York vs Holton

[Tim Jackson]

6/4 York vs Holton 345

Here is the 1915 BBb York listed earlier compared to a 1960’s cut Holton 345
The Holton was very dark and the York was resonate. They both fill the hall, just in a different way. I was lucky to own both instruments at the same time to make comparisons. I can say that both of these large horns took some effort to develop some level of agility. To put it in TubeNet terms- the Holton was more of an earth mover and the York, with its resonance, is like a giant string bass. They both had their merits, but… of course, as you would guess, I still have the York. It is such a fun player and collector’s piece.
The York seemed to have a larger throat in the bell section and a more pronounced flair. To say the Holton is bigger than the York it was modeled after is a matter opinion. Some parts of the Holton look bigger and some parts of the York look bigger. If anything, the York always seemed more conical. I have a very large 1900 BBb Cerveny that was just finished at Lee Stofer’s shop. I hope to have it back soon to offer some side by side pics with the York. Seeing these large horns on the web one at a time makes it hard to tell just which ones are really big. Now that I figured out how to post pictures, I hope to give something of interest back to this site. Happy 4th. Tim

[Tom Coffey]

This is a great post, and the size comparison pictures are really helpful in understanding the scale of the horn. There was no way to know how big that York is until seeing it compared to the Holton.

[Frank Ortega]

Couldn't resist posting...

How about a York/Holton?

I'm having a 1924 York 6/4 BBb Bell added to a 4 valve, BBb, 6/4 1930's Holton Body.

Can't wait to play it and post pics!


Frank

[mbeastep]

Here is the first of the York-like instruments in my life. It was my first tuba, acquired by my parents in 1960 at a cost of about $50, then overhauled. This was in Gainesville, Florida. The horn followed me to Tallahassee, Denton, Texas and Chicago, but I sold it prior to moving to Winnipeg. It was rather nimble for its size, being made of thin metal. There were some round patches in the bell where it had kinked from holding the weight of the horn. The receiver was enormous and required an extender to taper down to a normal mouthpiece size. A good old horn. Although I had little concept of orchestral volume levels when I was playing it, it always seemed to make enough sound for my needs in those days. The Holton whose pictures I will send separately was similar in dimensions, but a much heavier horn, without the same ease of tone production that the York had. It certainly had an appealing weight of sound, but without the sense of buoyancy of the York.

mbeastep
Calgary

[mbeastep]

This horn is a 1960's Holton CC with a 22 1/2 inch bell from a BB-flat Grand Rapids York. The bell switch was done by Richard Barth, the previous owner, who also put the Holton bell on the York. As a combination instrument, I liked to call it a Yorkton. The bell size was probably larger than the ideal one of 19 or 20 inches like on the CSO York, but I never had the heart to cut it down. I owned this instrument and used it as my primary horn from 1983 to 2000, when I sold it to Roy Couch, of Texas. I think it has since moved to Virginia. It had some very appealing qualities, especially after I replated the valves. The third partial G was very low and the 4th valve G an octave lower was never as secure a note as it should be on a C tuba. Did it ever ring in our concert hall, though! I found as I approached my fifties that I wasn't enjoying carrying the horn around and that a fifth valve was a convenience that I wanted. If it had been a real York I probably would have kept it, but the Holtons were not that good. A pretty horn, though, and I enjoyed the York bell decoration.

mbeastep
Calgary

[Bob Kolada]

Cool horns guys, thanks for sharing! I've had and will have a few more vintage tubas but, for the most part, they're not tubas that most other people appreciate.

[UTSAtuba]

**drooooooolllllllll*

[Rick Denney]

Comparisons are difficult, because consistency is a problem with both brands. We should remember that there are only two CSO-York tubas. There are 6/4 Yorks of various types, of course, but they are different than the models made for Donatelli--smaller bore in the valves, different pitch, different bell size, etc.

Most Yorks in the CSO configuration have been modified from top-action designs (Tim's being an exception, of course). I've played many that were beautifully resonant, and a few conversions that seemed just plain dead.

And Holton 345's--well that's a whole other issue of consistency. Even though they were all modeled (loosely) on the Jacobs York, they have intonation issues (as do the Yorks) and they vary significantly. When one studies their internal (and sometimes external) construction issues, it's no wonder they are inconsistent. Mine is wonderfully resonant, and I've played a few others that were, too. But I've also played factory and (especially) converted Holtons that were as dead as if they were made of jello. As with the Yorks, some take a little air and work miracles with it, and others suck all the air provided by the player and demand more.

