Vintage Hard Rubber Mouthpieces - Which Manufacturing Process was the Best?

There were two popular methods for producing vintage hard rubber mouthpieces.  One method used commercially available dowels of vulcanized hard rubber, called rod or bar rubber, and the mouthpiece was machined from the bar stock just as would have been done originally when making a mouthpiece from ebony wood.  The other method was to vulcanize the rubber in a mouthpiece shaped mold and then finish the blank.  Claims have been made over the years that one or the other method produced a superior product.  Let's get the opinion of an expert.
Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece
Mr. Otto Link started finishing metal mouthpieces in the mid-1930's.  At first, Goldbeck had a patent on metal pieces and it appears that he used those for his original blanks until the Goldbeck patent expired in 1934.  He began marketing a hard rubber mouthpiece in the late 1930's.  Because of the long-term popularity of his hard rubber line of mouthpieces, he is going to be our expert.  He passed away in the 1970's by most accounts, but we can still use him as our expert based on his informed opinion as stated in his advertising material.  I'll put his statements in quotations and italics.
Link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber
Mr. Link's first hard rubber mouthpiece was intended to "duplicate the Link 4 Star metal mouthpiece."  Metal was expensive, but vulcanized rubber, specifically vulcanized rubber of the same hardness as ebony, could be made into a mouthpiece.  This hard rubber was generically referred to as ebonite and was available in rod form for milling or it could be vulcanized into the shape of the mouthpiece to allow for less milling.
Chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber
Mr. Link chose to use the rod form of hard rubber.  He called the material that he purchased "Eburnated Bar" hard rubber.  If you Google "eburnated bar" you will find thousands of web sites on which that term is used, but they will all refer to Otto Link mouthpieces.  If you Google "eburnated bar -Link" (i.e., without the search term "Link") , you'll get no hits.  So it appears that "eburnated bar" rubber doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet other than in Link mouthpieces.   Very curious. 
Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber
"Eburnated" is a medical term that generally applies to the body's reaction to a degenerative bone disease.  The cartilage wears away and the bone structure rubs together, resulting in "bony sclerosis" or an ivory-like surface referred to as "eburnated."  Ivory-like?  What's that all about?  Wait a minute, we have seen a similar claim.  Remember the ivory mouthpieces in the blog about Sorkin Music that were sold with the Revere Paris Model saxophones?  Are those ivory mouthpieces eburnated?  Sort of.  The Revere saxophones aren't from Paris and the Revere mouthpieces aren't ivory.  That was all just advertising hype.  Just like the term "Eburnated Bar" used by Mr. Link is pure advertising hype.

Here is a vintage Link mouthpiece allegedly made from "Eburnated Bar" rubber. 

Okay, but even if the claim of Eburnated Bar is clearly BS, we now know that  making a mouthpiece from bar stock or rod rubber is best because that's what Mr. Link chose (or at least chose to claim).  The only problem is that within a couple of years Link changed his mind and started using molded blanks.  But somehow the blanks that he purchased were still "eburnated" according to the Link advertising.  Maybe the secret eburnation process is the key to making superior mouthpieces.  Here's some Link advertising copy from 1940.

A new process of high compression actually hardens the rubber from which "OTTO LINK" MOUTHPIECES are fabricated to a degree heretofore thought impossible -- imparting a gleaming crystal quality in appearance as well as substance.  This process minimizes the possibility of warpage oft prevalent in ordinary rubber mouthpieces, and adds a new resonance and brilliance to tonal quality.

It is practically impossible to attain in ordinary cast mouthpieces the high degree of material hardness found in our EBURNATED "RESO-CHAMBER" Otto Link MOUTHPIECE.  Eventually ordinary cast rubber mouthpieces warp from heat and the absorption of moisture from the player's mouth.  This is practically impossible with EBURNATED "RESO-CHAMBER" MOUTHPIECES.

Many reed troubles start with mouthpiece warpage, for when this happens it becomes necessary to find reeds that will fit and play on this warped facing.  Not only will a defect of this nature change your embouchure, but most likely it is apt to set you back considerably in your progress toward mastering your instrument.

Well that explains my lack of progress toward mastering my saxophone.  I often play a 1940's Otto Link Tone Edge, called a "slant signature," that doesn't have the word "eburnated" stamped on it.  So it's just an "ordinary cast mouthpiece."  But it isn't warped.  And it has never gotten water logged.  What's going on here?  The "RESO-TONE" supposedly features a "new process of high compression" casting that differentiates it from other cast mouthpieces.  But just a few years later, Link stopped claiming to use the eburnation process, whatever that was, and just used cast mouthpieces.

Let's look at how vulcanized rubber is cast for a mouthpiece blank.  Hard rubber mouthpiece blanks were "compression molded," but the compression of the material into the mold doesn't change the material property of the rubber.  Cooking the rubber (vulcanization) hardens the material.  Mr. Link's process of "eburnation" supposedly imparted a "gleaming crystal quality in appearance as well as substance."  Every vintage Link mouthpiece that I've ever seen polishes just like any other hard rubber mouthpiece.  And natural rubber already has a crystalline structure, as does vulcanized rubber, so the process of "eburnation" sounds just like the same vulcanization process used for every other hard rubber mouthpiece.  But claiming that Link mouthpieces have a "gleaming crystal quality" sure sounds better than "it's vulcanized."

When rubber is vulcanized, it is cooked under pressure, and the amount of pressure determines the temperature and therefore the cooking time (just as with a stove-top pressure cooker).  Is Mr. Link implying that he orders his blanks cooked at a higher pressure (and therefore, temperature)?  Unfortunately, once rubber is vulcanized, going to a higher temperature doesn't do anything.  So the mystery of eburnation, if it ever existed, remains a secret.  My own opinion is that, if there is no evidence of something's existence despite years of searching, then it doesn't exist.  Call me an eburnation non-believer.  That same lack of evidence is why I don't believe that Mr. Link ever cast his own blanks.  

