Kalison Pro 2000 5/4+ CC $7,750 (Buford, GA/FB)

[arpthark]

https://www.facebook.com/share/18r3gvx8Ma/

[Timtamtuba]

Are these any good? I feel like I always see one for sale. Sometimes it feels like it's the same one being sold over and over again too haha

[bort2.0]

If the lead pipe is actually made of gold, as it says in the ad, then it would be quite an exceptional deal at this price.

If the lead pipe was made out of gold brass, or actually does any other material than solid gold, I think it's too expensive

I can't remember if I played this model, but I've played a few tubas made by them. They were fine. I didn't buy any. Even back then, for the price there were lots of other options. For over $7,000, it's a tough sell

[arpthark]

I owned one, it was nice! Big sound, intonation not too bad but kind of opposite of what you’d expect on such a big horn (I remember the 2-3 Eb being flat and the Ab being sharp). I paid $4k about 10 years ago. Drove overnight to Dallas, TX from KY to buy it and stopped for the evening in Hope, Arkansas, birthplace of Bill Clinton. Anyway. A bit overpriced but these kind of punch above their weight. Great valves. Kind of thin metal and thin silver plate but that’s the same old story with Kalison.

Geographically I think you find more Kalisons near the Tuba Exchange in NC. I’ve never seen any in New England. The one I recently bought and fixed up a bit was from Cincinnati.

[Timtamtuba]

If the lead pipe is actually made of gold, as it says in the ad, then it would be quite an exceptional deal at this price.

If the lead pipe was made out of gold brass, or actually does any other material than solid gold, I think it's too expensive

I can't remember if I played this model, but I've played a few tubas made by them. They were fine. I didn't buy any. Even back then, for the price there were lots of other options. For over $7,000, it's a tough sell

Tend to agree for 7k there's quite a bit floating around that would probably feel safer, more familiar

[bort2.0]

I mean you could love it, play it for 40 years and it'll be the best 7K you ever spent. Or, you'll see a lot of other options for the same or less money.

My bigger caution, is that if you bought this for almost $8,000, and then decide that you don't want it anymore, you're going to have a heck of a time finding somebody who wants to buy it from you for that same price. You are going to lose money

[cktuba]

The Pro 2000s do not show up for sale very often. The DS is far more common. Kalisons can be kind of a crap shoot. A good one punches far above it's weight class. And there are a a few GREAT Kalisons out there. The Pro 2000 I played years ago (90s) was freaking FANTASTIC. BUT, I have also played some real dogs as well. 7k plus seems like a lot for a dice roll. But if you can play it and it's one of the good ones... maybe you could bargain to get the price down a bit.

[the elephant]

That is a Pro 2001, which is between the Pro 2000 and the Daryl Smith in size. It is NOT a Pro 2000, and says so in the ad copy. Just pointing that out. I did not like the 2001, but I loved the 2000. I owned Paul Krzywicki's prototype DS for a few years. It was fantastic. It was the horn I was playing when I studied with Mr. Jacobs, who also liked it. He did not like the production model DS, and I had a few students with these instruments; I agreed with him — it was not for me. I felt like the Pro 2001 was a slightly blown-up DS with more intonation issues (high Ab, low Eb, with the 23 series being generally unpredictable and a sharp low C). My DS was very solid, with the 23 issue being the only issue, and it was very mild. Sold it when I found my Alexander. The Pro 2000 is more of a Gronitz PCK-type of horn: 5/4 with a 6/4 bell. The Pro 2001 was like a 4/4 with a 5/4 bell, as you can see in the photos.

[arpthark]

That is a Pro 2001, which is between the Pro 2000 and the Daryl Smith in size. It is NOT a Pro 2000, and says so in the ad copy. Just pointing that out. I did not like the 2001, but I loved the 2000. I owned Paul Krzywicki's prototype DS for a few years. It was fantastic. It was the horn I was playing when I studied with Mr. Jacobs, who also liked it. He did not like the production model DS, and I had a few students with these instruments; I agreed with him — it was not for me. I felt like the Pro 2001 was a slightly blown-up DS with more intonation issues (high Ab, low Eb, with the 23 series being generally unpredictable and a sharp low C). My DS was very solid, with the 23 issue being the only issue, and it was very mild. Sold it when I found my Alexander. The Pro 2000 is more of a Gronitz PCK-type of horn: 5/4 with a 6/4 bell. The Pro 2001 was like a 4/4 with a 5/4 bell, as you can see in the photos.

It looks like the bell says 2000.

I thought the 2001 had a totally different wrap. There was one for sale a few years ago here:

https://www.tubaforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=2332

I reached out to the seller to clarify regardless!