Good examples of each are wonderful in their own way, and rare by any measure. The best Holton sound has a lot of zip in it--a lot of harmonic color that adds depth while retaining clarity (for such a big tuba). But I've also played Holtons that sounded like woofmeisters with too much bottom and no color. Ditto the converted Yorks I've been able to try out. (Ditto also many of the later replicas of each.)

Rick "wary of extrapolation" Denney

[sloan]

All comparisons should start with the horn York copied: the Conn 36J.

[J.c. Sherman]

All comparisons should start with the horn York copied: the Conn 36J.

HUH?!?!?

[Frank Ortega]

As promised, here are a few pictures of my "new" York/Holton 6/4 BBb. The 1924 York bell, which was in rough shape, was cut down and patched with monel patches. The Body is from a 1930's Holton Bell front, top action. The valve set was from a 6/4 Chicago Holton that was destroyed at a plating factory. I believe the York bell is actually a little smaller in the throat than the Holton bells. For the record, the 3rd partial is quite good on this horn. All of the work was exquisitely done by Martin Wilk of Indiana. I sat and listened to the incomparable Paul Scott play this horn for quite a while last week, and boy does it get a big, dark, velvety sound! Enjoy!





And now a comparison to my BBb Martin Mammoth



Can't wait to get back to Imperial Brass to take her for a spin!


Frank Ortega

[Bob Kolada]

Awesome horns Frank!

[Tom Coffey]

Awesome photography and commentary in this post--thanks!

[toobagrowl]

Holton!!
A good Holton is everything a York is but with a tad more 'meat' to the sound.
The only problem is that the old Holtons were pretty inconsistent compared to the old Yorks.
Nice horn, Frank.

[Rick Denney]

Holton!!
A good Holton is everything a York is but with a tad more 'meat' to the sound.
The only problem is that the old Holtons were pretty inconsistent compared to the old Yorks.

Hmmm. When people talk about Holtons, as is "York vs. Holton", they are generally comparing the CSO-owned Jacobs York to the Holton CC-345. Those two big Yorks were made in 1930 or so, and the Holton 345's were made starting in the 50's up through the early 70's.

There were big Holtons and big Yorks back in the 20's, too, and at that time they were probably comparable in quality and consistency. Most of those, however, were Bb, top-action, 3-valve "basses", often with a recording bell.

But to say that the CSO York, of which there are only two, has a less meaty sound than a post-war Holton 345, one would have had to have had experience with the former, or at least heard a comparison of the two side-by-side. Few have had that opportunity. I've never noticed any lack of meatiness in Jacobs's sound, or in Pokorny's, for that matter.

I love the sound produced by my Holton, but I have certainly not compared it to Yorks that are originally of the same design.

As to old Bb York band basses that have been converted to C tubas for use by orchestral tuba players, the examples I've played have been no more consistent than your average run of battered old BB-345s. Sometimes the conversion works out, and sometimes it doesn't. Ditto for converted pre-war Holtons. In C, I think I'd rather have a modern example, like a Meinl-Weston 6450 or a Yamayork, as long we are spending Lotto winnings, though those who have good Holtons (the few know who they are) don't offer them for sale. In Bb, though, there are not so many options easily available.

Rick "wondering how consistency can be evaluated in a run of two, both of which were, by all reports, quite different" Denney

[UTSAtuba]

Holton!!
A good Holton is everything a York is but with a tad more 'meat' to the sound.
The only problem is that the old Holtons were pretty inconsistent compared to the old Yorks.

Hmmm. When people talk about Holtons, as is "York vs. Holton", they are generally comparing the CSO-owned Jacobs York to the Holton CC-345. Those two big Yorks were made in 1930 or so, and the Holton 345's were made starting in the 50's up through the early 70's.

There were big Holtons and big Yorks back in the 20's, too, and at that time they were probably comparable in quality and consistency. Most of those, however, were Bb, top-action, 3-valve "basses", often with a recording bell.

But to say that the CSO York, of which there are only two, has a less meaty sound than a post-war Holton 345, one would have had to have had experience with the former, or at least heard a comparison of the two side-by-side. Few have had that opportunity. I've never noticed any lack of meatiness in Jacobs's sound, or in Pokorny's, for that matter.

I love the sound produced by my Holton, but I have certainly not compared it to Yorks that are originally of the same design.

As to old Bb York band basses that have been converted to C tubas for use by orchestral tuba players, the examples I've played have been no more consistent than your average run of battered old BB-345s. Sometimes the conversion works out, and sometimes it doesn't. Ditto for converted pre-war Holtons. In C, I think I'd rather have a modern example, like a Meinl-Weston 6450 or a Yamayork, as long we are spending Lotto winnings, though those who have good Holtons (the few know who they are) don't offer them for sale. In Bb, though, there are not so many options easily available.

