TubeNet

Martin operated as an independant company from about 1910 until the 1950s. In the late 60s or early 70s the Martin name was purchased by LeBlanc, who continues to sell Martin brand trumpets, although I don't think that they are of the same quality as the older ones. As far as I know Martin tubas were not made after the company was purchased, so any you find are all from the 60s or earlier.

I owned a 6/4 sized top action Martin BBb tuba that was a great playing horn. Here's a photo:



This one didn't have the original receiver or bits, but still played well. The only reason I sold it was because playing such a large horn with top action valves was uncomfortable for me because of a torn rotator cuff. I think that their big horns were better players than any of the Conn 2XJs that I have owned or played, and I have owned 4 and played at least a dozen.[/img]

I've not had the opportunity to play any Martin tubas. However, I own a Martin 'mammoth' BBb sousa and a Martin 'medium' Eb sousa. Awesome horns!... for sousas, anyway.

The Martin 6/4 horn I had was very responsive and had a huge but not bland sound. Lee Stofer had the bell relaquered; he may still have the horn for sale. If I actually needed a giant bellfront BBb tuba, this would be the way to go. As far as pitch, it seem to be pretty bendable and I was able to easily pull the 1st or 2nd slides if I didn'y want to lip 123 down. False tones were great too. I miss it but have no practical use for it.
P.S.>> I actually kinda like the bit setup, because you can easily make the tuba fit any chair (and any height player)

It's not quite a "religion" with me but I am a big fan of these horns, no doubt about it! They are remarkably consistent from horn to horn and as Bloke mentioned, are very "in tune". I own several and use two continuously. A few points.

1) IMO the best examples seem to be from pre-WWII (ser. #145,000 or so and lower). The metal seems thinner on these instruments and the response better. Later horns are noticeably heavier (and these are big horns to begin with!).

2) The tuning bits are fitted quite well, (much more precisely than sousaphone bits). And since the horns are big, they are very handy for adjusting the mouthpiece height (as previously mentioned).

3) Original upright detachable bells are hard to find. The good news is that Lee Stofer can provide reproduction bells that I think are better than the originals. The repro is made from heavier brass and that seems to help projection immensely. I now use the repro 100% of the time and leave the original at home. Lee is a gentleman-check out his website:
http://www.tubameister.com/

4) I've never played a Martin that didn't seem free-blowing to me, but I guess that depends upon what you're used to playing. I believe that the bore is .730 on most of the BBb models.

I am curious. Everything on here has been about the 6/4 BAT Martins, like the one Marty posted and the one Dan Oberloh restored.

Did Martin make any tubas for us mere mortals, you know, something more akin to a King 1240 rather than a Conn 2XJ or Holton 345?

iiipopes wrote:I am curious. Everything on here has been about the 6/4 BAT Martins, like the one Marty posted and the one Dan Oberloh restored.

Did Martin make any tubas for us mere mortals, you know, something more akin to a King 1240 rather than a Conn 2XJ or Holton 345?

I have a copy of an early 60's catalog, and they only show the BAT, the 4/4 fiberglass tubas, and sousaphones. The TB-31 sitting in my living room is a 4/4 instrument of similar configuration to a new King 2341. In 1963, the fiberglass version with three valves was $750--not that cheap in those days. The BAT was about a thou. The bits on my smaller Martin have little thumbscrew clamps so you can lock the configuration in place. I'm already fully in love with that arrangement. Now I just need to get rid of the big hose clamps holding the thing together.

A section-mate owns a Martin Handcraft sousaphone. It's quite excellent and surprisingly not that large. I'd put it in the size class as a Conn 14K rather than a 20K.

Rick "who thinks old Martins deserve their reputation" Denney

Remember also, that Matin made stencils.

Many tubas with the "Wurlitzer" name on them, for example, are Martins.

Question for the Martin fanatics: Did Martin use a 3-piece bell pattern? That is, 2 part bell flare+1 part "tail"? I may have an unbranded Martin here (no ID at all on the horn), but 0.720" bore on the valves.

One skookum looking BAT just went for 1150 on the four letter auction site so maybe the market for horns of that sort is a little limited. Sure don't make the same prices at the larger Conns I've seen.

I know what I'd do with one:

Port Townsend is a seafaring town and gets really foggy. When it is fogged in, I'd set it up on the beach and play duets with the foghorn. I'd play sea shanties which would be punctuated with the sound of the foghorn. Sounds like fun, huh? Or at least a reason to own a Martin BAT, get wrapped up in wool and drink too much rum....

