TubeNet

Usually I am reasonably good at identifying instruments. It is not always possible to tell whether an instrument is in F or Eb respectively CC or BBb just from looking at photos. And then all of these 4/4 high end CC’s can be difficult to discern without very good photos and some reference material.

The given instrument allegedly is a 1960 Besancon Saxhorn contrebasse after an Adolphe Sax patent. That would tell the pitch to be Eb.

The height is 85cm/34â€

The second valve looks too long to me, even in the image where its pushed back in. Maybe you don't come out with enough tubing for Eb, but do you think F is a possibility? That's what I'd suspect.

Your notion is not way off.

Adolphe Sax designed two families of saxophones:

The Bb/Eb family intended for band usage.

The C/F family intended for orchestral usage. This family went extinct but for the C-melody tenor, which had a blooming period within light/dance music, because it allowed the player to look over the shoulder of the pianist.

However I never have seen any documentation of any brasses in F (aside from horns) out of the original French tradition.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

ben wrote:I just find the horn amazing beause the leadpipe enters the 2nd valve! Or am I mistaken. This just seems really odd to me

Happens all the time, just not lately...

ben wrote:Bug, on the horn above, are there 2 main tuning slides then? (on the 1-3 pipe on the "RHside of the trumpet, and then again imediately post leadpipe? )

Conn made some beauties, what year is that?

Actually, yes, two slides affect the over-all pitch. The first is an interchangable High/Low pitch tuning slide, and the second, between the 1st and 3rd valves, is for changing the cornet from Bb to A. That is a 1903 Conn Conn-Queror from Nick DeCarlis' site Vintage Cornets. If you like cornets anywhere near as much as Klaus likes tubas, you can spend all day drooling at that site!

I would say that instrument is in Eb like an Eb tuba. Here in Azores we use small Eb tubas we call "Contrabaixo" (contrabass) that look that size and slides proportion.

You know, if it wasn't for the inherent problem of introducing too much resistance with all the little curly-q slides, I like the idea of the leadpipe going into the half-tone valve first, which should have the least resistance, then into the full-tone valve, etc., so that each valve, port and loop can be engineered to have the same backpressure both open and engaged. Of course, the bottom line is there is so little practical difference between especially valves one and two it is not effective, and indeed counterproductive, to back wrap the tubing as such. But what a great experiment to test the limits of a comp system! Nice instrument. Any comments as to how it plays, if it's in playable condition?

My eyeballs tell me that the length is pushing 14 feet, which is solidly in Eb territory.

But I've never seen an Eb tuba of that size with a folded third-valve branch, and the second valve looks long for a bass tuba, too.

Here's my arithmetic: 34+14+28+12+28+12+14+6 from bell down to valves. That's 148 inches. And then the length of the tuning slide and lead pipe, which I'm guessing as 20 inches. That's 14 feet exactly. My approach should be long by a bit, but I'm still in the vicinity of Eb.

Rick "thinking the downward photographic angle isn't helping" Denney

iiipopes wrote:Any comments as to how it plays, if it's in playable condition?

If he could play it, I would assume he wouldn't have the question about what pitch the instrument is.

Just re-read the thread. Everybody appears to have looked through two errors in my original posting, which I for the sake of fairness will not edit:

The instrument of course is not alleged to be made in 1960, but in 1860.

The comment about the pulled 2nd slide has been placed wrongly.

I tend to accept Rick’s evaluation to a degree, that I will use that classification, when I upload these photos to my galleries. The presented photos are temporary by the very nature of their source.

If the dating of this instrument is true, which I have no chance to verify, then there are a couple of implications related of topics surfacing on this board from time to time.

This size of Eb tuba must be just about, what Berlioz wrote for.

The compensating system is different from the 1878 Blaikley patent, but it also is quite a bit earlier. I have 4 instruments with the Blaikley system (3P baritone, 3+1P euph, Eb tuba, and BBb tuba). I like them all and do not find them stuffy but for the top space Gb (bass clef) on the baritone. Actually it is not stuffy, but it is way flat.

I always wondered, why Besson/B&H dominated the comp market until around 33 years ago. I was told, that it was something about patents.

Yet there have been a lot of compensating instruments around all the time. The Germans have made immense numbers of compensating horns with rotary valves. Actually the comp double horn preceded the full double horn. Comp horns are not really in vogue among pro players any more. Only one of my 11 horns is a comper and that one is a very special Lidl Walzenhorn, which has an amazing F side (for references take a look at my galleries).

For generations the French orchestral horn was a piston comper albeit with a rotor shift valve.

The first breach of the Besson/B&H monopoly I encountered was the Marzan inspired front action 4P Willson euph back in 1974. I should have bought it, but I couldn’t afford it.

History is the joy of the old men.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre