TubeNet

This horn is not bad, It plays alright.
I had Matt Walters at Dillon Brass work on this horn:
Rolled out bell
Dent work
Adjusted valves
Any information on year, how much it’s worth, or if you interested let me know!
Anything is appreciated!
Thank You
Tuba Tim

Reflections make it impossible for me to exactly tell the shape of the flange for the lyre-holder. If it has all round curves with longer tongues up and down and shorter tongues left and right, then the body of this tuba likely is made by B&S.

Klaus

Originality? Could be. My 186 is the recording bell variant.

Have Dan Schultz make an upright bell to go along with it.

The Europeans made a lot of horns that aren't apparent to us in the Western World. I just spoke with a fellow who owns a B & M built Marzan tuba that has both the upright and front-facing detachable bells. I'll try to get some pictures up on my Marzan web page in a couple of days... soon as all this holiday stuff is over with. Whew!

TubaTinker wrote:The Europeans made a lot of horns that aren't apparent to us in the Western World

Yes, and B&M made several storied lines of stencil instruments and were clearly willing to adjust their design accordingly. I also recall seeing advertisements for B&M rotary tubas back in the day, and that they were priced below the leading suppliers, and I recall that they were presented as a budget alternative for a West German tuba. Thus, I'd be hesitant to jump to the conclusion that this instrument is not a B&M. The tight fit of the receiver tube, for example, seems B&M-ish. On mine, they used a thin sleeve over the mouthpipe, soldered in place, instead of a separate receiver soldered onto the end of the mouthpiece. It's quite different from Cerveny and B&S receivers in my experience.

The bell and attachment ring seem identical to mine. I think it's entirely likely that when Carl Fischer wanted American-looking instruments to sell as their high-end products that B&M would adapt what they already had to that form factor. Chuck G. and I speculated that B&M and Carl Fischer were really trying to compete against King with the York Master line. This was before Fred Marzan's collaboration, and during the time when West German industry was trying to rebuild in the immediate post-war period.

If the inside surface of the bell smoothly aligns with the bell stack at one tight joint, then I would be even more apt to believe that the instrument is all B&M.

Rick "thinking the piston B&M was a response primarily to American customers" Denney

Bump

Junkyardslug wrote:Just thinking out loud; if I were Bohm & Meinl and were making a tuba like this I would surely make the collar where the bell attaches out of the same material as all the other trim pieces.

That is not the case with my York Master. The bell attachment ring on it is brass, but the trim on the instrument is nickel-silver, except for the ferrules on the bottom bow. Those ferrules seem to me to have been designed for an American look, and were probably done that way to appeal to the American market. They would look quite unusual on a rotary tuba.

Here's a B&M-made York Master compared to a King 1241 of roughly similar vintage:



Here's a B&M-made York Master compared to a real York Model 716. It's easy to see that the York Master on the left is a copy of the original York on the right:



Rick "who'll have to dig around for some old pictures of pre-Marzan B&M rotary tubas" Denney

Here's a recent picture of what I consider to be a rare B & M Marzan tuba. I think is probably rare to even see a detachable bell Marzan... much less one with BOTH bells.