TubeNet

Before the fancy paint job, it might be a good idea to lay up some more fiberglass in spots. Looks to me like holes in the first and second bows. Something looks funny about the ferrule at the small end of the first bow, like maybe it failed? What did they use to patch together the leadpipe, masking tape?

LJV wrote:I owned the Martin version of one of these. The horn played really well and was in much better shape. Kinda wish I had held on to it, but room was getting a little tight!

It sure looks like a Martin... everything down to the valve buttons looks contrary to any Reynolds I've seen.

J.c.S.

All the brace flanges, valve buttons and valve caps are all incongruent to Reynolds, and reynolds are taller with less taper in the final bell stack.

LJV wrote:I owned the Martin version of one of these. The horn played really well and was in much better shape. Kinda wish I had held on to it, but room was getting a little tight!

Is that the one that Rick has now?

bloke wrote: The first thing we're noticing here is the fiberglass body, but normally we would be noticing the overall wear of the finish and linking that with the possible (??) wear of the valves.

If you can infer the condition of the valves from the condition of the finish, it would be great if you could give us a few pointers on that!

This one - I'm not looking at it right now, but remember noticing an oddly rusted appearance, on the brass parts. Like poor storage conditions, more than active playing, but that's reading a lot into fuzzy photos. I couldn't really make out what kind of body damage it had - some of it was odd, like maybe the start of a repair attempt.

"Renolds" is engraved on the bell collar on the body which probably answers the make question.

I remember when these came out in early to mid 60's as being pretty awful sounding things which were not much fun to play. This one certainly looks to have been through the mill and Bloke is probably right about the valves being in less than great shape. It might make a reasonable valve set - after refitting of valves - at possibly a reasonable end cost - but you'd have to decide how much you wanted to risk. Ya neva no yur luk.

bloke wrote:.....Somehow (??) restoring all of that broken-away bell rim will be either very costly or very time-consuming.....

That bell-rim appears to be the push-on/glue-on channel like is on my Bundy/Selmer/Buescher commode-O-phone bell. A trip to the auto body supply joint would be in order.

Worn valves can be fixed. I think I would be equally concerned about the leadpipe.

Of paramount concert should be what the INSIDE of that horn looks like.

I was thinking about that horn, too. I'm guessing it was made sometime in the 60s. Fiberglass technology has really come a long way since those days. If it was made today, it would have graphite fibers and resins like vinylester. The body does look similar to Martin bodies I have seen. Anyone know if it sounds at all like a metal horn?

Didn't one of the guys in the Canadian Brass have a horn with a carbon fiber bell?

bloke wrote: With a valve rebuild job, dents removed from the valve section, valve section (and body ferrules) polished and relacquered, body fiberglass repairs affected and professionally repainted...

Whoa, who would want all that?

A couple crude patches to the body, maybe a little sanding and a rattle can, replace the leadpipe bandage, and enjoy. A relatively light tuba that you can throw in the back of the pickup, etc.

Sure, the valves aren't perfect, but my X-ray vision tells me they're better than a couple tubas I enjoy playing. Like Dan I would be wondering what lies under the wad of tape around the leadpipe. In case the new owner's reading this - I believe fiberglass can be fairly easy to set on fire, so take the leadpipe off the bell if you're going to solder on it!

bloke wrote: Do you happen to own any Yamaha pro-line saxes (alto-tenor-bari)...??

Nope! Sorry.