Visit to Horn Stash in Chicago

[bort2.0]

I'm in Chicago today and got here early enough that I could go up to Palatine and visit Horn Stash again. Many thanks to Jim for having thanks set aside and ready to go when I got there.

Lyon and Healy BBb -- I was really curious about this one since it was posted. First the good things, it's a really nice size, and the bows are really fat for the size of the horn. Very conical and seems like it could put out a lot more sound than you'd expect. However, there was an air leak which I believe is in the lead pipe where it attaches to the Bell. So everything was very squirrely hard to center and intonation was who knows. A very inaccurate representation of the instrument, but even with that there were some moments of greatness, and I believe it could be a pretty nice player. It's also incredibly light weight because the brass is incredibly thin. Like concerningly thin. The gold spray painted finish isn't great. It's not heinous, but it would have been better without.

King 2341 (old style) with detachable upright bell -- holy crap, this thing can play. Monster of a low range, jeez, where did that come from! I think it's top heavy to hold and simply just heavy, but a wonderful tuba.

Miraphone 186 BBb recording bell -- this one, too! Holy crap! Plays so nicely and the low range is just THERE! Get an upright bell on this thing! Serial number is 5xxx, which puts it right in that early time that everyone wants. It's real nice!

Kanstul 90 CC -- same tuba I played there in October. It's really nice, sounds great, and needs some 4th slide pulling. Very easy to play, and super valves!

XO 4/4 CC -- not sure if this is the same thing as that Jupiter CC, but it sure looks like it. It plays just fine, and I really didn't have any complaints about it. Very straightforward and easy. I didn't love it, but I couldn't nail down any one thing that I didn't like.

B&S 795 CC -- this is the new one, with the parts made in China and assembled in Germany. It reminded me very much of the Besson 995 and I'm not sure if this is supposed to be another rebirth of that. Plays very well, nice sound, overall feels mostly like a B&S tuba. There's something about it that did feel a little bit different, but I couldn't really put my finger on it. All the same time it seems like a nice instrument at least in its brand new status. I was also quickly reminded just how big the big valves can feel, and how uncomfortable they are to me. It's not inexpensive, but I guess it's less than the full German-made models? The price was just a little under 10k, so I'm really wondering what the benefit is here to the consumer. I guess it's a bit of a savings, but I'm also wondering if when this idea was conceptualized pre-inflation, the numbers looked a whole lot different.

[bort2.0]

Oh, I forgot to mention, the engraving on the L&H, even though it's buried by spray paint is very cool. Above the floral stuff around the words, there's a little engraving of a building which is presumably the factory.

I may have just bought this tuba today had it been functioning properly. I'm a little annoyed that it played like it did and nobody had noticed yet. Or, that was priced as it was, and not priced like what's wrong with this thing.

Jim's going to get back to me after they fix it.

[humBell]

Perhaps if it is fragile? Maybe it flexed just enough for the leak to be there due to casual handling between initially being put on display and your time with it? Or condensation clogged the leak when originally evaluted, which dried out while it was on display?

Alternatively (and this frequently my failing) players didn't know what to expect and didn't evaluate it right?

[bort2.0]

All possibilities!

And with the painting, it could be covering up red rot...? You may be right though, something structural may have been dislodged

It was an audible *ffffffftttt* sound when I played though... I first thought it was a spit valve issue, but no dice. Also wondered if the valves were in the right places... And oddly enough, the top of the first valve was stamped "3" and the top of the third valve was stamped "1". Naturally I tried switching them, but then NO air would go through. After enough messing around though, some water started to drip from the air leak spot.

Neat tuba, and I'm not sure why it's captured my attention so much!

[Yorkboy]

Hey Bort, what size would you classify that L & H tuba as? I’ve been very curious about it…

[York-aholic]

My L&H (a 6/4 BBb 3v top action) also had the factory (yes, you were correct, that's what it was) engraved on it. I don't remember about the bugle, but the bell is also very thin. When I swapped that bell in place of the 26" fixed recording bell on my 6/4 York, the horn lost 5 lbs in the swap.