Jeff "Arrrh, me hearties!" Benedict

Curious, we learn at a very early age that the leadpipe is one of the most important parts of the horn.

I myself have never owned a Martin, but do have a wonderful Conn 36J (w/ a VERY enchanting open sound). I've always shyed away from putting a sousaphone bit on it for the reason I just mentioned. (I did put a AGR on it though).

Doesn't putting a bit in between your mpc and the leadpipe mess up the fragile mpc+horn relationship?

-Patrick

pjv wrote:Doesn't putting a bit in between your mpc and the leadpipe mess up the fragile mpc+horn relationship?

In the case of Martin, the "bits" are part of the leadpipe design. The earlier, original Martin bits are more like an "articulated leadpipe" as the pieces fit together with very close tolerances and are held in the desired position with set screws......similar to present-day Bundy bits.

The articulating part of the leadpipe very conveniently accomodates a variety of holding positions, player heights, or use with a stand. A friend played my Martin last night. First thing he did was adjust the bits a few degrees so the mouthpiece met his face the way he preferred. It's "too bad" more tubas aren't designed that way!

From what I've read, the Conn 2xJ series figured the use of one bit as standard setup.

I once owned a Miraphone 191 that played quite sharp with a mouthpiece I liked. Using one Conn sousaphone bit on it gave me:
1) more comfortable holding options,
2) focused the sound in a desireable way, and
3) played in tune without having the main slide pulled so far out.

pjv wrote:Doesn't putting a bit in between your mpc and the leadpipe mess up the fragile mpc+horn relationship?

In addition to the other comments, remember that one bit was part of the design for many of the big Conns, too. A 20J works much better in every way with the intended tuning bit in place.

And the articulated Martin leadpipe is just plain wonderful.

Rick "not sure how fragile that relationship really is" Denney

Is there alot of difference between the "intended tuning bit and a sous bit?

pjv wrote:Is there alot of difference between the "intended tuning bit and a sous bit?

In the case of the Martin, yes. In the case of the Conn, no. The bit specified for the 20J is just a standard sousaphone tuning bit.

My 14K sousaphone actually fits and plays better with a single tuning bit rather than the usual two.

The Martin doesn't use a tapered-fit tuning bit, but rather an angled tubing section that fits into outer tubing and clamps into place. The interior of the tubing is quite smooth.

Rick"thinking the proof is in the pudding" Denney

OK, I'll give it a whurl. I have what seems to be the origional bit to my 1923 40K. I only use one of them anyway.
Thanks for the tip.

-Patrick

iiipopes wrote:I am curious. Everything on here has been about the 6/4 BAT Martins, like the one Marty posted and the one Dan Oberloh restored.

Did Martin make any tubas for us mere mortals, you know, something more akin to a King 1240 rather than a Conn 2XJ or Holton 345?

I was able to borrow my teacher's Martin CC for several weeks in grad school. It was a top-action Martin that was gutted and had a four-front valve-section added. I think it was one of the first horns that Bob Rusk converted. It was not a huge tuba, but it put out tons of sound. Projection out the wazoo. It was fun to play in commencement band. (".....Var-si-teeee....")

I got this baby as a top action three valve horn. I put a .748" Willson BBb valve cluster on it. It's a great playing BBb. I also have the recording bell which works wonderfully on outdoors summer gigs. I'll pull it out for some of the big orchestral pieces in the winter too. Martin was a great maker.

Bob1062 wrote:Did Martin make any front action 3valve BAT's or near BAT's?

Well, I found this photo of a front action Martin circa 1940.


And these too...

Bob1062 wrote:Did Martin make any front action 3valve BAT's or near BAT's?

I believe that the US Navy band used them (4v) at one time.

Chuck(G) wrote:

Bob1062 wrote:Did Martin make any front action 3valve BAT's or near BAT's?

I believe that the US Navy band used them (4v) at one time.

I don't have Stauffer's book handy, but my recollection is that those were top-action tubas, not front-action.

Rick "fuzzy memory" Denney

I have a 6/4 Martin BAT that was originally a 3-valve upright. It has a one-piece bell that bears "USN" and "AUG 1960".

...On another note, it seems like the US Navy has bought a lot of tubas over the years...

I recently sat in on a brass band rehearsal. The gentleman sitting next to me was also sitting in. He was playing a late 20s York BBb pretty much in original condition. We were comparing our "USN"s.

Years ago at Interlochen, Ed Diefes had a King BBb that
also bore the "USN" top center. Great horn as memory serves, and Ed sounded great on it.

Maybe the Navy's just more particular about branding their horns?