TubaForum.net

Lack of info is fishy, but according to the ad, it's literally in my town. I'll message the seller.

EDIT: after looking at the reflections on the horn in the pictures, I recognize both this instrument and where it is. I used to own another mammoth just a few serial numbers from this one. My friend and I bought them both at the same time from a local music store. Guess he's selling his now, too.

Did Martin use better than average lacquer? Maybe it's just the light, but ... if I were used to that kind of lacquer performance, I'd probably be a lot more enthusiastic about the stuff.

donn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:32 am Did Martin use better than average lacquer? Maybe it's just the light, but ... if I were used to that kind of lacquer performance, I'd probably be a lot more enthusiastic about the stuff.

From what I've experienced, Martin lacquer never seemed significantly better or worse to me than other makers of the era, however this horn is a later example ('61) so I suppose it's had relatively less time to wear than some other older horns.

I'm not 100% sure if my old horn or this one was ever refinished in its life, but I think the lacquer was original. It looked pretty good on both of them save for some scratching where there were taken on an off some stands over and over.

How much more (if any) do front action mammoths fetch? I know it all depends on a lot of factors, but just curious what you might throw out there number-wise.

MartinMan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:19 pm

donn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:32 am Did Martin use better than average lacquer? Maybe it's just the light, but ... if I were used to that kind of lacquer performance, I'd probably be a lot more enthusiastic about the stuff.

From what I've experienced, Martin lacquer never seemed significantly better or worse to me than other makers of the era, however this horn is a later example ('61) so I suppose it's had relatively less time to wear than some other older horns.

I'm not 100% sure if my old horn or this one was ever refinished in its life, but I think the lacquer was original. It looked pretty good on both of them save for some scratching where there were taken on an off some stands over and over.

Did Martin tubas just typically end up in the hands of more careful owners? I suspect that’s the case.

Tubajug wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:28 pm How much more (if any) do front action mammoths fetch? I know it all depends on a lot of factors, but just curious what you might throw out there number-wise.

Front actions will generally go for more just because they're more "in vogue" in these times. I usually see a front action variant of any vintage horn (be it Conn, Martin, York, etc.) generally go for anywhere from $400-1,000 more than its top-action counterpart for that reason alone. Although personally speaking, while I do prefer the ergonomics of a front-action instrument, I'll play any configuration if the playing characteristics are good enough, hence why my current main horn happens to be top-action. I've even heard some claim that the Martin top-actions tend to play better in general for no other reason than the craftsman were simply more familiar with building them in that configuration since they were more commonly ordered that way at the time. Whether or not that's true I can't say, but is more of a subjective matter anyway, but plausible.

matt g wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:36 pm Did Martin tubas just typically end up in the hands of more careful owners? I suspect that’s the case.

In general, I'd say that could frequently be the case, since Martin's small production necessitated higher prices and thus weren't bought by the bunches by school bands across the country and beat to hell like a lot of 20Js. Instead, they were often purchased by potentially more discriminating pros of the time. Although I've also seen my fair share of beat-to-hell Martins as well, so who knows?