Miraphone 186 vs 86

[Fleuph]

Hello everyone,

being new to this forum and relatively new to being a tuba player, I have a question which I hope has not already been discussed in another thread (at least I could't find an answer to my question).

I am currently looking for a new tuba and found a used Miraphone 186 which looks pretty good to me. I knwo the 86 and had a chance to test it a few weeks ago, and I generally liked it very much. I am very fond of Miraphone instruments and have been playing a Miraphone euphonium for twelve years now. So I am highly interested in this specific horn. I cannot find any new 186 as comparison, it seems the series is no longer manufactured. It seems to me that the 86 is very similar (by the looks of it) to the 186. Can anyone enlighten me in this regard? Ist the 186 the predecessor of the 86 series?

Thank you very much in advance!

[LeMark]

I'm confused, what do you mean by the 86?

[jtm]

I'm confused, what do you mean by the 86?

The miraphone.de website uses the names "84" .. "88" for the models that are called 184 .. 188 when you buy them in the U.S., right?

[Fleuph]

Yeah me too, I'm confused.

Well over here in Germany you get a model called Miraphone 86. Is it allowed to post links to dealers websites? Anyway...for example: https://www.thomann.de/de/miraphone_86a ... b_tuba.htm

And even on Miraphones homepage it's listed as 86: https://www.miraphone.de/instrumente/tu ... uning=5949

Hornguys however has it listed as model 186, but not as model 86: https://www.hornguys.com/collections/bb ... bbb-tuba-1

So maybe it is just the same model but has different labels for it depending on the sales region? Would that be possible?

[bort2.0]

Yeah me too, I'm confused.

Well over here in Germany you get a model called Miraphone 86. Is it allowed to post links to dealers websites? Anyway...for example: https://www.thomann.de/de/miraphone_86a ... b_tuba.htm

And even on Miraphones homepage it's listed as 86: https://www.miraphone.de/instrumente/tu ... uning=5949

Hornguys however has it listed as model 186, but not as model 86: https://www.hornguys.com/collections/bb ... bbb-tuba-1

So maybe it is just the same model but has different labels for it depending on the sales region? Would that be possible?

I think it's just tuba model number slang. :)

Actually, they both are... because the actual model number (catalog number?) for Miraphone is much longer, like this:

170086A07000500

I think @the elephant understands the code numbering system for Miraphones... but I think that if you see a Miraphone 86 and 186, they're just the same thing.

There is a Melton/Meinl Weston 86, however, which is a smaller student-level tuba.

[the elephant]

186 is what they have always been sold as here in the US. It is actually the model 86 if you order from Miraphone directly. It is like HB2-P swapped in by Fred Marrich for whatever the actual HB model number was. Most tubas from Europe seem to get a different model number in the US market. I think this is extremely stupid and may have been intentional obfuscation by importers who had exclusive deals. Regardless of the reason, it is a stupid, confusing practice that I wish would end.

[LeMark]

I think it's exactly the same horn

By the way, as discussed in another thread, When cerveny craftsmen fled the iron curtain, the settled in West Germany and started Miraphone, using the template of the most popular tuba in Cerveny's lineup, the model 68. Reversed the numbers and the 86 was born

[Stryk]

Unless it is like the old 186S - the same horn with no kranz or nickle silver slides, and no engraving. Much cheaper, just no frills. Not sure if they still make anything like that or not.

[bloke]

I believe that putting a 1 in front of the various model numbers was probably the idea of Miraphone’s past exclusive US importers, who also bastardized the brand name itself.

The thing is… the company itself now puts a 2 in front of some of the more recent model numbers, and a 4 in front of some other even more recent model numbers.

[Rick Denney]

I thought there was a trademark issue with Miraphone, which was why they changed it to Mirafone for some years.

(Nope: the word “Mirafone” was the confused trademark—a phone for the hearing-impaired had the same name. So I was remembering wrong.)

I think the 2-digit number was always the number for the basic line of instruments that Miraphone has made from the beginning. They have added digits for newer models, it would seem, but the added “1” was for the US versions, which may have differed only in the spelling of the name.