While on the original top action L&H bugle, the horn made an absolutely wonderful sound. However, I had a hard time convincing my tuner that the 3rd partial F wasn't actually an E in disguise. Everything else was fairly okay intonation wise but, what a sound...

I don't own the bugle anymore...

[bort2.0]

Hey Bort, what size would you classify that L & H tuba as? I’ve been very curious about it…

Small 4/4... I think it's like 32" tall and 16" bell. But the branches after the valve section get fat pretty quickly, and the bottom bow, top bow, and the next two in after that are really quite chunky. That's pretty cool.

@York-aholic thanks for the info! 3rd partial here was weird too, but with a leadpipe leak, I can hardly draw any conclusions. Did yours have a serial number on the bell, like around where the factory engraving was? This one was #299.

[humBell]

Trudging down memory lane (and my basis for interest in L&H)

My L&H Own make:

What i mighta shared on the old forum when trying to figure out about where the Melville-Clark soloist came from:

Strange, i recall my L&H as being heavy for its size, but it is clearly a younger version, being 52xx serial number if i recall?

And yes, those black squares on first and second valve loops are gaff tape over leaks, which i put on immediately after getting it back from my fellow tubist repair fellow who assembled it from parts i got in an ebay buy it now.

No factory on mine... just the leaves round the Lyon & Healy Own Make Chicago.

[cjk]

...
King 2341 (old style) with detachable upright bell -- holy crap, this thing can play. Monster of a low range, jeez, where did that come from! I think it's top heavy to hold and simply just heavy, but a wonderful tuba.

Miraphone 186 BBb recording bell -- this one, too! Holy crap! Plays so nicely and the low range is just THERE! Get an upright bell on this thing! Serial number is 5xxx, which puts it right in that early time that everyone wants. It's real nice!
....

The King 2341 (any style) and the Miraphone 186 CC (or 188) should be the baseline instruments by which all other contrabass tubas are judged.

I wonder how few other models would be purchased if they were A/B'd against these.

[arpthark]

...
King 2341 (old style) with detachable upright bell -- holy crap, this thing can play. Monster of a low range, jeez, where did that come from! I think it's top heavy to hold and simply just heavy, but a wonderful tuba.

Miraphone 186 BBb recording bell -- this one, too! Holy crap! Plays so nicely and the low range is just THERE! Get an upright bell on this thing! Serial number is 5xxx, which puts it right in that early time that everyone wants. It's real nice!
....

The King 2341 (any style) and the Miraphone 186 CC (or 188) should be the baseline instruments by which all other contrabass tubas are judged.

I wonder how few other models would be purchased if they were A/B'd against these.

Not to hijack the thread and certainly not disagreeing with you, but am I wrong in thinking that the 186 BBbs, across all generations, are a bit more consistent than the 186 CCs, across all generations?

[bort2.0]

...
King 2341 (old style) with detachable upright bell -- holy crap, this thing can play. Monster of a low range, jeez, where did that come from! I think it's top heavy to hold and simply just heavy, but a wonderful tuba.

Miraphone 186 BBb recording bell -- this one, too! Holy crap! Plays so nicely and the low range is just THERE! Get an upright bell on this thing! Serial number is 5xxx, which puts it right in that early time that everyone wants. It's real nice!
....

The King 2341 (any style) and the Miraphone 186 CC (or 188) should be the baseline instruments by which all other contrabass tubas are judged.

I wonder how few other models would be purchased if they were A/B'd against these.

So is this experience with the old 2341 and old 186 a pretty common occurrence? Maybe the ones that I've played before were leaky or unaligned or...? I've always found them to be "fine" but not overwhelming... But these two horns were both monsters, especially that 2341. I was shocked.

[matt g]

So is this experience with the old 2341 and old 186 a pretty common occurrence? Maybe the ones that I've played before were leaky or unaligned or...? I've always found them to be "fine" but not overwhelming... But these two horns were both monsters, especially that 2341. I was shocked.

A good low register on the King is pretty common. I also think they are pretty even across the range. The older, two-piece versions might have a bit more focused sound.

