I'm pretty sure it's a Conn body, and the that #3 slide loop has been completely redone at some point.
It might (???) even be a Conn which (originally) had a one-piece upright bell (which had a flare which was totally trashed, cut off, and fitted with a female receiver that was paired with that (leftover from some other trashed tuba) Holton recording bell.
Other mix/match possibilities come to mind as well, such as Conn bell elbow/Holton bell flare, etc...
So many tubas that (currently) look like that one... - were originally satin silver - bear little resemblance to their current appearance (with mix/matched bell, etc...as described above) - have had the crap buffed out of them and then lacquered - in spite of all other work and alterations, sport very worn/leaky valves which are just barely rebuildable
I've emailed back and forth with the seller a time or two. He happens to play a King 2340/2341 and said this tuba is bigger. I then asked if it was about the size of a Conn 20J. He said that it was about the same size but with a smaller bore. I suspect that the bore (.79) he told me earlier, was the OD of one of the slides.
Anyway, by his description, that would put it into 6/4 size. I agree with Bloke in that the ferrules look much more Conn like than Holton like.
I entertained driving up to have a looksie, but 1) I really don't have a use for a BIG horn (particularly bell front) and 2) I have a cast on my right arm / ring & pinkie fingers (long story) so could only play test the open partials...
Sorry, you all are on your own
1915ish Martin Renowned 3 valve BBb 1917ish Martin Renowned 3+1 Eb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1906 York model 33 BBb 1920s York USA Line BBb 1940 York 18" bell BBb 3 valve front action
One last bit of info. The guy said the Holton's bore was .79 whereas his King (2341) was .76".
I measured a King valveset I have and can only find .76" going for the OD of the OUTER slide tubes.
So, one could assume he measured the Holton's bore the same way (rather than the conventional ID of inner slide tube). Then assuming similar wall thicknesses one could guesstimate that the Holton's conventional bore would be .03" larger than the King. Since a King is .689", that would put the Holton (assuming) at around .719". Martin used .712" or so, so .719ish for the Holton is at least plauseable.
No promises or warranties expressed, I'm just sayin'
1915ish Martin Renowned 3 valve BBb 1917ish Martin Renowned 3+1 Eb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1906 York model 33 BBb 1920s York USA Line BBb 1940 York 18" bell BBb 3 valve front action
I think this looks like a conn orchestra grand, or similar bell-front model, with a straight in leadpipe, like mine.
The bell on the ebay special looks thinner. At first glance, I thought it looked like king 2341 (old style) territory, as well. My guess is that the original bell was trashed, and they found something that would work.
It may or may not have been upright originally, but I heard about someone putting a big Holton bell on one of these before and it playing well. If I had a bucket of cash and wanted a project, I'd buy it, and figure out if a Kanstul bell would work.
Here is the link to photos, the orchestra grand next to a big old Holton.
Yep, looking at yours side by side with the bay picture, it sure looks like a Conn Grand with Holton bell. The main bugle bows are all in the same positions. The valve tubing all looks the same, with the exception of the tubing coming out of the 4th valve.
Moot point, as the seller accepted an offer of $1250. Anyone here?
1915ish Martin Renowned 3 valve BBb 1917ish Martin Renowned 3+1 Eb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1906 York model 33 BBb 1920s York USA Line BBb 1940 York 18" bell BBb 3 valve front action
