Is a York Master really a York?

[imperialbari]

Is a York Master really a York?

This question arrived at my screen in a funny way, so I will answer to it here.

Basically the answer is no, as the York Master series was made by Böhm & Meinl (now Nirschl).

Some of the York Master instruments are less interesting small bore samples obviously intended for the student market.

My sample is a full-blown 4/4, if not 5/4, BBb 4FP bass with a recording bell. It is pretty well in tune with its 0.750â€

[Bandmaster]

For direct comparison:



On the left is a York Model 712 (BBb) that recently sold on eBay, and on the right is my York Master BBb that bought off of eBay last October. Keep in mind that my York-Master came with only a recording bell and I was not able to find a stock YM 20" bell. My bell came off of David Unland's YM and is 22" in diameter, but it is stamped with the YM logo. I am not sure what tuba it originally came with, but it sounds great on my tuba.

The York-Master, while very similar in appearance is a little wider than the original York and is considerably heavier in weight. But it is definately an American style horn, not German by design.

The only problems I have with my YM is that my standard shanck mouthpieces will not insert all the way in the receiver, they way they are supposed to. F, below the staff and in the staff, play on the sharp side, but can be lipped down to pitch without much trouble. I somtimes play F, both below the staff and in the staff, 1-3 with better results. I have heard that this problem might be aggrivated by the mouthpice receiver problem.

Overall my YM is a very good playing horn and should be even better after I find somnebody that can fix the receiver problem.

[imperialbari]

I guess the York Master is the one at the right, even if the 4th valve wrapping is slightly different from my sample. The bell-up look very much like the one owned by Rick Denney, so I simply guess, that it is original.

I never use the 1+3 fingering on a 4 valve instrument. I invariably use the 4th valve on the relevant notes.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[quinterbourne]

Why use 4th valve instead of 1+3 if 1+3 is more in tune and has equal or greater tone quality compared to 4th valve? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, I'm just curious...

[imperialbari]

The availability of a 4th valve eliminates the necessity to pull the 3 first slides for anything but their proper interval (I always have all valve slides pushed all the way in but for one French horn slide and but for the smaller horns with triggers (cornets, trumpets, flugelhorns).

In tuba contexts that invariably leads to a better fourth with the 4th valve than with 1+3.

If you have sound problems with your 4th valve, its tubing is either badly dented or full of dirt. Or a soldering may be leaky.

The large York Master BBb’s are no way close to a Yorkbrunner in quality, but they still are above average of today’s market.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[Bandmaster]

I guess the York Master is the one at the right, even if the 4th valve wrapping is slightly different from my sample. The bell-up look very much like the one owned by Rick Denney, so I simply guess, that it is original.

Yes, they made a change in the 4th valve wrap during their production run for this horn. My tuba dates back to at least 1955, since that's when the original owner said he bought it new. So I think the earlier YM's had the 4th valve configuration like mine and the later models like Rick Denney's. (shown below)

I never use the 1+3 fingering on a 4 valve instrument. I invariably use the 4th valve on the relevant notes.

Why use 4th valve instead of 1+3 if 1+3 is more in tune and has equal or greater tone quality compared to 4th valve? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, I'm just curious...

Well, it just turns out that the way I have my tuning slides set 1 & 3 just play better in tune for the F's than does the 4th valve. I have my 4th valve slide set to play C below the staff dead on.

[iiipopes]

The only problems I have with my YM is that my standard shanck mouthpieces will not insert all the way in the receiver, they way they are supposed to.

Contact Mike Finn. He has a run of mouthpieces with shanks turned a little smaller than American standard. One of these might work for you.

[Bandmaster]

Contact Mike Finn. He has a run of mouthpieces with shanks turned a little smaller than American standard. One of these might work for you.

But what do I do if I don't like the rim, bowl and back bore of the mouthpieces he has? I'm not going to start buying two of every mouthpiece I like. It will be WAY cheaper to get the receiver fixed. Right now I am have good luck with a G&W Bayamo, but my other mouthpieces do not do well, pitch wise, on this horn. The G&W seems to have a little bit better taper and inserts the farthest into the receiver of any of my mouthpieces.

