TubeNet

Anyone have any idea what year, specifically Martin changed the design of their horns from the early, shorter, fixed upright bells to the taller bell stacks with recording bells?
I found a 1927 catalog that still depicts them in the "old style" as well as a 1934 price list that mentions the option for recording bells on basses, so the switch would've had to have happened between these years.
Anyone have any catalogs or other info from between '27 and '34 that could help clear this up?
Thanks!

Martin began to use the term "Handcraft" in the Spring of 1924. There were no recording bell tubas listed at that time. I have a pricelist that I would estimate to be from 1925/26 that lists "recording models" with "adjustable bells". The detachable recording bell BBb Mammoth was $50 more than the fixed upright bell model. It could be had in a basic finish with 3 valves for $300.

Paul Scott wrote:Martin began to use the term "Handcraft" in the Spring of 1924. There were no recording bell tubas listed at that time. I have a pricelist that I would estimate to be from 1925/26 that lists "recording models" with "adjustable bells". The detachable recording bell BBb Mammoth was $50 more than the fixed upright bell model. It could be had in a basic finish with 3 valves for $300.

Interesting...if '26 really was the year, confusing that the illustrations still show the old style tubas around that time.

While we're at it: do we know who was involved in the design of the "new style" mammoth? Martin put out ads detailing all of the individuals allegedly involved in designing the committee trumpet and trombone (although the committee trumpet was probably only designed by Mr. Schilke) but I'm not sure about the tubas. Thought was obviously put into it, hence the unique design, but no such info about the designer(s) has surfaced, to my knowledge.

Perhaps my price list is from later than I first thought. The answer may lie with the creation of the Indiana line in 1927. The Martin company had boom years from about 1924 on with the sale of saxophones, (as did Conn and Buescher). It appears that Martin retooled when the Indiana line came out. Indiana instruments were totally Martin, made in the same factory by the same men, but were of the old designs. The "new" Martins had slightly different part sizes, (bell collars on sousas, pistons, etc.) so that the parts are not interchangeable with Indiana. It was at this time that the old "shield" engraving was replaced by the "searchlight" style. Other innovations like the adjustable leadpipe were added to tubas, (they had been on their sousaphones early on). I would guess that the recording tuba models came out in late '27-'28. The oldest Martin recording bell model that I own is from 1931, a 4-valve side-action BBb.

Their advertising is confusing because they were marketed by others like Wurlitzer, Lyons and the Chicago Instrument Company. Sometimes only part of their line was advertised, (this was certainly the case with Lyons).

As to who designed the new line it's hard to say now. An E. Sweinhart had patents for brass instruments and a man by the name of Earl J. Gillespie had several woodwind patents, (all held by Martin). Other than those two names, I only know of a man named Wightman (spelling may be wrong), who was their longtime engraver.

I'll continue to search through my notes taken over the years on Martin.

Paul Scott wrote:Perhaps my price list is from later than I first thought. The answer may lie with the creation of the Indiana line in 1927. The Martin company had boom years from about 1924 on with the sale of saxophones, (as did Conn and Buescher). It appears that Martin retooled when the Indiana line came out. Indiana instruments were totally Martin, made in the same factory by the same men, but were of the old designs. The "new" Martins had slightly different part sizes, (bell collars on sousas, pistons, etc.) so that the parts are not interchangeable with Indiana. It was at this time that the old "shield" engraving was replaced by the "searchlight" style. Other innovations like the adjustable leadpipe were added to tubas, (they had been on their sousaphones early on). I would guess that the recording tuba models came out in late '27-'28. The oldest Martin recording bell model that I own is from 1931, a 4-valve side-action BBb.

Their advertising is confusing because they were marketed by others like Wurlitzer, Lyons and the Chicago Instrument Company. Sometimes only part of their line was advertised, (this was certainly the case with Lyons).

As to who designed the new line it's hard to say now. An E. Sweinhart had patents for brass instruments and a man by the name of Earl J. Gillespie had several woodwind patents, (all held by Martin). Other than those two names, I only know of a man named Wightman (spelling may be wrong), who was their longtime engraver.

I'll continue to search through my notes taken over the years on Martin.

Wow, this information is great. Thanks for looking into some of this stuff, it's appreciated. It does make sense that the redesigns would coincide with the acquisition of the Indiana line so that the old models could be used with that branding.

More names and dates associated with Martin and the launch of Indiana Band Instrument Company can be found here: http://bassic-sax.info/blog/2014/the-in ... rument-co/

...and I love my Martin Indiana sousaphone.

lost wrote:Bunch of catalogs of Martin instruments on saxophone.org.

Yup, that's where I've been getting most of my catalog info from so far.

WC8KCY wrote:More names and dates associated with Martin and the launch of Indiana Band Instrument Company can be found here: http://bassic-sax.info/blog/2014/the-in ... rument-co/

Thanks for the resource. Hadn't seen this one yet.

The saxophonists are really great with the history. One of these days I'll launch my Martin website. Great company.

Paul Scott wrote:The saxophonists are really great with the history. One of these days I'll launch my Martin website. Great company.

I hope you do. There's Bach, Buescher, Conn, Holton, and Schilke Loyalist web sites; certainly Martin is deserving of its own Loyalist site.

Unlike some of the other makers mentioned, Martin succeeded with all the brass instruments--including saxophones. That's no mean feat.

I perused my collection and found that I have a 1925 Martin Medium BBb with recording bell. So my original thoughts re my price lists were correct. Apparently recording bell models were available as of late 1925.

Martin would basically build whatever one wanted so it may be that recording models weren't advertised until "after the fact".