But a total lack of proof doesn't preclude attributing secret physical benefits to the process.  Mr. Link's secret process "minimizes the possibility of warpage oft present in ordinary mouthpieces".  So the claim is that eburnation doesn't eliminate warpage, it merely "minimizes the possibility."  Where is the proof, i.e., where are the warped Links?  And where are the "oft" warped ordinary mouthpieces?  It actually sounds like those "ordinary mouthpieces" may have dissolved in the player's mouth because of "heat and the absorption of moisture from the player's mouth."  

We know that heat and humidity effects ebonite.  That's what proved the "mouthpiece material matters" claims to be false, remember?  But a "warped" mouthpiece caused by playing?  Why has nobody ever seen one?  It could just be more hype.  In fact, it appears that "eburnation" is synonymous with hype.  It's like Sorkin's claim of "ivory" mouthpieces.*

But back to our quest in determining which is better, vulcanizing the rubber in the shape of a rod or vulcanizing in the shape of a mouthpiece.  One of these methods of shaping must be way, way better in order for us to argue about which finished mouthpiece is obviously superior.  Yet Mr. Link used both methods and advocated for both (depending on which he was employing at the time).  It turns out that, according to him, as long as the material goes through the mystical process of "eburnation," either process can produce a good mouthpiece.  It's too bad that the "eburnation" process for hard rubber wasn't patented (or ever used again by anybody). 

We can also look to another mouthpiece expert, Mr. Charles Chedeville.  Mr. Chedeville was also using rod rubber in the 'teens and 20's prior to the perfection of the molding process.  Some whopping claims are made that he also used a super-duper Grade A++ whing-ding secret formula rod rubber for his mouthpieces.  There is no evidence, of course.  And there is no evidence that Chedeville ever cooked the rod rubber himself or had a proprietary recipe that the manufacturer used only for him.  In fact, if you do a search for his business addresses, just like Otto Link, he was never located at an address where he could have the machinery necessary to vulcanize rubber.  He simply sourced material from a rod rubber manufacturer like Mr. Link sourced his material.  "Please ship 100 sticks of ebonite rod rubber."  Where's the mystical "material matters" evidence in that?

Beginning in the 1920's, Mr. Chedeville used molded blanks (like Mr. Link) and his "golden era" spans his rod rubber and molded mouthpieces.  Since there is also no evidence that he cooked his own molded blanks, it is most likely that he sourced his blanks from Riffault (like many others), which accounts for why many Lelandais and Chedeville pieces are identical to Riffault production pieces.  After all, Riffault was just down the road and sold their clarinet and mouthpiece blanks partially finished.

I know this is heresy, but I'm only going where we have evidence, logic, and common sense while leaving out the hyperbole, fantasy, and delusion.  Of course, that's easy for me to claim that Chedeville probably used Riffault blanks because I don't have any Chedeville mouthpieces for sale and I don't claim to be fabricating present day knock-offs of Chedeville mouthpieces.  Here's how to make a knock-off.

Back to Mr. Link.  There is another interesting "hard rubber" usage by Mr. Link.  In 1930, Mr. Link applied for a patent, along with his then-partner Frank Meyer (later of Meyer Brothers mouthpieces).  The patent was for a tooth guard on a metal mouthpiece.  A slot was cut into the metal mouthpiece and a rubber/sulfur mixture was compressed in to the slot and then vulcanized into place.  You have probably seen this on an old Link or an old Lelandais metal mouthpiece.  So a vulcanized rubber tooth guard was not a particularly novel concept at the time (having been previously used by other manufacturers).  "Prior use" invalidates a patent, but then, not every patent granted is actually valid.  Yet the mere existence of this patent by Mr. Link makes it even more curious that his "eburnation" process for an entire mouthpiece wasn't patented.  And the patent doesn't claim that the tooth guard is "eburnated," despite Mr. Link's familiarity with this allegedly important process that stopped the "warpage" commonly occurring when "ordinary rubber" was used on a mouthpiece.  Very curious.

Even advertising hype can be patented, as a process patent does not have to be valid; the applicant merely needs to assert that the process is novel and hope that the patent issues.  What's even better is to just stamp "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." on an item and then not even try to apply for a patent.  Just stamping the item without applying for a patent saves time, saves money, and saves the applicant from looking foolish for applying for a patent on an already patented process (like Mr. Link trying to patent Mr. Charles Goodyear's well-known prior patent for the vulcanization of rubber, for instance).  But just stamping "Patented" on an object was later forbidden in 1946 by 35 U.S.C. 292  (right about the time production ended for the allegedly patented "eburnated" Link mouthpieces).  

The statutory "penalty" for violating 35 U.S.C. 292 was a $500 fine to be split between the person bringing suit and the U.S. government.  Few suits were ever brought until an odd court ruling on 2009 and, as a result, the penalty provision was completely eliminated in 2011.   But it is curious that Mr. Link stopped claiming that his "eburnated" mouthpieces were patented right about 1946.  (The elimination of the penalty in 2011 has brought on a renewed use of the bogus "Patent Pend" stamp.)**

Perhaps eburnated vulcanized rubber can't be described in a manner that made a patent application even plausible (applications are sometimes denied).  Or Mr. Link tried to get a patent (which is unlikely as there is no evidence of an application ever being filed), but the patent failed to issue because eburnation is simply a restatement of prior art, i.e., vulcanization.  Or maybe stamping an item with "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." was commonly used as advertising hype prior to 1946, but Mr. Link decided not to continue the misrepresentation when doing so became illegal.  

At any rate, the issue of whether rod rubber or molded rubber is superior has officially reached a stalemate.   Mr. Link produced great mouthpieces using both methods; with rod rubber (probably produced by American Hard Rubber in Butler, NJ) and with molded blanks (produced by JJ Babbitt in Elkhart, IN).  It's kind of a shame that, like other mouthpiece makers, he catered almost exclusively to a player's obsessive focus disorder for mouthpiece material rather than for mouthpiece design and finish.  Besides having a genius for mouthpiece design and finish, Otto Link also had a genius for creating some extremely powerful marketing hype that continues to this day.  That's the uneburnated truth.