Rick Denny talked about how he had his receiver reemed so his mouthpiece would fit correctly and it helped center the pitch on his YM. But so far I can't find anyone around me that can, or will, do it. Robb Stewart won't reem it, he wants to remove the whole leadpipe. Before I go that far I want try reeming the receiver. I can always replace the receiver and/or leadpipe if reeming doesn't fix it. On my YM the leadpipe goes all the way throught the receiver, so replacing the receiver will require cutting the leadpipe. That will be my LAST option.

[Chuck(G)]

A Jarno #5 taper reamer will do the trick. Dan Schultz uses one:

http://thevillagetinker.com/projects.htm

[Rick Denney]

Comparing the YM to my Holton suggests that while it's American in inspiration, it is German in execution. I suspect that if you removed the bell stack and installed one from a German rotary tuba, it might get quite a bit more German. Chuck and I have discussed the possibility (not the advisability) of installing a Miraphone bell, and my my measurement, a 186 bell would be very close in size in length and diameter at the ferrule, but you would have to trim several inches off the narrow end.

The similarity to the York 4/4 tuba is aesthetic only. See:

http://www.rickdenney.com/old_vs_new_york.htm

There is no longer any hope of the YM having been made using any Grand Rapids tooling, but I think they did have a good copy of a catalog page to work from.

Lee Hipp thought my YM better than the Holton and a real winner. I like it, but I prefer what I can do in band with the Holton, so the Holton is my daily player. The reasons are probably not too far removed from Klaus's preference of the 40K over the YM in his band.

Yes, Doug Elliott and I reamed the receiver. But this was a bit nerve-wracking, and was not a decision made lightly. The YM has a leadpipe that extends all the way to the tip, with the receiver comprising a collar that is slipped over the leadpipe, swaged to fit tight, and then soldered. There is no "gap" or any other anomaly in smoothness between the receiver and the leadpipe.

The issue was whether tapering the opening would cut through the leadpipe and ruin the opening. I have two comments concerning that risk:

1. If that happens, you can still make a new leadpipe with a new receiver, so you aren't really worse off unless preserving the old leadpipe is important to you.

2. It takes surprisingly little tapering to achieve a workable result. The blades on the reamer were only contacting about 3/4" of the inside of the receiver area when the cut was complete. That's about 15 thousandths of penetration at the tip of the receiver, or less than .4mm. The tubing is probably drawn down from .5mm tubing, making it a little thicker perhaps. In my case, we did not cut through the leadpipe tubing.

We didn't go all the way to a Euro shank. Where we ended up is what I would call an American shank. Mouthpieces insert about a quarter inch deeper into the Holton, but identically the same amount as with my Miraphone 186. Doug ended up turning down the shank on the mouthpiece very slightly to make a perfect fit, but any typical "American" shank mouthpiece works fine.

Also, the receiver was barrel-shaped with no taper when we started, according to Doug's measurements. Mouthpieces would rock slightly. It was not quite as small as a bass trombone or old Besson receiver. The Wick 1 that Chuck gave me with the instrument fit very deeply. A Wick 2 that I tried would not seat--it was too small. It's as if the factory forgot to taper the reciever.

If it's important to any of you, remind me later in the week when I'm back in town and I'll get my bore gauge and mic out and measure the resulting dimensions.

Getting the mouthpiece to seat properly and fit to the correct depth did indeed improve the smoothness of the response and the pitch control. But making it possible to fit a largish mouthpiece with a large throat helped a lot, too. I use a Doug Elliott T cup with a T-6 shank slightly shaved, and a 132-2N rim to be similar to the PT-48 which I use on the Holton. That mouthpiece is too big for the Holton and goes woofy, but it works very well on both the Miraphone and the York Master. A PT-48 also works well on the York Master, adding a little more bite to the sound.

The York Master is a great tuba, and surely one of the great piston Bb tubas of all time, at least among those not in the BAT class. It's not perfect, but I've had bigger issues with other world-class instruments.

Rick "who thinks the YM was a worthy prototype for later B&M Symphonic and Marzan instruments" Denney

[imperialbari]

The person who asked me most certainly is no troll. On the contrary he is deeply involved in American tuba history. Nobody would doubt his general level of information.