[the elephant]

I am old. I am probably wrong. But the 2000 always looked like the PCK and Conn 2xJ series: fairly big tub with an oversized bell. The 2001 always looked (to me) much more "well proportioned" than the 2000. Regardless, I greatly preferred the 2000 I tried in 1994 to the 2001 I tried years later.

Oddly, the most remarked-on characteristic of (I think) the DS was the near-complete absence of an Ab at the top of the staff. Mine did not suffer from this at all. Neither did the 2000 and 2001 models I tried. I only played on five or six DS production horns and do not remember this problem, either. All I remember about the production DS tubas versus my prototype was that the piston block was changed from the prototype to the production horns, and it was a mistake. The prototype had brilliant valves. The production horns' valves were very good, but not spaced well for my hands. They were very close together. My prototype had pistons that were spaced farther apart. My horn was completely hand-built from sheet brass except for the bell, which was from one of their BBb tubas.

The whole missing high Ab thing may have impugned the reps of the 2000 and 2001, but I do not think either of them actually suffered from it, in reality.

I sold my prototype, eventually, because of the squirrelliness in the 23 series, which I got tired of having to correct all the time. I had a student who loved it and bought it from me for more than I had paid two years prior. That tuba could lay down some serious volume, even in the low register. It had a really nice sound, too.

Anyway, I am likely wrong about the horn in question. I likely misidentified it. It has been decades since I held one of these horns.

[the elephant]

That looks like three zeros to me… You were correct.

It also looks like a crease after the last digit, and one zero has been smooshed between a burnisher and a bell iron. I think this tuba has had some bell damage in the past.

[arpthark]

The seller did indeed confirm that it's a Pro 2000 and that he messed up the ad copy.

[kingrob76]

I loved my Pro 2000. It's a 5/4 with a 6/4 punch, in my book. My only problem with owning was is that I was only able to own one horn, and this was too hard to drive in a brass quintet or similar setting. Definitely NOT a do-it-all horn.

Cameron Gates won his USMB audition on a Pro 2000.

Knock a couple grand off and it becomes more realistically priced. At $7,750 it would need to be mint for me to be interested.

[Sousaswag]

I’ve always thought the bell shape on these was weird.

Also, just like Rudy tubas, it seems like most of these have incurred some degree of moderate to really bad bell damage. These and the 4/4 models.

I’ve never played a Kalison other than the 4/4. These have always intrigued me.

[bort2.0]

I’ve always thought the bell shape on these was weird.

I agree. There was some oancient Italian tuba that I remember seeing years ago (Orsi, or something) that had a similar sort of "actually shaped like a cone" bell. That ancient kaiser tuba that Marty Neilan has also had a bit of a funny taper to it.

I'm guessing it's a carry over from some kind of old-timey design. Or, maybe just easier to make or something?

Side note -- I always thought it would be interesting to study the physical shape of bells, and their physical volume. This bell seems to widen at such a gradual pace, it must have a larger capacity by quite a bit over something that's more stove pipey and pancakey. Probably counts for something (but likely something that's impossible to attribute only to bell shape, given the dozens of other variables involved).

[cktuba]

IMHO... (just my opinion, yours may vary) the Kalisons sound reminds me very much of Alexander tubas. With the long lead pipe and reverse airflow through the valves they tend to have a sound more reminiscent of rotary tubas. The difference between the DS and Pro 2000 (again, to me) is reminiscent of the difference between an Alex 163 and 164. Larger bows and bell thoat.

The k2001 is more of a traditional York design (lead pipe directly into the valves). There was a 4/4 equivalent as well... but I can't remember the model designation.

[arpthark]

IMHO... (just my opinion, yours may vary) the Kalisons sound reminds me very much of Alexander tubas. With the long lead pipe and reverse airflow through the valves they tend to have a sound more reminiscent of rotary tubas. The difference between the DS and Pro 2000 (again, to me) is reminiscent of the difference between an Alex 163 and 164.

The k2001 is more of a traditional York design (lead pipe directly into the valves). There was a 4/4 equivalent as well... but I can't remember the model designation.

Having owned an Alex 163, 164, Kalison D&S and Kalison 2000, I agree with your point about the DS being kind of like a German style rotary horn -- I immediately thought of it as "186 with pistons." Part of that, I think, is that the bore of all five valves is .748" with no expansion/graduated fourth or fifth, like you see on some piston horns. (Except on the Kalisons, it would have to be a larger bore 5th and 1st, since the air flow is reversed and those are what come last in the air pathway).

The 164 feels more like a 163 on steroids. Basically, it feels like every dimension is enlarged by a factor of 1.25. Larger lead pipe, bell, bore, branches, etc.

I found the 2000 is a different beast altogether than the DS. The bell is a lot different, tubbier sound, not as lean. But I get what you're saying.