TubeNet

This is just a matter of personal curiosity but I wonder if anyone knows when Cerveny switched from wrapped (seamed?) tubing to seamless tubing?

I have a Cerveny 481 stenciled "Amati Kraslice" and the seams in the tubing are obvious. No serial numbers so I have no idea of its age but I had assumed it to be fairly new due to its condition: practically no dents; valves really clean and tight; etc. I just acquired a Cerveny 681 that generally looks like a brand new horn. On the 681 I can find no traces of seams and assume that it is made from seamless tubing. It also hasn't that wavyness that seems to come with the rolled horns.

Odd that they don't serialize these fairly expensive pieces, isn't it?

The late Walter Lawson and his sons perfected welding the joint in the sheet metal used to make the bell tail of their fine, custom French horns making the seam invisible. I wonder if Cerveny has also learned to do this?

Like B&S was acquired by MW after the unification of Germany which lead to a technological boost of their piston making, Cerveny/Amati got an upgrade of their production some 20 years ago. I don’t remember other specifics than better pistons especially for the trumpet market.

Klaus

seamless tubing tuba?

unseen seams, certainly. Camouflage commonly causes incorrect concepts.

eupher61 wrote:seamless tubing tuba?

unseen seams, certainly. Camouflage commonly causes incorrect concepts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIP53NEBIY&t=3m30s" target="_blank

Grooving for Heaven wrote:Pictures would help. I'm really having a hard time visualizing what you are meaning

Seams that are often seen in bells (this is the small end of the bottom bow on both). Too lazy to go to the studio and get a real camera so cell phone pix:


The "wavyness" is hard to catch without some lighting control maybe tomorrow.

hbcrandy wrote:The late Walter Lawson and his sons perfected welding the joint in the sheet metal used to make the bell tail of their fine, custom French horns making the seam invisible. I wonder if Cerveny has also learned to do this?

Yes, color matching the brazing filler had occurred to me but those other signs, the wavyness that I associate with the "hand crafted" instruments ... maybe they upgraded the tooling but the 681 looks extremely straight and shiny like a new Yamaha or Honda or something lol

In any event there is a distinct change in construction between the two and I'm curious as to when. The timbre is surprisingly similar between the two.

how do you think they make the tubes? They don't take a flat sheet and round it out like the bell. It has to start with flat sheets somewhere.

You don't see the seam, true, but it's there. Buffing, shining, lacquer, and good sheet brass technique.

eupher61 wrote:how do you think they make the tubes? They don't take a flat sheet and round it out like the bell. It has to start with flat sheets somewhere.

You don't see the seam, true, but it's there. Buffing, shining, lacquer, and good sheet brass technique.

I have to wonder what makes you think that? It's true that I may have jumped to the conclusion that Cerveny had changed from your technique to modern (ca late 19th century) techniques. There are several reasons that I tend to thnk that way:

1. Many years in the machine trades.
2. Seamless tubing is as common as mud. Try a google search], one of those entries might help
3. I kept an office in this town for many years:


The real question however was whether anyone here has knowledge of when (and indeed even if) Cerveny changed their construction techniques and/or tooling.

Just re-read the OP and looked at the photos via a better monitor.

The 481 is not a stenciled Cerveny. It is an Amati. Amati is the state owned music conglomeration of several private master workshops that happened after the communist overtake in 1947, or thereabout. Cerveny of Königgrätz/Hradec Králové likely was the largest single element in the Graslitz/Kraslice based Amati company. The Cerveny production of rotor instruments stayed in Hradec Králové, at least for the larger instruments. All the respective XYZ series are of the same acoustic design, but the number of valves, the valve mechanism, and the amount of nickel silver trim varies with the model grade. As I get it: if X<5 the model is called Amati. If X>5 the models have the more prestigious Cerveny name.

Ususally the seams are on the less visible inner sides of bows and branches. The non-visibility of the seam on you 681 may be a pure cosmetic matter caused by tinted lacquer.

Klaus

Thank you Klaus.

imperialbari wrote:Just re-read the OP and looked at the photos via a better monitor.

The 481 is not a stenciled Cerveny. It is an Amati. Amati is the state owned music conglomeration of several private master workshops that happened after the communist overtake in 1947, or thereabout. Cerveny of Königgrätz/Hradec Králové likely was the largest single element in the Graslitz/Kraslice based Amati company. The Cerveny production of rotor instruments stayed in Hradec Králové, at least for the larger instruments. All the respective XYZ series are of the same acoustic design, but the number of valves, the valve mechanism, and the amount of nickel silver trim varies with the model grade. As I get it: if X<5 the model is called Amati. If X>5 the models have the more prestigious Cerveny name.

Yes this fits perfectly with what I have been seeing. These two instruments have sparked my interest in Amati/Cerveny. What I keep reading is that Amati == pistons and Cerveny == rotary. Your explanation makes perfect sense. There is one Amati BBb tuba on Cerveny's web site: The "Amati Arion 483-4X" (I would love to get me paws on one of those). So maybe I used "stencil" in the wrong way. These Amatis are built in Hradec Králové not Kraslice ... it gets a bit dodgy if they are Cerveny masquerading as Amati or a Cerveny stenciled for Amati, you know?

imperialbari wrote:Ususally the seams are on the less visible inner sides of bows and branches. The non-visibility of the seam on you 681 may be a pure cosmetic matter caused by tinted lacquer.

