TubaForum.net

About 6-7 weeks ago I purchased a Mirafone 188 "Anniversary Edition" from a guy on Facebook. I bought the horn relatively sight unseen. I offered the guy a fair price as soon as I saw the pics go up with him asking "what model horn is this?" and I promised to make the deal as easy as possible for him. The owner sent me dozens of pictures showing the condition, which I will call "rough". The next day he dropped off the horn with a tuba-playing acquaintance of mine that was local to him (45 minutes) who took a look at the horn and gave it the hairy eyeball, saying he wasn't comfortable with the amount of bell damage. The bell kranz was intact and the valve section was all nickel-silver and looked good save for one dent in the 5th valve slide. The horn was built in late 83 or early 84, Miraphone isn't sure which because their records from back then aren't very complete (their words, not mine). The horn had been sitting in its Mirafone "leatherette" bag for 20+ years. The bag was disintegrating inside and garbage. The "vintage" of the horn checked out for me and two key areas of the horn where physically okay, so I rolled the dice and sent the guy his money - "fortune favors the stupid" was my motto. I knew I was slightly overpaying if the horn sucked but felt like this was worth a bit off a dice roll.

I was able to get the horn to a music shop that I trusted to handle the packing and shipping across the country to Northern VA. The horn arrived exactly as it left CA as and well packed. I played it for 3 minutes and put it away because the smell was *awful* - but the sound was right. I knew enough to go forward with Plan A. I made arrangements to get the horn to a local technician whom I trust and does excellent work at reasonable rates (although speed is not his forte). The plan was to a) clean it; b) de-dent it anywhere it could done without disassembly; c) rebuild the existing valves so everything worked as it should.

My tech said it was one of the nastiest insides he's ever seen, the plumes just kept coming and coming during the ultrasonic cleaning. He's super meticulous and got out the horn straightened out over the course of a few weeks. I picked it up yesterday and spent 10 minutes playing it to check the tuning and the overall feel of the horn. Both checked out, so off I went to a rehearsal.

One of the groups I play with is doing two fireworks concerts this weekend at Mount Vernon and was having an outdoor rehearsal last night, but thunderstorms moved us inside. We're also doing about 25 players instead of the normal 45, for a variety of reasons that are all COVID related.

Now, I haven't played a rotary tuba in anything other than an elephant room for 25 years, but, man I had forgotten how *easy* a 188 is to play. The throw of the valve paddles is shorter than my pistons. Everything was just there - unless it involved 5th valve, which will take some work to re-learn. Intonation was right there. I tested 3 mouthpieces - my Deck 3, which was my go to on my prior 188 and still works very well; a Marcinkiewicz N2 at the suggestion of Norm Pearson as that is what he used on his 188; and my JK Daniel Ridder model (which is one of the largest mouthpieces I own). The N2 lit up the horn so that it felt like the sound was almost sparking (in a good way). It made the "Happy Tuba" sound. The Deck was solid and dark. The Ridder surprised me how well it worked and was my favorite of the three *last night* - comfortable, open, and slotted very well.

My other axe is a Wessex Chicago Presence, which has a bit more clarity to its sound than its 6/4 cousins but is still a BAT. The 188 felt like a great counter-balance for that kind of sound. The two horns feel quite different, especially low. I've always preferred horns where the low range is just wide-open and you can dump air as fast as you want - this 188 is NOT that way. The low range required more discipline with my embouchure and air to produce the sound I wanted to make. It reminded me I had to do things "correctly".

I've said for a long time I should never have sold my first 188, and I just got a great reminder why that is the case. Super fun to play, point and click intonation, wonderful sound. It does NOT sound like a 6/4 BAT - opposite end of the spectrum in many ways, and that's not a bad thing. There's a time and place for everything. This was good reminder for me why so many guys in L.A. had these and used them for as many recordings as they did. They just sound "right".

All this being said, I'm not 100% convinced this is *the* 188 I want to keep for the rest of my life. I need to see how I feel about the gold brass sound, over time, because it is new to me as a player. And whatever 188 I keep, this long 5th valve is getting cut / replaced with a flat whole step. My tech thinks it's very plausible to cut and reshape much of the existing slide, but I'm leaning towards getting the parts from Miraphone and going that route. I could see myself keeping this horn though, updating the valve linkage, maybe even re-lacquering it one day, but both those projects would be acts of love and not necessity.

I have a good set of "before" pictures I will post, but I need to get decent "beauty" shots of the "after" product.

