Refurbished King 2341

[groth]

This ad was more comical than anything ($12,229 retail value for an "older 2341") and $7000 "street price". (Asking price of auction is lower for the record but his description is bogus).

https://www.ebay.com/itm/CLEAN-KING-234 ... 0290.m3507" target="_blank" target="_blank

[groth]

It says $3250.

Read Description in the Auction...

[groth]

Edited. Is that more clear?

[roweenie]

Well, whatever it is, the "suggested retail price" is worthless information - since that model is no longer in production, you can't buy it new at any price. I don't even know if Conn-Selmer would agree to make a new one, custom ordered.

[tofu]

.

[bigtubby]

Out of idle curiosity, does this fall under the "Please No eBay Scandal Posts"?

Asking for a friend.

[bort]

Yeah, no kidding... hanging from the thumb ring? Looks like some kind of tuba torture chamber.

Also, why not just wait until the relacquer photos are ready?

[groth]

Out of idle curiosity, does this fall under the "Please No eBay Scandal Posts"?

Asking for a friend.

No, because the seller is a real seller and the actual asking price is a real "legit?" price. The first paragraph was what I wanted to bring attention to about his claims on how much these horns go for "elsewhere" wherever that might be.

[The Big Ben]

It says $3250.

12/26 Now $2850

They didn't post the best pictures but...

Regardless of the other price doodoo posted, if it is fully restored and lacquered as they say, $2850 might be a good price.

[Mark]

Regardless of the other price doodoo posted, if it is fully restored and lacquered as they say, $2850 might be a good price.

They are a legitmate seller and the price is probably a good price, but the suggestion that $12,299 is a fair retail price makes the entire posting suspect.

[bort]

MSRP for a new 2341 in silver matches their statement... and new price for lacquer is close to their statement. Of course, this is for the new model 2341, not the old one.

https://www.musicarts.com/King-2341W-Se ... 618831.mac" target="_blank" target="_blank

Not like any of this really matters, and MSRP isn't particularly useful for very much. Probably a good tuba, as long as it didn't have to go through a ton of work to get ready for relacqering. Is 2850 a good deal? I don't know. Someone will probably buy it.

[toobagrowl]

Is 2850 a good deal? I don't know. Someone will probably buy it.

$2,850 is a good deal for this refurbished tuba + cases. The seller is good and legit; I bought a tuba from them years ago.....
I'd take this older, tall detachable-bell 2341 over the newer, squat fixed bell King 2341 anyday

[groth]

Thanks for posting that link bort. We shouldn't drag ebay sellers through the mud, especially ones we already know are reputable.

No one is "dragging" anyone through the mud. We (some of us) are just interested in keeping honest sellers, honest. The only reason he was fluffing the numbers was likely to add more intrinsic value to the OLDER model 2341 by posting non-relevant and incorrect prices (even for the new model) so that the unsuspecting buyer may think he was getting a great deal at $3,250 then. Now with the horn being $2,850 with all that is mentioned is a decent deal, never had any question that his asking prices were out in left field, just his description (which was dishonest) to randomly use strange astronomical numbers in an auction for an older model horn that is a refurb.

[edsel585960]

Wichita Band is a reputable dealer. That is a good price for that particular horn.

[EdFirth]

I agree with Edsel, there have been at least 10 of theses sold at BB and Dillon's in the last year for right around that price, give or take for condition, what bell or bells they come with, and cases. And consider the choices at those two shops for comparison. they hold their own and I have been playing on Kings since 1982 with very good results in all the venues that get talked about on here. Although, admittedly, the MSRP in the ad is somewhat exaggerated the ending price is right in the ballpark assuming that it's been overhauled properly.Ed

[roweenie]

At first, I hadn't really given this MSRP "discrepancy" much thought (as MSRP is basically a fictional number that you'd have to be a fool to pay), but I've got to say that the phrase "somewhat exaggerated" is "somewhat understated". It's one thing to compare the model number to the current MSRP (which may or may not be correct) but it's another thing entirely to compare it to what is essentially a completely different instrument.

