New to me Holton

[Ken Crawford]

I just fell backwards into this nice old Holton! The serial number indicates that it was built in 1911-12. It's un-restored, it must have spent decades in a closet somewhere. Intonation is really fantastic, it might play even better after some the small tubing dents are removed. I think this is a "Mammoth," is that correct? Anyways, I know everyone loves pictures, so here you go:

[PMeuph]

Very nice!

[Tubajug]

Great find!

[roughrider]

That's a huge score (literally)!! A beautiful horn and four valves as well! Enjoy!

[roughrider]

That is a "Mammoth'!

[Tabor]

lucky ducky...4 valves, great shape and old!

those are really nice. Congrats.

[Donn]

If there's lacquer on it, that would be much more recent, right? I'm assuming it's just freshly polished.

[Ken Crawford]

If there's lacquer on it, that would be much more recent, right? I'm assuming it's just freshly polished.

Did they not do lacquer back then?

[Donn]

Not until the '30s I'd say, though practically anyone here would know better than I. But the color says much more recent than that, to me - you're saying it is lacquered? I bet that would be in the last 20 years, and would suggest that someone was seriously into this tuba.

[Ken Crawford]

Yes it is lacquered.

[Kirley]

Gorgeous horn. Congrats!
Those valves look amazing for 105!
Must’ve been a serious attic dweller.

[bisontuba]

Beauty!

[rodgeman]

Really nice.

[brianf]

I have a 5/4 York BB Flat that looks like this but silver plated. During that era, York made Holton tubas - Holton previously worked for York. A few weeks ago I picked it up at Lee Stofer's and he had a three valve Holton from that time. We compared them back and forth for a while and discovered that the second valve slides were the same bore. The only thing that is concerning is the lacquer - I'll bet that this went through an overhaul at one time.

[The Big Ben]

That is a beauty! A guy who plays in a concert band with me bought a nice one of these a few months ago. Not as old but in very nice shape. Have fun! I don't know that I could handle a howitzer like that. Hope you can!!!

[Donn]

Oh yeah - I took on a Holton 109 a couple years ago, and for me it did take a little getting used to - but it's good for you. I took my King 1240 to a concert yesterday for a change, because it was going to be a tight squeeze, and was pleased to hear it sounding quite a lot better than I remembered. The Holton is kind of a breath trainer.

As for lacquer and overhauls etc., for me it's all about the end result. Sounds like this one turned out well. I think my Holton had its original early 1941 lacquer - had the pebbly texture and brown color of an old suitcase, although of course only in a few places, as much of it was worn off.

[Tabor]

Here is a photos of a York 91 and a Holton Mammoth (though later than this one) side by side. Like the 3/4 models I have had, this Holton is a bit taller and skinnier through the body while the York is rounder.

[Ken Crawford]

Holtons were being made in Chicago while Yorks were being made in Grand Rapids to the best of my internet research.

[Donn]

Here is a photos of a York 91 and a Holton Mammoth (though later than this one) side by side.

Where the Holton is on the right, right? To me, your Holton picture looks like a Holton - top or front valves, they have those big fat ferrules, the tight top bow. kmorgancraw's looks more like that York. Could just be the lighting, though, and anyway, it isn't obvious to me that looks are a reliable guide to pedigree. Though I guess if you could tell those two tubas apart by listening to them, it would be interesting to know which one kmorgancraw's sounds more like.

[Tabor]

Here is a photos of a York 91 and a Holton Mammoth (though later than this one) side by side.

Where the Holton is on the right, right? To me, your Holton picture looks like a Holton - top or front valves, they have those big fat ferrules, the tight top bow. kmorgancraw's looks more like that York. Could just be the lighting, though, and anyway, it isn't obvious to me that looks are a reliable guide to pedigree. Though I guess if you could tell those two tubas apart by listening to them, it would be interesting to know which one kmorgancraw's sounds more like.

I think I read somewhere that York used Holton mandrels or vice versa for developing their large bell. The old Holton bells are often spun out to 22+ inches, just like York, and the older ones often seem to have thinner ferrules. The loops on the body all sit higher. The center of gravity on the York is lower. The sizes and arrangement of the parts are close, they might even use some identical mandrels and be able to be switched part to part, but some of the parts have to be at least bent differently because of how the spacing on the tubas are.

I have played these two back to back, and I have played Lost's York 91 and Holton mammoth back to back. His older Holton mammoth sounds and plays just like a 91 and I would not be able to tell it from a York 91 by sound or how it plays alone. The look is different. (the taller loops) I don't know how much of that is the Holton, and how much of it is what Martin Wilk did to it. In addition to making it stunningly dent free, he gave it some really beautiful york style bracing from the valve tubing to the bell.