Share your Frankentuba

[LeMark]

here's mine. 1920ish conn body, York valve set, one of the last rebuilt by andersons. 5th valve from a really old Mirafone F tuba. Smaller bore than even a miraphone 180

Plays nice, it's no willson, but I have about 1/10th the money in than a willson would cost.

[matt g]

Some photos for you horn pr0n fiends...

I currently own a Conn/King mashup that Matt Walters built back in 2005. I can never sell it because it has the same “born on” date as my oldest daughter (although I acquired this horn much later, but it’s a happy coincidence).



Here it is next to my 2165:



A horn I once owned was a Holton 6/4 body with 3 short action valves mated to a Mirafone 190 bell. Chuck Guzis put these together and lengthened the main slide. It was quite awesome in some ways.



A close-up of the valves:



Here it is next to a Meinl Weston 32:

[iiipopes]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=147

[KingTuba1241X]

Some photos for you horn pr0n fiends...

I currently own a Conn/King mashup that Matt Walters built back in 2005. I can never sell it because it has the same “born on” date as my oldest daughter (although I acquired this horn much later, but it’s a happy coincidence).



Here it is next to my 2165:



A horn I once owned was a Holton 6/4 body with 3 short action valves mated to a Mirafone 190 bell. Chuck Guzis put these together and lengthened the main slide. It was quite awesome in some ways.



A close-up of the valves:



Here it is next to a Meinl Weston 32:

Conn Bell, King ferrules, King bows, all Conn valves and slides? Good proportional looking horn.

[matt g]

I think the valve block is King also. I think the valve branches were made by Matt.

[Aulb]

Here is mine - it's an Eb tuba made from the bell & body of a York 670 "Monster" Eb I bought from one of our old friends on TubeNet, and the valve section is from a mid-80's King 2341 that I found on eBay. The King originally had a removeable, upright bell that was completely mangled, but the valve section was fine. The 5th rotor is from a Mack Brass 186-copy. The original build was done by Norm Epley in Louisville, KY:

frankentuba v1

WgagI2d-RKGZK96qrnUaGg.jpg (148.97 KiB) Viewed 1740 times

The original wrap of the 4th valve circuit was a single, wide-open oval, but I had difficulty fitting my hand through to reach the 1st slide for pulling. I later had the 4th circuit redesigned by Rob Phillips of Buckeye Brass & Winds. He was able to redirect the circuit to provide an open space for my hand and arm to reach to pull slides:

frankentuba v2

IMG-0913.JPG (183.5 KiB) Viewed 1740 times

Rob also later modified the 5th valve made to be removable, similar to the 5th valve on the Conn 50j series of tubas:

5th valve

IMG-1166.jpg (181.89 KiB) Viewed 1740 times

This horn has become exactly what I wanted it to be - my everyday player. It's got a great sound, and works great for my quintet as well as my brass band. I've always admired the skill it takes to build these horns, and I'm very thankful to Norm and Rob, whose talents made such a great horn for me!

Andy T.

[Tubajug]

I decided to look back and see what posts there were at the very beginning, and found this one and couldn't believe I hadn't posted mine!

Here's my "Franken Family"

Left: York (modern version) baritone with an added 4th valve from a Reynolds, and a Pan American upright bell
Middle: H.N. White King Eb body with Conn 12/15J valveset (4th valve added), and a Cerveny rotor
Right: King 2341 with a Holton Monster Eb bell and bottom bow

[bloke]

I just threw this one together (from leftover junk from other projects) over the weekend...

[Tubajug]

I just threw this one together (from leftover junk from other projects) over the weekend...

I like the gas pedal over the rotor. Is that for when you really need to crank out the sound?

[bloke]

I just threw this one together (from leftover junk from other projects) over the weekend...

I like the gas pedal over the rotor. Is that for when you really need to crank out the sound?

That's actually a shield that I constructed to protect the trombone section...
Often, the velocity with which I execute passages outruns the instrument's ability to hold itself together, and I would hate to put out someone's eye with a bit of linkage, a corkplate, or some other flying object.

A nickname that I've picked up from my colleagues is "Ol' Mach 2".

[the elephant]

You really ought to show the reverse side so everyone can see the pull starter, rubber bulb primer, and kickstand that you installed. The real genius though, IMHO, was when you installed the choke so you could play outside on cold mornings. Brilliant!

