TubeNet

Somehow, I think that if it were in better shape (no bell crease, original 5th valve, water key...), it might have actually sold for less.

Either way, its a good looking horn, and was "worth it" to someone.. hope it was someone here, I want to know how it turns out!

DP wrote:given the visible condition of the horn

Whaddya mean? It's got its "original patina".

My tuba is very similar to this one and yes, I'd buy it new without hesitation.

And I own the benchmark example.
HeHeHe.....

Almost ready to bring it to life. Should be a lot of fun.

I saw that auction... just knew someone was going to get a very nice instrument!

In the past I had frequent access to 2 different 186 CC 4v of this relative vintage. no comparison between the glorious qualities of them and anything newer in the f/phone catalog. Anything.

An audience member pulled me aside the other day to ask about my horn. He identified himself as a Miraphone man, but he got rid of the horn recently as he felt he wasn't going to use it anymore. I asked him when he got it. "In 1960, for 600 dollars". I think he got his money's worth.

It would be interesting to test play one or to older Miraphones head to head with a few of the newer models. It could possibly be the best way for an individual to get an almost entirely subjective opinion on the differences. However,you could get verifiable measurements on intonation and decibel levels I suppose, perhaps you could even compare sound waves if you had the proper equipment for such a venture.

But I dare say Miraphone probably thinks they build a better instrument now than they did 55 years or so ago, at least that would be my guess.

You don't even have to go as far back at the 60s to feel the difference. Tommy's 190 CC was built around 1980 or so, and is noticeably lighter than the recently re-issued 190 CC. It lights up more quickly, and feels a bit more nimble (if that word can even be used to describe such a huge horn). His 188 was around the same vintage as mine (early-mid 80s), and I've often thought the recent copies of that particular model I've played just seemed to be missing some of that earlier "character" in the sound. Less sparkle, more thud.

Just had a new 186 cc in my hands.beautifully made.great workmanship. noticeably better low register on the clone i had for a year...

How does the *projection* compare between the new and old horns? It seems like projection and resonance don't always work together with each other. Perhaps Miraphone changed some design features to beef up the sound, at the "expense" of changing the resonance?

Who knows...

The real lesson learned here is that if you find a very early Miraphone for under $4k, you should buy it and flip it on ebay for a few quick bucks. Yeah yeah, or actually play it and be happy with that too!

bort wrote:How does the *projection* compare between the new and old horns? It seems like projection and resonance don't always work together with each other. Perhaps Miraphone changed some design features to beef up the sound, at the "expense" of changing the resonance?

Funny you should ask that question, it was exactly the issue I was thinking about as I read your post. Not being a hard core Miraphone enthusiast myself, I always read such threads to get some idea of why the enthusiasts really enjoy these horns. Learning something new is always good. My personal experience with Miraphones cemented my opinions about them in the 70's, when I was in school. At that time, all the Miraphones I saw (and played) were made of very thin metal, much like Cerveny instruments. They felt great in your hands, literally coming alive when you played them. But the projection was not as good and, in my opinion, they had a tendency to break up at higher volumes.

Right around 2000, I had the opportunity to submit some names of tubas I would recommend to a local high school looking to purchase a new BBb tuba. Of course the 186 was on my list because of the amazing consistency of these horns. The school ultimately bought a 4 valve 186 BBb and when I play tested the horn, I was astounded by how much different it was than every other Miraphone I had ever played. It was definitely made out of a much thicker gauge of metal, it did not feel as good in the hands when you played it, but the projection was really good and the scale was absolutely even. I tried pushing the horn with some volume and it responded wonderfully. I began to wonder if some of the Alexander folks had switched factories. I did some checking around and discovered that Miraphone had decided to start making horns with thicker metal, like they did in the 50's and 60's, supposedly. I can't claim any firsthand knowledge of those vintage instruments because I've never had the pleasure. But my understanding is that the earliest versions that made their way here to the U.S. were both thicker metal and silver plated. I wonder if the factory decided to harken back to those days with more knowledge in hand that would also let them produce a horn with better intonation. A great concept if you can deliver and that 186 I played seemed pretty close to the mark.

I watched THIS auction as well. SN in the 8600s, which by my math would put it around 1970-73. I don't know who won it, but this sure looks like a CC to me (the seller said he didn't know for sure), and looks like a steal. Comments? http://www.ebay.com/itm/160929289080?ss ... 1423.l2648" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank