Martin Medium sousaphone

[pjv]

Just recently I have purchased a 1950 Martin Medium sousaphone.
Unfortunately it was supplied with a Conn neck and bits.

I would like to replace this with a bettered suited neck and bits.

I do own a Bundy neck and bits, but it's smaller than the Martin receiver. I am not certain if this is always the case or because the neck receiver has been modified for the Conn neck. There obviously has been some solder work down there.

My questions being:
-Are Bundy neck & bits the same size as Martin neck and bits?
-Would the Bundy parts be as good a fix (playing wise) as ordering a neck and bits from Wilk (at least theoretically)?
-If indeed the Conn neck is larger than the Martin's, what would they have done to the receiver in order to allow it to accept a Conn neck?

Thanks for reading and (hopefully) responding.
PS I've added a picture of the connection to the valves showing NO solder work. My conclusion is that this part of the Martin is original.
Also 2 pictures of the receiver showing solder work.I assume the receiver has been expanded or replaced.

[Tubajug]

Looks like they replaced the neck receiver with a Conn one to fit the Conn neck. I have several Holton sousaphones at the school where I teach that have had that done to them.

[pjv]

So you are saying that the Conn receivers are indeed larger than those of a Martin and that I'd need to have a new receiver manufactured?

[Tubajug]

I've never seen or played a Martin sousaphone, so I don't know about the size of one versus the other. When I asked about my Holton sousaphones many years ago, the answer was that the Conn parts are simply easier to get, so people use them as replacements. That would be my guess as to what they did to the Martin you've got there.

[pjv]

Thanks.
Yes I’m aware that Conn parts are easier to get. They stopped producing Martin tuba’s around the 50’s I believe.
Thanks for your input.

[bloke]

I seem to recall (and I've been wrong PLENTY of times) that Conn necks slip into original Martin receivers...and yes, I'm pretty sure that your original receiver has been replaced with a Conn receiver, but - just the same - I believe I may (??) be correct.

A more "Martin-looking" neck could be made from some Conn and (aftermarket Olds/Reynolds upper mouthpipe ("gooseneck") parts...but the bits would be costly (as they are prized, and/or expensive to duplicate).

I would use a Conn set-up on a Martin (and have happily done so), but it's just fine for someone to want what they want, "because".


Below is a picture of an after-market Olds/Reynolds "gooseneck" (upper mouthpipe) which - to my eyes - is the most similar to Martin.
The same Wisconsin jobber sells the tapered tube ONLY as a separate part - part # A907



=====================================
odd (unrelated) knowledge:
Those goofy-angled Yamaha sousaphone necks are the same goofy angle (and actually FIT INTO) those ancient PRE-Selmer (1920's - 1930's, etc.) BUESCHER sousaphones/helicons, if-they/which sport original receivers.

[pjv]

Thanks for the response.

I’m not a Puritan so I could really care less if it’s a Martin neck or a Conn...assuming indeed that they are the same diameter on the big end.

It’s about how it plays. People seem to be adamant about the Martin neck&bits design (non tapered) playing very efficiently and in all honesty it's a good argument.

Which is why I started this up.

[pjv]

Ps the Martin neck & bits pictured above aren’t by chance for sale?

[bloke]

Ps the Martin neck & bits pictured above aren’t by chance for sale?

no...just a (difficult-to-find, btw) picture that I found on the web, so you'll know what you are look for.

bloke "who tries to not end sentences preposition-with"

=========================================

I understand/appreciate the craftsmanship required to completely duplicate Martin tuning bits, but an even more luxurious solution would be to start with a Conn male connector and custom-bend a mouthpipe (no bits, but the same length as an upper mouthpipe PLUS bits) to meet the face of the sousaphone's owner in their own particular-to-them playing position. That way there would NEITHER be any reverse-taper areas (such as with typical tuning bits), and NOR would their be an extended cylindrical area at the small end (such as occurs - atypically of tuba mouthpipes - with Martin tuning bits)...

...My personal goal would be to taper the bore of such a custom one-piece upper mouthpipe (at the mouthpiece receiver) down to c. .525" bore, but that's depending on individual tastes/preferences.

Other random info:
I'm not completely certain, but I'm thinking that it might be true that Martin bell connectors and Olds/Reynolds bell connectors were the same dimension (??)...so (if true...??) if you stumbled across one of those Olds (model O-98) or Reynolds (model 175) 5/4 detachable upright bells, you might be able to offer yourself the option of sometimes converting the Martin sousaphone to a "raincatcher".

[pjv]

Bloke
I live in Holland.
It always rains here. I’ll DROWN!

[Kirley]

I believe the Martin and Conn receivers are different sizes on the receiving end but the same or really close on the solder (valve cluster) side. I believe that is the reason (along with it being suggested in the Allied catalog) that you see Martins converted to Conns. I don’t think playing characteristics were even considered in this common conversion. It’s all about convenience/cost.

Congrats on the Martin! Enjoy it and let us know what you end up doing.

Bloke, have you ever done the sousaphone leadpipe thing that you’ve suggested? I’ve often wondered about it but haven’t pulled the trigger on paying my repair guy to go in on the project with me.

[bloke]

Bloke, have you ever done the sousaphone leadpipe thing that you’ve suggested? I’ve often wondered about it but haven’t pulled the trigger on paying my repair guy to go in on the project with me.

I did it on a couple of helicons, mostly to make up for the lost length, when they were converted from sousaphones.