The old “S” model meant for students, and it had no nickel-silver and less decoration, for really not that much less money. I think that was also a price-point strategy for the US market.

Rick “wondering whatever happened to Jim Gavigan, who would know all this stuff” Denney

[Fleuph]

Unless it is like the old 186S - the same horn with no kranz or nickle silver slides, and no engraving. Much cheaper, just no frills. Not sure if they still make anything like that or not.

Yeah this model has no Kranz, so maybe it is indeed a 186S.

[Fleuph]

This is the tuba by the way. I think it looks to be in great condition...

[bloke]

The tubas have subtly changed over the years.
Regardless of whether a model 84, 85, 86, or 90 (the “old standby” models which - though far more 86s have always been sold them any of the others - are all around to this day), they have been made with
- brass slide tubing, then later nickel brass slide tubing (with occasional retreats back to brass slide tubing, with budget-marketed or one-off models)
- very titanic linkage assemblies with huge springs, then delicate ones with lighter springs
- a dabbling into budget versions of the most popular (86) models, and possibly even a few of the 84s.
- mostly handmade and later more machine-made (with the disappearance of “this is a special one“ being replaced with “all of them are good”)
- bell rim diameter inflation
- I’m not quite sure when they changed their bell manufacturing from a V-insert to “a chimney with a lid”, but at some point - perhaps around 1970 or so - that happened.

Just as with other manufacturers, one-off/a-few-off variances are occasionally encountered. (This is usually brought forth by individual stores marketing their special versions, or could - ?? - even be individual stores purposely altering specs, so that no one could bid against them when selling to school systems in buddy-buddy situations.)
As an example, I encountered (bought/sold) a gold brass bell (only) 86 B-flat (featuring some sort of special model name) with oddball linkage arms (probably the length routinely used on one of the smaller models) which were shorter than standard.

The real German company’s name has always been Miraphone.

I like Miraphone a whole-WHOLE lot, but the company has always (subtly, in the background) seemed to nurse the mentality that “bigger is always better”, and perhaps - occasionally - to its own design detriment (but indelicate tuba players drive this, yes?, and the same with other manufacturers). They even make a point of advertising their bore sizes as being a fifth of a millimeter larger than their competitors’ bore sizes.

[the elephant]

Miraphone advertises the bore of the 86, 87, and 88 tubas as being "19.6 mm/.772", but when you order parts from them they are clearly marked as being 19.54mm/.769". Apparently their sales team — for the purpose of advertising — rounds up anything past a zero. The 86 tuba has always had a bore of .769" and currently has a bore of .769" no matter what the slick ad copy says.

These guys are Germans, and therefore like precision in numbers, so the bore size of any of their drawn tubing is measured down to hundredths of a millimeter — and very accurately, I might add. They *know* it is .769" or 19.54 mm and that matters to them, but for selling tubas, WE respond to tiny changes in bore numbers and pretty much always have since the 1970s (when, anecdotally, I am told that "bore" started to become a selling point).

So if the customer responds to these numbers, why not massage them? All they are doing is rounding up anything above zero. So, normally, 19.54 becomes 19.5, but for sales literature, 19.54 becomes 19.6, which converts to 0.7716535" which in turn gets rounded up AGAIN to .772".

It is all advertising. Sixty-year-old valves from a 186 will fit on a brand new one, and a brand new valve will fit just fine on an old tuba. They advertised a .769" bore all through the 1970s and 1980s, and then seemed to suffer from "bore envy" <ahem> and the number was pushed up to .770" and is now officially .772" yet the actual parts have not changed. This is simply lying to sell more horns and is an attempt to keep up with all the other overt liars who build and then have to *sell* tubas. ("Bore envy"… heh, heh, heh…)

Was it Gronitz or Willson who was busted for measuring bore (an internal measurement) using the outside of the outer slide tube, making the horn look on paper like it was a real monster? I think it was Willson who did this, and when questioned about it acted confused as to what "Bohrung" means in their German language spec sheets. You do not list the ID of a pipe using its OD number. Shame, shame…

[bloke]

I am broadening the topic slightly for this one post:

I believe that when manufacturers of all types of orchestral instruments have altered/replaced their models in my lifetime - as nearly all of them with all types of instruments have tended to make instruments larger, They have either sought out the advice of locally convenient to them professionals, salesman, or amazing players - who can play just about anything.
For the most part, I believe that the “average” (from one make to the next) versions of modern-day orchestral instruments have suffered from these types of strategies…oh yeah: and saxophones as well.

