Question:
Yet another AirFlow thread.
I know about the various AirFlow mouthpiece variants: the one with the metal ring, the one that looks like a short shank, etc.
But, I recently saw one on eBay that I'm a bit confused about. It had the same excavated chamber, but it had a gold medal on the top in the shape of the Selmer symbol and a beaded ring at the bottom. I vaguely remember seeing a vintage ad for these in that they were the top-of-the-line pieces, but I don't know anymore about them. Can anyone me about these? What are these?

Answer:
hey j.max
i can help you. those pieces were the gold anniversary pieces, issued with the 50th anniversary horns of the 1935. the horns were gold plated, and they came with the gold leaf stamped mpcs that youre talking about.
They are the same exact design as the airflows (pre small chamber scroll shank). the order that the old hard rubber selmer pieces goes is,
Metal Ring Airflow - large chamber with no baffle
Metal Ring Airflow - same as previous with gold leaf embossing
Art Deco Airflow - like the one on Theos site, same as previous 2
Scroll Shank Airflow - with a scroll shank, but same as previous 3
Scroll Shank Stubby - smaller round chamber, first change in the design (thanks ralph morgan)
Short Shank Soloist - horseshoe with almost like an ebolin chamber (not flat on bottom), also with thick beak
Short Shank Soloist -narrow horseshoe thats flat on the bottom and thick beak
Short Shank Soloist - bigger horseshoe with same beak as Long Shank
Long Shank Soloist - same as the previous soloist but with a longer shank
Soloist Style - more angular beak, green rubber, but same as long shank soloist
S80 - square chamber
S90 - square chamber
now it was the long shank style pieces, that first had the green rubber instead of the nice orangy brown stuff that the old meyers, and links were made from. so they shake differently, but they can still be awesome pieces.
however, those large chamber pieces are kind of dead unless somebody puts a baffle in it for you, and even at that.... you should just buy a link or meyer to save screwing with something that a purest would want as the original piece for their horn.

Answer:
Saxophobia - great info, can you narrow dates down at all?

Answer:
this is as close to dates i can get... sorry guys... but i havent owned the horns with the mouthpieces, just the mouthpieces... however i will try to date this stuff as accurately as possible (some guessing required). Ill mark the ones im unsure about with a ????
Metal Ring Airflow - modele 22-26 to SSS
Gold Leaf Airflow - Radio Improved SSS
Art Deco Airflow - SSS - BA
Scroll Shank Airflow - BA
Scroll Shank Stubby - SBA
Short Shank Soloist - Late SBA - early Mark VI
Short Shank Soloist - Mark VI
Short Shank Soloist - Mark VI
Long Shank Soloist - Mark VI
Soloist Style - Late Mark VI to early Mark VII (up to 24x,xxx)
S80 - Mark VII to modern
S90 - aftermarket (ive never seen one come new with a horn, as the S80s usually do) ???

Answer:
Thanks very much for the info..... how are you on rubber Bergs?

Answer:
i dont know much about bergs man.. just that the slant ones are the first (and they came in black boxes with silver writting).. and that the first series of them didnt have a chamber designation..
eg.
instead of
110
2
it would just say 110

Answer:
Thanks for the info on the Selmer pieces.
The reason for the change from the short shak to the long shank, from what I understand, is that the design was changed slightly in the last model of the pieces and this gave them a smaller chamber. Smaller chamber mouthpieces necessitate longer shanks to achieve proper effective mouthpiece volume, and the appropriate tuning.
One other thing that has baffled me (no pun intended) is something on Theo Wanne's site. He says that all round chambered Selmer pieces after the Soloist came out were labeled as LT pieces. I take that as implying that the LT mouthpiece evolved from the AirFlow. I have always heard that the LT design was actually a new design (and it is different from even the smaller chambered AirFlows). My question is whether Selmer intended to keep the AirFlow line going with the LTs (as they did with the metal Classic) pieces while having another new design with the Soloists. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a company to completely change their product line by coming out with two different designs and discontinuing all of the old ones.

Answer:
yeah man. i think the LT totally came from the stubby (i think airflow was refering to the large chamber). I remember seeing an scroll LT a while back and it had a smaller chamber. i cant remember specifically but i think it had a different throat as well. but nonetheless, it was totally derived from the stubby, cuz they are killing classical pieces.

Answer:
Originally Posted by saxophobia yeah man. i think the LT totally came from the stubby (i think airflow was refering to the large chamber). I remember seeing an scroll LT a while back and it had a smaller chamber. i cant remember specifically but i think it had a different throat as well. but nonetheless, it was totally derived from the stubby, cuz they are killing classical pieces.
I used to have a long shank LT...one of the many I wish that I hadn't sold. The throat was a little more open, but not by much. I'm not aware of any Short Shank mouthpieces marked "LT", although they may exist.
My working theory is that the LT was actually the facing (probably modeled on Larry Teal's personal piece), and that the round chamber/throat was a seperate issue coming from the "stubbys". When Selmer dicontinued the round chambered mouthpieces in the different facings, they kept the LT and the LT became known as "the round throat/chamber Selmer piece".

