☑ one-piece upright bell
☑ four front-action valves
☑ tuning slide after the mouthpipe (though - as it's "buried" low into the instrument, this limits the tuning range (though plenty) to only a couple of inches or so, as a longer slide would not clear the bottom bow
☑ #1 (as well as #2 and #3) upper slides, and (see pic) the upper #1 slide is easily/comfortably left-hand accessible.
☑ (ok...well...) no patches nor cracks, and the original silver plating intact
I don't know how people can screw this sort of thing up (whereby all they have to do is look, and use a search engine), but (making far more sense than what I was told originally), this instrument was built in 1915, and not in 1906.
Here's an "open pitches" tuning test. As is typical with even the best of the 6/4 tubas (and these old Conn tubas have a reputation for being some of the most dubious, in this regard) the third partial (open F at the bottom of the staff) is quite flat when cold, but - warmed up - it's really not that much of an issue (see video). For this test (as we leave our house around 80° F. and above during the daytime in the summer), I cooled this area of the house down to 75°F. overnight, and then warmed up the tuba (playing it for a few minutes) prior to running this "open partial check". Maybe (??) others will consider these test conditions "reasonable" (ie. not scientific, but a reasonable effort). The mouthpiece (laying around here) that achieved the best balance of tuning (under these conditions) is one of my own offerings. It's the extended depth version of my "Symphony" cup, Symphony back-bore, and a shank insertion which splits the difference between (what are widely accepted as "standard" and "euro")...but that's neither here nor there, as the "test" involves the tuba, and not an array of mouthpieces.
textbook: lower F - tends flat, upper F - tends sharp, top-of-staff B-flat - tends flat
I attacked the top B-flat sharp, in order to demonstrate how easy it is to avoid playing it flat, and then allowed it to "settle" to the place where the tuba itself prefers that B-flat to be. The upper F, likely my ears put that pitch where it belongs, but then I realized that - as this is a demonstration - I needed to allow the tuba to show where it prefers that F to be located.
I doubt that Conn's 22-inch bell diameter/pancake has much to do with the sonority (which really can't be evaluated on this, via this only-$250-even-though-bought-new Android phone's mini-mic, as what I hear in the recording is a bunch of fuzzy). I've noticed a similarity (rare original one-piece bell versions) between the throat area taper of these bells and the Rudolf Meinl 5/4 (defacto 6/4) bells, and I'm pretty sure that I also notice a similarity in the type of sonority regarding the ancient/rare Conn "Orchestra Grand" (one-piece upright bell) tubas and the "5/4" (6/4) Rudolf Meinl tubas. In other words, I believe that a slightly SMALLER 6/4 bell throat area (compared to most all of the yorky ones) has more to do with the sonority (leaning slightly more towards "European/noble" than "American/jolly" to my ears) than final (larger, obviously) bell diameter. Side-by-side with my Miraphone 98, I'm pretty sure than the Conn "Orchestra Grand" bell throat area is the smaller of the two.
The #1 and #3 circuit lengths are classic/old-school American, whereby the instrument is "set up" as a 3-valve tuba with the designers' intentions obviously being that the 4th valve is only employed to play the low range (rather than being used in the regular range of the instrument for purposes of intonation) as the #1 circuit and #3 circuit are both long, obviously as a "compromise" between their own stand-alone lengths, and the 1-3 and 1-2-3 valve combinations' combined lengths. For (most?) modern/professional users, those circuits would probably be shortened.
Although the production date offered was a bunch of nonsense, the backstory seems to hint that I (and - if I don't keep it very long, I probably shouldn't "count" as an owner) am possibly only the third owner. The recent owner (who I believe is eighty-something) reported that they owned it since sometime around the early 1950s...??, when they bought it from an older guy who had reportedly owned it for decades. I guess I could re-contact, and see if I can get them to remember more specifics...but (me?) I never much care about provenance - or even that much about "rarity/collectibility", as I'm not really a collector. I own things to either use now, use soon, or use later. If I'm only going to look at something, I prefer to look at someone's else (which is only for looking at).
