TubeNet

I recently received a new printed brochure from Miraphone and it showed a different wrap design for the 1291CC compared to the one shown in every other photograph I had seen of the horn. After going to the Miraphone web site I noticed the photograph there was of the "different" wrap design as well. The most obvious change is with the 4th valve wrap but there are several others too.

When checking the photo of the 1291s posted at WWBW, I saw that the original wrap design was shown at their sale page but the biggest thing I noticed was the large price increases. The laquer model went from approx. $6,400 to $7,999 and the silver model went from approx. $7300 to $9199. Has anyone else noticed the changes or had a chance to play the new wrap design?

Doc wrote:Paul,

I noticed that as well, especially the price jump. Thought about asking Roger about that in an email. Glad I ordered mine when I did. The 181's went up, too, as did their other models. Gettin' mighty scary around here with the prices.
Doc

I guess we can look at it as you probably made a better return on your investment than you could have in two years in the stock market and you get to enjoy the horn too!

I agree with LV on this one. The wrap doesn't look any different. They moved the fouth valve tubing over a little to accomodate the fifth valve, but the "wrap" looks the same.

I played the demo horn at Midwest last month and was not impressed.

My $.02

bloke wrote:

I played the demo horn at Midwest last month and was not impressed.

10-4, but the price must go up regardless, because the U$D is absolutely in the toilet.

...and motivation to look toward UMI and Kanstul for new instruments. Hopefully, the currency exchange situation will encourage them to throw a few of those useless greenbacks at product development.

Boy, it's a good thing that our chief executive says that "a strong dollar is the policy of my government."

bloke wrote: Even Swiss band instruments are cheap enough that the importer can at least double their prices and sell 'em to some debt-willing U.S. consumers!

The US has to relearn how to make things that other people want (BTW, the US isn't even growing enough food--we import more beef than we export). Even though we have a weakened dollar, exports during the last quarter actually were down, while the 2004 trade deficit was a record-buster and that includes the 2003 deficit which itself was a record.

I figure that a start might be doing something like making good instruments and other things that are exportable. Something like the King 2341 must be a very good bargain to foks in the EU by now. Why not capitalize on that?

Here's my question:
I know that dealers will always pass on the price increase from the manufacturer to the consumer (due to our widening exchange rate).
But what about the inventory that the dealer already purchased at the old price? Most dealers only receive tuba shipments a few times a year. I've seen very little hesitation by some dealers to go ahead and sell products, purchased at last quarters prices, and mark them up with the new stock. I suppose its not necessarily a bad way to do business, but it makes it hard on someone (like me) who wants to buy a new miraphone.
Darn it.

bloke wrote:

(BTW, the US isn't even growing enough food--we import more beef than we export).

but is this totally "production" capability related, or more "price" related (as is petroleum)?

Dangerous political rant wrote:Whaddya mean price? The government has programs to keep prices of domestic ag products UP!. Makes a bunch of sense, doesn't it? Keep our production down so we pay more at the supermarket and contribute to the trade deficit at the same time.

With the weak dollar, there are only a handful of countries building instruments that might provide an attractive alternative to the now high-priced German offerings. The US (okay, maybe Brazil and Taiwan) and China. Which one would you rather the leader be? It might be nice to have a renewed interest in skilled labor, dontcha think?

There is just too much of a discrepeancy between the Euro and the dollar right now.

Roger Lewis wrote: Thanks to the little idiot in DC having ticked off so many foreign nations and as a ploy to get Europeans to buy more American goods (which it has done).

Testing. Testing. Am I back on the "political" section of this forum? It sure sounds like it.

Chuck(G) wrote:(BTW, the US isn't even growing enough food--we import more beef than we export).

Welllll.....my opinion on the honesty of the beef producers combined with the gubment is....you probably will be really happy in about 10 years if you simply quit eating beef entirely. That thar mad cow disease is afoot on this continent, and it ain't kilt by cooking neither.

MA, who agrees with Roger about the little idiot.

bloke wrote:

Boy, it's a good thing that our chief executive says that "a strong dollar is the policy of my government."