* The silliest claim that I've seen about "ivory" mouthpieces (and I've seen it several times) is that small amounts of ivory dust were added to make these mouthpieces white.  Of course, for those who would believe such a tale it would also change the tone of the mouthpiece (making it sound "mammilion???).  So the common white mouthpieces that the saxophone manufacturer often tossed in the case (and players later tossed out) had expensive ivory dust in them?  All of the players who threw theirs away and bought Links must really be disappointed.  Good thing that Lester Young kept his.

** In the picture of the ResoChamber shown above, you can see the "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." stamp.  There is no number following the claim, so it isn't clear what alleged patent is referenced.  Link had a patent for a tooth guard on a metal piece, but I can find nothing about Link hard rubber or "eburnated" pieces.  Eugene Bercioux of Woodwind N.Y. stamped his mouthpieces with a U.S. Pat. Off. claim, but his patent was for the machine that put the facings on the mouthpiece and did not concern the mouthpiece itself.  Mr. Bercioux did apply for several trademarks (e.g. "Steel Ebonite"), which trademarks are registered with the U.S. Patent Office.  



Vintage Hard Rubber Mouthpieces - Which Manufacturing Process was the Best?

There were two popular methods for producing vintage hard rubber mouthpieces.  One method used dowels of vulcanized hard rubber, called rod rubber, and the mouthpiece was milled out just as would have been originally done when making a mouthpiece from ebony wood.  The other method was to vulcanize the rubber in a mouthpiece shaped mold and then finish the blank.  Claims have been made over the years that one or the other method produced a superior product.  Let's get the opinion of an expert.
Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece
Mr. Otto Link started producing metal mouthpieces in the 1930's (some say earlier, however, there is no evidence).  He began marketing hard rubber mouthpieces in the late 1930's.  Because of the popularity of his hard rubber line of mouthpieces, he is going to be our expert.  He passed away in the 1970's by most accounts, but we can still use him as our expert based on his informed opinion as stated in advertising material.  I'll put his advertising statements in quotations and italics.
Link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber
Mr. Link's first hard rubber mouthpiece was intended to "duplicate the Link 4 Star metal mouthpiece."  Metal was expensive, but vulcanized rubber, specifically vulcanized rubber of the same hardness as ebony, could be made into a mouthpiece.  This hard rubber was generically referred to as ebonite and was available in rod form for milling or it could be vulcanized into the shape of the mouthpiece to allow for less milling.
Chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber
Mr. Link chose to use the rod form of hard rubber.  He called the material he purchased "Eburnated Bar" hard rubber.  If you Google "eburnated bar" you will find thousands of web sites on which that term is used, but they will all refer to Otto Link mouthpieces.  If you Google "eburnated bar" without the search term "Link" (by typing "-Link"), you'll get no hits.  So it appears that the material "eburnated bar" rubber doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet other than in Link mouthpieces.   Very curious. 
Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber
"Eburnated" is a medical term that generally applies to the body's reaction to a degenerative bone disease.  The cartilage wears away and the bone structure rubs together, resulting in "bony sclerosis" or an ivory-like surface referred to as "eburnated."  Ivory-like?  What's that all about?  Wait a minute, we have seen a similar claim.  Remember the ivory mouthpieces in the blog about Sorkin Music that were sold with the Revere Paris Model saxophones?  Are those ivory mouthpieces eburnated?  Sort of.  The Revere saxophones aren't from Paris and the Revere mouthpieces aren't ivory.  That was all just advertising hype.  Just like the term "Eburnated Bar" used by Mr. Link is pure advertising hype.

Here is a vintage Link mouthpiece made from "Eburnated Bar" rubber. 

Okay, but even if the claim of Eburnated Bar is clearly BS, we now know that  making a mouthpiece from bar stock or rod rubber is best because that's what Mr. Link chose to make fine mouthpieces.  The only problem is that within a couple of years Link changed and began using molded blanks.  But somehow the blanks that he purchased were still "eburnated" according to the vintage Link advertising.  Maybe this secret eburnation process is the key to making superior mouthpieces?  Here's some Link advertising copy from 1940.

A new process of high compression actually hardens the rubber from which "OTTO LINK" MOUTHPIECES are fabricated to a degree heretofore thought impossible -- imparting a gleaming crystal quality in appearance as well as substance.  This process minimizes the possibility of warpage oft prevalent in ordinary rubber mouthpieces, and adds a new resonance and brilliance to tonal quality.

It is practically impossible to attain in ordinary cast mouthpieces the high degree of material hardness found in our EBURNATED "RESO-CHAMBER" Otto Link MOUTHPIECE.  Eventually ordinary cast rubber mouthpieces warp from heat and the absorption of moisture from the player's mouth.  This is practically impossible with EBURNATED "RESO-CHAMBER" MOUTHPIECES.

Many reed troubles start with mouthpiece warpage, for when this happens it becomes necessary to find reeds that will fit and play on this warped facing.  Not only will a defect of this nature change your embouchure, but most likely it is apt to set you back considerably in your progress toward mastering your instrument.

Well that explains my lack of progress toward mastering my saxophone.  I often play a 1940's Otto Link Tone Edge, called a "slant signature," that doesn't have the word "eburnated" stamped on it.  So it's just an "ordinary cast mouthpiece."  It also isn't warped.  And it has never gotten water logged.  What's going on here?  The "RESO-TONE" supposedly features a "new process of high compression" casting that differentiates it from other cast mouthpieces.  But just a few years later, Link discontinued using the eburnation process, whatever that was, and used cast mouthpieces.