As the masses (in my lifetime) have mostly clustered towards “very loud“ music, professional orchestral instruments have also been altered in favor of being able to produce very loud sounds, to the detriment of them being able to easily produce very beautiful sounds.

bloke “reminding others that Elvis Presley‘s backup band original featured an unamplified upright bass“

[matt g]

A couple of interesting points:

Dallenbach had a hand in consulting with the Getzen CB-50 absolutely and possibly the YCB-621 and YCB-822. The Getzen is a pretty solid horn design-wise from all accounts, but never gained a lot of popularity. “The bore is so small!” when compared to all the 3/4” bore tubas being made at the time.

The Harvey Phillips Holton model never really sold at all. It also seemed like a solid compact tuba to cover most needs, but couldn’t compete.

It makes one think that numbers marketing is pretty strong, since numbers are objective and can’t be fudged with fluffy words.

Which then makes me wonder about stuff like open bid tuba purchasing. Does something like a slightly bigger bell or bore give a manufacturer an edge in bids? Or at least getting into the bid spec? The bulk of tubas bought and sold in the USA is possibly not being done by tuba players.

[bloke]

OK...
Obviously the topic is no longer (at least not for a couple of posts) "Miraphone 186 vs 86"

<SIDEBAR: 11/16" / .687" / .689" / 17.5mm bore tubas which have been offered forth>

The Getzen (York/Holton 4/4 shape/size with a King valveset) is a good factory-cut-to-C tuba, but my personal (and very recent) experience is that it would have been better not "cut" from B-flat.

The "Phillips" model was offered both in B-flat and C. The B-flat version was actually more viable (as the C version is not easily capable of playing a "low F", and - cut to C - the intonation became somewhat skewed. Actually, the "Phillips" B-flat is just about the same thing that Holton made - on and off - from the 1920's to the 1960's...including even the .665" bore size.)

I believe both of these (discussed above) - then - suffered from the "C tuba for kolij" syndrome.

The Yamaha 621 C tuba is the least popular - as well as lowest resale value model - of the 621 series, and (I believe) for a reason.
(I bought a perfect-condition silver one w/case - only a few years after they were first introduced - for only $2000, and subsequently sold it - after using it on only one gig...too many intonation quirks / lack of an easily-accessible low F. Many years later, I bought a beautiful lacquered one - to flip - for $1800, and had to accept only $2100...no other offers.)
The fact that a prominent player has played any particular model (on and off) for decades, does not auto-define a model as "great".

The 4/4 Yamaha 822 C (at least, in my view) is - simply - a flop, and doesn't fit into the same category (bore size-wise) as the other models discussed here. Others will obviously disagree with my opinion of this model.

My view (extremely in the minority, so-as probably to be labeled as "fringe/kook") is that the Getzen-size (aka York/Holton 4/4-size) instrument (were it a B-flat instrument) would/could have been a smashing success EXCEPT FOR (again) the "C tuba for kolij" syndrome (chopping down a remarkably in-tune B-flat "bugle" to C for marketing purposes).

The Eastman C thing (with the same bore as those listed above) is pretty darn good (really: quite good ), but it's more like a cut-down King, which is just enough larger than the York/Holton 4/4 size that it doesn't offer quite the "presence" of the York/Holton 4/4 size bugle/bell taper.
===============================================

Of everything mentioned, I believe the Getzen thing (were it a B-flat tuba) would have - hands-down - been the best of the bunch.

</SIDEBAR: 11/16" / .687" / .689" / 17.5mm bore tubas which have been offered forth>