TubaForum.net

fine. I don't try to talk people out of it, because I never have to personally deal with it (other than when a person screws up their instrument, but (still) I'm only obligated to do the very best that I can, and (still) it's not my instrument, and (once I've done my very best) I'm not the one who must live with it.

...but - knowing these things (ie. rhetoric below) - would anyone care to attempt to talk ME into choosing silver plated instruments?

- Unless an instrument is quite old, the thickness of the silver bonded over the base metal is seldom more than 1/2000th of an inch thick. I can machine-polish it away in about 1 second or wear it away in a few years of use (hand contact points). Back when silver was cheap, it was sometimes (not always) added to remarkably generous proportions (but not necessarily because the manufacturer cared a whit about "finish durability"). I actually encountered an old H.N. White sousaphone bell that - once I FINALLY managed to buff away all of the (satin finished, fwiw) silver (which was TREMENDOUSLY thick), I discovered that they plated it thick as a work-saving strategy. The base metal brass was rough (never sanded nor buffed), and they obviously plated the rough brass enough to end up with a smooth enough surface, and then (rather than sandblasting the base metal) they sandblasted the silver plating...ok: "clad" silver). I encountered an EARLY satin silver Holton 340 (overly heavy)...same strategy as H.N. White...crazy-thick silver.

- As far as sonic characteristics are concerned (with most all of us agreeing that the shape of the air column overwhelmingly controls the non-human-input aspects of wind instrument sounds), am I to believe that 1/45th (usually less) of the thickness of some non-ferrous sheet metal is going to significantly affect sonic characteristics?

- MORE trombonists than not (who genuinely seem to have compared them) claim that they prefer brass (King 2/3/4/5 and bass) bells over (solid) silver. Curiously (my own observation) King (solid) silver bells sometimes sport an "after-ring" (a non-musical/non-human-controlled sound), vs. the brass ones which (so far, in my experience) never do.

- Without regular polishing (which always takes away part of the thin silver coating - whether abrasively or chemically) my instrument is typically going to look shiny/smeary, gray, or black...correct? If I'm to keep it mirror-shiny, how much time (out of a week/month/year) does this require?

- What's with that sulfurous odor?

- On a website, Renold Schilke is quoted as claiming that the lacquer on an instrument is typically .007" (remarkably) thick, which defines bell lacquer thickness as .014" total (inside plus outside). It's might be noted that - during his lifetime - the only lacquer-finish instruments that I encountered from his shop were old worn ones - whereby someone seemed to have hand-polished away the remaining silver and lacquered them in some overhaul shop. As this person obviously eschewed lacquering their manufactured instruments, should I automatically trust them as an expert? 3 mil thick trash bags are marketed as durable. I've stripped exoxy lacquer (MANY times), which tends to fall away somewhat intact (as pieces of "sheet"). I've personally never found any that was anywhere near as thick as a 3 mil thick trash bag. Additionally (out of curiosity) I've measured bell thicknesses before and after stripping (both) nitrocellulose and epoxy lacquer...The before/after difference is typically negligible...not much more than silver plating...possibly 1 mil (sometimes up to a 2 mil difference in bell thickness). I've also measured the scraps of stripped epoxy lacquer (remarkably thin), but I can't say that the stripper did not dissolve part of the sheet epoxy lacquer.

- When damaged (most anyone reading this who plays a brass instrument has bumped it against something at least a few times), lacquer-sprayed instruments are much easier to repair (with less harm to the finish) and lacquer can be partially redone, whereas - if someone attempts to partially redo silver plating - it's typically a "ghost"-thickness coating/coloring, whereby to properly redo silver plating requires redoing the entire instrument.

- WOULD I GO AHEAD AND BUY A SILVER PLATED INSTRUMENT, WERE IT THAT IT PLAYED CRAZY-WELL AND IT WAS SOME ELUSIVE MAKE/MODEL (AND AT SOME AMAZING LOW PRICE) THAT I'D BEEN SEEKING FOR YEARS...??
...You bet I would. (but it would be dark gray most of the time ...yeah...until I decided to advertise it for sale)

Finally, Mr. Donn always likes to offer counterpoints, which make me smile.