Rick "wondering how consistency can be evaluated in a run of two, both of which were, by all reports, quite different" Denney

Agreed, but I think tooba (based on his past comments) was leaning towards his opinion on the York and Holton sound differences of the compact 4/4 horns (Monster Eb & BBb).

[Frank Ortega]

The Holton/York is definitely bigger.

Interestingly enough, on 2 occasions I happened to be in the room when Mr. Pokorny and Mr. Kniffen were trying a variety of vintage and modern BBb tubas, and the CSO York was there for comparison. To me, the closest instrument in sound and structure to that instrument was Paul Scott's Martin Mammoth BBb with the Kanstul reproduction bell. The Kanstul bell is a little shorter than the original upright bells, giving it more of a CC tuba quality. There were no Holtons in the room, however, there was a 6/4 York BBb with a Meinl bell which was pretty close to the size of a Holton. Also, hearing Paul play my horn back to back with his Martins, the York/Holton gets a much broader, darker sound where the Martin's were much more focused, colorful, and fascile. Both possess great presence.

My two cents,
Frank

[toobagrowl]

Agreed, but I think tooba (based on his past comments) was leaning towards his opinion on the York and Holton sound differences of the compact 4/4 horns (Monster Eb & BBb).

+1. Yep, I was mostly going on my personal experiences with both vintage Holton and York Monster Eb tubas. I have played a couple York Monster Eb tubas and I own two vintage Chicago-made (pre-1918) Holton Eb tubas and a 1967 Holton bell-front 350 BBb. I regularly use the Eb's in brass quintet, and occasionally in tuba quartet and concert band.

But I have also played on the big 6/4 Holton and 6/4 York CC tubas and have heard several tubaists on both. With all that personal and listening experience, I think I can make a pretty accurate description on the sounds of both brands. The Yorks (both Monster Eb's and 6/4 CC's) have A LOT of overtones in the sound with a fair amount of fundamental (bass). It is also a VERY mellow sound. The Holtons (both Monster Eb's and 6/4 CC's) also have a lot of overtones in the sound with a good amount of fundamental - a touch more than the Yorks. The Holtons also have a mellow quality to the sound. But the Yorks have such a mellow, puffy, overtone-y sound that you almost feel like the tuba will lift you up into the clouds when you play one of them It is a very 'pretty' sound. The Holtons have that similar quality, but enough fundamental and 'bite' in the sound (mellow like the York, but able to give more bite/edge IMO) to keep the sound more 'solid' and 'grounded', but also able to give that floating/buoyant sound like the York when needed.

[Rick Denney]

But I have also played on the big 6/4 Holton and 6/4 York CC tubas and have heard several tubaists on both. With all that personal and listening experience, I think I can make a pretty accurate description on the sounds of both brands. The Yorks (both Monster Eb's and 6/4 CC's) have A LOT of overtones in the sound with a fair amount of fundamental (bass). It is also a VERY mellow sound. The Holtons (both Monster Eb's and 6/4 CC's) also have a lot of overtones in the sound with a good amount of fundamental - a touch more than the Yorks. The Holtons also have a mellow quality to the sound. But the Yorks have such a mellow, puffy, overtone-y sound that you almost feel like the tuba will lift you up into the clouds when you play one of them It is a very 'pretty' sound. The Holtons have that similar quality, but enough fundamental and 'bite' in the sound (mellow like the York, but able to give more bite/edge IMO) to keep the sound more 'solid' and 'grounded', but also able to give that floating/buoyant sound like the York when needed.

There were only two York grand orchestral tubas made in C. All the others are conversions, and so you are evaluating what the guy doing the conversion did as much as the original.

But I completely agree with your description of the Holton sound, so I have to trust your description of the York sound, however you got to hear it (other than by listening to Mr. Jacobs or to Gene).

Actually, I think I can agree with your description when comparing a Holton to a good Yorkbrunner. That lifting quality description really rang a bell for me.

Rick "thinking nobody made a Monster Eb bass with a decent scale" Denney

[toobagrowl]

Rick "thinking nobody made a Monster Eb bass with a decent scale" Denney

I love how you sneaked in this little comment after more or less agreeing with me.
Typical Rick Denney style...

As far as Monster Eb "intonation" goes, I will just say it all depends on:

- The condition of the horn. Are there any leaks? Any big dents that affect how it plays? Are the valves really worn? Remember, these horns are OLD (70 - 100+ years old).

- If the receiver and/or leadpipe have been changed out with a more modern one that will "open up" the horn and accept standard mouthpieces.

- Do the 1st and 3rd slides need any cutting because they are slightly too long?

And most important of all.....

- The player behind the horn.



@ bloke: this thread is titled York vs Holton......so discuss