Please Measure Your Conn 120S Helleberg! (I did.)

[iiipopes]

Please measure your Conn 120S Helleberg! Conn does not publish specs. Typical Cyborg. And there has been so much variation over the years. For example, I have owned and played at least a half-dozen Bach 18's over the decades. The "nominal" cup I.D. of an 18 is 1.26 inches. I have seen them all the way from 1.25 to 1.29, and a rim all the way from the wide Mt. Vernon slope to a narrow Wick 1 contour. I'm sure it is the same way with Conn mouthpieces, even with modern CNC machining. And personally, I have seen all the way from true flat rims to really rounded rims on Conn Hellebergs. So, please measure your Conn 120S Helleberg and post your measurements. We need to correct all the speculation in all the aftermarket mouthpiece charts which claim to be "authoritative." The closest I have seen is Jim Fox' chart which he donated to Mouthpieceexpress.com and which lists 1.27. I have a 120S in my hand as I type this; it appears to be of fairly recent manufacture. The following comments are personal observations from the mouthpieces I currently own:

Cup I.D.: 1.27-1.28, depending on how far down you measure;
Throat: larger than a P drill bit (.323), which wobbles in the throat, but smaller than a 21/64 drill bit (.328), which will not go through the throat;
Slightly rounded rim, a little bit sharper on the inner rim, but not so sharp as to be uncomfortable. I had a really good rehearsal with it tonight in Community band.

The cup is a good funnel. Very little curve at the bottom. It is deeper than a Bach 18, of course; but the surprising thing is that it is not quite as deep as a Miraphone Rose Orchestra. Since it has been so long since I sold my Wick 1, I can't compare those two. I hope somebody else can. Interesting detail: since Kelly says that their lexan mouthpieces are designed to emulate the tone of their origin counterparts, and not slavishly copy the specs: the cup of the Kelly 18 (not the Kellyberg) is almost as deep as the Conn. Go figure.

Next....

[iiipopes]

I was able to measure another Helleberg 120S, which may be a couple years older than the first one I measured:
Cup: 1.28 inches
Depth: may be just a hair, and I mean probably no more than 1/100 inch, shallower, and which may be more a function of the throat.
Throat: P bit wobbles, but it doesn't wobble as much as the mouthpiece measured above.
Rim contour: same as above.

There must be something a little different to the backbore, because this one has a better response on my Jupiter JTU1110 than the one above has.

[bloke]

I’ve watched most of all production mouthpieces - and most all production instruments - vary and morph slightly, over the years.
Think of the 186.

[iiipopes]

I’ve watched most of all production mouthpieces - and most all production instruments - vary and morph slightly, over the years.
Think of the 186.

Indeed. That's why I mentioned the Bach 18, probably one of the worst offenders. Then again, all change to some degree over time. Another case in point: the Fender Stratocaster afcionados go on and on about the subtleties of production year to year, and so on with other items. The point of this thread is that Conn won't publish their specs, so we are all left to "reverse engineer" what may actually be the nominal specs for a Helleberg 120S, especially in recent years when supposedly CNC is used to keep manufacturing consistent.

[bloke]

CNC doesn’t self-calibrate, and nor does it self-sharpen.

[iiipopes]

CNC doesn’t self-calibrate, and nor does it self-sharpen.

No, it doesn't. It still doesn't change the purpose of this thread: what are the nominal specs of a Helleberg 120S. Unless we could convince a person with access to the blueprints to leak them out of the factory, this is about the best we can do in the meantime.

[bloke]

I would like to know where the model 120 came from…??

For years, the “Conn-Helleberg” was smaller (with an asymmetrical rim profile), and those are the ones that go for a zillion dollars - even when they look like they’ve been dragged down the street on the end of a rope behind a car.

That original “Conn-Helleberg” mouthpiece never actually reappeared, but two other mouthpieces - that are more similar to it than to the 120 - did appear: the Conn-Helleberg 7B, and the Conn 2.
—————-
I remember in the early 1970s, if you bought a Conn-Helleberg (with no other stamping on it), it was what is today called the model 120. The shank was silver plated, and the cup portion was plated with a yellowish-colored (not pure) gold plating.
The one stamped 7B (along with the “Conn-Helleberg” stamping) was/is smaller, and featured the same two-tone plating…
… so how early (before the early part of the 1970s) did that mess start occurring?

…and (again) is the 120 actually based on anything, or did Conn just pull it out of their corporate _ _ tt ?

I too have seen minor 120 discrepancies over the years, but all of the slight 120 variations are more like each other then they are like the 7B - which is more like the original…
…so again: What is this 120 thing?

[iiipopes]

I would like to know where the model 120 came from…??

For years, the “Conn-Helleberg” was smaller (with an asymmetrical rim profile), and those are the ones that go for a zillion dollars - even when they look like they’ve been dragged down the street on the end of a rope behind a car.

That original “Conn-Helleberg” mouthpiece never actually reappeared, but two other mouthpieces - that are more similar to it than to the 120 - did appear: the Conn-Helleberg 7B, and the Conn 2.
—————-
I remember in the early 1970s, if you bought a Conn-Helleberg (with no other stamping on it), it was what is today called the model 120. The shank was silver plated, and the cup portion was plated with a yellowish-colored (not pure) gold plating.
The one stamped 7B (along with the “Conn-Helleberg” stamping) was/is smaller, and featured the same two-tone plating…
… so how early (before the early part of the 1970s) did that mess start occurring?

…and (again) is the 120 actually based on anything, or did Conn just pull it out of their corporate _ _ tt ?

