Mirafone CC Serial #2520 in great shape.

MackBrass · Post by **MackBrass** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:40 pm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %3AIT&rd=1

tubaguy9 · Post by **tubaguy9** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:48 pm

Wow...I just bought a tuba...I think it has a higher serial number, like 7454, and it's in about the same shape, and sounds heavenly...One of the best tubas I've tried...and got it for about $300 cheaper. Man, I love it!!!

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:57 pm

eBay Ad wrote:serial number, 2520. You will be hard pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number

I've got S/N 1789 and 1792. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number...

tubaguy9 · Post by **tubaguy9** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:59 pm

Chuck(G) wrote:
eBay Ad wrote:serial number, 2520. You will be hard pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number
I've got S/N 1789 and 1792. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Miraphone with a lower serial number...

Dang, When and where did you get those horns? And by the way, what shape are they in? It also had a thing about the condition it was in!!!

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:27 pm

tubaguy9 wrote:Dang, When and where did you get those horns? And by the way, what shape are they in? It also had a thing about the condition it was in!!!

Last year, wheeling and dealing. One's still apart, but the other's been cleaned up and looks and plays great. Both are 184's.

tubaguy9 · Post by **tubaguy9** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:33 pm

Chuck(G) wrote:
tubaguy9 wrote:Dang, When and where did you get those horns? And by the way, what shape are they in? It also had a thing about the condition it was in!!!
Last year, wheeling and dealing. One's still apart, but the other's been cleaned up and looks and plays great. Both are 184's.

So, therefore, the ad is still somewhat right. It had that you couldn't find a lower S/N in AS GOOD of shape.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:32 am

tubaguy9 wrote:So, therefore, the ad is still somewhat right. It had that you couldn't find a lower S/N in AS GOOD of shape.

Nope, the 184 that's been reworked is in BETTER shape.

tubaguy9 · Post by **tubaguy9** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:33 pm

Chuck(G) wrote:
tubaguy9 wrote:So, therefore, the ad is still somewhat right. It had that you couldn't find a lower S/N in AS GOOD of shape.
Nope, the 184 that's been reworked is in BETTER shape.

I think the guy on eBay is talking about ORIGINAL shape...Otherwise, if not, you win.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:43 am

Dale, are you sill looking for some S-arms? PM me if so.