However the question came along to me in a way, where I could not reply directly.

As I found the question being of general interest I chose to give my answer via the TubeNet.

Of course I am cryptic, but the alternative would have been indiscretion. No hard choice to make.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[brianf]

There are several types of Yorks:

Grand Rapids Yorks designed by Bill Johnson using a specific type of brass from around 1910 to 1935. These are the prized Yorks.

After York was sold, there were some student models produced. A York in name only.

The York Masters made in Germany with some of the York madrels - good horns but not Bill Johnson's design and a different metal. Another horn in name only.

Then there are the clones-

Holton - In the 1960's they copied Mr Jacobs' horn. Some were great, others were not. In the early days, Frank Holton worked for York and some of Holton's early tubas were made by York.

Yorkbrunner, Floyd-o-phone and Yahmayork. All pretty good copies of Mr. Jacobs' York but different metals were used. Finally a few horns roughly designed from other Yorks such as the Holton Harvey Phillips model and the Cnadian Brass/Getzen CB/G 50.

Are all these Yorks? Nope, the true Yorks were made by Bill Johnson in Grand Rapids. There are other designs that have the York name then a few clones. You can go out and buy a Cobra reproduction car - is it a real Cobra? Nope. There are original Yorks then all the others. I like the engraving on the Floyd-o-phone :Inspired by York."

[Chuck(G)]

The York Masters made in Germany with some of the York madrels - good horns but not Bill Johnson's design and a different metal. Another horn in name only.

Brian, I'm still puzzled where the idea that B&M got their hands on York mandrels came from. Can you elucidate? I've got a couple of Yorks here and a York Master and a Marzan. The large parts are interchangeable betwen the Marzan and the YM, but nothing interchanges between the YM and the Yorks, other than the 0.750" tubing on the valve branches--and even that's not a very good match--the YM seems to use heavier-walled tubing.

[imperialbari]

As I once uttered in an exchange with Rick Denney: Owning a York Master does not equal mastering a York!

That was said in the short period, where we both had each our own York Master as our main axes. I am known not to sell instruments unless especially gifted student qualify for a status as buyers. And I have retired from teaching many years ago except for one student catching my interest some 10 years ago.

However I have noticed, that Rick hasn’t sold his YM either.

Brian, my half-countryman, is right about the different metal of the German made YM’s.

I will repeat the story on the metal of choice by makers of various countries:

In the old days special alloys were unthinkable of for economic reasons. All makers used sheet brass made to the national military standard for brass intended for riffle ammunition cartridges. The metal used for the bottle shaped powder chamber that is.

According to the 1980 Besson/B&H production supervisor, the absolutely worst cartridge metal standard was upheld by the USA authorities. The said supervisor however claimed, this “roughâ€

[brianf]

Brian, my half-countryman, is right about the different metal of the German made YM’s.

A few years back Michael Lind was in my office. Being from Denmark himself, he caught the FrederikSEN being from Denmark. Seems my Grandfather was from Alborg and Michael says it was August Helleberg's hometown. Interesting, if nothing else.

Brian, I'm still puzzled where the idea that B&M got their hands on York mandrels came from. Can you elucidate?

Actually, I have heard that recently From Richard Barth and Walter Nirschel since they are working on another York clone - Richard did a message about that a few months back.

What was specific about the type of brass used?

Seems the brass used had just a bit more copper to it than normal brass of the day. It's also thicker than many horns. Floyd Cooley sent some samples of a York for an analysis.

[Chuck(G)]

Actually, I have heard that recently From Richard Barth and Walter Nirschel since they are working on another York clone - Richard did a message about that a few months back.

I'd really like to hear what Mr. Nirschl has to say about this. The last thing that I heard was that he said something to the effect of his involvement in was B&M too late to know much about how the YM came about.

In any case, the tooling doesn't match up with any GR York that I've ever seen. Even the proportions are wrong.

Contrast a YM bottom bow, for example, with a GR York 4/4 bottom bow (the 6/4 GR York is way too large to compare to a YM). The YM bow's "legs" are much longer than the GR York's. Yet the small end of a GR York BB will just about fit a GR York top bow, but the bell end is a completely different story--the taper is much more extreme.

