imperialbari wrote:...A brilliant low brass player, who actually has some cultural scope, but who now literally dives into other waters, used a very strong expression on Dr. Young’a calculations....
That Reynolds of yours, which size of receiver? If large or medium I might be interested, and after your sermon above here it must be a cheap buy for me. Of course the valves should be tight enough to make a musical evaluation of that model relevant.
I agree with you regarding Dr. Young's calculations. They are based on a host of unrealistic assumptions, including that music is performed using an even-tempered scale. But my point in bringing it up was that one should not assume that a four-valve comper is automatically better in tune than a three-valve comper. Instead, the person should judge each instrument on what it actually does rather than on what sort of this-or-that system it has.
The Reynolds is not for sale. For one thing, it is pretty and I like looking at it. For another thing, it was poorly overhauled during its life, and shows evidence of it on close inspection. Many might not notice because it IS shiny, but I know you would. Thirdly, the receiver and leadpipe are not original, and that is part of the reason for its poor ergonomics--the leadpipe wraps too far around the bell. The receiver is the typical small American baritone receiver for a tenor trombone-sized mouthpiece, and that is another problem with it. I have considered replacing the leadpipe and receiver, but then I acquired the Besson and that scratches my itch for a tenor tuba.
Here's a pic of the Reynolds. I've dated it around 1937 or 1938--in the first year or two of the existence of F. A. Reynolds.
Rick "noting that Pete Rodriguez in San Antonio usually farmed such projects to trainees who were a little too aggressive with the buffing wheel" Denney
