Page 1 of 1

Re: most cosmetic bang for the buck?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:23 pm
by rocksanddirt
far and away the surface area of the outter bows and bell are what is seen, and that's all nice and shinny.

Re: most cosmetic bang for the buck?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:31 pm
by Art Hovey
I don't like to respond to someone fishing for compliments, but it sure looks good to me. Reminds me of what my father did when the guys started bugging him about his dingy and grubby old Martin. He sent just the recording bell out to be overhauled, maintaining that it was the only part visible to the audience. It came back looking beautiful, with satin-silver plate and gold wash inside. About that time I gave him a Buescher helicon bell that happened to fit. So the beautifully restored recording bell sat unused for the rest of his life. The gold wash faded to a dark brown, and the silver reverted to its natural drab gray. Bling doesn't last, but a good-playing tuba does.

Re: most cosmetic bang for the buck?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:43 pm
by Bob Kolada
Copy, paste, email....

Hey Joe, what school is this headed to? :D

Re: most cosmetic bang for the buck?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:47 pm
by Mister JP
It's the economic principal of the law of diminishing returns in action. Sure you could go farther with the restoration, but your client won't pay for the increasing cost of the next square inch of shiny brass.

Re: most cosmetic bang for the buck?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:49 pm
by imperialbari
As I see no oars, only paddles, I couldn’t vote for dinghy.

K