TubeNet

Holy crap, that Martin looks amazing! Reminds me of Lenny Jung's old horn (even though I know it isn't). I wonder if this was an old USN horn?

Obviously victims of new CAFE standards imposed on Tubas.

The EPA just declared the condensation in my third valve loop a protected wetland.

I don't think that Martin is not the same model Lenny had. Lenny had the holy grail model while this one is smaller. Still fun, but smaller.

Having worked on Lenny's I can safely say it is the coolest horn I have ever touched. Effortless bore hog of an instrument. The pictured horn I believe is the same instrument that has been passed around for many years. If it is the horn I am thinking about a friend owned it a few years back.

Not the same model. I wish I knew the actual model names of these things.

That isn't an original Martin valve set is it? The BBC ad doesn't say anything about a conversion.

I played next to Lenny in a community band 16 years ago (holy crap that's a long time). Holy grail is right, not to mention Lenny was a great player and a super nice guy. As a non-music major freshman in college... very cool experience!

hrender wrote:

bort wrote:I played next to Lenny in a community band 16 years ago (holy crap that's a long time).

Just wait until you're older. You'll say things like "a few years ago" and then realize it was really "a few decades ago."

+1

(I've got black bow ties that I've had longer than 16 years)

(I've got black bow ties that I've had longer than 16 years)[/quote]

Ha!!! TRY 50- YEARS AND THEY STILL CLIP. Ya puppies!!!

https://youtu.be/YBKy1Gb71pE" target="_blank"

Watch at 5:00

kmorgancraw wrote:That isn't an original Martin valve set is it? The BBC ad doesn't say anything about a conversion.

Original valves, New age UMI finger buttons.

Mr. Jung's model would be commonly termed a "Mammoth" while the horn in the photo appears to be a "Medium" (see note below). In the early 20's the "Medium" was sometimes termed "Renowned". There were slight changes in the designs over the years but basically they had two BBb models, the more common bigger "Mammoth" and the smaller "Medium", even if they didn't always use those terms. During the RMC era of the early '60s they used model numbers (see below).

Edit: upon closer examination of the photos and ad, I think I was mistaken. The horn in the photo does appear to be the larger Mammoth.

Early Martin catalogues didn't use numbers for the various Martin tubas. A post 1961 (RMC era) Martin catalogue lists the big detachable bell top-action BBb tubas:

TB-03 3 valve top-action detachable bell-front.
TB-05 4 valve top-action detachable bell-front.
TB-07 3 valve top-action detachable bell-up.
TB-09 4 valve top-action detachable bell-up.

The TB-29 was the fiberglass tuba available only as a side action 3-valve. The catalogue states that a "fixed upright bell" model was available but no number is given. Has anyone ever seen one? I haven't. I've only seen the detachable recording bell version and they're surprisingly good! The TB-29 was "offered in a variety of colors including metallic gold and silver finishes. Also offered in metallic glitter". The TB-29 was based on the old "Medium" model.

3 sousaphones were available:

SU-05 brass 3-valve BBb.
SU-06 fiberglass 3-valve BBb, (also available in many colors and finishes).
SU-30 (there's a jump!) brass 3-valve Eb.

They were really pushing the fiberglass models with the fiberglass tuba front and center on the front cover. Wish I had the price list which was usually just a plain paper insert.

Paul Scott wrote:Mr. Jung's model would be commonly termed a "Mammoth" while the horn in the photo appears to be a "Medium" (see note below). In the early 20's the "Medium" was sometimes termed "Renowned". There were slight changes in the designs over the years but basically they had two BBb models, the more common bigger "Mammoth" and the smaller "Medium", even if they didn't always use those terms. During the RMC era of the early '60s they used model numbers (see below).

Edit: upon closer examination of the photos and ad, I think I was mistaken. The horn in the photo does appear to be the larger Mammoth.

The term "Renowned" is an early (1910 to 1915) marketing notation. It was for the largest size tuba made at the time. It was changed to "Mammoth" in later years when the company and Martin name was under new ownership. I guess "Mammoth" sounded bigger, but in reality they were not.

No, that's not correct. "Renowned" was used as a general term just as "Handcraft" was used later. The BBb tuba marketed as the "Renowned" was a .687 bore horn while the Mammoth was the .712 bore model. They were sold side by side in the same catalogue. There was also the "Renowned Medium", a .620 Eb ; "Renowned Monster" Eb tuba and Helicon with .687 bore and the (just plain) "Mammoth" BBb tuba and Helicon with .712 bore.

Nobody I know knows Martin tubas like Paul, maybe excepting another Martin I know......

roweenie wrote:Nobody I know knows Martin tubas like Paul, maybe excepting another Martin I know......

+1!

I've seen bore sizes listed for Martin tubas (the more common larger ones) as large as .730 and as small as .710. I asked a highly qualified acquaintance what he thought and he told me the following:

"The answer is....probably 23/32 or thereabouts. Many makers based their bore sizing on available tooling.......47/64(Conn), 21/32(Conn) 11/16(King), 3/4(Holton, York,King)and 23/32(.718 Martin)."

I've never seen bore size listed in the Martin ads/catalogues, only outer dimensions, bell size and weight. So perhaps .718 23/32?

Paul Scott wrote:
"The answer is....probably 23/32 or thereabouts."

I've never seen bore size listed in the Martin ads/catalogues, only outer dimensions, bell size and weight. So perhaps .718 23/32?

Considering your source (I'm pretty sure I know who), I would be extremely confident with this information.

In my (extremely limited) experience, I've found it's actually more likely for a piece of tubing to be slightly out of round than not. Measurements that are off by a few thousandths here and there are probably not uncommon at all.

21/32 = .656 (Conn)

11/16 = .687 (King)

47/64 = .734 (Conn)

3/4 = .750 (York, Holton)

(I've also even seen a horn {I think it was also a Conn} with a .625 {5/8"} bore).

I forget what the bore size was on the Conn Grand Bass - maybe .773 (99/128")?

(These are the bore sizes that are *commonly* associated with each manufacturer. King built some horns with .750 bore, York built some horns with .656 bore, etc.)

As a side note, it's always amazed me how well those big Martin tubas play, considering the (relatively) small bore sizes they sport.