The actual selling price, reasonable or not, is irrelevant to this discussion - it's the comparison being drawn that IS relevant, as this comparison is being used as a selling point. Not everyone buying tubas is as informed as we are here on this forum; words actually mean something, and one should choose them wisely.

At best, it can be attributed to a lack of knowledge of the product (as suggested by Kiltie), but even then, the suspected lack of product knowledge does not instill much confidence, at least as far as I'm concerned.

(This reminds me of the York/Yorkmaster comparisons I have seen being made - other than the word "York" in the name, they are essentially different instruments, giving them corresponding different value).

[groth]

At first, I hadn't really given this MSRP "discrepancy" much thought (as MSRP is basically a fictional number that you'd have to be a fool to pay), but I've got to say that the phrase "somewhat exaggerated" is "somewhat understated". It's one thing to compare the model number to the current MSRP (which may or may not be correct) but it's another thing entirely to compare it to what is essentially a completely different instrument.

The actual selling price, reasonable or not, is irrelevant to this discussion - it's the comparison being drawn that IS relevant, as this comparison is being used as a selling point. Not everyone buying tubas is as informed as we are here on this forum; words actually mean something, and one should choose them wisely.

At best, it can be attributed to a lack of knowledge of the product (as suggested by Kiltie), but even then, the suspected lack of product knowledge does not instill much confidence, at least as far as I'm concerned.

(This reminds me of the York/Yorkmaster comparisons I have seen being made - other than the word "York" in the name, they are essentially different instruments, giving them corresponding different value).

This was my point from the beginning. This is probably a decent horn either way, but the description.

[Donn]

but it's another thing entirely to compare it to what is essentially a completely different instrument.

Just to give this important matter its due consideration, how true is that? I can think of some cases where the same ID has been given to a different tuba - Conn 36K fiberglass sousaphone, that name now applies to historically a King model I believe. In this case though, they're comparing with arguably the current revision of the same 2341 design, which may have some improvements (?) but lacks the sought-after detachable bell feature. (ha ha.) The difference just happens to be more conspicuous, than if they'd changed valve plating, or the manner in which the big parts are formed, etc. Do they really play different?

[roweenie]

sheesh...
I sure wish I had read this instead:

Maybe to you, but maybe not to someone who doesn't possess your/my/our knowledge.

but it's another thing entirely to compare it to what is essentially a completely different instrument.

Just to give this important matter its due consideration, how true is that? I can think of some cases where the same ID has been given to a different tuba - Conn 36K fiberglass sousaphone, that name now applies to historically a King model I believe. In this case though, they're comparing with arguably the current revision of the same 2341 design, which may have some improvements (?) but lacks the sought-after detachable bell feature. (ha ha.) The difference just happens to be more conspicuous, than if they'd changed valve plating, or the manner in which the big parts are formed, etc. Do they really play different?

Actually, yes, they do play different from each other. Aside from the sought-after detachable bell feature (ha, ha, I own a few horns like this, just for that reason), the bells have an entirely different profile from each other - and the way King was able to add length to a drastically shortened instrument (the height difference is at least 6") was to add more cylindrical tubing on the MTS, so now the taper is significantly different, too. In fact, although I haven't looked at the parts lists recently, I don't think any of the bugle parts are interchangeable between the two horns - I certainly know that the bell, 5th branch, and dogleg are decidedly not. (Edit - the bottom bow, top bow, 3rd and 4th branches are in fact identical, but that is all....however, the bell alone is so radically different as to make it a completely different instrument, and I was correct that the 5th branch and dogleg are different, as is the mouthpipe).

The difference in this instance to your Conn/King analogy is that those manufacturers didn't quote the MSRP of a different horn with the same model number to try and tell someone who is buying a used horn that they are getting a screaming deal.

As I said earlier, I originally didn't think this was such a big deal - but I guess it all boils down to how much attention one desires to give to a description that is accurate in its details.

roweenie "who suffers from a severe case of OCD"

[BopEuph]

If not, send me $3K for my 1974 Fender Jazz Bass (which I bought from a friend in 1975).

Hey, my bass guitar is ACTUALLY valued at $10,000, so...

Now this, this is a deal. I probably know some collectors who might be interested in that instrument, Duck's son being one of them...