York 91 Vs CSO york

[LargeTuba]

How different are the York 91/730 6/4 BBb and the CSO York?
York has been known to cut down BBb instruments for their CC instruments, is the CSO York just a cut down BBb?

Thanks!

[York-aholic]

As you know the York model 91 is a top action horn. The 730 was the three valve front action (upright bell) 6/4.

I have a 4v front action (fixed recording bell) model 736 (body is the same as the 730. One glaring difference between the 730 6/4 series and the CSO Yorks is that the former had the valves aligned in a diagonal line across the bugle, while the CSO horns have the valves aligned more or less vertically. So all of the valve tubing layout is necessarily different.

Cut down BBb or a whole new animal? I can’t imagine York making a whole bunch of new mandrels for a couple of tubas. That would get expensive in a hurry. Perhaps a reworking of York BBb parts?

It would be interesting to do a side by side comparison of the CSO horns and an original 6/4 front action horn (as there are certainly differences in the bugle of front and top action horns). So if Gene gives me a call on his next trip to California (mine is definitely not the only one to use, of course)...

[bloke]

B-flat version - I'd guess - plays more in tune.
The bell is larger than 20 inches (yes?) so you're not going to end up with "York #3", no matter what you do.

I can probably still get (LONG wait) those JP C tuba 5-valve valvesets (probably mo' money), if you want to run it through the hedge clippers. If remaining in B-flat, you could extend the C-slides with longer ferrules, or "punt" with brass King 3/4"-bore tubing, but use the JP slide crooks.

I'm not sure that I would do much of anything to it, if the pistons aren't badly worn.

...or buy a used jimbo "Leviathan" and move the entire 3+1 comp. valveset on to your instrument, and put the non-comp top-action set on the jimbo, and sell the leftover tuba.

bloke "It seems to me, that a model name needs to be misspelled - such as "Leviathon", so that the name could be copyrighted, no?"

[lost]

The 730 6/4 monster had slightly different tapers than the 91 monster. 730 was slightly smaller. Thinner brass too. As Yorkaholic alluded, the CSO york must be a reworked 730.

As it was, the 730's weren't even listed in their catalogs in the early 30's when the CSO Yorks were purportedly built, so I'd wager most of it was custom.

[windshieldbug]

York apparently did a lot of custom work that was never in any catalog.
I've got a rotary valve Eb althorn that was never advertised.
They submitted patents that don't seem to show up in searches.
They seem to have built many prototypes, and only offered the models for sale later if there was enough demand...

[LargeTuba]

Does anyone have any pictures of the York 730 for reference? Is the 730 any similar to the 700 series?

[lost]

I did a haphazard picture resizing to try and compare my 91 with thee York.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17b ... e~mv2.webp

Pictures of the 730 can be found in old york catalogs which have been posted on https://www.yorkloyalist.com/instrument-models in the catalog section.

[LargeTuba]

The 730 looks a little more like the CSO York.

The CSO York first bow looks a lot less "fat". Was this a custom mandrel then?

[York-aholic]

The 730 looks a little more like the CSO York.

The CSO York first bow looks a lot less "fat". Was this a custom mandrel then?

Don't know, but I doubt it. The two CSO Yorks are not exactly alike. I believe I read that they are different in height.

[Mithosphere]

The 730 looks a little more like the CSO York.

The CSO York first bow looks a lot less "fat". Was this a custom mandrel then?

Don't know, but I doubt it. The two CSO Yorks are not exactly alike. I believe I read that they are different in height.

Somewhere, someone had both of them to compare and said a lot of things were different. Could also be a lighting issue or comparing it to a drawing/artist rendition.

[York-aholic]

Well, Mr. Jacobs (and later the CSO) owned them both, so there are plenty of people who could have looked at them side by side.

[York-aholic]

If someone puts a HB50/510 next to a YCB-826, you’ll get an approximate comparison of the two CC York tubas, iirc.

[Yorkboy]

Top-action and side-action tubas invariably differ at the smallest branch before the dogleg; on top-actions, it is several inches shorter (the length is usually made up in the second dogleg going up into the lowest piston, which is normally absent on side-action horns).

Other than that they are usually similar.

When you convert a top-action to side-action, you lose @ 9” of length, between the shorter small branch and the discarded 2nd dogleg; subtract the shorter length of the high-pitch bugle (not sure how much that would be, maybe 4” or so?), and you are already more than half-way to your CC tuba length goal. If you are fortunate enough to find a high-pitch top-action horn with the MTS before the valves, you are almost there already.

I’ve always had my pet theory that the CSO York tubas were made from obsolete (by the time those tubas were made) high-pitch top-action-horn branch mandrels, carefully cut and tapered to fit together smoothly.

Here is a real-time photo of a York 91 BBb top-to-side-action conversion next to one of the CSO York tubas (don’t know which one it is)

03AD70D8-99A1-4719-A2D3-BF3ECBBA4058.jpeg (87.02 KiB) Viewed 1652 times

[Alex C]

Wow. There are a lot of comments that differ from what I know first-hand about the CSO York tubas.

As to comparing the York Model 91 to the CSO Yorks, they are vastly different but they have much in common. If you have a Model 91 BBb York, don't cut it to make a CC York, that doesn't work well. The dozen or so tubas that Rusk cut to CCs sound great but they don't compare well to either the York CC or BBb. Back in the 1970s when there was no other 6/4 CC to own, Rusk's tubas were great. The "modern versions" of the Yorks vary in quality but none of them play or sound like the CSO Yorks.