[bloke]

Actually, it looks like crap, and - though he noticed an awful lot - the one accessory that Wade has overlooked is a Cloak of Delectability...

...well...and the color-coded compression die mold springs.

[the elephant]

…don't forget the flux capacitor…

[bloke]

…don't forget the flux capacitor…

There's also a direct current disgronificator.. 45 volts DC

[the elephant]

The flux capacitor makes time travel possible.

[bloke]

Oh yeah. I've played in bands like that.
They travel back and forth from 2/2 time to 2.1357/2 time.

[Three Valves]

I like checking out other guy’s junk.

Errr…..

[iiipopes]

The one I used to own:
viewtopic.php?p=804

BessophoneFront.JPG (147.54 KiB) Viewed 1173 times

[bloke]

@bloke, looking at my post above with that Holton and the recent photo of your 98 with a Holton bell next to it puts a few more pieces together.

I remember Chuck saying that the Miraphone bell needed no trimming to drop into that Holton ferrule and I couldn’t detect and/or remember any changes done to the leadpipe to accommodate the bell. In other words, it was plug and play. And the gentleman who bought the horn after me easily swapped the old stack with the bell front back onto it.

So yeah, makes me wonder if Miraphone “emulated” the old 345 dimensions for their 190 CC bell mandrel, and resurrected with (with a much improved design) with the 98?

[bloke]

@bloke, looking at my post above with that Holton and the recent photo of your 98 with a Holton bell next to it puts a few more pieces together.

I remember Chuck saying that the Miraphone bell needed no trimming to drop into that Holton ferrule and I couldn’t detect and/or remember any changes done to the leadpipe to accommodate the bell. In other words, it was plug and play. And the gentleman who bought the horn after me easily swapped the old stack with the bell front back onto it.

So yeah, makes me wonder if Miraphone “emulated” the old 345 dimensions for their 190 CC bell mandrel, and resurrected with (with a much improved design) with the 98?

I've already posted this once, but...
...I believe the reintroduction (was it roughly a decade ago...??) of the model 90C (with some intonation improvements and smaller bodied rotors) was either at the wrong time, or (maybe) there never would be a right time.
Everyone was still in middle of the "I prefer pistons" (rather than "I prefer good tubas") phase (yet today: an extremely strong contingency/way of thinking), so the reintroduced/improved 90C was probably (surely?) being auto-dismissed by a huge percentage of players.
I did some very minor repairs/maintenance one of the improved/reissued ones...It was considerably more manageable. It was owned by a high-profile player, and - not long afterward - sold.

I DO NOT "know" this, but - as "C" is so very American, people such as Tommy Johnson had MiraFone's ear "w-a-y back when", and the 90C bore (ie "beared", not "bore" as in "bore size") such little resemblance to the 90B (ie. not even the same bell, and a bell that just about traces the contour of a Holton 345 bell - I can't help but suspect that TJ may have been the one who pushed for the development/original introduction of the 90C. Back then, if a tuba "mostly" did what its designers hoped it would do, it was considered to be an overwhelming success, as so many of the tuba models of the past were (are) quite "wonky"...

...and I'm still convinced (though there are plenty of examples of abysmal failures, in this regard) that a gigantic B-flat tuba (simply built via a "let's try this" type of method) is more likely to offer accessible intonation than is a similarly-sized C tuba (though the 90B was similarly wonky).

Surely, most people recognize me as a one who chooses instruments based on "intonation über alles"..
...ie. out of ten or so listed "playing characteristics", I rate accessible good intonation as #1, and probably (as heavily as I weigh it) as #2 as well.

Sure...a lot of the allure of the 98 is sonority/tone production, but the rest is "very easily accessible intonation".
If it wasn't already so very close to being "self-dialed-in", I wouldn't have considered doing all the work that I did to dial it in the last little bit, but would have (simply) not bought it in the first place.

Dave Amason's pictures of early issues of 90C and 90B:
I've found that the C versions bells were c. 20" in diameter and the B-flat versions' bells were 17-1/3" (ie. classic "kaiser" contour, as well as remarkably tall. I also tend to suspect that "whomever" suggested the C version" also requested the low-slung upper bow. Otherwise, the C version - WERE IT that it had taller upper bow...which it didn't - would have been quite a bit shorter in stature than it was.)