Let's look at how vulcanized rubber is cast for a mouthpiece blank.  Hard rubber mouthpiece blanks were "compression molded," but the compression of the material into the mold doesn't change the material property of the rubber.  Cooking the rubber (vulcanization) hardens the material.  Mr. Link's process of "eburnation" supposedly imparted a "gleaming crystal quality in appearance as well as substance."  Every vintage Link mouthpiece that I've ever seen polishes just like any other hard rubber mouthpiece.  And natural rubber already has a crystalline structure, as does vulcanized rubber, so the process of "eburnation" sounds just like the same vulcanization process used for every other hard rubber mouthpiece.  But claiming that Link mouthpieces have a "gleaming crystal quality" sure sounds better than "it's vulcanized."

When rubber is vulcanized, it is cooked under pressure, and the amount of pressure determines the cooking time (just as with a stove-top pressure cooker).  Is Mr. Link implying that he orders his blanks cooked at a higher pressure (and therefore, temperature)?  Unfortunately, once rubber is vulcanized, going to a higher temperature doesn't do anything.  So the mystery of eburnation, if it ever existed, remains a secret.  My own opinion is that, if there is no evidence of something's existence despite years of searching, then it doesn't exist.  Call me an eburnation non-believer.  That same lack of evidence is why I don't believe that Mr. Link ever cast his own blanks.  

But a total lack of proof doesn't preclude attributing secret physical benefits to the process.  Mr. Link's secret process "minimizes the possibility of warpage oft present in ordinary mouthpieces".  So eburnation doesn't eliminate warpage, it merely "minimizes the possibility."  Where is the proof, i.e., where are the warped Links?  And where are the "oft" warped ordinary mouthpieces?  It actually sounds like those "ordinary mouthpieces" may have dissolved in the player's mouth.  Maybe that's why nobody has ever seen one?  Or, it could be more hype.  In fact, it appears that "eburnation" is synonymous with hype.  It's like Sorkin's claim of "ivory" mouthpieces.*

But back to our quest in determining which is better, vulcanizing the rubber in the shape of a rod or vulcanizing in the shape of a mouthpiece.  One of these methods of shaping must be way, way better in order for us to argue about which finished mouthpiece is obviously superior.  Yet Mr. Link used both methods and advocated for both (depending on which he was employing at the time).  It turns out that, according to him, as long as the material goes through the mystical process of "eburnation," either process can produce a good mouthpiece.  It's too bad that the "eburnation" process for hard rubber wasn't patented (or ever used again by anybody). 

We can also look to another mouthpiece expert, Mr. Charles Chedeville.  Mr. Chedeville ran a small shop in France that produced woodwind reeds, woodwind pads, and woodwind mouthpieces.  The reeds and pads have all rotted away and disappeared, but the mouthpieces, being primarily made of ebonite, have survived.  Today, Mr. Chedeville is known exclusively for mouthpieces, which was not true when he had his business on Rue Leblanc in the town of La Couture-Boussey.  The finishing of woodwind mouthpieces was only one aspect of his shop.

Chedeville may have used rod rubber in the 1920's prior to the perfection of the molding process (nobody really knows).  Some whopping claims are made that he also used a super-duper Grade A++ whing-ding secret formula rod rubber for his mouthpieces.  There is no evidence, of course.  And there is no evidence that Chedeville ever cooked (vulcanized) the rod rubber himself or had a proprietary recipe.  In fact, if you do a search for his business addresses you will find that, just like Otto Link, he was never located at an address where he could have the machinery necessary to vulcanize rubber.  His business was always a tiny store front (unlike the nearby factory setting of Riffault et Fils where he likely purchased his mouthpiece blanks). And if you Google "Grade A rod rubber," you will see that, like Link's "eburnated bar rubber," there is only a single mouthpiece business claiming that such a material even exists.  Chedeville simply sourced material from a rod rubber manufacturer like Mr. Link sourced his material.  "Please ship 100 sticks of ebonite rod rubber."  Where's the mystical material in that?

Beginning in the 1920's, Mr. Chedeville used molded blanks (like Mr. Link) and his "golden era" spans his rod rubber and molded mouthpieces.  Since there is also no evidence that he molded and cooked his own blanks, it is most likely that he sourced his blanks from Riffault (like many others), which accounts for why many Lelandais and Chedeville pieces are identical to Riffault production pieces.  So now, Chedeville is known for mouthpieces, specifically clarinet mouthpieces that look to be based on Riffault blanks.

I know this is heresy, but I'm only going where we have evidence, logic, and common sense while leaving out the hyperbole, fantasy, and delusion.  Of course, that's easy for me because I don't own or have any Chedeville mouthpieces for sale.  If I was selling Chedeville knockoffs, I would claim to have the secret recipe for ebonite that Charles Chedeville developed based on his expertise in the science of "acoustical chemistry."  If you believe that there is a science of acoustical chemistry, then you will likely believe that someone has the secret recipe.

Back to Mr. Link.  There is another interesting "hard rubber" usage by Mr. Link.  In 1930, Mr. Link applied for a patent, along with his then-partner Frank Meyer (later of Meyer Brothers mouthpieces).  The patent was for a tooth guard on a metal mouthpiece.  A slot was machined into the metal mouthpiece and a rubber mixture was compressed into the slot and then vulcanized in place.  You have probably seen this on an old Link or an old Lelandais metal mouthpieces.  So it was not a particularly novel concept at the time (having been previously used by other manufacturers).  "Prior use" invalidates a patent, but then, not every patent granted is actually valid.  Yet the mere existence of an early patent by Mr. Link makes it even more curious that his "eburnation" process for an entire mouthpiece was never patented.  And the "tooth guard" patent application never claimed to be "eburnated" despite Mr. Link's familiarity with this allegedly important process that stopped the "warpage" commonly occurring when "ordinary rubber" was used on a mouthpiece. 

Advertising hype can actually be patented, as a process patent does not have to be valid in order to issue; the applicant merely needs to assert that the process is novel and hope that the patent issues.  What's even easier is to just stamp "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." on an item and then not bother to to apply for a patent.  That saves time, saves money, and saves the applicant from looking foolish for applying for a patent on an already patented process (like trying to re-patent Mr. Charles Goodyear's well-known prior patent for the vulcanization of rubber, for instance).  

