. Doug's R cup is somewhat Helleberg-like, of course, and therefore also in the classical solution range, but perhaps with just a bit more bowl than a traditional Helleberg.

So, this is going to live on the 184 for the time being.

I have not made any measurements or done any physical comparisons--just my first impressions while playing on out-of-practice chops.

Rick "both needed the standard shank, which I don't have on several of the alternatives in my collection" Denney

I'm glad that you find it useful, and really appreciate everyone helping me to cover the costs of getting these models into production.

Not having been a "Helleberg" fan, I decided to see if I could change just enough stuff (yet mostly allow it to still resemble what it is/was) to make it useful or possibly-useful to me. I like using it on the compact Holton B-flat that I "built" for myself...and I like using it (on that instrument) more than I like using the mouthpiece that I had been using on that instrument. (I have one of those - BOTH H.N. White era AND current era - *standard/euro receivers on the mouthpipe. The mouthpipe (11/16" i.d. down to about 11/20" i.d.) defines (at least, to me) a mouthpipe which begins fairly large, so I'm using the euro-shank version of the "Sellmansberg II" mouthpiece on that instrument.
___________________________
*just small enough - on the small end of the receiver - to be able to accommodate a "standard" shank mouthpiece (without bottoming out), but large enough (and with just a bit of extended length) to accommodate a "euro" shank mouthpiece and - in reality - probably more of a "euro" receiver. Yet ANOTHER bonus is that the particular Helleberg II type of mouthpiece that I stuck in my lathe and altered was a piece of crap (flawed shank exterior taper - which is why I never ended up selling it, as I considered it not sell-able), so I'm now able to insert a Sellmansberg II "production" one into this instrument (that doesn't wobble). OTHERWISE, I'm SUCH a friggin' CHEAPSKATE that I would have used the PROTOTYPE myself, rather than using a production one - which could have otherwise been sold. I AM using the prototype version of the SHALLOW mouthpiece (my cimbasso) for that very reason...ie. SELL - rather than using - merchandise.


Holton B-flat with fingerprinted mouthpiece:

[arpthark]

A bit annoyed with myself that I didn't get the Shallowberger as well when I had the chance, as my toobuh money has replenished somewhat since my initial order, but I'd probably want one that was at least a two-piece, so I could experiment with using a standard shank one in a standard-sized receiver F tuba and the "L" shank one in the various turn-of-the-century E-flats and British E-flats I have around here.

Or I coulda bought two...!

[bloke]

A bit annoyed with myself that I didn't get the Shallowberger as well when I had the chance, as my toobuh money has replenished somewhat since my initial order, but I'd probably want one that was at least a two-piece, so I could experiment with using a standard shank one in a standard-sized receiver F tuba and the "L" shank one in the various turn-of-the-century E-flats and British E-flats I have around here.

Or I coulda bought two...!

I saw where yours just hit your mailbox.

[bloke]

I dunno about New Zealand, but I'm hoping that most everyone else has received or will-soon receive theirs.

Most people are reporting either that they like them, or that they like them "almost as much as..."

[travisd]

Got to finally use the the SII on my Mack 210 the other night, and pleased that it's helped me out with some tuning issues I'd been having with other mouthpieces (as in, being a little flat on Bb even with main tuning slide all the way in). So far, happy! For me, plays 'easy' and I've had decent luck hitting notes even after basically not touching a horn all summer.

If I was a better player I could probably describe more, but I'm not, so I won't attempt to pontification on things I'm not qualified to do so on.

[bloke]

Most people are reporting either that they like them, or that they like them "almost as much as..."

Initial pass is that it’s reminiscent of the old Laskey-turned SHII, but with the high point moved slightly outboard which makes it feel a bit bigger than the SHII. From memory.

I like the rim contour better than the TU31 I’m currently using on my 4/4*. The TU31 was the closest thing Dillon’s had on hand to the 30H as Laskey was in between production and I wanted something Helleberg-like without the Conn 120 rim.

I’ll try to get some face time this weekend and provide more insight from my perspective.

*I also feel like these 0.689” ish bore, 19” bell squat “American” style tubas do well with this type of mouthpiece design.

[bloke]

Those various "HbII" rims (which differ somewhat, but) which all seem to peek up in the middle...all seem to be trying to cut a "cookie" out of my face.

I don't like to "feel" nor "be aware of" a mouthpiece rim...in just the same way that I don't like minor things between "wrong" with an instrument, as I don't like "being aware of" an instrument, either.

The rim contour (two different cup openings, but identical rim contours) is the only one that I care to use. Most all others distract.

[Rick Denney]

...
*I also feel like these 0.689” ish bore, 19” bell squat “American” style tubas do well with this type of mouthpiece design.

I had not even pulled the Eastman out of the case to try it with the SII. Gotta put that on my list.