Congratulations, Rob. That's a wonderful and uncommon tuba you have there, and I'm really happy to hear that your first impressions have been so positive!

I owned one of these for a few years, probably 2011 to 2014. I loved that tuba, and if the current owner ever wants to sell it back to me, it's a done deal.

A few things to mention about my own experience:
* Your "easy to play" thoughts are right on. It's a splendid tuba. It's not the #1 best at anything. But it's top-tier for everything.
* Give thanks to that nickel silver valve section -- the YUCK condition inside of there could have been a major corrosion problem if it was brass. Nickel silver resists the corrosion much, much better.
* I sold my 188 because I found that it was too much work as the only tuba in large bands (a very common occurrence for me at the time). My desired output from the horn was probably about 90% or more of what the tuba wanted to do. Constantly pushing it that much, that often... it's tiring.
* ^ I also found that the 188 really shined when playing alongside a strong bass trombone player (maybe that's most tubas in general, though!). Nothing worse than playing next to a small where-are-you bass trombone. Except for perhaps an enormongus bass trombone that is out of control loud and splatty.
* In orchestra, the type of "big playing" is far less, and even when it's there, it takes much less to bury the strings and balance the couple of other brass players. For orchestra, I absolutely love the 188.
* If I could have owned more than one tuba -- like you have now -- I would most definitely have kept the 188.
* Gold brass vs yellow brass... meh. A little difference in mellowness, but can be mitigated or exacerbated by mouthpiece selection as much as anything else.
* Give the long 5th valve a chance! Personally, I think it makes the low range more accessible, but then again, I learned to play CC tuba with a long fifth valve like that. On the flip side, shorter fifth valves are less tubing, and potentially a little more resonance to the tuba.
* The low range on mine POPPED. I hope it's just a bit of acclimation needed coming from the Wessex BAT to this, because a good 188 low range is very satisfying!
* I have a photo somewhere of Swiss-owned Anniversary Model 188 that had its long fifth valve converted to a flat whole step.
* I really liked the RT-88 on my 188. It's super wide, but was a big sound and very clear.

Congratulations, Rob!

Congrats! 188s are really great tubas.

I liked the 2-3 combo fifth because it made low F leap out of the horn 5-2-3 while also being able to be played very softly. I do understand the change to the flat whole step (both of my horns are that way now).

matt g wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:23 am Congrats! 188s are really great tubas.

I liked the 2-3 combo fifth because it made low F leap out of the horn 5-2-3 while also being able to be played very softly. I do understand the change to the flat whole step (both of my horns are that way now).

It would be more about uniformity across instruments and not challenging my ape-brain too much while playing. The 2-3 combo itself has some pluses and minuses but at the end of the day it's just "different", which is what I'd be trying to avoid.

Can you post pics? It sounded like a train wreck. I'm curious to see what it looks like now.

Those are really great tubas.

I bought (new) the WORST ONE that I have ever played (mid-80's...gold brass)...and - even though "the worst" - it was still "very good".

They deceive the player (as if "not enough sound") until someone hears themselves on a recording in an ensemble...PLENTY of sound.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:45 am They deceive the player (as if "not enough sound") until someone hears themselves on a recording in an ensemble...PLENTY of sound.

I represent that remark!

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:45 am Those are really great tubas.

I bought (new) the WORST ONE that I have ever played (mid-80's...gold brass)...and - even though "the worst" - it was still "very good".

They deceive the player (as if "not enough sound") until someone hears themselves on a recording in an ensemble...PLENTY of sound.

They do create plenty of sound and they have a way of finding a microphone IMO. It's a different kind of sound for sure, a great contrast to my Wessex or any other 6/4 York-style instrument. Not better or worse, but different.

I forgot to mention this: the ergonomics of the 188 are spot on - I've been struggling with my right thumb recently and last night was the first time in a few weeks I didn't walk out of rehearsal in more pain than I walked in with.

Before pictures, in no particular order:

If you ever pass near Memphis on I-55, I-40, or I-22, stick it in the car.
If that's the current condition, I'd be delighted to slick it out for you in just a few minutes for $XX (not $XXX).

That's a handsome instrument.