Klaus

My friend who made me replacement caps for the old Boosey 3V comp told me that he has a miniature camera mounted on a long snake. I think that I will ask it to explore the insides of the Cerveny tuba ...

So, here is a photo of the two together:


(NB there is some perspective distortion at play in this photo, the Cerveny looks smaller than the Amati - I just checked and the Amati's first valve slide fits perfectly in the Cerveny)

The major differences between the two (ignoring the obvious differences in accoutrements model for model):

1. The Amati's bell is a couple of inches longer.
2. The Amati has clockwork valve springs.
3. The Cerveny's lead pipe is lower.
4. The Cerveny has a removable/adjustable thumb ring.
5. The finishes are quite different.

Finishes: The Amati's finish is practically non-existent, it is close to raw brass. The Cerveny has a relatively thick coat of lacquer (epoxy???).

Otherwise these are very, very similar. Within an ounce of the same weight. I've been going back and forth trying to find some difference in playability/timbre/clarity and there is no clear winner. Even though I'm 6'3" the lower leadpipe on the Cerveny seems to make more (favorable) difference than anything.

All of which leaves me wondering: If they can save this much in production costs by skimping on matching braze filler, nickle silver outer slides and the like without sacrificing much in playability, why aren't they pushing these Amati models as an alternative to the knock-offs? Why not (as Fender and Martin did with guitars) just brand them "Cerveny" and capitalize on them?

All rhetorical questions of course.

Some observations after a bit of research and closer inspection with bifocals and magnifying glass ...

imperialbari wrote:Just re-read the OP and looked at the photos via a better monitor.

The 481 is not a stenciled Cerveny. It is an Amati. Amati is the state owned music conglomeration of several private master workshops that happened after the communist overtake in 1947, or thereabout. Cerveny of Königgrätz/Hradec Králové likely was the largest single element in the Graslitz/Kraslice based Amati company. The Cerveny production of rotor instruments stayed in Hradec Králové, at least for the larger instruments. All the respective XYZ series are of the same acoustic design, but the number of valves, the valve mechanism, and the amount of nickel silver trim varies with the model grade. As I get it: if X<5 the model is called Amati. If X>5 the models have the more prestigious Cerveny name.

This made perfect sense especially given that the one Amati BBb shown on Hollwerth's site is a 4xx series:
http://www.cerveny.biz/tuben/bbb_tuben/abb_483_4m.php

Until I asked the US importer about it. He said that it is properly a Cerveny CBB-483-4 and pointed out that enlarging the tiny photo shows a Cerveny stamp on the bell. That dealer's site also offers a Cerveny Student model CCB-483-4:
http://www.cerveny.biz/tuben/cc_tuben/acb_483_4.php

So it seems that none of the US assignments (e.g. piston == Amati; rotary == Cerveny; etc.) are particularly valid.

imperialbari wrote: Ususally the seams are on the less visible inner sides of bows and branches. The non-visibility of the seam on you 681 may be a pure cosmetic matter caused by tinted lacquer.

Klaus

Closer inspection of both of these tubas shows that they both indeed have seams on the larger branches. On the Amati, the seams disappear where the lacquer retains its original thickness. I'm not sure that it has as much to do with tinted lacquer as much as perhaps oxidation bringing out the differences in the metals?

There are some other differences that brought me back to the thought of a retooled factory: The Cerveny has long marks inside the throat of the bell that I at first thought to be "toothless" seams. They almost look like automated seam welds on steel at first glance. I think that they are draw marks (I found the expected toothed seams) - again absent on the Amati, suggesting (to me) that the processes have been changed.

Another glaring difference that I'm ashamed my failing eyesight missed earlier is the stamp in the receiver of the Amati:
MADE IN
CZECHO
SLOVAKIA

Unless they had many years supply of NOS receivers, that would place this horn as much older than I had assumed based on its condition. Do you have any idea of when they might have run out of pre-Soviet receivers?

goodgigs wrote:I guess I gonna tell you what I was told even though I can't vouch for its authenticity:
Before WWII, there were lot of boutique instrument makers in bohemia ant they shared
lots of parts from cottage industries in the area. My huge B&F had a tiny receiver that said
Cheoc-
Slovakia
in it. Also many tubas from that era have the same thumb ring and bridge type braces and such.
If there were true, it would explain why tuba identification can be so hard !

I'm sure beginning to see how difficult European tuba identification can be. At the same time I'm pretty certain that these both came out of the Cerveny factory. Even with the Amati's extra 2 inches or so of bell, they weigh the same within an ounce or so ... the slides from the Cerveny fit the Amati ... but then maybe valve sets were sold outside as well?

And if this Amati is pre-WWII then I think that I own the best preserved 70+ year old tuba in the world.