Sterling silver - which is what King uses on their SilverSonic trombones - is a very different beast from plated silver. Sterling is solid sheet silver, where there are some other elements in the mix, not 100% pure. On the King SS trombones, the sterling bell is heavier than the brass bell. I'm not sure if that's due to actual thickness or just density.

I spent some time looking into it, and silver has a crazy range of hardness due to heat treat or work hardening and/or alloying materials. And that really affects the playing characteristics. So you really can't be too general about how silver affects sound unless you've done a hardness test on your instrument.

The SilverSonic instruments have a definite playing difference when compared to brass. Some of the sterling instruments in turn have lacquer over the silver to reduce the need for polishing. And then "nickel silver" which is really just brass with a lot of nickel in it, is also a lot harder than typical brass.

I typically stay away from silver plated instruments. In trombones, they are usually older horns, like from the 1920s. I did own on very special silver plated 79h, which was perfect and glorious. I sold it because I was afraid of denting it. Bought an old beater that plays great. I don't like what raw silver does to my hands or my white shirts. Most of my trombones are well on their way to being delacquered through age and use, kind of like their owner. A lot of trombone grips are either nickel or chrome plated or use nickel silver which isn't as bad on your hands and laundry, but chrome grips can be slippery.

I loved my sterling silver bell in my Adams Euph. It never tarnished at all. Never touched it with a polish in the 2 years I owned it. Not sure why.

My silver plated instruments and mouthpieces will tarnish even if you don't touch them, but it helps to keep them in a case or bag


I don't think I would ever buy a silver plated tuba. Or compensating Euph. (again) . Too much work to keep them looking decent

LeMark wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:22 pm I loved my sterling silver bell in my Adams Euph. It never tarnished at all. Never touched it with a polish in the 2 years I owned it. Not sure why.

My silver plated instruments and mouthpieces will tarnish even if you don't touch them, but it helps to keep them in a case or bag


I don't think I would ever buy a silver plated tuba. Or compensating Euph. (again) . Too much work to keep them looking decent

<thank>

You probably never asked the manufacturer, but - typically - solid silver parts on brass instruments (per Bach, King...unless special ordered otherwise) feature lacquer over SOLID silver - just as with the brass and nickel brass portions of the instruments...
...This may well explain why your bell never tarnished.

Silver plated mouthpieces are a good idea, easy to clean (small) and avoid players having green stains around their lips.
"poisoning"...?? Well...Everything is poisonous, if enough is administered. ex: After drinking as few as 4 litres of water in only a few hours, humans can experience headache, cramping, spasms, and muscle weakness.

Yeah about that...

The satin part of it I thought was lacquered (or more likely epoxy) , but the inside the bell shiny part never looked like it had anything over the silver, so if it did, it was a masterful job

Did I hear somewhere that lacquer over silver will NOT stop it from tarnishing? If thats not the case, then why isn't lacquer over silver more common? Or even epoxy?

Epoxy lacquer over silver is a good air seal, and the silver will stay shiny.

Nitrocellulose (over either silver or copper-based alloys) is not particularly air-tight.

I have noticed that (both/all types of) lacquers seem (??) to bond to copper-based alloys better than they do to silver.

--------------------------

King solid-silver bell trombones with factory lacquer:

I've seen little "pockmark" lacquer failures and even complete defined areas where the lacquer failed...
...and sure: King "Super 20" saxophones (those with solid silver bells/necks...and the similarly-outfitted trumpets/cornets) as well.

King brass bell trombones with factory lacquer:

...noticeably less of this, even though these instruments are far more common.

ALSO...The King factory lacquer (vintage) seem/s/ed to also fail over the gold-PLATED bell interiors.

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

Your previously-owned solid-silver bell interior:

yes, factories are capable of flawless lacquer jobs, these days...Look at most all Miraphone bell interiors...particularly those made in the last three decades or so. Even the lacquer on my gigantic 98 bell (same size as Holton 345) was applied flawlessly.

I’m kind of into the raw-brass/DARK patina look, these days.