Claiming a patent, or stamping "Pat. Pending" can ward off competition even if not true.  But just stamping "Patented" on an object was later forbidden in 1946 by 35 U.S.C. 292  (right about the time production ended for the allegedly patented "eburnated" Link mouthpieces).  The statutory "penalty" for violating 35 U.S.C. 292 was a $500 fine to be split between the person bringing suit and the U.S. government.  Few suits were ever brought until an odd court ruling on 2009 and, as a result, the penalty provision was completely eliminated in 2011.   But it is curious that Mr. Link stopped claiming that his "eburnated" mouthpieces were patented right about 1946 when false patent claims became illegal.  (In fairness, thousands of "Pat. Pend." designations disappeared at the time).

Perhaps eburnated vulcanized rubber can't be described in a manner that made a patent application even plausible (applications are sometimes denied).  Or perhaps a patent was considered (which is unlikely as there is no evidence of the application ever being filed), but failed to issue because eburnation is simply a restatement of prior art, i.e., vulcanization.  Or maybe stamping an item with "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." was commonly used as advertising hype prior to 1946, but Mr. Link decided not to continue.  

At any rate, the rod rubber/molded rubber issue is a draw.   Mr. Link produced great mouthpieces using both methods; with rod rubber (probably produced by American Hard Rubber in Butler, NJ) and with molded blanks (produced by JJ Babbitt in Elkhart, IN).  It's kind of a shame that, like other mouthpiece makers, he catered almost exclusively to a player's obsessive focus disorder for mouthpiece material rather than for mouthpiece design and finish.  Most likely, besides having a genius for mouthpiece design and finish, he also had a genius for creating some extremely powerful marketing hype that continues to this day.  That's the uneburnated truth.

* The silliest claim that I've seen about "ivory" mouthpieces (and I've seen it several times) is that small amounts of ivory dust were added to make these mouthpieces white.  Of course, for those who would believe such a tale it would also change the tone of the mouthpiece (making it sound "mammilion???).  So the common white mouthpieces that the saxophone manufacturer often tossed in the case had expensive ivory dust in them?  All of the players who threw theirs away and bought Links must really be disappointed.  Here is a blog on Lester Young's white plastic mouthpiece.



The Vintage Hard Rubber Mouthpiece Hoax

When we hear a claim (or make a claim) of historical fact, material properties, or acoustical properties of mouthpieces, I'm first going to invoke Carl Sagan's rule of critical thinking that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

With that in mind, let's look at the common claim that certain brands of vintage hard rubber mouthpieces are made of "superior hard rubber."  It always reminds me of silly claims like "they just don't make pancakes like they used to."  What?  Have the physical properties of the elementary ingredients changed?  Are the recipes lost in the dim past and can't be replicated today?  Heat doesn't transfer like it used to?  There's neither proof nor logical justification for these types of claims.

For a basic outline of the vulcanization of natural rubber to create "ebonite" or hard rubber, check out this video with a saxophone backing track and a voice-over by a woman who really, really likes vulcanization.  The flexibility or hardness of the rubber is basically in direct relationship to the amount of sulfur in the recipe, although other additives were later used to produce different properties.  

Ebonite was first used because of its resemblance to the ebony wood originally used for woodwind mouthpieces.  That's the benefit of hard rubber; it machines more reliably than ebony, it is more stable, and it is less expensive.  As an added benefit, with an investment in the proper equipment, it can be molded into a blank that eliminates much of the preliminary machining, including difficult chamber work.  It's final advantage to some is that it feels like wood in the mouth.  Many people prefer it to the feel of metal or plastic. 

Originally, ebonite was processed in the same manner as ebony for making mouthpieces.  A hard rubber manufacturer molded ebonite in a dowel shape, called bar or rod rubber, and the rod was cut into sections and machined by the mouthpiece maker just like making a mouthpiece from a piece of ebony wood dowel.  Mouthpiece makers in the early 1900s were already set up to machine ebony wood, and by purchasing rod rubber, the same milling process could be used.  Milling is still done today, although you would pay for the molded rod rubber and then mill away 80%, meaning that there are higher material costs for milling rod rubber.  On the other hand, milling rod rubber means that the maker doesn't have to make molds, mix raw ingredients, cook the rubber (in an expensive autoclave for many hours), etc., although the modern milling process for rod rubber can also require very expensive machinery.

If you had expensive and complex milling machinery, and were adept at milling, you would claim that rod rubber made superior mouthpieces.  If you had expensive and complex equipment for molding, and were adept at molding, then you would claim that molded hard rubber mouthpieces were superior.  That's the difference in the two processes.  Or at least, that's all we have evidence to support.  We know that there is no discernible difference because several of the most respected vintage mouthpiece makers went back and forth between molded and rod rubber pieces, as shown in this blog.

Notice that "rod rubber" is molded rubber.  It was molded into a rod shape and then milled.  Although some claim that there is some kind of physical difference, when you examine the manufacturing process, it is clear that the material is identical.  Also notice that I did not make any acoustical claims for hard rubber, whether molded rod rubber or molded blanks.  For that, we would need extraordinary evidence, of which there is none.  

There is some anecdotal evidence where people have claimed that they clearly hear the difference.  But we are back to the Princess and the mouthpiece type of story discussed in an earlier blog.  Since a subjective claim is not really evidence, it is hard to rebut.  It is similar to this type of revealed knowledge: "What's that you say, Lord? You say that hard rod rubber is acoustically superior?  Then that shall be my proof!"  Okay, they are welcome to their beliefs, but don't try to convince others by claiming that there is evidence.

