TubeNet

I'm not opening this to debate the difference (if any) in sound characteristics between the two finishes.

I'm also not opening this to debate "which looks better." I think they both look great!

It's more important to answer "Which one will look great the longest?"

I'm interested in LONGEVITY and/or DURABILITY!

Which finish tends to wear the fastest, and at a greater extent? I'm under the impression that silver is more durable... but some people say that the oils in their hands eat away at silver faster than lacquer.

What are your thoughts on this? I haven't had a whole lot of experience between the two types to notice which finish gets eaten away the fastest by my handling of it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

I was under the impression that really good lacquer is more durable then silver plating, but lacquer will, for the most part, wear faster then silver. Although, I think it really depends on the person. Some people's hands seem to wear through both lacquer and silver very quickly.

Most of my horns (about 25 at last count) are at least 40 years old. The silver ones still look good. The finish on the lacquered horns has not fared so well. I have an 1898 Conn tuba and a 1910 Conn euph and the silver is still about 95%. What's the condition of the finish on your lacquered horns that are 100 years old!

I think that silver plate lasts longer than lacquer, except for the older King lacquer which appears to be the hardest thing known to man . However, silver tarnishes fairly quickly requiring constant polishing, or you could just let it turn black. Even if lacquer wears, you get raw brass, which doesn't oxidize as darkly.

Now that there are non-abrasive cleaners, I think silver lasts even longer than it used to. And I think that metal lasts longer than paint (OK, it sounds better, too... )

bloke wrote:Prolly the least disappointing finish is raw brass.
...and when repairs/alterations are due, no muss/no fuss.

Got that right! I like working or horns finished in the following order:

#1 - raw brass
#2 - silver
#3 - lacquer ('cause I ain't never figgured out how NOT to burn it off consistantly!)

Raw brass ALWAYS looks better than crappy lacquer

You guys are awesome!

I would think that if the acid in your sweat eats through the silver faster, it would eat through the laquer faster too. My guess is that silver lasts longer, although it does tarnish. But I'd rather my horn tarnish anyways, that way you don't have to polish out every finger print you get from picking up your horn. And if you let it tarnish a LOT, maybe it'll start to look like one of those Hirsbrunner Stealths

I am a highly uninformed source, but I believe I read somewhere that there are lacquers these days that are significantly more durable than the stuff that's falling off our old tubas.

I have never had a King tuba (sorry to say), but my 50's King bari sax has an uglier finish than you can imagine, a strange color that defies description.

There sure are lots of old tubas with mostly intact silver plating, but lacquered tubas of that vintage typically have no lacquer left.

But I will qualify my response. Modern silver is not as thick as it once was, and epoxy-based lacquers are far more durable than the nitro-cellulose lacquers usually used. In terms of durability, the epoxy lacquer on my Yamaha 621 must be at least as tough as modern silver plate, which seems to wear through to bare brass fairly quickly where the horn is handled.

Rick "who has seen very little finish wear on the Yamaha, even after very heavy use" Denney

Although not an option on the poll, the nickel plating (not silver) like what comes on these horns from India will, I think, outlast the insides of the horn. The stuff is heat proof (as my gorilla soldering "technique" has proven), tarnish proof (at least, so far), and crud proof.

Rick Denney wrote: ...the epoxy lacquer on my Yamaha 621 must be at least as tough as modern silver plate...

Time to divide up some rabbits, er, split some hairs...

I can find mentions of acrylic lacquers online, but epoxy lacquer seems to be something of an oxymoron.

The epoxy stuff is indeed durable, but it's not really lacquer; any more than polyurethane varnish is. It goes on thicker, is softer and produces a less-brilliant finish than the traiditional nitrocellulose type; it's more of an enamel than a lacquer.

SplatterTone wrote:Although not an option on the poll, the nickel plating (not silver) like what comes on these horns from India will, I think, outlast the insides of the horn.

Some of the on-line auctions claim chrome. Looks sort of odd to me in the pictures, like it might be a real thick blanket of plating.

Donn wrote:I am a highly uninformed source, but I believe I read somewhere that there are lacquers these days that are significantly more durable than the stuff that's falling off our old tubas.

I have never had a King tuba (sorry to say), but my 50's King bari sax has an uglier finish than you can imagine, a strange color that defies description.

modern lacquer is much better than it was... the silver is being skimped on and being applied thinner.

who knows what's better now.

Jonathantuba wrote: One thing I have found from experience, is that bird droppings can remove silver plating -

So can something as simple as a rubber band Don't EVER use a rubber band for a temporary fix for a spit valve spring on a silver horn

Jared wrote:
Tubatinker,
I seem to recall that you were doing an experiment a few months back with a highly durable used on medical tools or something and you were trying it on brass instruments Was that you? did it work?

Yeah.... the stuff is a product called Coricone 1700. I've used it a little but can't seem to find the time to actually use it on a horn I used almost every day. That would be the true test. At the moment, I have used it on some small pieces and on an alto sax carcass that is hanging in my shop. One of these days I'll get the little alto together and turn my wife loose with it. I think in the final analysis, the Coricone will be a very good sealer but will look a bit like polished brass mid-way into the tarnish phase... not brilliantly shiny, but not with a patina, either.

BTW... someone mentioned nickel and chrome plating. I don't have any use for either one. Chrome has nickel under it and in order for nickel to be worth a hoot, it has to have a strike coat of copper. I doubt that the Indians aren't going to the trouble and I'll be surprised if the finish on the imports lasts very long. It won't be much of a test, though... because many of the horns that are being purchased today will never be played much... because THEY DON'T PLAY They're gonna just sit in the cases! Another thing... chrome does not like acid.

because THEY DON'T PLAY

Oh SOOOOOO wrong!
In fact, every time one is played an angel gets its wings.

India euphonia are the official instruments of Bedford Falls.

SplatterTone wrote:

because THEY DON'T PLAY

Oh SOOOOOO wrong!
In fact, every time one is played an angel gets its wings.

India euphonia are the official instruments of Bedford Falls.

TubaTinker wrote:

SplatterTone wrote:

because THEY DON'T PLAY

Oh SOOOOOO wrong!
In fact, every time one is played an angel gets its wings.

India euphonia are the official instruments of Bedford Falls.

"It's a Wonderful Euph"?

One problem with bare brass instruments is, that parade-type bands demanded them being polished regularly.

Some have been polished so much, that the engraving has been lost on very old samples, which now have very thin gauge metall especially in the bell area.

If only the bare brass isn’t polished it should last for a very long time.

Klaus, who is no buffing-buff either