Some have claimed that Sumner started by making mouthpieces from rod rubber, but soon changed to using molded blanks. I've heard that story about other "makers" and have seen very little evidence, in fact, in the case of Sumner, no evidence whatsoever. I've quoted G. Langenus before, stating that by 1922 about 90% of all mouthpieces were finished from molded blanks (footnote 2), so if Sumner used rod rubber when he started in 1945, he would have been one of the extremely rare outliers. And he would have invested in some expensive and unnecessary equipment for his first couple of mouthpieces. Combine that with the fact that nobody has ever seen one.
Sumner was born September 24, 1919 in Minneapolis. His father, an emigrant from Sweden, was a rail road engineer. He was the youngest of five (17 years younger than his oldest brother). Both of his older brothers became dentists. He lived with an older brother while attending university (two years) and, although he registered for the draft, was not drafted. He married Helen Ormseth in 1961, when he was 42. He was active in the University of Minnesota General Extension Division, which held occasional seminars on the manufacture, repair, and maintenance of woodwind instruments.
I have read a claim that he had specific molds made and shipped them to Germany to have his blanks fabricated at the Hamburger Gummi-Warren factory. As we will see in a minute, like many claims about mouthpiece fabrication, this is unlikely. It is also implied that he had an exclusive U.S. distribution contract with Hamburger Gummi-Warren, as he reportedly re-sold "his" blanks to other mouthpiece finishers (including Frank Kaspar and Charles Bay). We know that Kaspar and Bay also bought direct from Riffault et Fils in France, so the fact that they had access to the same blanks as Sumner does not mean that they bought their blanks from Sumner. It is more likely that they all purchased directly from Hamburger Gummi-Warren and Riffault et Fils.
The Acousticut tenor and alto saxophone mouthpiece comes in three iterations that I have seen so far, a fourth distinct shape for baritone, and a fifth for soprano. On alto and tenor, the first is a large chamber piece, similar to an Otto Link Tone Edge. In fact, when I put the facing off of my old Tone Edge on an Acousticut, I couldn't tell much difference when played. It is always impossible to tell if the variation in sound is some minute and invisible difference in the chamber or in the lay. Players often say that they tried 5 or more Tone Edge 6* for instance, and picked the best one (for them). So even "identical" mouthpieces have differences. My experience is that the Acousticut below, with a Link facing, can fit right into the spectrum of vintage Tone Edge mouthpieces (and at a fraction of the cost).
The original embossing was in gold except for the tip number. Three is common and might be the best for refacing.
Sort of a "zero baffle" look on the originals, but they don't play stuffy as would be expected. The small tip opening allows for the creation of a little baffle when the tip is opened.
A #3 facing opened up enough to create a baffle. They don't need much, but be aware that it will never be a shrill screamer type of piece. This was only opened to .081.
The Five Band Acousticut was one of my first experiments with putting a Link facing curve on to another old rubber piece. I can tell the Acousticut apart from my Slant Signature only if I put on my reading glasses. In the dark, they play the same. In fact, I prefer the Acousticut. The price on old Link Slant Signatures has gone crazy. Mine is now worth more than my tenor saxophone. Best to leave it at home in the safe.
Here is the second style of Acousticut. It is identified by four bands on the shank and a medium sized round chamber.
Here, the facing curve has been changed, the initial abrasive blasting of the chamber done, and the tip rail is being reduced and baffle formed.
The chamber is smaller on these models and, maybe for that reason, I thought that they lacked the "color" of the Five Band. Maybe it's just me.
The final Acousticut model that I have seen is also the rarest. That's okay with me, because I liked it the least. It has kind of a "wine bottle top" shaped shank. It appears that they are still available, as this picture is from weinermusic.com where it sells for $115.
I didn't care for it and didn't even bother to reface the used one I got off of Ebay. So my dislike may be unfounded. Here is a picture of one for sale on Ebay for $85. The seller says it has been refaced, but is still "original," whatever that means. The original tip rail appears to have been torn up. Maybe that is "refaced" but still original?
Now, back to the idea that Sumner had his own molds at Hamburger Gummi-Warren. Although the claim seems plausible at first glance, it appears less so when we now know that Acousticut saxophone mouthpieces evolved over the years, both internally and externally. There are at least three iterations of the tenor sax mouthpiece. The alto and soprano also changed over the years. Who knows how much the Sumner clarinet pieces changed over the years, but as we have seen, those were also available to other finishing businesses. So my question is "why change molds?" And, unlike the minor changes to the Otto Link Tone Edge over the decades, why make radical changes to the exterior and chamber?
The simple answer would be that Sumner did not have proprietary molds in Europe. He, like many finishing businesses, was at the mercy of his supplier. He didn't "sell" his blanks to others, but others did have access to the same blanks. Here is an example of a Sumner Acousticut baritone piece. Notice that the exterior shape and ligature lines differ from the any of the Sumner pieces shown above, most obviously by the lack of a "lip" at the end of the "beak."
Any proprietary molds, had they existed, would have been sold as a part of the W.S. Sumner Company when it was purchased by The Saxophone Shop, Ltd. in 1980. The new owner made no claim of taking possession of the Sumner molds. In fact, the third iteration of the Acousticut mouthpiece (the "wine bottle top") appeared at about that time, further evidence of a lack of proprietary molds.
The non-existence of proprietary molds does not, in my experience, weaken the claim that the older Sumner Acousticut mouthpieces can be great, especially if you are a fan of the Otto Link Tone Edge.
Sumner also had some ligatures with his logo on them.
We have seen that ligature before in a prior blog. It is a rare Otto Link Slant Signature ligature that was not properly stamped!! Either that or Mr. Sumner, like Mr. Link, merely stamped a commonly available ligature.
It is unique in that the thumb screws have little plastic or resin coated heads.
Look, there actually is an Otto Link "A" stamped on it!! Maybe the ligature was a rare collaborative effort of Otto Link and Warren Sumner Swanson!! Wait until the suckers collectors start bidding on these!!
The ligature is also different in that there is a "Patent Pending" stamp. What is it about the Acousticut ligature that was 1) new, 2) useful, and 3) non-obvious? Those are the three main requirements for a U.S. patent to be granted. Well, the ligature has black screw heads. Okay, maybe that is new. What can we make up about black screw heads that is useful? And what is ingenious (non-obvious) about black screw heads? I can't come up with anything, and a search to locate either the patent or the patent application at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office revealed nothing.
When searching for U.S. patents on mouthpiece ligatures, it reads like a who's who of famous woodwind instrument personalities, including Anthony Gigliotti, Walter Gemeinhardt, George Bundy, Henri Selmer, Bernard Van Doren (several), Florian Tudor, Philip Rovner (multiple), Daniel Bonade, Frederic Parme (of Vibrator fame), Vito Platamone, Robert Harrison, Hippolyte Chiron (also of Vibrator fame), Mario Maccaferri, Vito Pascucci (of Vito fame), Allan Theodore Wanne (sorry for the "unmasking," Theo), and hundreds of others. I'll also unmask Clinton Runyun, aka "Santy." (Santy was more than just a mouthpiece guy, here is his patent for a fishing reel).
Warren Sumner Swanson does not show up in any patent searches. Not even for fishing reels. So I guess that we will never know what is so novel and beneficial about the Acousticut ligature. Maybe some Acousticut ligature owners can comment on the advantage of black screw heads on a ligature.
If you want to contact me privately, you will need to leave your email address in a comment that I will not publish on this site.
No comments:
Post a Comment