It might be that someone used a York as a basis for a free interpretation, but I think it's more likely that the YM just evolved from existing tooling for one of B&M's older models.

...and what about the little 3/4 top-action BBb YM? That matches up with no York I've ever heard of, much less seen.

Certainly the othe B&M "York" stuff, such as french horns, doesn't copy any of York's designs.

[Rick Denney]

First time that I have heard this. Jacobs Yorks were built in the 1930's. What was specific about the type of brass used?

I've heard it, but I don't buy it (with respect to Brian). The CSO Yorks were made in 1929 or 1930, by the way. Jacobs was born in 1915, and attended Curtis at age 15, which makes his first time there in 1930. Donatelli already owned the York at that time. They were actually made soon after Pop Johnson became one of the owners of York after buying outu the York family in 1927.

I've heard that the brass then used was not nearly as pure. I've heard that Pop Johnson walked hung brass sheets and whacked 'em to hear the ring. But I think it's like Strads, which are thought to be magic because of the age of the wood. It's not so--the difference is that Strads had all sorts of assymetries that nobody will build into a violin these days, except for those who have actually measured up real ones to duplicate them without trying to "update" the design.

I'll bet that the York magic, whatever that is, has to do with shape (including thickness, perhaps, though the magic hasn't faded with extreme buffing that must have materially changed the thickness) and, to a much lesser extent, how the brass is worked. But the best information I've seen is that Yorks used the same cartridge brass as everyone else, and that has nearly identical alloy proportions as modern yellow brass.

Nobody ever said York Masters had the York magic or were built or designed by Johnson. I would like to think that they used some of the York mandrels, but I think that lore has been pretty conclusively dispelled. York Masters are similar but not similar enough to have come from any of the same tooling. And they were never built to be big--the 6/4 Yorks of old were never represented in the York Master line. Big tubas like that were not the flavor of the month in the post-war period when Carl Fischer (who owned the York brand) hired B&M to make York Masters.

Rick "who thinks the YM is as Yorkish as any other 4/4 imitation, and no more" Denney

[Rick Denney]

I'd really like to hear what Mr. Nirschl has to say about this. The last thing that I heard was that he said something to the effect of his involvement in was B&M too late to know much about how the YM came about.

I corresponded with Mr. Nirschl about the YM, and could not get him to admit knowing anything at all about them. In his words, he was "much too young".

We have tubas with a range of copper contents, and the differences reported don't seem to me to encompass what makes a York Yorkish.

The B&S GR-41, however, has been reported by several as being very similar to actual 4/4 Yorks, right down to the (for some unmanageable) intonation quirks. I'll bet that they fall into the pattern of variability represented by real Yorks, despite being made from modern brass. The one that I played was not much like the YM, however, being smaller in many key dimensions. Of course, it was a C, and modeled on 4/4 York C's from the middle 30's.

But you are right--the YM has different shapes throughout, though arranged to follow a similar plan. It was not built to spec, but rather to concept.

Rick "thinking it doesn't diminish the value of the YM" Denney

[Bandmaster]

There are several types of Yorks:

Grand Rapids Yorks designed by Bill Johnson using a specific type of brass from around 1910 to 1935. These are the prized Yorks.

OK, what about the "stencil" horns that I have seen and heard about, like USA Line and the Grand Rapids Instrument Company? I have read many accounts saying that these were actually made by the York factory. The thing that I have noticed about them is that these stencil horns seem to have the main tuning slide in the leadpipe while the "real" Yorks have the tuning slide after the valves. The rest of these stencil horns look to be identical or VERY close to the actual Yorks. So... were they made in the same "way" but just have a few subtle differences, or were they just cheap horns made with lower quality control? If you bought one of these old USA Line tubas and converted it with a modern valve set will it have the classic "York" sound too?

Examples below - USA Line (left) - York Catalog - Real York BBb (right)

[Chuck(G)]

Yes, the GRBI and USA Line horns used the bells and large branches of the standard York line. I think the tuning slide in the leadpipe was to distinguish them as primarily student instruments. (Pan American tubas also are often found configured similarly in contrast to main line Conn instruments.).

Was there ever a 6/4 USA Line BBb, though? I''ve only seen 4/4 models.