goodgigs wrote:dan before I ask the obvious question let me first excuse myself.
Yes I AM the guy who built the "Gimmic o phone" pictured here.
viewtopic.php?t=22364&highlight=
NO I don't think newer is better or "change is good" or any thing
of the sort. ( that tuba's just about getting kids interested in playing
a VERY INEXPENCIVE tuba). (and eventualy quitting My day job !!)
I don't want you to think I'm taking sides, but here goes: WHAT IF ?
What if it plays better and sounds better ? I am as you can guess
an optimist. No I don't have any trumpet chops so when I played
an early Monett at the NAMM show one year I couldn't tell but I only
blew a cuppel of notes on it just to say I had. I am a bit of a bragger !
What I'm getting to is (just as devel's advocate) what if this is the only
way to get a horn this good as was ONCE the case with the Bob Rusk
York conversions?
I understand what you are getting at.
As for Mr. Rusk's horns, I myself have yet to play a converted tuba that I felt was satisfactory. I am sure there are a few but I have not had the pleasure of finding one that could hold a candle to what I have been playing for the past thirteen years. I look forward to the experience.
As for the object of my post:
Having owned ( currently 18 ), repaired and rebuilt more of these types of instruments then most players have ever seen, Let me say this.
The horn is not going to sound any better by adding the extra material (those of you who feel differently, think what you like but its the truth). What I see is nothing more then exterior window dressing with (in my opinion) a serious lack in attention to detail. The instrument would most probably play its best if just the valves were rebuilt and the entire instrument broken down, cleaned and properly assembled. A mouth-pipe change might be able to adjust the responsiveness but the bell is still the way it is as is the rest of the horn. Stuffing in a few chunks of metal, doing a ugly and simple brushed finish and gold plating over the scratches and worn edges of the tubing is (again, in my opinion) simply tacky. I look at this ebay offering as nothing but a waste of a rare collectable. The horn could have been properly restored and it would have been an easy sell in spite of the way it played. As I see it, if this horn was a poor playing instrument to start, there is nothing the alterations made could have improved on. Its just an attempt to guild a lilly in hopes of cashing in on a project that required minimal effort.
Gold plating can at times be spectacular but only in the right instances. Classic cornets and trumpets with the right styling can be jaw-dropping when engraved, polished and masked in the right way that works with the styling such as the turnings, brace design and decorative ornamentation. Plane-jane brushed gold on modern design patterns; nothing but a costly plate job on a cheap prep-job. Glass-bead-blasting can look a bit nicer but takes more work to prepare and if there is nothing in the way of contrast such as bright bell rim and interior, caps, buttons, stems, water keys and a nice and properly masked engraving pattern, it is just another over-priced cheap looking gold plate job.
By the way, I love the plastic tuba. I hope that more can be done with that idea.
Daniel C. "hoping I did not say to much" Oberloh
