One response each:

Arita, Benson Bell, Bethoney, Boosey and Hawkes, Bundy, Cousenon et Cie, Martin Dart, Kreul-Moosman,
Phillip Levin (Baroque), Johann Margraf, Meinhart, Moeck (Baroque), Moeller, Penzel-Mueller, Ponte, A.
Riedl, and Yamaha. (6%)

Total Responses: 427

In the 1974 study there were 138 responses, 111 Heckel (80%) and 27 non-Heckel (20%). It would appear that makers like Fox (9 responses or 6.5% in 1974) and Puchner (6 responses or 4% in 1974) are making great strides in gaining on the once overwhelming dominance of the Heckel bassoon.

The breakdown of the serial numbers for Heckel is listed below. The numbers from the 1974 study are also listed for comparison.

It is interesting how the serial numbers form a natural distribution curve, based on the age of the instruments, with two exceptions: the 8000 series and, curiously, the Il 000 series. It is easy to explain the scarcity of the 8000 series: most of these were made during World War II and either never made it to the United States and/or were possibly destroyed by the devastation of Germany. But what about the 11000 series? Why are there fewer of them than the 12000 series? In checking through the 11000 series responses, there were three who simply listed the generic 11000 series, but of the twenty-four other responses, three were 11000-11099, one in the 11100-11199, one in the 11200-11299, four in the 11300-11399, none in the 11400-11499, eight in the 11,500-11599, four in the 11600-11699, none in the 11700-11799, two in the 11800-11899, and one in the 11900-11999 range. By far the most popular 11000s were in the 500 series (probably built around 1968 to 1969).

When the first survey was published in 1974 the distribution of the Heckel serial numbers was similar, reflecting the fact that the I 1000 series instruments were still being built at that time. (The 12000 series probably began about 1975.)

[From: Dr. Ronald J. Klimko: Bassoon Performance Practices and Teaching in the United States and Canada, 1974, School of Music Publications, Moscow, Idaho, 1974, p. 19]

The serial numbers for the Fox vary from the 20's to the mid 14000's. I am told that the numbers are consecutive no matter what the model (II, III, IV, 101, 201, 220, long bore, short bore, Renard series, wood, plastic, etc.). Chip Owen at the Fox factory has published information on the serial numbers of Fox bassoons for those who would like further information.

Bassoon Bocals

In response to the question: "Please list maker, type [bore specifications] and length for the bocals you are currently using: maker - type [CC/CVX/VCD] etc. - length [number] - pre-war [PW]," the following results were discovered:

The 577 total bocal responses broke down into the following figures, as shown in the table on the left in terms of manufacturer's specification for length. Since Fox bocals, with 100 responses influenced these figures strongly, and since a #1 Fox crook is roughly equivalent to a #0 Heckel, a #2 to a #1, etc., the length figures, as shown in the table on the right, make more sense when adjusted to reflect this fact.

This shows that there is no strong preference for #1 length over #2 or vice versa (#I = 236/#2 = 231). In the 1974 study, the number of overall responses was 194, broken down as

 

The increased number of #0 bocals (9% compared to 6% in 1974) as well as the decided shift in the adjusted figures of a preference of #1 to #2 bocals (41% and 40% to 41% and 47% in 1974) might be reflecting the general rising in pitch above A = 440 CPS in recent times, especially in Europe.

Of the 578 total responses, 356 were, as expected, for Heckel bocals; 98 for Fox, a decided increase reflecting their overall improvement; 36 for Puchner; 21 for Marcus/Bell, a recent but highly respected entrant in the bocal market; 13 for Schreiber; and 50 miscellaneous.

Again, this shows a normal distribution between #1 and #2 bocals. The CC bore was highly preferred 1841, followed at a distance by CD[40[; VCD[35]; C[31 1; BD[ 12]; CCV[10]; CCE[81; CDE[6]; VCDE[6]; B[5]; CE[3]; and VCE[2].

Using Heckel's literature as a guide, here is a quick 'refresher' primer on what the letters mean:

C & CC: Both bores are the same. CC is an older designation. Designed for the modern, wider shorter bore bassoon. [The author's observation is that the walls of the modern C bore seem to be slightly thicker than the modern CC bore].
CE: The same as C but with a smaller tip.
B: It is similar to the old bore - used for the narrower bored instrument. It can be used on the modern bassoon for the altissimo register.
D: This designates thinner walls to the bocal. It is freer in tone and a little higher in pitch.
V: This designates an upper register adjustment - lower in pitch - especially the high bl and c2.

Sixty three of the 356 bocals were specified as 'prewar' or about 17.5% of the total.

The Fox bocal was second to the Heckel in response with 100. Since Fox sizes are generally shorter than Heckel sizes, it would appear that the #2 [which is close to a Heckel #I] was somewhat favored over the #3, 43 to 28, or 43% to 28%. The CVX was the most popular bocal with 87 and the C, with 12, a distant second. In recent years the Fox company has improved their bocals considerably so that they now appear to comprise 17% of the responses, compared to Heckel's 62%.

Puchner bocals was third with 36 responses.

 

Marcus/Bell of Toronto, Canada, has recently made a strong impact on the bocal market. Their fourth place finish with 22 responses reflects this.
 

Schreiber bocals was fifth with 13 responses. This company has also made remarkable progress in recent years with improved quality bocals.

Table of Contents