Any finish is going to look bad with general use/damage/repairs, but man, I agree, silver is a PITA.

Raw brass makes my hands smell weird. But as I get into modifying my stuff to work for me, the more I appreciate raw brass.

My F tuba (still finishing up) has some worn-through-the-plating parts that just don’t look good. You can’t cover it up, because it will get worse. You can’t leave it with sweat, because it will get worse.

Now that it’s been resoldered practically everywhere, it will look worse. I know my guy has done an absolute bang-up job getting it back together with as minimal scarring as possible, but it will now look battle-hardened, I’m sure.

When I was young and dumb, about 20 years ago or so, I was buying a Besson 983 from Dillons. They had four of them at the time, two silver, and two lacquer. I tried them all, and decided on one of the silver ones. I thought it played well, and was totally buying with my eyes. Matt Walters looked at me like I had two heads, sat down and played the silver one I wanted, and the better of the two lacquer ones while I listened. I said, "Oh," and walked out with the lacquer horn, which I still have.

Since then, I've thought many times about the bullet I dodged...not only because I got the superior horn, but because of what a royal pain in the rear maintaining the silver would be.

@bone-a-phone
I suspect you surmise that I understand the difference between solid silver and silver plating, even though the solid silver bells are usually coin silver and only 90%. That having been said, either surface is silver and the subtopic was how well lacquer bonds to silver, and it wouldn't matter whether it was plating or solid metal as far as the bond is concerned.

Most of the older silver bells that I have encountered do feel front heavy on the trombones. Thickness affects that... but yes, coin silver is about 1/4 heavier than typical brass alloys.

As far as sonic characteristics, I much more buy into interior shape overwhelmingly affecting that. I believe we tend to hear with our hands and our eyes. I did mention previously about some of the King trombone silver bells having an after ring. They ~are~ heavier than the brass bells. I've also noticed that some of the heavier/thicker sousaphone bells are the ones that offer an after ring.

Just to be clear, I intended the main topic to be the nuisance of cleaning up tarnish on silver plated instruments versus the carefree characteristic of lacquered instruments. Tonight, I was getting ready to walk on stage and I noticed some dust on the interior of my lacquered euphonium bell. I pulled my handkerchief out of my pocket and wiped it off.

Interesting discussion but I'm going to ask the question again...


Does any maker offer a silver instrument with a epoxy coat for protection? Seems like that would be the best of both worlds

I was trying to explain that King lacquers their solid silver bells and it doesn't seem to bond as well as it does to brass, but explaining that seemed to distract people into thinking about solid silver rather than thinking about lacquering a silver surface - regardless of whether it is solid or plating.

I remember decades ago discovering that American flute manufacturers put a super thin coating of clear lacquer on their student silver plated flutes. I mean super thin, and this kept them shiny until they were sold. It was probably a mixture of 9 to 1 thinner versus lacquer or maybe even 9 to 1.

Anyway, I'm trying to tell you that in my experience lacquers don't seem to bond to silver as well as they do to brass. Interestingly, there were some instruments made in the past that featured nickel plating with epoxy lacquer over the nickel plating. Those were the Conn Connstellation trumpets and trombones as well as the competing King Tempo model trombones. Even though nickel plating is slicker than silver plating, lacquer seemed the bond to that nickel plating better than it bonds to silver. I have a Conn Connstellation trumpet here with original lacquer on it.

Lacquer serves as a protective coating, and plating serves as a protective coating. The Tempo and Connstellation instruments are the only ones I know of that feature two coatings. Even were it still relatively cheap as it was in the past, I wouldn't be the least bit interested in silver plating a tuba and then spraying lacquer on top of it, and not even epoxy lacquer.