I found the #1 York to be beautifully in tune, remarkably responsive, and with a sound that verged on glorious even when I played it. Not many horns compare to that. I have not played #2.

I consider Richard Barth to be a great source of information about the York because he had many years of association with Mr. Jacobs and he used "York No. 1" as the basis for his BMB 6/4 tubas. He had measurements at one time.

From our conversations and my own study, here's what I know. Both CC York tubas were made for Philip Donatelli. I know the bore sizes and the number of valves.Few people know more.

I think it demeans the engineer, Pops Johnson, to say that he 'cut down' a BBb tuba to make the CCs. No one alive today knows the process Johnson used to make the CCs but both were completely hand made. That includes building the main tubing. Having a hand made bugle would preclude the necessity of scrounging through the parts bin. In addition, cutting the BBb bugle down would have disrupted the rate of bore increase, that is not apparent in the #1 CSO horn.

The number of people who have actually seen both CSO Yorks together is actually quite small. The number of them who have measured the two tubas can probably be counted on one hand. The number who have played both is probably even smaller because at some point in the 1990s, #1 became unplayable.

Walter Nirshl has worked on both CSO tubas and has measurements but he keeps that kind of information close. Walter was asked to build a new leadpipe for No 1. After much discussion it was decided that the new leadpipe would change the horn too much. The rebuild was not done.

I don't know the names of others who have measurements and information on both tubas. So conjecture all you want, but very few know enough to have good information and it is unlikely that they will share it.

BTW, I think a good Nirschl is about as close to the CSO Yorks as has been made. When I ordered one, I didn't like it and took it to a nearby orchestral player who said frankly, "this horn in a dog. I wouldn't use it as a practice horn." So you have to be choosy if you want that sound. Lots of people do well on other horns and don't sound like a York at all.

[Alex C]

deleted

[Alex C]

Wow. There are a lot of comments that differ from what I know first-hand about the CSO York tubas.

As to comparing the York Model 91 to the CSO Yorks, they are vastly different but they have much in common. If you have a Model 91 BBb York, don't cut it to make a CC York, that doesn't work well. The dozen or so tubas that Rusk cut to CCs sound great but they don't compare well to either the York CC or BBb. Back in the 1970s when there was no other 6/4 CC to own, Rusk's tubas were great. The "modern versions" of the Yorks vary in quality but none of them play or sound like the CSO Yorks.

I found the #1 York to be beautifully in tune, remarkably responsive, and with a sound that verged on glorious even when I played it. Not many horns compare to that. I have not played #2.

I consider Richard Barth to be a great source of information about the York because he had many years of association with Mr. Jacobs and he used "York No. 1" as the basis for his BMB 6/4 tubas. He had even measurements at one time.

From our conversations and my own study, here's what I know. Both CC York tubas were made for Philip Donatelli. I know the bore sizes and the number of valves.Few people know more.

I think it demeans the engineer, Pops Johnson, to say that he 'cut down' a BBb tuba to make the CCs. No one alive today knows the process Johnson used to make the CCs but both were completely hand made. That includes building the main tubing. Having a hand made bugle would preclude the necessity of scrounging through the parts bin to cut something down. In addition, cutting the BBb bugle down would have disrupted the rate of bore increase, and that is not apparent in the #1 CSO horn.

The number of people who have actually seen both CSO Yorks together is actually quite small. The number of them who have measured the two tubas can probably be counted on one hand. The number who have played both is probably even smaller because at some point in the 1990s, #1 became unplayable.

Walter Nirshl has worked on both CSO tubas and has measurements but he keeps that kind of information close. Walter was asked to build a new leadpipe for No 1. After much discussion it was decided that the new leadpipe would change the horn too much. The rebuild was not done.

I don't know the names of others who have measurements and information on both tubas. So conjecture all you want, but very few know enough to have good information and it is unlikely that they will share it.

BTW, I think a good Nirschl is about as close to the CSO Yorks as has been made. When I ordered one, I didn't like it and took it to a nearby orchestral player who said frankly, "this horn in a dog. I wouldn't use it as a practice horn." So you have to be choosy if you want that sound. Lots of people do well on other horns and don't sound like a York at all.

[bloke]

Were any manufacturer - of any era, and at any level of regard - contracted to make a C version of one of their B-flat models, I couldn't imagine NOT looking through the expensive-to-make bugle bows and bell and trying to decide whether (at least, for pity's sake) they could use the same bell, bottom bow, and an altered version of the large upper bow.

[bisontuba]

[bloke]

The 730 6/4 monster had slightly different tapers than the 91 monster. 730 was slightly smaller. Thinner brass too. As Yorkaholic alluded, the CSO york must be a reworked 730.

As it was, the 730's weren't even listed in their catalogs in the early 30's when the CSO Yorks were purportedly built, so I'd wager most of it was custom.

I'm not posturing as a "knowledgeable tech", but SO MANY instruments - from that era and later - have been through "overhaul shops", and - if/when "thinner brass" is encountered - I can't help but wonder if (simply - as with the CSO York that is played/playable) a "thin" one (simply) has had the h--y f---in' crap buffed out of it.

York era: I've not seen either an "special" alloys nor any "special" metal thicknesses (though I've certainly not seen all of them).

Of course, Conn did some "special" alloys - namely 80:20 - but with the ONLY goal of getting silver plating to stick better to those particular instruments. ...and then, there were the really high copper and pure copper Conn bells (trumpets/trombones), but LATER, yes?

[tofu]

[