TubeNet

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MAHILLON-F-TUBA ... 3a76208c16" target="_blank" target="_blank

I can be yours for a song and it may have belonged to Arnold Jacobs.

There can't be many of these in the country and there was one in Jacobs' basement studio for almost a year. I played it and said, "It's got six valves but it needs seven." Mr. Jacobs said, "It needs ten."

I have this little glass bottle with something fuzzy inside. There is a label on it that says, "Navel Lint of Arnold Jacobs, principal tubaist, CSO"

Anyone wanna buy it?

Looks neat. It'd be neater if it played neat.

Maybe it does play neat. I wouldn't know. Every tuba I play sounds like crap due to user error.

I want to play on this tuba!

bloke wrote:
"Reserve Not Met" is a "Song Without Words".

Since this is about Jacobs, shouldn't that be "Song Without Wind."

LJV wrote: So, the OP is associating the tuba for sale with Mr. Jacobs' low opinion (seemingly expressed privately) of a possibly completely different tuba that sat in Mr. Jacobs' studio?

What is the purpose of this?

humor, duh.

Alex C wrote:

LJV wrote: So, the OP is associating the tuba for sale with Mr. Jacobs' low opinion (seemingly expressed privately) of a possibly completely different tuba that sat in Mr. Jacobs' studio?

What is the purpose of this?

humor, duh.

.

The funny thing is, the OP of this thread had no knowledge of the instrument in question. I highly doubt it was the one in Chicago. The now-former owner has said it plays beautifully, and had a close connection to Howard Johnson. It's more likely that HoJo had a bit of playing time on this specific instrument.

snark is in the small mind of the beholder. Besides...

Either way, the seller got $2,500 for the tuba, which seems pretty good. And I'll bet it was sold to someone who has no clue this thread even exists.

LVJ wrote:Mr. jacobs was a class act. He would have never approved of such commentary being attributed to him publicly on an instrument he may never had even seen nor played.

OK, the horse is dead and beaten, but I think you're reading too much into this.

I took the OP as something like, "I just saw this horn for sale. Reminds me of an interesting memory of Arnold Jacobs." An interesting memory that most of TubeNet would appreciate having shared with them.

Nothing more, nothing less. Just an opportunity to share a story. I appreciated the OP, and found most of the responses to be somewhat of a "WTF?"

LJV wrote:Bucky, your quotes are wrong.

Thanks. Fixed.

LJV wrote: It was presented as pointing out an instrument as being possibly formerly owned by Mr. Jacobs . . .

Key word is "possibly," a concept that was crystal-clear from the OP.

LJV wrote: . . . if you were selling an instrument, would you like some unverified speculation of the horn's major suckitude posted here with that declaration tied to someone with the stature of Arnold Jacobs? . . .

Sure, if I were selling something on the Internet, I'd love to have the ability to control 100% of what people say about what I'm selling on some message board. The Internet just doesn't work that way. Plenty of information, and speculation, abound. And the OP was simply speculating (with an interesting story as an aside), while being completely transparent about the speculative nature of his comment.

To me, the OP was INTERESTING. And that's all. Nothing more to see here, etc., . . .