TubeNet

Does anybody have an extra OLD style gooseneck that they could sell to me. The one with the longer tube that extends to your mouth. I know they came with 32K's and such from the 30's.

The existence of different necks for the true Conn's is new to me. I have Conns from 1928/29/43, which all can use the same necks.

I have old and new necks. The difference is in the strength of the metal of the tenons. The older ones are heavier. As the inner diameter is the same on all samples, the older necks sit more tight and secure in the screw-tension receivers/tenons. One remedy, which I haven't taken to yet, would be to file the slit in the receiver a bit more open. My remedies have so far been to use some hard plastic sheet as a filler between tenon and receiver/socket. Or to use my favourite (oldest) neck for all 3 Conn's. It sits well, and my ears tell me, that this neck can take more air than the other ones, even if it is the shortest one and is slightly slimmer in the bent area. The lengths only deviate very few millimeters.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

I was recently told and have read somewhere that they made an older style gooseneck which extended farther and you only had to use 1 bit instead of 2 or 3. This 32K I played on..I'm pretty sure when it was made, it came with one of those "longer goosenecks". Because I have to use 3 or 4 bits to get the the mouthpiece anywhere close to my mouth. If I use 2 bits, my head comes out from under the bell and the bell almost points straight upwards (exagerating a little) And please nobody give me the story about having the bits come in from the left side and holding the horn in a front to back position instead of a left to right position. I have tried every position. I've done some research on here and found that other old Conn sousa owners have this problem because the dont have the old style goosenecks. Here is a picture with 3 tuning bits and a new Conn neck. I'm sure if I had the correct neck it would be more porportional and fit comfortably

The 1934 catalogue shows the 32K with the exact same neck as the ones I use for my Conn's.

You don't want to follow the advise for which bloke is a main exponent. That may be the core of your problem, if the lower leadpipe of your 32K has not been modified in respect of expecially its angle.

Klaus

My 1924 High Pitch Conn helicon (3K/7K/11K?) does, in fact, have a different bore neck, for which I have been unable to find a replacement. The later, more common neck is not the same bore.

So have one made TubaJohn20J! It is, after all, just a curved piece of brass tubing with a specialized ends that can be "robbed" from a current model, if necessary? If you need just that extra 1.5 - 2.0" in horizontal length, I'm sure some of the talented techs who frequent this board could make that happen.

Eric

I just restored a 38K, and when I went to buy a gooseneck, there were only two options. My repair tech ordered both and we used the one that fit, but to my knowledge there are only two goose necks.

--

I guess thats just how the were made...with low positioned leadpipes. What really makes it stand out is when you have the only 32K in a line of 20 King sousas!

I saved the first picture, with the offset valves, where the horn had been classified as a 20K.

The second picture shows a leadpipe from what had been called a 32K.

I hope the pictures help the discussion. I probably downloaded from *bay, where much equipment has been modified with non-standard parts. Beyond that I defer to the freak jury.

Wow thanks! Yes I see the difference in the lower mouthpipes now. And I remember when I actually took it to the shop to have the mouthpipe relplaced because it had gotten bent and cracked. You would think good repair techs would know which part to put on! I guess thats what I get for letting trumpet players work on tubas ..I dont own that horn. That was the horn I used in high school. Nobody plays it now because its "deformed" and uncomfortable. I just hate to see a very good horn go to waste and collect dust like that...because in my opinion, it is by FAR better than those Kings they use. Maybe I should buy a lower mouthpipe and go talk to the band directors about having it put on.Or maybe they will sell me the horn because no one plays it. HAHA but thanks for the replies they helped a lot.

Dean E wrote:I saved the first picture, with the offset valves, where the horn had been classified as a 20K.

The second picture shows a leadpipe from what had been called a 32K.

I hope the pictures help the discussion. I probably downloaded from *bay, where much equipment has been modified with non-standard parts. Beyond that I defer to the freak jury.

The lower mouthpipes in BOTH of those pictures look sort of funky. ... like they've BOTH been 'messed with' at some time.

Crappy repair work such as this makes a great argument for the discussion that is going on in another thread.... regarding the playing of customer's horns. It's pretty obvious that problems like this would be eliminated simply by having someone play the horns for a bit.

The 38K and 40K also have the "straighter" old style lower mouthpipes. Along with the 22K even though it was short action, because the 22K i played in high school had the mouthpipe replaced with one of those "new cut down" ones from a 20K..which change the whole bell angle while in playing position to leaning wayyy back. like your 32K. I guess it really does take a true tuba/sousa guy to know the horn and make decent repairs.

On a side note another question about the catalogue picture, that I uploaded at

viewtopic.php?p=246382#p246382


bloke calls this a factory drawing. I cannot tell whether he is right on that matter, but for once I doubt so. When I studied construction engineering very long ago, I took an extended course in technical drawing. More explicitly projection of 3D objects into the 2D realisation of blueprints. That skill was needed in the era before CAD became common. Even if we worked with formulas, a certain personal touch was necessary as complex curves were only approximated.

I guess a good artist could make such drawing, but I tend to see this as a modified photography where areas like the bell engraving have been retouched with a pencil.

The reason for my point of view is, that drawings even by high-end computing tend to have something artificial to them, whereas this graphic looks as a very true representation to me.

Does the list have experts on this matter?

Klaus