Support for the claim that "good" vulcanized rubber for making mouthpieces is no longer available is sometimes tied to the Environmental Protection Agency.  The assertion is that good hard rubber mouthpieces disappeared when the EPA promulgated rules in the 1970's related to hard rubber manufacturing.  So that's what happened!  Wait a minute.  This is two claims.  The first is that good hard rubber can no longer be produced.  The second claim is based on the inception of the EPA in December of 1970 coinciding with the alleged disappearance of good hard rubber.  The second claim sure sounds like it could be the infamous post hoc fallacy.  Mr. Sagan is going to require that we produce some extraordinary evidence for these claims. 

Well, for our primary evidence, how about the disappearance of the U.S. tire industry at exactly the same time?  Oh yeah, that never happened.  According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), U.S. tire manufacturers produced 307.9 million automobile tires at 55 production facilities in the United States in 2013 (a .5% increase over the prior year).  So the production of vulcanized rubber products in the U.S. is alive and well despite the EPA.  (Note: since the writing of this blog, the RMA has changed its name to the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association.  That indicates where the bulk of the vulcanized rubber is used).

Yeah, but how about the burdensome aspect of EPA rules driving mouthpiece manufacturers out of business?  Turns out that the EPA rules allow members of the RMA to "self report," meaning that the manufacturers tell the EPA what materials they are using and what waste products are produced.  It's not like the EPA is peering in their windows at night.  The publication also lists the hundreds of hard rubber manufacturers still producing products in every state in the U.S.  So much for the EPA rules having eliminated hard rubber production.

Not too surprising, it is the "waste" that is the biggest environmental concern.  Think of the tire industry again.  Everybody has heard of the nightmare caused by stockpiles of worn-out tires.  Add to that the number of "blems" or tires that don't meet production standards right at the factory.  The automobile tire waste stream is thousands of tons of vulcanized rubber per year.  The EPA is still searching for a solution, but the problem clearly hasn't ended the production of hard rubber products. 

It's silly to allege that the EPA was so concerned with the waste stream of hard rubber mouthpiece manufacturing that it regulated the industry out of business.  One thousand defective mouthpieces a year equals one truck tire.  Would the EPA even require that a producer self report a defective mouthpiece?  I don't know, but the idea that hard rubber mouthpieces disappeared because of the EPA doesn't fly.

The claim that vintage hard rubber contains some recipe or materials that are no longer available is harder to examine, but ultimately just as silly.  Latex rubber is still available.  Sulfur is still available.  Lamp black is still available (as a colorant).  Talcum powder is still available (as a mold release).  There are a host of other ingredients that have been used over the years, as listed in the EPA publication above, but the materials are hardly a secret and none became suddenly unavailable.  The same is true with the ratios and recipes.  As can be seen in the EPA publication, hundreds of manufacturers in the U.S. still avail themselves of materials and recipes.  And if you don't know the ratios and formulas, there's always the RMA to help you develop them.

The secret "formulas and recipes" claim is sometimes used in supporting the superiority of one vintage mouthpiece over another.  I also find this claim entertaining to examine.  I don't know how many times I read a claim like "these old Penzel-Mueller hard rubber mouthpieces used the best vintage hard rubber."  Those old Penzel-Mueller pieces were made by American Hard Rubber (and later Riffault), as were pieces for WoodWind Co. N.Y., as were some Links, some Dukoff, some Vito, some no-name, etc., etc.  So you can substitute just about any vintage name into the "best vintage hard rubber" claim.  Sort of weakens the claim from the get go.

But we need some extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim of extraordinarily rare and superior vintage hard rubber.  The French company Riffault made blank mouthpieces for the above names and many others (Riffault also made most of the blanks for Lelandais and Chedeville, both of which are claimed to have still used rod rubber decades after they began using commercially available blanks.  More on the silly "rod rubber" fetish here).

If true, the "best vintage hard rubber" claim would require daily conversations at Riffault's manufacturing facility in Mehun sur Yevre, France* to go something like this (spoken with a French accent, but of course),

"We are now to making a production run for Dukoff, so let us add those ingredient to our namesake Riffault Steelite Ebonite hard rubber mouthpieces to secretly improve them for Monsieur Dukoff.  Next, we are making a production run for Woodwind Co. of New York City. Let us change our Steelite Ebonite recipe once again for an even more better hard rubber mixture for these gentlemen.  The next run will use our less-than-best Steelite Ebonite for Buffett Crampon and then we need to make a run using our secret Chedeville super-duper special hard rubber recipe.  Then we have to make some Vito pieces that need to be of inferior ingredients than those we use for Leblanc Paris.  Puis, we make some Revelle pieces for sales by music stores both here and abroad.  What recipe should we use for those?  The good Chedeville recipe or maybe the inferior Vito recipe, no?"

Where is the evidence that any blank manufacturer ever changed their recipe for individual customers?  Where is the evidence that any rod rubber producer changed their recipe for each mouthpiece customer or even had a "mouthpiece recipe?"  When I spoke with Bernedette and Jacque Mimault (the daughter and son-in-law of Maurice Riffault) they both stated that they sourced "ebonite," just ebonite, for use in their production.

I don't believe that woodwind mouthpieces ever drove the production of the type of rod rubber that was being produced.  Woodwind mouthpieces comprised a tiny fraction of the mouthpieces made of hard rubber.  Smoking pipe mouthpieces (i.e., pipe stems), which were made by the hundreds of thousands, were also made of ebonite.  And a new-fangled device called a telephone required the production of a thousand times more hard rubber mouthpieces (and ear pieces) than did the saxophone industry.  ("Boy, those old hard rubber telephone mouthpieces sure sounded better than any of the newer telephones.  The best being those that were milled from hard rubber rods, but of course.")  

Different hardnesses of rod rubber were available from a manufacturer, and still are available (as seen here, measured by a durometer in units of hardness called duros), but the generic term "ebonite" for a type of hard rubber is a durometer measure for a certain hardness of vulcanized rubber, i.e., a hardness that mimics ebony (a reading of 100 on an ASTM D2240 type A durometer).