My main instruments have always been, band owned, silver plated (Besson and Willson) instruments. I have never had any issues with silver plated and the last time I spent time polishing is probably a year ago. Yes, they can be more shiny, but I find worn/cracked lacquer a lot more ugly then slightly tarnished silver plate

A while ago my Besson 994 needed a repair, cracked solder joint between a branch an the bell. I was discussing the repair, and the possibility of damage to the silver, with the guy responsible for the instruments in the band and he mentioned that the repair shop preferred silver plated as it was easier to spot repair? Quite the opposite of what I hear around here. Maybe it is because the majority of brass instruments and around here are silver plated and the shops have invested in equipment/more experience with silver?

bloke wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 9:30 pm Just to be clear, I intended the main topic to be the nuisance of cleaning up tarnish on silver plated instruments versus the carefree characteristic of lacquered instruments. Tonight, I was getting ready to walk on stage and I noticed some dust on the interior of my lacquered euphonium bell. I pulled my handkerchief out of my pocket and wiped it off.

I’m glad that Bloke’s (and my) finishes hold up better now. Back in the days before epoxy lacquers, manufacturers made a point of telling you not to expect durability from your finish. Conn instruments came with a card that quoted the National Association of Band Instrument Manufacturers stating, "Lacquer is only a temporary finish and should be sold as such.” I particularly like the card Olds used to put in the case, especially the last paragraph.

Early on, Conn was one of the first to use epoxy lacquer, and their 1960s Elkhart instruments are mostly still shiny today unless they were dented and straightened out a whole bunch or otherwise externally abused.

The most highly paid men in the shop have traditionally been the polishing men, and of course they didn't want to guarantee their lacquer, and they shouldn't be expected to.

I believe a good analogy to lacquering a brass instrument would be painting a car. I also view a good analogy to silver plating a brass instrument being sticking contact paper on the sides of a car to make it look like a "woodie".

My NS is silver plate and I wish it weren't. But I wanted one (twice, actually) and this was the one available. If Matt had called me one WEEK earlier that he had one in stock, I would have bought that one rather than get mine back from Phoenix.
The only thing that has given me trouble on the NS is the silver, and I have at times considered trading it for that very reason. The silver is now flaking off of two of the valve slides; it did not leave here in that condition. Some people are just pigs.

I like silver plate on my old horns, back when they put a good coat on them. Modern horns that have the silver worn away at contact points looks a bit sad.

I prefer silver. Always have. I bought and gave to my daugher a 4 valve non-compensating baritone when I found out it was lacquer and based off a Yamaha design, I was more than happy to let my 10yr old play it as her first horn.

Me? I'm a silver girl through and through.

York-aholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:59 pm I like silver plate on my old horns, back when they put a good coat on them. Modern horns that have the silver worn away at contact points looks a bit sad.

As I (believe?) I mentioned earlier (I'm not re-reading my previous posts), many old-OLD (particularly USA) instruments (particularly large instruments) were silver CLAD.

They couldn't plate up saxophones as much, because (obviously) that would require too much re-drilling/re-tapping/etc.

I spend less time maintaining silver finish than I do cleaning and oiling an instrument (which is frequent) so the effort involved here isn't really a consideration. For me it's purely aesthetic, which is a completely subjective thing (just like preferring one color over another). There's a cost savings for new instruments in lacquer which is a consideration, but the other factor here for me is the quality of coating. Getzen tubas, when silver-plated, were at best placed in the vicinity of a plating tank or held above some sort of steam bath that might have contained silver. The lacquer ones weren't much better. The lacquer on my Cerveny looked like sunburn peeling off in less than a year of ownership and use. I'll take a more uniform finish over a mixed bag when the choices are available.

I get that...but those are historical/used.

I still suspect that the Getzen (4/4 York style) tubas were made by King and finishes (lacquer/silver plate) were done by Getzen, but I'm not going to debate that with anyone anymore.

I'm speaking to new (when customers choose a finish of a factory-boxed-up new instrument.

I have to admit, though, when CONSIDERING purchasing a used instrument (and - overwhelmingly - I buy used), worn-through silver is more aesthetically discouraging to me than worn-through lacquer...

...and (likely) it's because I can repair worn-through lacquer without spending any money.

There are some Chinese instruments that seem to only be imported by US retailers with silver finishes.
Sometimes, I suspect this is because there are no nickel silver parts (ie. tubing/bow caps/bow connectors, etc. are all brass) and the retailers don't wish for that to be known.