Interestingly to me, I'm using it now on the 101, but not on the 184, mostly as a check on myself.

Rick "hasn't played the Eastman in a couple of months" Denney

[bloke]

Sat with my mouthpieces today and tooted around some. What I am about to write is my opinion only from my personal experience. It has little to no bearing on anyone else.

I tried the Sellmansberg II initially against my TU31 and N4.

Results:

The TU31 is my current baseline. The SII feels a bit smaller on the face, but in the way a Schilke 60 feels “smaller” than a Bach 1.25G. The outside fools you.

The SII has a fantastic upper register and secure lower register. In the meat of the range (low C to C in the staff) I had to throttle back with the SII to get better attacks. I think the SII might be too free-blowing for the 4/4 in that register.

For giggles, I compared it to my imperial euro shank/imperial cup/33.5mm HLB2 rim on the 6/4. Efficiencies were there, but I simply like the extra room the 3-piece gives me on the howitzer.

What I’d really be keen to try it on, would be a bass tuba of some flavor. For my (crummy) chops, it might be a really great fit. And based on the ease of high register playing, it would make F tuba fun.

I’ll keep this in the rotation for a bit and see how my face adapts. Based on second impressions with tubas being (ab)used, it’s not quite a Cinderella fit on my current equipment, but I have a feeling where it might be.

[bloke]

I appreciate the feedback very much. Unless it's something intentionally smaller, most of my throats are 8.2 mm, and that one is larger. It works with the four quarter compact York-like Holton instrument that I have here (as the King valve section bore tends to provide the resistance that I personally seek), but that instrument also starts with a pretty large mouthpipe bore. I don't think I want to dial the throat size on this new model back to 8.2 mm, but it might be interesting to try an 8.5 mm throat on the next batch and stamp them with something like a small letter "a" or maybe "835" after the "II" - so as to show that they are not the same as the first batch...(??)

With that possibility expressed, I was/am also sort of attempting to cater to the large throat mouthpiece crowd, which is not a small group of tuba players. (Up until this mouthpiece, I just haven't offered anything for those people.)

I should have been paying more attention to more of your posts about your equipment, but assuming that that is some sort of 6/4 Meinl-Weston that uses the 2165 frame (2165/2265/6450), I'm not sure that I myself am "man enough" to use a mouthpiece with the "Sellmansberg II" throat size on a tuba that large... but it doesn't take much to out-man me.

[bloke]

I really do prefer the imperial cup/backbore setup on the 2165. I also admit that I really like your HLB2 profile the most.

[bloke]

I really do prefer the imperial cup/backbore setup on the 2165. I also admit that I really like your HLB2 profile the most.

I really like the extended-rim-height version of the Imperial (with my Besson E-flat recording bass - whereby I'm striving to pass that instrument's sonority off as a B-flat) and the regular-height version of the Imperial on sousaphones...and (I'm not implying that a 2165 is a sousaphone, but) I get more clarity and bunch out of big-ol' sousaphones with the (regular rim height) Imperial mouthpiece. I also use the regular height version of the Imperial with my F tuba (when I suspect it would work better - at some particular gig - sounding like more like some of these piston F tubas).

[cktuba]

So, I've spent a few days with my Sellmansberg II. It, immediately, stuck out as a very good Helleberg II style mouthpiece. But, the more I use it the more I like it. Very easy blowing and even through all of the registers. Intonation, is spot on. In fact I usually have to have my main slide crammed in to 1/4 inch or less at A 440. This leaves very little room for adjustment. The Sellmansberg II allows me to pull the main slide out a bit more leaving more room to adjust up if needed (442, cold weather etc.). I prefer this to any HII variant I've tried ( SHII, Laskey 30H, SHII CLE). Based on sound, clarity and intonation this is the best SHII style mouthpiece I've played. And the more time I spend with it, the better I like it.

At first I was like, it's really nice but I'll stick with my Symphony or MK-5. Now, I might be slightly leaning toward the Sellmansberg II.

Particularly, if you already use an HII style mouthpiece, you should really give this one a test drive. I know everyone is different, but (to me) this mouthpiece provides a very large but very focused sound with minimal effort.

[bloke]

I've made it pretty clear that I'm neither a Helleberg 120 nor a Helleberg II (in it's various minor variations) fan...

...but (as I was working on that cimbasso mouthpiece) I grabbed my "bloke-has-a-Helleberg-II-mouthpiece-for-reference" mouthpiece, to see if I could make it more palatable (to me).

I know tons of people are Helleberg fans...so (since - to me - it ended up being an improvement) I thought I might as well offer it up to others.

Right now, I'm enjoying using it on the 4/4 compact York-like Holton B-flat that I put together...(euro shank - with an old-school King 1240 receiver), but I have no idea whether I'll stick with it...

bloke "not a particularly good salesman, as I tend to be just as blunt about my OWN wares as I am when expressing opinions of others' "