.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[arpthark]

I have a bunch tools the school service shop probably doesn’t have (or doesn’t know how to really use yet). Some I made, some I bought used and modified, one I got from Germany.

Mind to share your methods -- unless it's a proprietary secret?

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[DonO.]

Nice job!

[LeMark]

I have had zero luck getting dents out of guards with magnets

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

I have a few special big ass really long large diameter dent balls for similar applications. They won't render miracles, but they almost can. Mr dbg will tell you that he probably has to be careful to make sure that the two ends of that ball don't bump up and put outward pooches in the instrument where they didn't previously exist.

The important thing is what he showed you at the end which is that he has the craftsmanship to repair what's wrong without messing up what isn't wrong.

I'm always pleased when the nickel caps seem to be (mostly) for looks, are thin, are remarkably well fit against the brass bows, and don't feature any or much of an air space. When accidents occur, these are much easier to deal with than thick wall nickel caps which are arched over brass bows and only fit on the edges.

There are a couple of small dinks in the upper cap on my huge Miraphone B flat. They were inherited, but I'm not denying that I may put more in myself in the future. The cap is thick, and features a considerable airspace between the cap and the upper bow. The only way that I could remove those dinks would be to use a solder rebound inertia tool, which would - of course - burn the lacquer.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

note: rude and ridiculous stream-of-consciousness thread hijacking below

The nickel cap on the upper bow of my forty-something year old F tuba was built very delicately. As an example, even though it's a 6 valve instrument it doesn't even weigh 18 lb, and no: it's never been buffed heavily or hardly at all anywhere.

Since it seems that I'm finally going to get a sleek-fitting protective hard case for it after all these years, I'm probably going to put a replacement finish on it (only removing light scratches) and I'm going to see about making the upper bow cap look pretty without taking it off and without any filing or sanding. Filing or sanding it would be disastrous, because it's probably not even one half of a millimeter thick. I'm not going to make a video, but I might take a few before during and after snapshots. This is a technique with which I've had success a few times lately, so I guess - having experimented with for sale instruments and school instruments with good luck - I'm going to try it on my own instrument, and this is my most prized instrument fwiw.

As has been suggested, this would be a disaster on my Miraphone model 98, because that cap is quite thick. I wouldn't be surprised if it was double thick, and there's quite an air space between it and the upper bow. The 98 is a handmade tuba with thin wall bows, and this is probably why they made the cap thick. It seems to me that they might as well have made the cap thin and fit close against the bow. It would actually make it possible - if not easy - to remove dents, particularly if they went easy on the solder.

Miraphone is a marvelous company and their quality is amazing. The models that I like - regarding playing characteristics - are sort of sparse, but I like those particular ones quite a bit. Being someone with a low IQ yet who tries to think about things, even with those models that I really like, I see tons of things that I believe should have been done differently. I suppose I would be the same way with every single model that I like of any other make as well. Admittedly, most of those changes that I would make would be more costly, and it's probably difficult for people who play the tuba some and others who may not play at all to see the advantages to some of the small or larger changes that I might make to the models of theirs which I really like. ...As just one example of a model that I like a bunch (yet do not own), the 282 B-flat - which is sort of a 3/4-4/4, would benefit from having the lower loop of the third circuit dip down lower to get the upper number three slide out of the players face and more where it should be, and another design consideration is that they made it very difficult to offer a 5-valve version, and - being that the bell isn't particularly wide - low range pitches are not going to be particularly successful without one. Those things having been said, the 282 model plays so well that I really don't understand the purpose of having come out with a model 494 - even though I have yet to play a model 494.
Being a recent convert though, seeing that company circle back to what they know and do best - which is B-flat and rotary - makes me giggle just a little bit.