Currently, every maker uses their own system for tip openings, and there is almost no information ever given to identify the facing length and chamber size. Does anybody have any ideas for a simple, easy to understand system that would let buyers know a little more than they get now?

Neil,

You are right. I have little hopes the mouthpiece measuring system will ever be standardized. I doubt it will ever be because each mouthpiece maker is just as steadfast and hardheaded about how they measure and make their product as the next guy. Furthermore, even if it is stamped, they will still play, sound and feel different. They are never exact carbon copies of the same one sitting right next to it. But the measurement markings are a good rule of thumb "starting point." Bottom line is you have to PLAY THEM to really know if the set up will agree with your style and tone.

I always liked the Berg Larsen system. The "100/2" let you know that the tip opening was 0.100" and the chamber was the #2, or medium chamber. Still, no facing length.

Eric Brand used a system that many think is a serial number, but is not. The measurements are in metric.

A mouthpiece described as 48250 would have a facing LENGTH of "48" on the Eric Brand scale, which is 48 half mm units. He felt that the full mm was not quite enough precision, so used half mm's. A "48" would be a length of 24 mm as measured with the glass gauge and a .0015" feeler. Trying to put 24-1/2 mm or 24.5 or 245 would lead to too much confusion, so such a mouthpiece would have a facing length of "49".

For tip opening, again metric, and a 2.5 mm tip opening was marked as 250. (2.50 mm = 0.0984" tip opening)

So, 49250 would describe a mouthpiece with a "49" (24.5 mm) facing length and 2.50 mm (.098") tip opening.

Although it wouldn't tell you squat about how it is shaped, if mouthpiece vendors would tell you the bore diameter and length, plus the millileters of water capacity of the mouthpiece, you'd have information about the size of the chamber (in cubic mm, but again, nothing about shape). I think trying to get too detailed would simply be too complicated - and most would still just resort to testing different pieces to see what worked best for them anyway.

I like the idea of tip opening, facing length, and chamber size.....I think it would be important not to mix the metric system (used on Erik Brand gauges) and the English system (used on most tip openings)....chambers could be identified as S, M, or L (figure it out!)....true, you can't easily describe all the variables, but would be a good start....now if we could only get the mouthpiece makers to participate!

Reform is long needed in this area. As far as I know, there aren't any mouthpiece makers telling us anything about the length of the facing. I would also like to know without measuring if a mouthpiece has a radial (R) or parabolic (P) facing curve. I think potential buyers would appreciate additional information being readily available.

I agree with Jim. Even if the measurement info is a good approximate starting point, you still need to play the mouthpieces. An alto JodyJazz DV 8 (supposed to have a 0.090" tip opening, and indeed it's so) needs the same reed that a Beechler Diamond S5S (supposed to measure 0.075" at the tip opening, in fact it measures 0.080"), which is very hard blowing and stuffy.
I was planning to post a list of equivalent mouthpiece brands and models regarding blowing resistance and playing "feeling", both metal and hard rubber. But it's a so long, long list, and I don't know how long will it take to be finished.

I'm all for more information, but the proposals above have too many digits. How about 1, 2, and 3 for short, medium, and long facings, 1,2,and 3 for closed, medium, and open tips, and 1,2,and 3 for small, medium, and large chamber.....a mouthpiece could be described simply as 1/3/2 or something like that....I don't think most players would know a radial curve if it bit them on the ass, and I don't think most players can tell the difference in a facing length or tip opening difference of .005 or .010....I think they're dreaming if they think they can

sorry, Steve, but I think you and most of the other mouthpiece makers offer far to many choices....way more than most consumers need.

I really like the concept of a single digit for each parameter....the simple solution is always the most elegant solution