Molded ebonite mouthpieces, especially the improved production techniques of Maurice Riffault in 1928, with further improvement in the 1950's when his daughter, son, and son-in-law joined the business, must have been tough competition for rod rubber mouthpiece makers, as is evidenced by the vast majority of makers and saxophone companies turning to molded pieces.  As early as the 1920's, 90% of mouthpieces were made from molded blanks.**  Read that last statement again.  By the 1930's and 40's, rod rubber mouthpieces were as rare as hen's teeth.  That's because makers had learned that there was no advantage to milling from rod rubber (although some would still claim that they were using some secret process like "eburnated bar rubber" without admitting that it was a molded blank).   

Because of some early hype about the superiority of mouthpieces milled from rod rubber, many vintage mouthpieces sold today are claimed to be made from "superior" rod rubber.  That's false on two accounts.  First, there's no evidence that rod rubber produces a better mouthpiece.  In fact, most claims about how mouthpiece material matters are demonstrably false.

Second, there are very, very few vintage pieces made from rod rubber.  In the U.S., it is reported that the American Hard Rubber Company (AHR) produced the rubber rod used by some early American mouthpiece makers.  But huge advances were quickly made in the molding of hard rubber.  Automobile tires were one use.  AHR had its big success not with tires, but with a molded American icon, the ACE comb.  The American maker JJ Babbitt produced molded mouthpieces beginning in 1919 to supply the large woodwind manufacturers in Elkhart, IN., tolling the death knell to milling mouthpieces out of rod rubber.

There is evidence that AHR produced some of the rod rubber used for saxophone mouthpiece production, but by the 1930's, even AHR had begun selling molded mouthpieces to refinishing businesses like Link, Penzel Mueller, and Woodwind Co.  AHR is where Arnold Brilhart bought his first molded blank mouthpieces for the creation of his hard rubber line of pieces.***  

For the most part, the mouthpieces that were actually made from rod rubber in the early 1900's are easily recognized because they are dark, stuffy, and unwanted.  Thermoplastics  developed in the 1940s, and used by Brilhart, Beechler, and other mouthpiece makers must have been some tough competition for molded hard rubber mouthpiece makers.  At some point, definitely by the 1970's, reduced costs became an even larger factor in mouthpiece marketing (as in the case of general saxophone production) and there were more "student grade" mouthpieces, just as there were more student grade instruments.

One of the things that's really strange is that the perceived quality of the vintage "super special hard rubber" seems to vary between saxophone and clarinet players.  By that I mean that a generic Riffault hard rubber saxophone mouthpiece (which I think of as a standard hard rubber vintage mouthpiece) isn't given much value in the world of saxophones unless it is pressure stamped (stenciled) with a cache name like Dukoff or Woodwind Co., even though there is no evidence that the material quality is different.  But for clarinet players, a piece marked just Riffault is generally thought of as "better" than it's identical brethren marked with a trade name other than Riffault (of which there are many, including Bundy).  The exception seems to be the common Riffault pieces marked Chedeville.

Here's a recent Ebay auction for a Riffault clarinet piece in a standard facing.  

That's right, two bids and it's already over $800 for a clarinet mouthpiece.  I buy vintage Riffault tenor saxophone mouthpieces for under $30 each.  That's on the low side for vintage Riffault sax pieces, but I don't spend the extra money for those mouthpieces claimed to be made of the "special vintage hard rubber."  Riffault clarinet blanks allegedly finished by Chedeville or Lelandais can sell for even higher prices.

It could be that the secret formula hard rubber in the Riffault clarinet pieces really is 25 times better than the rubber used for Riffault saxophone pieces.  That would make Riffault clarinet mouthpieces like the super-duper rubber recipe used in the vintage Otto Link Tone Edge, which routinely sells for over $1,000.  Or, it could all be hype. We would need extraordinary evidence proving the difference.  And unfortunately, the evidence that I have concerning super-duper rubber recipes is from asking Jacques Mimault, the last CEO of Riffault et Fils about Steelite Ebonite.  His comment is in this blog.



Keep in mind that those who agree with the extraordinary claims regarding the hard rubber used in vintage mouthpieces tend to be the owners or sellers of those pieces.  Take a claim like "This Otto Link Tone Edge 'Slant Signature' plays great because it is made from superior vintage eburnated bar rubber that you just can't get anymore."  Full disclosure, I have one.  Fuller disclosure, I really, really understand the desire to say that.  Fullest disclosure, it just ain't so. 

This last claim brings up some more saxophone lore, that of "early Babbitt" mouthpieces.  The evidence we have is that Babbitt molded blanks for Otto Link from the early 1940's, when Link had clearly stopped producing from rod rubber (assuming that he ever did).  Yet "early Babbitt" is a term used based on the address on the box that came with the mouthpiece and is generally claimed to be sometime in the 1970's.  With absolutely no evidence, it is claimed that the hard rubber used by Babbitt for making Link mouthpieces is superior to what Babbitt used when producing dozens of other name brand mouthpieces for other companies.  Again, with zero evidence and no logical explanation to support the claim.  It's kind of funny, unless you paid an extra $500 because of the "early Babbitt" hoax.

The era of the production of the mouthpiece is a better indication of the form of hard rubber used than is the trade name stamped on that particular piece.  As noted above, by the 1920's, the vast majority of mouthpieces were molded.  Sellers often represent that certain names (Lelandais and Chedeville come to mind) had their "golden age in the 1930's and 40's making "rod rubber" mouthpieces.  But there is no evidence that Lelandais or Chedeville still used rod rubber in the 30's and 40's and some evidence that they had also switched over to finishing molded blanks manufactured by third parties (as had Otto Link).  So much for the "golden age" of rod rubber.  The claim is further complicated by the obvious use of Riffault et Fils molded blanks by both Lelandais and Chedeville.

