TubeNet

Since some people could not see the pictures, I set up the two pictures on a web page:

http://www.angelfire.com/id/muzician/King.html

Coincidently, both pictures are from the Dillon's website (as noted by Ken K.).

I would like to thank those of you who have responded so far.

If you have not seen the pictures check the website, and register your knowledgeable opinion in the poll above^^^^

Z-Tuba Dude wrote:If you have not seen the pictures check the website, and register your knowledgeable opinion in the poll above^^^^

The older instrument had the fixed first branch and the looped third branch, while the newer instrument had a movable upper first slide and a straight upper third slide. I've always thought of the difference occurring along with the change in designation from 1241 to 2341, but things may have happened more gradually than that.

I helped my wife's uncle buy a 1241 from Baltimore Brass a few years ago, and I think that instrument was one of the best of the breed that I've ever played (with the exception of the new models with the one-piece bells).

Rick "knowledgeable but not authoritative" Denney

It is possible that only someone at UMI can accurately answer your question.

I would have said that "A" was a 1241. It looks very much like the 1241 I own. There is one difference that I can see. The first branch is taller than mine and more like the 2341. It could be that King eased into the 2341 production. I know the transition took place in the early 1970s, but don't know the exact year. Could this be a prototype?

Does the model make a difference? Some people say the 1241 plays better, but I would think they are pretty similar. A different mouthpiece might make a bigger difference than model number.

Normal wrote:Does the model make a difference? Some people say the 1241 plays better, but I would think they are pretty similar.

Of course they are similar. But differences in playing quality across the board when comparing the total 1241 production output with the later 2341 output seem plausible to me. These are not likely the result of the small design changes that are associated with the 2341. They may be the result of a general decline in production quality that took place in all American instrument factories in the 60's and 70's. Top-line instruments made in the 50's are all more highly regarded than those made in the 70's, and this is true whether the instrument is a Holton, Olds, Conn, or King. I've heard it said by the more experienced among us that 1241 bells were specially matched to the bodies to provide maximum resonance, and the few examples I've played at the very least cannot dispute that notion.

During the rise of inflation in the late 1960's, much of the manufacturing sector in the U.S. (at least) went into a cost-cutting mode. They offered early retirement incentives to their highest-paid employees, they cost-engineered their products to minimize production costs (the straight third-valve branch on the 2341 may or may not be better, but it is certainly easier to make), they moved their production facilities to places where labor was cheaper (as with Conn's move to Abilene in the late 60's), and they moved to more automation and less handwork. A lot of what makes tubas good happens in the hands of experts at the end of the production cycle, and many American instruments starting in the 60's required a greater amount of that work to be done by the dealer's technicians, or by the owner after purchase, if they are going to be done at all.

Rick "thinking things have improved a little since then" Denney