That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 5:42 pm
Page 1 of 2
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:27 pm
That thumb ring looks horrible.
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:42 pm
From the looks of it, I'd say B&S 101- an older version of my Sonora. Older models had that type of valve gear, and once in a while we'd see one without a name.
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:43 pm
Doesn't even look like a clone to me, looks more like a Sanders or something.
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 12:17 am
Nope. Not a Miraphone. Not a B & S. Not even a good 'clone'. It looks like some of the stuff 'Violin King' in Texas was selling about twenty years ago.
Certainly not worth what the seller is asking.
Certainly not worth what the seller is asking.
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 12:32 am
That thumb ring looks like it would come off if you tried supporting the horn with it.
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 7:44 am
It's interesting how these early Chinese tubas are starting to pop up on ebay as of late. I've never seen them before. Kinda weird to see early/older Chinese tubas with "S" linkages because we recognize them as "recent" tubas. But repairmen like TubaTinker and bloke have talked about seeing these tubas for at least a couple decades now.
This tuba + case would probably be a decent buy at under $1,000. But a $3,500 BIN for this used Chinese clone
You can get a NEW clone of this same model tuba for just over half that price, and it is probably better 
This tuba + case would probably be a decent buy at under $1,000. But a $3,500 BIN for this used Chinese clone
You can get a NEW clone of this same model tuba for just over half that price, and it is probably better Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 10:13 pm
schlepporello wrote:He should have used proper grammar and said "This don't not look like no Miraphone to me not no how.)KiltieTuba wrote:The title is misleading, you just made a double negative, so you're implying this is a Miraphone?
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 5:12 pm
Seller's response:
"There is no model number or serial number. From the research we have done it is a pre-1960 model to which Miraphone did not put either one on the instrument. We don't really know much more than that."
How long do you think it will take for seller to realize the truth?
"There is no model number or serial number. From the research we have done it is a pre-1960 model to which Miraphone did not put either one on the instrument. We don't really know much more than that."
How long do you think it will take for seller to realize the truth?
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Mon May 25, 2015 10:36 pm
Dunno. I sent the seller a message several days ago.sugawi wrote:..... How long do you think it will take for seller to realize the truth?
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 12:41 am
It sure doesn't look like original:)bloke wrote:
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 5:58 pm
Huge price cut, to $1995. Still saying it's a Miraphone, though.
Re: That don't look like no Miraphone to me!
Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 6:32 pm
How did I miss that? Good catch.bloke wrote:I have a Rolls Royce STYLE car for sale...