"It's that word Handcraft"

Paul Scott wrote:The saxophonists are really great with the history. One of these days I'll launch my Martin website. Great company.

That would be great! if you do, I'd love to contribute to it. I'm currently working on a database of all Martin tuba models in the history of the company (hence why I started this thread) As I know there are similar databases on Martin trumpets and saxophones, but not tubas.
Here's one of the trumpet ones, for example: https://www.trumpet-history.com/Martin% ... Models.pdf" target="_blank" target="_blank
Basically, I'm trying to get a record of every tuba/sousa/helicon model and the years of manufacture and specs for each, as well as a photo or illustration of as many of each model as I can find. Maybe if all us Martin folks can put our heads together, we might really have something.

WC8KCY wrote:[certainly Martin is deserving of its own Loyalist site.

Unlike some of the other makers mentioned, Martin succeeded with all the brass instruments--including saxophones. That's no mean feat.

Indeed, most companies are known for specializing in one kind of horn, but is seems Martin has reached legendary status in the trumpet, sax and tuba world, which is as you said, no mean feat.

Paul Scott wrote:I perused my collection and found that I have a 1925 Martin Medium BBb with recording bell. So my original thoughts re my price lists were correct. Apparently recording bell models were available as of late 1925.

Interesting, I'll update the info I have so far regarding this. Thanks everyone who's chimed in so far, let's keep this going!

I have a Mammoth 3 side piston recording bell Martin tuba from the RMC era, probably early to mid sixties. I wonder how that era of design differs. I've occasionally heard Martin nerds claim that these RMC tubas were not as good as the early ones. If that's true, I wonder why. Why?

My RMC Martin is a beastosaurus. Easy to play, nice worry free intonation, and a sound that can go from a whisper to rattle the windows.

Walter Webb wrote:I have a Mammoth 3 side piston recording bell Martin tuba from the RMC era, probably early to mid sixties. I wonder how that era of design differs. I've occasionally heard Martin nerds claim that these RMC tubas were not as good as the early ones. If that's true, I wonder why. Why?

My RMC Martin is a beastosaurus. Easy to play, nice worry free intonation, and a sound that can go from a whisper to rattle the windows.

My Mammoth is RMC era as well (its top action, though I wish it were front action), and I have no complaints about it. As far as I can tell, the only real differences from the RMC horns and the older models is the style of the valve caps and finger buttons, which is purely aesthetic.

The only reason I can think for the reputation of the RMC horns being not as good could be a potential difference in the consistency of build quality. While the Martins were always predominantly handmade throughout their history, the focus of RMC then they took over Reynolds, Martin, etc. was to focus on the production of student instruments, so perhaps the instruments were not built with the same degree of care and consistency during this era. Trumpet and sax players insist on specific eras of the committee models being the most desirable, and many of the jazz trumpet players who played the committee earlier in their careers switched to other horns around this time, so perhaps there's some validity to this.

Still, all the same, out of my Martin-made instruments, I have 2 RMC horns, and 4 from the 30s through the 50s and I think they all play fantastically, so I personally don't have any qualms with seeing the RMC horns, either.

Also, side note, I was not aware front-action Mammoths were available during the RMC era as I didn't see them in the catalogs in that time, learning something new with every post, here!

Several changes occurred even before the RMC era after WWII. More die-cast parts were used rather than hand-formed. Post war Martins are heavier than their pre-war counterparts and some from the '50s are positively boat anchors. There was also a subtle design change to the valve porting that changed the response.

In addition to these examples, there seems to have been an effort to raise the overall pitch of the tubas.
The oldest Martins were pitched more to the old 435 pitch standard and as time went by they gained a reputation for being flat. Branches were shortened and this can be observed in the smaller of the two top branches, most easily seen in their top action tubas. if you observe a pre-war model, the smaller top branch extends above the larger one while in later models it does not. That means the branch was shortened and retapered with a necessarily faster taper.

Martin probably went over to 70/30 brass as opposed to the old 80/20 (which York also used), although personally I don't believe that had much of an effect. It also appears that the metal is "harder" than in the pre-war instruments. Possibly thicker, but definitely a "harder" temper.

Perhaps the biggest change was build quality consistency as they swtched over to what was primarily a school market. I experienced one post-war Martin tuba that had a mislabeled valve. Incredibly, the horn played passably even with an incorrect piston! Later solder work doesn't seem quite as consistent either. In the 20s and 30s Martin built premium instruments primarily for professionals in concert bands and dance bands. Think brass bass. I've never found another brand on which it was so easy to emulate the tone of a string bass, (something I'm called upon to do fairly regularly). By the end of WWII the era of the pro concert band and dance bands with tubas had come to an end. Add to that the probability that the war took away many of the craftsmen that had worked there for years along with their sons. I've heard that in its' heyday that no one ever left Martin and that it in some cases working there was a family tradition.

The RMC era seemed to be the end of Martin as Martin. They thought they would cash in on the popularity of the movie "The Music Man", even naming some of their saxophones as "Music Man " models. The boom in school bands didn't happen, however. Again, the catalogues only tell part of the story. One can see the rotary CCs and top action (!!) rotary valve instruments that, AFAIK, were never advertised. The famous "alternate" cover used on the Bill Bell album shows him holding a newly ordered side action Martin at that time.

Having said all this, I do own a post war model that is quite good and hey, if you've got a good one, you've got a good one! All of the above info has been gleaned from years of my observations with the help of my friend Martin Wilk.

Sorry, I think I missed a detail... what is RMC?

Such interesting history, thanks for posting all of this!

The "Roundtable of Musical Craftsmen". Paul Richards combined Martin, Blessing and Reynolds in 1961.