Answer:
The only Selmer pieces I have seen that were actually stamped "Air Flow" were what you are describing as the "stubby". It puzzles me why these older ones with the large round chamber are referred to as Air Flow, as I have never seen that designation on on of them. There were also several variants of the "stubby" with progressively smaller chambers.

I think the LT was derived from the "stubby"/Air Flow.

Answer:
Originally Posted by awholley The only Selmer pieces I have seen that were actually stamped "Air Flow" were what you are describing as the "stubby". It puzzles me why these older ones with the large round chamber are referred to as Air Flow, as I have never seen that designation on on of them. There were also several variants of the "stubby" with progressively smaller chambers.

I think the LT was derived from the "stubby"/Air Flow.
That's exactly what I'm thinking...
I have actually seen very few mouthpieces stamped "Air Flow", and the ones that I have seen are the ones that look like the scroll shank. The ones with the large round chamber have no designation.
If you are wondering why I'm wondering about this stuff, BTW, it's for a project I'm working on...but I've often wondered why Selmer kept a mouthpiece around that was named after Larry Teal. Why not a Mule model? Or a Gallodoro?
Not to belittle Dr. Teal's contributions to the saxophone world, but considering that it's a French company and Marcel Mule and others had more to do with Selmer, it would make sense to make a model endorsed by them...but the only model I'm aware of that Selmer has ever named after a specific player is the LT. This is why I think that it's the extension of the AirFlow or round chamber or whatever we want to call it. (Ralph Morgan might know the answer to this...)

Answer:
sorry guys. I had another look, Airflow describes the smaller chamber. All of the stubbies I've had have just had the facing stamped on the table. But I've noticed that all of my large chamber pieces have facings, and then medium underneath, which I think means facing length. Although I've never seen any ones with anything other than medium under the tip.
i think that the main thing here, is that we have to come up with common nomenclature for mouthpieces. too much ambiguity makes alot of grey area. my goal is to put up a site with all pics of my pieces (and obviously people can add their pics) showing the differences between piece so that people know exactly what they're looking at. i think if pieces are actually selling for big money, people have to know exactly what the difference is between everything and the different variants.. this should all be common knowledge, seeing as how mouthpieces are becoming just as expensive as the horns themselves.

Answer:
Heh. Funny you should say that...

Answer:
Originally Posted by saxophobia sorry guys. I had another look, Airflow describes the smaller chamber. All of the stubbies I've had have just had the facing stamped on the table. But I've noticed that all of my large chamber pieces have facings, and then medium underneath, which I think means facing length. Although I've never seen any ones with anything other than medium under the tip.

i think that the main thing here, is that we have to come up with common nomenclature for mouthpieces. too much ambiguity makes alot of grey area. my goal is to put up a site with all pics of my pieces (and obviously people can add their pics) showing the differences between piece so that people know exactly what they're looking at. i think if pieces are actually selling for big money, people have to know exactly what the difference is between everything and the different variants.. this should all be common knowledge, seeing as how mouthpieces are becoming just as expensive as the horns themselves.
The Airflow nomenclature has had somewhat the opposite effect on the small-chambered models, which are probably best described (not named) as a short-shank LT. I was paying top dollar for these 5-8 years ago ($125-$175), and I just saw one go on eBay for around $50 -probably because someone equated "Air Flow" with the much more common large-chambered mouthpieces.

Answer:
The "large chamber with metal ring" was also made in wood. I've got one for tenor with H.Selmer, Paris in an oval and no facing number. My grandfather used it in the early 30s.

Answer:
Originally Posted by ToreH The "large chamber with metal ring" was also made in wood. I've got one for tenor with H.Selmer, Paris in an oval and no facing number. My grandfather used it in the early 30s.
Awesome!

Answer:
Originally Posted by ToreH The "large chamber with metal ring" was also made in wood. I've got one for tenor with H.Selmer, Paris in an oval and no facing number. My grandfather used it in the early 30s.
Cool!

Answer:
Mule always played the metal classic, but apparently not the ones you can buy in the store now. Ralph mentioned in an old Saxophone Journal article that the design was very different on the old metal Selmer pieces. Gallodoro never played Selmer mouthpieces, he has played on the same Woodwind Co. Dick Stabile model for the last 50 years.
Why Larry Teal for a model still confuses me except that he was the most popular saxophone teacher for classical music and maybe he asked them to keep making the pieces for his students.