I too have seen minor 120 discrepancies over the years, but all of the slight 120 variations are more like each other then they are like the 7B - which is more like the original…
…so again: What is this 120 thing?

Yes. Again, my point exactly. Hence the title of my post: measure your 120. I reviewed all the old threads on TubeNet as well as here, and yes, the postings of all who actually have or had access to "real" 1930's Helleberg mouthpieces report the same thing. I did find one point in one thread that was interesting where one poster (I don't remember who - but it is in one of the old threads) reported the throats as being @ .327, which is consistent with my observation that a P drill bit, .323, wobbles, but a 21/64 drill bit, .328, won't go through the throat.

[JCTuba67]

I began playing the tuba as a young student in 1952. By that time, Conn had already discontinued its famous Artist Series mouthpieces, which had included the Helleberg models, sometime around the mid-1930s. Fortunately, my father had acquired several of those earlier Conn Helleberg mouthpieces during his time with Pershing’s Own, and I still own them today.

When my parents went to the music store to purchase my first mouthpiece, Conn was producing its Precision and New Precision lines. According to my father, those mouthpieces did not compare favorably with the earlier Hellebergs. That said, Harvey Phillips was one prominent player who used the Precision-series mouthpieces consistently and successfully.

Conn reintroduced the Helleberg, along with the 7B, around 1968–1969, reportedly with the involvement of Ed Livingston. I purchased one in 1970 and have played it ever since. Over the years, it has been replated two or three times but has otherwise remained my primary mouthpiece.

The measurements of my particular example are approximately 1.31 inches for the inside rim diameter, with an 8.4 mm throat/backbore measurement. Those dimensions were confirmed by Greg Black using CNC-based measurement equipment.

During the 1970s, I had the opportunity to take many lessons with Arnold Jacobs, and I specifically asked him about the history of this mouthpiece. Jacobs explained that Conn’s production changed considerably during the 1930s and 1940s, particularly around the Second World War, and that some of the specifications and schematics for earlier mouthpiece models had been lost.

According to Jacobs, Conn eventually located a Helleberg mouthpiece dating from the 1920s that was somewhat unusual or possibly a one-off example, and that mouthpiece became part of the basis for the Helleberg design Conn produced in the late 1960s. My understanding is that the original mouthpiece may have been made for one of August Helleberg’s sons, and I have also heard that Conn may have obtained the example through Walter Sear for the purpose of reproducing it.

Conn apparently did not reproduce the external blank exactly. Instead, the company used a blank based on the style it had already been using very successfully for its horn mouthpieces, adapted into a tuba mouthpiece form. Jacobs spoke very highly of the resulting 1960s Conn Helleberg and told me that it was a mouthpiece he wished he had encountered earlier in his career because of how well it was made.

Many of my colleagues from that era would agree that those late-1960s and early-1970s Conn Hellebergs were among the finest mouthpieces Conn ever produced. My own 1970 example is remarkably similar internally to the 1920s Helleberg that I own, although the later mouthpiece has a noticeably wider rim.

Unfortunately, by the 1980s and 1990s, and continuing into more recent production, manufacturing became increasingly outsourced and the specifications changed. As a result, later Conn Hellebergs are not necessarily identical to the earlier examples.

There is a great deal of folklore surrounding vintage Conn Hellebergs, particularly claims that the early mouthpieces were dramatically different because of specific mandrels, tooling, or manufacturing techniques. Some differences certainly existed, but the idea that every early Conn Helleberg was fundamentally different from the later designs is, in my experience, an oversimplification. The history is considerably more nuanced than that.

My understanding is that Mike Lynch owns a true authentic August Helleberg made Conn Helleberg and I would love to hear his thoughts on them and his expertise.

[donn]

That the measurable dimensions could vary some, is no great surprise. But the design spec that I've read the most about is the rim. How rounded, how sharp the bite. Paul Sidey's SSH was as I recall modeled after the flattest rim, which was from fairly early in the era but don't recall exactly.

[JCTuba67]

That the measurable dimensions could vary some, is no great surprise. But the design spec that I've read the most about is the rim. How rounded, how sharp the bite. Paul Sidey's SSH was as I recall modeled after the flattest rim, which was from fairly early in the era but don't recall exactly.

I gave Paul a Conn from 1971 which is what he used to copy through Houser his Versions of the Hellebergs. That rim on that one was flat and very comfortable alittle sharper than most. Conn rims got rounder after they stopped making them in the 1990s when they outsourced the work in Germany. Conn didn’t make a rounded rim on Hellebergs when they were making them in house.

I wish Dave Houser would release a limited batch of these so people can try them again. There is rumor Lee Stofer is working on making a set but I’m alittle curious and concerned about the quality of the blanks. This is not a slam at Lee as he’s an incredible person and repairmen. I just know with all the stuff going on in the world quality materials are getting harder and more expensive to get.

[gocsick]

There is rumor Lee Stofer is working on making a set but I’m alittle curious and concerned about the quality of the blanks. This is not a slam at Lee as he’s an incredible person and repairmen. I just know with all the stuff going on in the world quality materials are getting harder and more expensive to get.

Right now 316/316L or 304 stainless steel 2"-2.5" diameter rod is cheaper per foot than 360 brass. It would cost more to machine but with silver prices being so high might be cheaper in the long run. In the grand scheme of things though 360 brass rod is relatively cheap and abundant.

[bloke]

2 inch diameter the biggest material anyone needs.

I wish I could make the type of sound that I prefer to make with a run of the mill Conn Helleberg. Things would have been easier.