Mirafone CC Serial #2520 in great shape.
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:40 pm
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:48 pm
Wow...I just bought a tuba...I think it has a higher serial number, like 7454, and it's in about the same shape, and sounds heavenly...One of the best tubas I've tried...and got it for about $300 cheaper. Man, I love it!!!
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:57 pm
I've got S/N 1789 and 1792. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number...eBay Ad wrote:serial number, 2520. You will be hard pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:59 pm
Dang, When and where did you get those horns? And by the way, what shape are they in? It also had a thing about the condition it was in!!!Chuck(G) wrote:I've got S/N 1789 and 1792. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number...eBay Ad wrote:serial number, 2520. You will be hard pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:27 pm
Last year, wheeling and dealing. One's still apart, but the other's been cleaned up and looks and plays great. Both are 184's.tubaguy9 wrote:Dang, When and where did you get those horns? And by the way, what shape are they in? It also had a thing about the condition it was in!!!
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:33 pm
So, therefore, the ad is still somewhat right. It had that you couldn't find a lower S/N in AS GOOD of shape.Chuck(G) wrote:Last year, wheeling and dealing. One's still apart, but the other's been cleaned up and looks and plays great. Both are 184's.tubaguy9 wrote:Dang, When and where did you get those horns? And by the way, what shape are they in? It also had a thing about the condition it was in!!!
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:32 am
Nope, the 184 that's been reworked is in BETTER shape.tubaguy9 wrote:So, therefore, the ad is still somewhat right. It had that you couldn't find a lower S/N in AS GOOD of shape.
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:33 pm
I think the guy on eBay is talking about ORIGINAL shape...Otherwise, if not, you win.Chuck(G) wrote:Nope, the 184 that's been reworked is in BETTER shape.tubaguy9 wrote:So, therefore, the ad is still somewhat right. It had that you couldn't find a lower S/N in AS GOOD of shape.
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:43 am
Dale, are you sill looking for some S-arms? PM me if so.