I don't know if the older 18s6s were known for a great low register. Nothing bad, but not as free-blowing as other horns, usually. Maybe the bell front makes a bit of a difference?

[bort2.0]

I guess the 186 recording bell is much bigger in diameter than the upright bell... But I'm not too convinced that changes the playability and most characteristics of the horn. Interesting question, though!

[cjk]

The King 2341 (any style) and the Miraphone 186 CC (or 188) should be the baseline instruments by which all other contrabass tubas are judged.

I wonder how few other models would be purchased if they were A/B'd against these.

So is this experience with the old 2341 and old 186 a pretty common occurrence? Maybe the ones that I've played before were leaky or unaligned or...? I've always found them to be "fine" but not overwhelming... But these two horns were both monsters, especially that 2341. I was shocked.

I've found the tall King 2341s to be pretty great every time I've gotten to play one. Well in tune, sounds nice. just works. I assume the newer ones are in the ballpark of as good.

I can't really talk about the consistency of Miraphones with any personal authority, but I'm sure that it's excellent. I just haven't played a lot of these across a wide span of time. When I have gotten to play one, I wonder why more people don't play them.

I did have the opportunity to take the Miraphone factory tour in 2007 and I was very impressed. I'm sure their manufacturing methods even 15 years ago resulted in a very consistent product.

[bort2.0]

Was doing a little L&H history research and found this... This is what the engraving looked like on the one I saw yesterday, except it was worn down and gold spray painted over... And this is obviously a drawing, and no bell ever looked this crisp and clear! The serial number gets stamped in the scroll underneath the building (which was at State and Monroe in Chicago). I can't help but think how stunning these old instruments must have looked when they were brand new.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... N1KylP-vC9

[York-aholic]

057E5D6E-1402-4B60-A9AA-49CC2EB9D195.jpeg (28.83 KiB) Viewed 1361 times

Hey Bort, what size would you classify that L & H tuba as? I’ve been very curious about it…

Small 4/4... I think it's like 32" tall and 16" bell. But the branches after the valve section get fat pretty quickly, and the bottom bow, top bow, and the next two in after that are really quite chunky. That's pretty cool.

@York-aholic thanks for the info! 3rd partial here was weird too, but with a leadpipe leak, I can hardly draw any conclusions. Did yours have a serial number on the bell, like around where the factory engraving was? This one was #299.

Mine is an interesting case. The serial number on the valve casings is 722 (which I believe is 1900). The serial number on the bell is "No. 3 772"

My suspicion is that the horn was made as 772, but for some reason either stayed at the factory or was returned. Then perhaps it was rebuilt, repaired, etc. and had the 3 added to the bell's serial number to fit when it went out the door (3772 would correlate to 1904). The 772 is evenly spaced, while the 3 is definitely spaced differently. My apologies for the tarnish.

[bort2.0]

Really interesting!

Yours isn't on this list, either (neither 772 nor 3 772). Strangely, this list was updated just recently with the Horn Stash L&H!
https://www.horn-u-copia.net/Docs/Lyon%20DB.html

I'm still really curious about the one I tried... But I'm back home now, and it wasn't repaired in time to try it before flying home. Normally I wouldn't mind about shipping, but that thin metal makes me so nervous. Plus the whole "not playing before buying" thing.

I haven't given up, hoping this doesn't fade into a "could have been" situation. If it had been in better shape or cheaper, I would have just bought it.

@Stryk, you have an L&H that Norm restored... Right? Can you tell us a little more about it?

[Stryk]

@Stryk, you have an L&H that Norm restored... Right? Can you tell us a little more about it?

It's a 1904 Own Make by L&H from the tuning slide through the bell, with the valve section and slides from a mid century King. It's a great horn. I don't use it as much as I should because it is HUGE!

[LargeTuba]

@Stryk, you have an L&H that Norm restored... Right? Can you tell us a little more about it?

It's a 1904 Own Make by L&H from the tuning slide through the bell, with the valve section and slides from a mid century King. It's a great horn. I don't use it as much as I should because it is HUGE!

Is it Bb or CC?

[Stryk]

Is it Bb or CC?

It's a C now, cut down from a BBb