That bell is in great shape. A half hour with a Fast Eddie and you're good. The horn is in great shape, overall. Now that it is unstankified and the mechanicals are in good shape I would say you have a great tuba. If you decide the gold brass floats your boat then some careful dent work and a more careful going over would be worth every penny. Keep the 23 5th. You will grow to really like it. As with an F tuba, you have to keep fingering sets clear in your head when you swap horns. This is the same, however, physically holding a 188 rotary valved tuba is different enough from the piston BAT that you ought to have no issues at all if you are not sightreading really low stuff in front of others. Even if you are, you won't screw the pooch all that much to merit such surgery to what is arguably a superior 5th valve arrangement.

Who knows? I am looking seriously at converting all my CC tubas to this system. I like it that much more, but like you, do not want to putz around between two systems. (I am a dyslexic, so this is an actual issue for me.) I purposely set up my 5th valve layout on my Holton so that I would be able later to make another removable 5th valve section that was built to the descending major third interval. I have the parts needed to do so with my 186. I am strongly considering this. So again, I would ask you to hold off on that surgery until you are absolutely sure. It is pretty invasive and not inexpensive work.

Good luck. I envy you this tuba. I hope the GB works out. For me the yellow brass (plated or lacquered) worked much better for me in the low register. The GB does not have the projection or clarity in a big group if the horn is all GB, in my experience. But some people *love* GB tubas. To each his own. I hope this horn works out for you. If not, and you sell it, look me up and see if I am in my normal state of being flat broke or if I am looking for a horn. If I have enough money I would buy this horn without testing it, no questions asked. I am sure others here would, too.

re: Record-ability

Yeah, the 188 has something about it that allows it to leap over the ensemble. I heard a lot of recordings of myself back in college, and the horn never failed to find the tape when needed.

There’s a recording of Saint-Saëns No.3 where I was a present as the organ in a room that had an excellent organ and accomplished player at the helm. That was pretty cool.

My 188 was more “well loved” than this one. What a great horn it was. Mine was late 70s or early 80s vintage.

I played mine with a Bach 7. Dunno why, but that mouthpiece locked in and made it just light up. Good times.

I remember seeing that horn on facebook.

Sure is pretty!

I enjoyed my 188 and I also used a Deck 3F with mine. It did just about everything I needed it to until I decided to go a different direction. I'd like to find it just to play it once more.

Good luck with yours.

A thought about the 188:

If the wrap of the bows and branches were more open and took up more space, would people still classify this horn as a 4/4 or 4+/4?

I always felt that it was pretty close in volume to the 2155 and it’s derivatives.

Related: the ability of Miraphone to wrap that bugle up so compactly and ergonomically is an art in and of itself.

matt g wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:28 am A thought about the 188:

If the wrap of the bows and branches were more open and took up more space, would people still classify this horn as a 4/4 or 4+/4?

I always felt that it was pretty close in volume to the 2155 and it’s derivatives.

Related: the ability of Miraphone to wrap that bugle up so compactly and ergonomically is an art in and of itself.

Realistically, the 2155 is a 4/4 tuba. IMHO, the only place it's "5/4" is in marketing materials.

cjk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:36 am

matt g wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:28 am A thought about the 188:

If the wrap of the bows and branches were more open and took up more space, would people still classify this horn as a 4/4 or 4+/4?

I always felt that it was pretty close in volume to the 2155 and it’s derivatives.

Related: the ability of Miraphone to wrap that bugle up so compactly and ergonomically is an art in and of itself.

Realistically, the 2155 is a 4/4 tuba. IMHO, the only place it's "5/4" is in marketing materials.

then what do you call the 2145? It's clearly a 4/4 horn, but smaller than the 2155

The compact wrap is one of my favorite physical things a our the 188...compact wrap and a shirt upper bow make that a VERY comfortable tuba to hold. Zero effort required, great balance and ergonomics. Such a nice tuba...

I just now noticed that all of the valve circuits, including the crooks, are nickel silver. Not only is that attractive, it also makes the crooks that much more durable (I only pulled 1st but the brass was thin…), corrosion resistant, but also more difficult to work/bend. That’s pretty cool for sure.

matt g wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:14 am I just now noticed that all of the valve circuits, including the crooks, are nickel silver. Not only is that attractive, it also makes the crooks that much more durable (I only pulled 1st but the brass was thin…), corrosion resistant, but also more difficult to work/bend. That’s pretty cool for sure.

Leadpipe through the end of the MTS including the valve casings. I had asked Kari Theinert about my tuba long ago, and was told that 1) the nickel silver should.pretty much last forever, and 2) this configuration can be requested on any tuba, and would only cost a few hundred more.