Finally, common-as-dirt vintage hard rubber pieces are much more uniform in material than the multitude of trade names stamped on them would imply.  There is no evidence that the large mouthpiece producers cut corners by routinely changing the formulas from one production run to the next (nor is there any evidence that a "good" hard rubber formula was any more expensive or complex to produce.  Once they had a "good" formula, that is what they used).  There also isn't any evidence that hard rubber manufacturers ever produced ebonite specifically for a saxophone mouthpiece that differed from that of a vintage pipe mouthpiece or vintage telephone mouthpiece.  There is no evidence that woodwind repair and parts shops (Otto Link and Charles Chedeville come to mind) had chemical engineering knowledge that allowed them to develop proprietary ebonite formulas for their house brand of mouthpieces.

So why did some vintage brand names become popular while some faded away?  This is curious because some of popular vintage brands used the exact same blank as the less familiar brands (and even no-name pieces).  My belief is that it is in the quality of the finish work.  That should not be too surprising.  When the table, the lay, and the chamber have a quality finish that is superior to a piece made from an identical blank, it shows when played.  But the intricacies of table, the lay, and the chamber modifications are largely invisible to most players, so the sound produced is erroneously thought to be related to the mouthpiece material, which is erroneously thought to relate to the trade name stamped on the piece.  Mouthpiece makers were only too happy to further this misunderstanding.

My experience is that, despite claims of super-duper hard rubber, the quality of vintage mouthpiece materials is generally the same from piece to piece, as shown by various trade names having been used on identical blanks from the same producer.****  The uniformity of the ebonite material used in vintage pieces and the ready availability of vintage no-name pieces leads me to discount the claim of "superior and wonderful" hard rubber in any particular piece.  That claim only makes me wonder what other unsubstantiated puffery is being used by the seller in describing how the vintage mouthpiece actually plays.


*The fact that Riffault et Fils was located in France, had a huge segment of the American mouthpiece market, and also appeared to have ended production of hard rubber mouthpieces in the 1980s is either evidence of the secret international power of the EPA or another coincidence unrelated to the EPA.  What happened to Riffault is a story for another blog that is not yet finished (unless this text is a link).

**The Music Trades, Oct. 7, 1922 (interview with G. Langenus stating that as early as 1922 "90% of saxophone mouthpieces sold are cast").  Mr. Langenus was a fairly major player in early 1900's woodwind mouthpiece sales, mostly clarinet.  His major interest was not in jazz or dance hall music and the "modern" saxophone sound, therefore his sax mouthpieces tend to sound "orchestral" or, as more commonly stated, "dull."  

*** Saxophone Journal, March/April, 1989 (interview with Arnold Brilhart).

****The only really inferior hard rubber that I have come across was a Penzel-Mueller mouthpiece that was made from a blank probably produced by American Hard Rubber in the 1940's.  The rubber had a little bit of a grainy look to it, like there were specks of something that had not completely mixed prior to molding.  Deep inside the chamber, at the point of the thickest material, there was a blister.  When I picked at it, the surface broke away and there was a void.  So it is certainly possible to produce defective molded hard rubber.  Had this piece been milled from defective rod rubber, the defect might have been more apparent.  Or not.  

In Search of the Perfect Saxophone Neck and Mouthpiece Bag

There are saxophone neck bags available commercially, but I'm not going to review them.  I've seen them made of felt, polar fleece, and some kind of thin soft plastic stuff.  Usually around $10.  Sometimes a new mouthpiece comes with a free semi-protective bag.  Sometimes people appropriate other items (Crown Royal bags or old socks, which might tell you something about the player).  All of them can hold a neck or a mouthpiece. But none of them do what I want them to do; provide the most protection at the cheapest price.

I sometimes carry the neck inside the horn's bell, as is the situation required by the Soundwear case reviewed in another blog.  The Soundwear case (now my favorite) comes with a polar fleece type of neck bag, which is just barely adequate.  The separate Soundwear mouthpiece container has a metal zipper pull on it, which is inadequate.  I don't want anything metal rubbing up against my horn's surface.  No zippers, no zipper pulls, no snaps, no nothing.  But as much protection as I can get.

Enter the neoprene personal electronics case.  These are intended to provide protection for your cell phone, GPS, ipod, ipad, Galaxy tablet, etc., etc.  The sizes are fairly standard, and you just need to know which one is likely to fit an alto neck, a tenor neck, or a mouthpiece. 

Here is a neoprene pouch that is intended to fit a 7" tablet.  Overall dimensions are about 8 inches by 5 inches.  Perfect for an alto neck.

No zippers or snaps to scratch the neck or the horn.  The neoprene folds easily and the neck can be inserted into the bell.

These can be bought for under $3.00 on eBay (including shipping) and are also available locally for about twice the price.  The 8 inch "tablet cover" fits a tenor neck.  Both of these have just enough room for a mouthpiece to be placed in with them and still fit in the bell.  The 8" pouch can be bought on the internet for $3.15, including free shipping from China.

But how do we protect the mouthpiece?  Same thing, just a little smaller size.  These little neoprene pouches are for cell phones and hand held GPS and are about 6 inches by 3 inches, just right for a tenor mouthpiece, ligature, and cap.  The pouches can't scratch the horn if placed loose in the case or in the bell and they can't scratch the neck when placed in the neck bag.  They are about $2.50.

These are even smaller drawstring neoprene cell phone bags that fits a tenor, alto, and soprano mouthpieces.  They have a little plastic cord stopper, but it won't hurt anything.

Unfortunately, they are harder to find than the larger smart phone and tablet neoprene pouches.  When you can find them, they are about $3.00.  More than the tablet "neck" pouches for some reason.

Most of these items are available as promotional items and you can get them printed with custom logos and trademarks (even free salesmen samples from some suppliers).  Here's a tenor neck and mouthpiece pouch with my new business logo. 

 Business is slow.

Seriously, these bags are hard to beat for the cost and protection that they provide.  Just look around on the internet or Ebay and get the size that fits your needs.  Be advised:  this material is waterproof, so if you put you neck away without swabbing it out, which you shouldn't do anyway, it is possible that it will stay wet.