You missed the copy by Monke (apparently only 2 were made)
RC
Since some of those horns listed above are either copies-of-copies, or very loose interpretations, would the Kalison K2001 also be considered in this family? The valve wrap and bracing is a little different, but the overall body is about the same:
harold wrote:I have to disagree with Lee about the assembly of tubas. I have disassembled at least a dozen of them and have seen nothing that indicates that any special assembly techniques have been used. In fact, in many cases I have been disturbed to see how poorly they have been assembled in many cases.
From the photos I've seen of the York workshops, even the most backwater Chinese tuba factory of today would probably cleaner and better organized.
Sorry, I'm not too good at working the "quote" feature here. But regarding Chuck Gs post about Martin bells, the weight differential is in the main body of the horns, (both are detachable bell models). I assume you're talking about the recording bells going from two pieces to three pieces. The '56 horn is a LOT heavier, not just "oh, it does seem a bit heavier" but "holy crap, that's heavy"! The only visible difference in design is a different 4th valve wrap on the '56, involving an extra tuning slide, I believe. Not enough extra metal to create that kind of weight, though. I'll leave it to the experts to figure out why, I just know that there's a BIG difference in weight between these two horns, even minus the bells.
Paul Scott wrote:Sorry, I'm not too good at working the "quote" feature here. But regarding Chuck Gs post about Martin bells, the weight differential is in the main body of the horns, (both are detachable bell models). I assume you're talking about the recording bells going from two pieces to three pieces. .
No--I'm talking about the upright bells--and not the great big ones, but the 20-inchers. Very unusual construction. From one I've heard, Martin underwent some substantial manufacturing changes around 1950.
The mandrels, of course, absquatulated with the disgruntled employees when the shop suddenly closed. I hear tell that you can still find one holding up a birdbath in a backyard in Elkhart...
Bob1062 wrote:Is the 2001 a 6/4? Obviously I've never seen one.
the elephant wrote:The bell/bottom bow connection diameter is at least a full inch smaller. The bell tapers very quickly. It is a very big horn but it tapers like a giant version of the Yamaha 621 series: medium-large-ish bows and a fast tapering bell.
Without filling it with bee...water to measure the total displacement, based on Wade's assessment it sounds like 5/4 would be a better characterization.
Chuck,
I took a look at my detachable upright belland I see what you mean about 3 pieces. I see a two-piece clamshell "stack" reaching nearly 6" up, which is then attached to the remaining bell flare, (which was spun from a single sheet, I assume?). Does this mean that I have a pre-1950 bell? Sorry to derail the original thread a bit here but I'm always curious about these details.
Paul Scott wrote:Chuck,
I took a look at my detachable upright belland I see what you mean about 3 pieces. I see a two-piece clamshell "stack" reaching nearly 6" up, which is then attached to the remaining bell flare, (which was spun from a single sheet, I assume?). Does this mean that I have a pre-1950 bell? Sorry to derail the original thread a bit here but I'm always curious about these details.
I have only what I've been told by people who should know. The 3-piece bells were formed one one piece as the tail (as you might expect) , but the flare was formed of two hand-hammered/shaped pieces over a mandrel and then were joined to each other and the tail almost completely shaped to finished dimensions. Spinning was supposedly minimal.
At least this is what I've been told by knowledgeable sources. Could be part urban legend, but these folks had no reason to tell me a tall tale.
Has anyone tried to run down the old order books from, say, Chase Brass, and see if York or Holton ordered from them and exactly what alloys were ordered?
the elephant wrote:Now that would be a worthy project for a truly dedicated York-aholic. I am not that into tubas to do the work, but would read every last word if it showed up here or was published. So would a lot of folks here, I would bet.
I believe the archives of American Copper and Brass before 1978 are at UConn, if anyone cares. American bought the sheet operation of Chase back around 1998 or so. According to the library, there's a 160 feet of them.
Oh my goodness!
Now I know why my ears were burning! I've been so engrossed with building the new shop ( contractor is one month behind schedule and I could scream), that I have rarely had a moment to relax and visit the 'Net.
Of the statments of mine quoted form the past, I noticed one thing that is not correct. When I have chemically-cleaned, then bright-dipped York low brass instruments, primarily from the 1920's to mid' 1930's, I have noticed that the body was yellow and the bell was pink. This is a fairly subtle difference when they are polished and lacquered, and all-but-impossible to notice when silver-plated. I had surmised that these bells were formed from some sort of rose brass, or as the Germans put it, goldmessing. Now, I have discovered that these bells were not rose brass per-se, but a rather remarkable alloy that can be annealed to be extremely soft, but will quickly work-harden to an extreme, also. The unusual tendencies of this alloy would certainly make a perceptible difference in the response and tonal quality, I think.
The PT-606 is based upon measurements, as I understand it, of the York 4/4 CC tuba that Mr. Tucci once owned. I have played the 606, and do not think that it really plays like a York, although it is a good tuba. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to purchase Mr. Tucci's old York from a gentleman in England and import it for a collector client of mine. He did not wish to have it shipped, but wanted me to keep it for about three months until he could drive to Iowa and pick it up. The collector told me to play it as much as I wished in the meantime ( I knew I would eventually get some kind of perk in this job!). So, I had the opportunity to practice and gig for three months on an original York CC tuba. It plays a lot differently from the PT-606, although the measurements are similar, and the two main differences I saw were the bell and the valveset. These Yorks were rather similar in size, even in brace design, to the old Kings, probably because of a York employee who moved to H.N. White at one point. But, I think the bottom line is the bell. That would be supported by the success that Sam Gnagey has had, grafting York bells onto King tuba bodies, and making very nice CC tubas.
I became so attached to the sound of that York in the three months that I had it, that I looked around for what would replace it when I had to give it to its owner. I am now playing an old King (and string bass) for my big band, dance orchestra and dixieland band jobs. It has a good sound as it is, but not that certain "Yorkness". I got so many good comments on my sound when playing the York tuba, that I know it wasn't just my imagination. I'm considering having Kanstul make me a bell for this tuba out of the York bell alloy. If it works, you'll be hearing about it.
Has anyone had a PT606 made with "goldmessing" bell to see how it plays? Is not "goldmessing" not gold brass which the Germans use a lot? In which case surely B&S would make one to order.
Otherwise a handmade Baer with gold brass bell would be interesting.
I have found that the gold brass on my 2040/5 does make a difference to the sound, at least to my perception. Somehow more refined.
the elephant wrote:The bell/bottom bow connection diameter is at least a full inch smaller. The bell tapers very quickly. It is a very big horn but it tapers like a giant version of the Yamaha 621 series: medium-large-ish bows and a fast tapering bell.
For the heck of it, I took some measurements of my 2001 tonight. According to Chris Olka's for sale posting, the MW2165 bells have a bottom diameter of nearly 6". I measured the circumference of the bell where it meets the ferrule of the bottom bow on the Kalison, and it is right at 18 3/4". Allowing for a little tapering down within the ferrule, it would put the diameter of the small side of the bell at about 5.95". The big end of the bell measures a hair under 19 1/2". I agree that the horn is slightly more conical than the huge Holton's; it is probably in the same class as the 2265 and PCK.
(maybe a hair smaller)