If the prices of all of our exports are going to be horribly inflated by tacked-on Social Security/Medicare/unemployment taxes and other internal taxes on taxes on taxes, something has to be done to make our stuff (other than sacks o' wheat) sale-able to foreigners!

Well, since we seem to be back on the (outlawed) political section of TubeNet, I must strongly agree with Bloke(above).

bloke wrote: sacks o' wheat... sale-able to foreigners!

Did you know that some countries will not accept our sacks o' wheat because they are so incredibly deficient in minerals?

MA, who remembers reading the article but not where it was. I think it was about chromium, which is needed for proper sugar/insulin metabolism. Are you diabetic? Have you had your chromium blood levels checked? Ya'll might be surprised.

I apologize to all for my earlier unprofessional and stupid "rant". I was not thinking and acted in poor judgement. If I have offended anyone I sincerely apologize.

bloke wrote:..and I'm sure that (rather blaming the past 35-40 years of policy on this), you'll prefer to blame the current executive branch of the federal gubmint for all of this.

Yeah, you're right, Joe. Running budget surpluses and a strong currency is no way to run an economy. Gee, when was the last time we had that?.

Vendors have no choice; in the last 3 years, the dollar has declined almost 50 percent against the euro (and most other currencies in the developed world). In point of fact, one would have been much wiser financially speaking to take out a loan to buy a new Miraphone last year than to save up to purchase one today.

If China revalues its currency (as it's expected to do), I figure that near double-digit US inflation is but a heartbeat away. So, if someone's in the market for a new King 2341, it might be better to reconsider taking out a loan for it.

MaryAnn wrote:

bloke wrote: sacks o' wheat... sale-able to foreigners!

Did you know that some countries will not accept our sacks o' wheat because they are so incredibly deficient in minerals?

MaryAnn wrote: Welllll.....my opinion on the honesty of the beef producers combined with the gubment is....you probably will be really happy in about 10 years if you simply quit eating beef entirely.

Sorry to drift on this and certainly no disrespect to MaryAnn is intended but I needed to chime in.

I am not sure about chromium levels but as a beef producer and wheat grower (trying very hard to be honest and a good steward with both) I do know most of the soils in the major US crop areas are severely deficient in selenium. This in turn makes much of our production low in this "poison" which is also an extremely important requirement for health too. I believe most of the problems foreign firms have with our wheat is low test weight scores (basically density) which makes it less desireable for baking, but this problem is largely due to our weather conditions. The UK and Canada have it much better for that crop.

As to beef, the vast, vast majority of BSE cases are not actually from beef cattle but from older dairy cattle. As far as science can determine, the disease can not develop in cattle anywhere near the age of when most US "beef" cattle are processed. While the bulk of beef cattle consume forage versus the life long diet of grains used by dairy cattle, very, very low profit margins (if not lossses) in the past decades caused a few stressed (as opposed to dishonest, I pray) dairy producers in these other countries to experiment with some feed products that put us all in the mess we have today. I eat beef, have very low cholesterol (probably genetic though) and feel very safe.

I apologise again for going off topic.

Chuck(G) wrote: Yeah, you're right, Joe. Running budget surpluses and a strong currency is no way to run an economy. Gee, when was the last time we had that?.

My memory must have failed me. I thought Sean shut down the political part of TubeNet. Maybe I just dreamed that up. Perhaps it has been reopened in the "TubeNet" section of this forum. If it has, then "PLAY BALL."

In my estimation, it is often difficult to follow the actual trail of which political party is most responsible for the mess we are in. Furthermore, if we are going to be entirely honest with ourselves, both parties do their fair share at messing things up. I know I have to agree with Doc in saying that I don't always agree with GW. I do, however, agree with having a conservatively run government. Unfortunately, I don't believe we have one.

Since both parties seem to be more than happy to screw things up, I am reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago with this forum's "Resident Genius." I don't know if he would still say this or not. He opined that perhaps the best situation to have was a congress controlled by one party and the executive branch(president) controlled by the other. He may have had something there. Of course, given the fight going on to legislate by the judicial branch, I'm not certain there is a balance attained in this manner.

