Miraphone Hagen 495 vs ?

[MN_TimTuba]

A number of you have written good things on the Miraphone Hagen 496 and 497, but (unless I've missed it) I don't see much at all on the 495. As I look to either add or downsize to a 4/4 BBb horn in the near future (before carting the BAT becomes an issue in my old age), if you've played the 495 what is your take on it? Is it just not different enough from the 187, 191, 1291 to warrant comment?
Thanks, much for your information. It's been a very long time since I played any Miraphone at all, so I value the reviews of those of you who have some familiarity with them.
Tim

[bort]

I haven't seen much info about the Hagen 495, but I'm guessing it's because there are fewer of them out there. It seems like the 496 has kind of been the runaway favorite out of the Hagen series. Not that the 495 is bad (I can blindly assert that it's NOT bad), but the 496 is a nicely large-sized tuba. Maybe the 495 wasn't big enough, and the 497 was too big (and far more expensive!).

Hopefully Wayne (Schlepporello <-sp?) will chime in, since he sold his longtime 187 for a 496.

That doesn't help much with your answers about the 495 though.

I will say, that for Miraphone to invest in the development of a new set of BBb tubas in all sizes... that seems significant to me, particulary when the old-school tubas (186 and 187) are still highly regarded, as well as the modern tubas (191 and 1291). Not sure if it's right, wrong, or just marketing-think, but I see the Hagen as sort of a next-generation of BBb tubas. The most up to date manufacturing, parts, design, etc. It's pretty hard to go wrong.

The only 495 that I've seen in quite some time is in Germany, and is posted on this page:

https://tubaforum.de/instrumente/b-tuba/" target="_blank" target="_blank

There's a lot of other interesting stuff on that page, too... enjoy!

[Three Valves]

I did play the “cheapie” 495 last year and it was great.
It has a slightly smaller bore than the 496 according to the catalog.
The rest of what Doc said is a +1 with me too. I’d give it the nod over the 186 though.

[ckalaher1]

I played a 495 for about a half an hour.

Liked it (for reasons of response/slotting above the staff) considerably better than the 496 that I had spent a few hours with. Both instruments had great valves. Both instruments had really good pitch, although I thought the 495 may have had a little better low end pitch, possibly requiring less pulling in the very low register of the horn. Both had very accessible low register response. I found both instruments to be comfortable to hold. The 495 just seemed more nimble and again, slotted a little better between the Bb and F above the staff.

In all, I liked the 495 quite a bit. I’m an infant, so I would need 5 valves, but it was a really nice player, and really comfortable to hold.

[pjv]

I own a 496 and have tried a couple of 496's and 495's.
Try both if you can.I wasn't impressed by the gold brass version of the 495 but that's my beef.
Good luck.