Ken Herrick wrote:Ken "not so much disagreeing as clarifying..........., maybe" Herrick
Yeah, plus I was being intentionally provocative. I think it's rather funny that I should attach Jacobs's name to my BB-345, though the connection is actually pretty solid. But if I did sell it, I would absolutely outline its lineage. It was assuredly intended to be a replacement for the CSO York, given that only two of those were made and Jacobs wanted something to recommend for his students. The Holtons were certainly imperfect in that regard, but that's another story. Jacobs himself vastly preferred his York to the Holton copies, but apparently he also enjoyed Holton's sponsorship money. Of course, Jacobs had no role in the development of the York, and the fame he attached to it was too late to save the product (or the company). He did have a role in the development of the Holton, even if that role was limited to holding one in a publicity photo (though he used his a bit more than that).
And having played some of Bell's Kings I don't think they are any more similar to a Meinl-Weston 37 than my Holton is to the York, maybe even considering the difference in pitch between Bb and C (more provocation there, I know). I do think they look similar, in both cases. Of course, one of those early Asian rotary tubas with the unplayable scales looks a lot like a Miraphone 186
from a distance.
Holton-ad-with-Arnold-Jacob.jpg
The big Holton was as connected to Jacobs as the Holton horn was to Farkas, it seems to me.
Holton-Ad_1953_CSO_brass.jpg
I looked all over mine, though, and I didn't see Jacobs's name engraved on it anywhere.
And to Bloke, I didn't think we needed a rule--that was my point--nor did I think you were asking for one. But there is some precedent for using names rather more liberally than our current expectations might suggest.
Rick "wondering how many violinists have bought a 'Strad model' by accident instead of a real Strad, absent intentional fraud" Denney