To all you TubeNetters, please be advised that none of the above is any more political in content than what I am responding to.

The problem with producing an American tuba is the same problem with producing American farm products: we can't do it as cheaply as foriegn countries.

When I drove to Denver this summer, I was stunned at the miles and miles of range land that had no cattle to be seen. Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma used to have farms and ranches.

I don't believe the problem is all labor costs, I believe it's largely government regulations which have closed factories and farms all across the country. I would love to hear Paul S's version of this as it relates to his profession.

(This is a socio-economic post and does not attempt to represent a political statement except that NAFTA isn't helping the US.)

TubaRay wrote:My memory must have failed me. I thought Sean shut down the political part of TubeNet. Maybe I just dreamed that up. Perhaps it has been reopened in the "TubeNet" section of this forum. If it has, then "PLAY BALL."

Sorry, Ray, but every one of my posts under this topic has had tuba content.

My last post pointed out that we live in very turbulent economic times and that the common "rules of thumb" may no longer apply, namely, that if one were looking at a US-built tuba, it might be more prudent to take out a fixed-rate low-interest loan than to save up for the instrument.

Back in 1980, when we were in some really weird times, I took out a second mortgage on my home at 14 percent and bought US Treasury CDs yeilding 18 percent. Normally, borrowing to buy Treasury notes is downright foolish, but strange times call for strange measures.

I don't think I'd borrow to buy a Miraphone at today's prices, however--you'd be on the wrong side of the "stairstep" rise in retail prices.

Chuck(G) wrote: Sorry, Ray, but every one of my posts under this topic has had tuba content.

Chuck, my reply would be to say to you that just because you include something concerning tubas, doesn't give you carte blanc to go on a political diatribe(and I'm not really saying that you did). Actually, I am quite inclined to agree with Alex C in his post. Most of the things that are economic, which pertain to the tuba, are certainly seriously affected by the politics of our country. For me, rather than argue the politics(and try to pretend we aren't), I feel we should stick with the facts as much as we can. When we interject political feelings and beliefs, this is probably better suited for a politics section(which of course, no longer exists in TubeNet).

By the way, Chuck, I believe when you stick to facts concerning the subject of tubas, you are among those on this forum for whom I have the greatest respect. I believe your posts are knowledgeable and articulate. I enjoy reading them and learn from them. And to take this a step further, I am not offended by your comments or sentiments, I simply disagree with them. My point is really intended to question whether or not we should take occasional forays into the politics realm. I would prefer to still have the political outlet we once had, where "conversations" could be quite heated. Since it no longer exists, I don't really like it when folks take their little political snipes at the other side. I try hard to restrain myself when I am so inclined.

Alex C wrote:The problem with producing an American tuba is the same problem with producing American farm products: we can't do it as cheaply as foriegn countries. When I drove to Denver this summer, I was stunned at the miles and miles of range land that had no cattle to be seen. Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma used to have farms and ranches. I don't believe the problem is all labor costs, I believe it's largely government regulations which have closed factories and farms all across the country. I would love to hear Paul S's version of this as it relates to his profession.

(This is a socio-economic post and does not attempt to represent a political statement except that NAFTA isn't helping the US.)

Actually the main reason for missing ranches in Colorado are years of continuous drought forcing guys out of business but I believe the major reasons for missing farms & ranches are the same reasons for missing tuba manufacturers and missing instrument stores in every town.

The reasons would be 1. The "Walmarting" of America where margins are so low that you have to be outlandishly huge in volume in order to make even a small profit let alone a living. 2. Health Insurance, as I do not know a single farmer in my county who does not take a side job if only for one reason-health insurance. Ask a farmer and they will say, "I'd work my side job for free just to have coverage for my family and I could run the farm at break even. 3. Risks, I worry a BSE case will be found in the US each day and my net worth will drop 90% in a heartbeat, let alone factor in the weather, political embargos of ag products, and what someone may or may not pay me if I actually do get a live calf on the ground and raise it to maturity or get a crop planted and actually grown to harvest.

These are all the same things that any business runs into though, be it an instrument maker, music store owner or a farmer.