TubeNet

help identify a tuba.

Hopefully I can get the pix to show up here:





I think it is an old Conn the serial number (162055) would date it from 1918 if it is. The bell is not the original bell I do not believe. It is satin where the horn is bright (well sort of. it would be if it were polished up) The bell is from a newer horn with the naked lady engraving. the bell collar is 6". the bell diameter is 24" (although like I said I do not hthink it is the original bell.) The bell has a serial number on it and also has "U.S." engraved under the Conn engraving, which would lead to believe it was a military horn although it doesn't say quartmaster corps or anything like that on it.

Notice the odd routing of the thrid valve slides and there is an odd water key on the inside bow. Also the valve caps and buttons look more like a HN White era King, but they usually have that engraved on the second valve where it is not on this one.

OK tuba sleuths go to it....

ken k

weird, no furrel between the bell stack and bottom bow.

I am 99.998763546% sure that's a Buescher body with a Conn bell.

Can you can post pictures of the top and bottom valve caps?
Is there a serial number on the valve section?

cjk wrote:I am 99.998763546% sure that's a Buescher body with a Conn bell.

Can you can post pictures of the top and bottom valve caps?
Is there a serial number on the valve section?

here ya go cjk The valve caps and buttons remind me of an old HMN White cap






engraving on second valve:
162055
LP (low pitch i presume?)
Pat. Oct. 29 '07

If it would be a Buescher as you suggest it would date from 1912 according to lists i have found on the web.

thanks ken k

Tubaing wrote:weird, no furrel between the bell stack and bottom bow.

You are correct sir, the bottom bow is all one piece all the way up to the bell collar. I hadn't noticed that before.

k

It would seem to be a Buescher. I have a 1929 catalogue which indicates that this is a No. 698 recording bass. The giveaway for me is the unique water key on the main tubing coming off of the valve cluster. Oddly, only the top-action version is shown with the "ferrule-less" bottom bow while the side-action version shows a standard design. The third-valve configuration looks slightly different too, but everything else seems identical. If the valve block has "Truetone" engraved in it that would indicate a Buescher as well.

bloke wrote:The reason that these tubas were ferrule-less is because (via measurements and drawing conclusions on my part) Buescher used the same tapered sections to make the "bows" on their standard 4/4 BBb tuba and for the "branches" of their standard 4/4 BBb sousaphone. That bottom bow is the same length and the same taper as the "first branch" on their sousaphone. (Thus, no ferrule.)

This leads to a question about old American production methods:

When the length and taper, but not the diameter of bending, was the same for sousaphones/helicons on the one side and tubas on the other, was the sheet metal then cut after the same template for both final shapes, or were there different templates for the two final shapes?

Bending tubing always implies a stretching, and hence thinning, of the metal on the outside perimeter. Depending on the bending method there will be crinkles on the inner perimeter (if one may say so in English).

What I understand about the German method of handmade bows is, that the cutting of the sheet metal strives to reflect the final shape, so that the material stays at a fairly uniform thickness at any point of the final bow shape. Looking down the body knee on my pre-1930 Conn sousaphones (40K & 26K) reveals silver soldering seams. I haven’t tools for measuring wall thickness but for at the end of cuts, where a calliper will work fine. Still I sense no thin points in the knee area. That makes me think that Conn also made sheet metal cuts the German way.

The thin metal of the outside of bows often is covered by guards made of nickel silver. The name of guard leads to the assumption that protection is the main purpose. I rather see the guards as acoustical stabilisers. On some “student” versions of professional designs/models the number and size of guards has been cut down. The response becomes more lively, but also more uneven. Some single notes in an evenly played scale will stand out in a fashion, which is perceived as erratic by musical standards. The response pattern only can be understood by knowing about the metal structure/thickness.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:When the length and taper, but not the diameter of bending, was the same for sousaphones/helicons on the one side and tubas on the other, was the sheet metal then cut after the same template for both final shapes, or were there different templates for the two final shapes?

I have seen pictures from an American factory (I don't recall which one) where two very large workers were bending bows either for a sousaphone or a tuba on a very large jig. I've also seen pictures of making bottom bows at the B&S factory, where they were made from two pieces brazed at the edges, and then "inflated".

Rick "having only hints to offer" Denney

Thank you everyone for the confirmation of the horn being a Buescher body. According to the serial number it would date from 1912! The story on this horn is that the father-in-law of a friend of mine recently passed away. He was an instrument repairman/used instrument dealer/french horn player (as is my friend) and all around "Mr. Music" type of guy of Bethlehem PA. My friend and his wife and other siblings now have the dubious task of sifting through years and years of musical stuff incluing dozens of instruments (including some very exotic Kruspe and Alexander french horns, which my friend is having a ball with right now!). My friend is the horn player in my quintet and asked me to check out this old tuba that was in his father-in-law's shop. Who knows how long it has been sitting there and when it was last played? I figured I would get some pix on tubenet and you guys would be able to figure it out; and you have not dissapointed!

As you can see the horn is in pretty good shape and basically just needs a good cleaning and polishing. I was considering buying it but when I got it home and really started to play it I noticed the intonation is all out of whack. You see how far out the tuning slide is. That is how far out it needs to be for the Bb to be in tune to A=440. But then all the other overtones are very flat. Also some other random notes are out of allignment also. I would guess, perhaps the Conn bell might have something to do with that. Perhaps it is not he same length as the original Buescher bell. While it has a nice sound, it is not an "Oh-my-God-this-horn-sounds-so-great-I-gotta-have-it" kind of sound that would justify dealing with the intonation issues. I had a student come in this week with an old King 1240(?) bell-front tuba and after playing the King back to back with this Beuscher-Conn (Connscher?) I would take the King anyday. I prefer the pitch, response and sound of the King to this one. (So much so I just bought an old King on the bay!)

Not sure what is next for this puppy. If anyone would be interested in it, let me know. One option is having Harv Hartman go over it and put it up on the "bay" and see if it brings anything. but like I said if anyone here is interested in it, drop me a pm.

thanks again guys, you da bomb (not sure what that exactly means, hopefully it means you guys are great!)

ken k

Rick Denney wrote:I have seen pictures from an American factory (I don't recall which one) where two very large workers were bending bows either for a sousaphone or a tuba on a very large jig. I've also seen pictures of making bottom bows at the B&S factory, where they were made from two pieces brazed at the edges, and then "inflated".

Rick "having only hints to offer" Denney

The B&S method comes closer creating a uniform wall thickness than the bending or the hydraulic forming.

The old German way was to hammer sheet brass over a steel shape of the bow to create first one half and then the other half of the bow. The halves then were brazed together for a bow with a very uniform wall thickness.

The Besson/B&H factory at least around 1980 used a certain technique to create bows.

Before the raw tubing was bent to be ready for placement in the hydraulic mould, the part of the tubing intended to become the outside of the bow was pressed into the part intended to become the inner part of the bow, so that the cross section of the future bow was like to half-moons connected at the edges. The ends of the tubing were left round. When placed in the mould one end was blocked and the tubing then expanded by hydraulics.

The outer and inner shapes would end up very smooth, but the thinning of the outer perimeter still would happen. And the tubing wall at the bell ferrule would be thinner than at the branch ferrule due to the larger diameter.

This process of that British maker also was a quality control of the stock tubing. If the brass had any faults the bow would blow apart under the pressure.

Klaus