TubaForum.net

Hi-
A friend of mine is selling a VERY nice Conn 99J /Cerveny stencil 5 rotor CC tuba with hard case. However, no shipping, pick up only in Ohio.
Contact Tom at: bayviewcondos@hotmail.com
Price is $2500. Great deal.
Good luck.
Mark
Buffalo

http://imgrr.com/view/1PM/5324_57E581BD ... 801B5.jpeg

http://imgrr.com/view/1PM/6228_CC99885D ... FEED4.jpeg



http://imgrr.com/view/1PM/4428_C1204E9E ... ADBB5.jpeg

A deal indeed.

Kind of surprised there’s no commentary on this one?

I think the “Styriaton” name was used by Steyer Austria and it’s likely that it was made there from parts supplied by Cerveny. Looks like the left hand 5th valve is very short (flat half step perhaps?)

DonO. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:06 amLooks like the left hand 5th valve is very short (flat half step perhaps?)

Several Cerveny models in the past have had that 3/4 step fifth valve. Very similar in function to @bloke’s fifth valve on his Holton.

What a beautiful horn! Being "semi-retired"... I could take a road trip!

But I would need some... sponsors. Anybody? Maybe I could blog about it - on youtube, perhaps.

DonO. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:06 am Kind of surprised there’s no commentary on this one?

I think the “Styriaton” name was used by Steyer Austria and it’s likely that it was made there from parts supplied by Cerveny. Looks like the left hand 5th valve is very short (flat half step perhaps?)

Sorry.. Nope

It's just a cerveny stencil, and not a great one at that. Confirmed when I took a tour of the conn factory in 1999 and asked the question.

Conn was trying to compete with miraphone by importing the closest thing to a miraphone at the time at a lower price. Remember, at the time the budget horns were not Chinese, they were Czech or Russian .

LeMark wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 7:53 pm It's just a cerveny stencil, and not a great one at that. Confirmed when I took a tour of the conn factory in 1999 and asked the question.

Conn was trying to compete with miraphone by importing the closest thing to a miraphone at the time at a lower price. Remember, at the time the budget horns were not Chinese, they were Czech or Russian .

kind of surprised to read Mark, I thought you like Cervenys? Isnt this a 681 with no kranz? not a bad price at all for a 5 banger .... what am I missing?

I like older cervenys. Quality fell considerably in the 1990's when they started mass producing them to keep up with the demand from American companies that wanted to sell a cheaper version of miraphone.


I guess it's not fair of me to judge this horn without playing it, but I would be much more enthusiastic about it if it was about 20 years older than it is. This horn might be good, it's in great shape and the price is decent

@Mark
You're going to have to adjust your definition of "old", Mark.
Stuff to us that's "older" or "old" - to many others - is "antique" or "ancient".
noted:
old enough to sport a left-hand 5th valve.

very old Bohemian instruments:
Some are normal thickness brass, and some are just as thin as the recent-era instruments mostly seem to be.

the purpose of thin brass:
"well, it's..." NOPE
"OK then, it's gotta be..." NOPE
THE reason for thin brass is HOLDING INSTRUMENTS WHILE MARCHING, which is the same reason that Conn-Selmer seems to have (for several decades, now) moved to thin-wall brass for their King and Conn sousaphones.

LeMark wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 6:30 am I like older cervenys. Quality fell considerably in the 1990's when they started mass producing them to keep up with the demand from American companies that wanted to sell a cheaper version of miraphone.


I guess it's not fair of me to judge this horn without playing it, but I would be much more enthusiastic about it if it was about 20 years older than it is. This horn might be good, it's in great shape and the price is decent

I always assumed the reason for thin brass was to use less material and cut costs.

I always thought the thinner brass was for sonic reasons. Case in point: My jumbo Cerveny 601-5MR CC tuba, circa 1995, had a resonant, lovely sound unequaled by any of the 15 or so tubas I have owned over the years, including Miraphone 186's and a marvelous Miraphone 188 with gold brass.

Ace

One advantage to thinner brass is an overall reduction in weight, which does have advantages. The Horn Guys recently sold a NOS Lidl 3/4 CC that was only 14 pounds, which they called “luxuriously light for a tuba”. As far as sound goes, I am sure that thinner brass adds a certain resonance. But my belief is that it’s something perceived more by the player than the audience.

I'm not sure I've ever places the blame on my perception of the lack of quality of the newer Cerveny tubas on the thin brass. It's possible it's either an inferior quality of brass or just a lack of skill in assembly.

I've played a bunch of them, and I've never played one that I would take over one built from 1960-1990

Brass is only a few bucks/lb.
The difference in weight (between standard and thin-wall) is rarely more than $10 of brass.

Some makers of sheet brass might charge more for thin-wall sheet brass (for the same weight in sheet brass) because thinner requires more care to fabricate, package, and ship.

Also, it requires more care to fabricate an instrument of thin-wall material, because it's so easy to dent - in just about every stage of fabrication.

So many things - that are bought today - sort-of resemble brass instruments.
Sure, I'm talking about some finish/quality levels at some Asian factories, but I'm also referring to some of the things that formerly came from Brazil, some of the things that have arrived from eastern Europe, and some of the things (made in the USA now) which sort-of seem to be cheap same-name/same-model "copies" of that those makes/models were formerly. I know that people love the old 601's and the old Piggys...but they all - regardless of era of assembly - have seemed to me to be wonky (requiring large quantities of player adjustments) - particularly when compared to their non-sexy run-of-the-mill 681 B-flat instruments. Truth be told, quite a few super-high-priced Swiss-made tubas (though stuck together pretty well) aren't particularly easy to "keep between the ditches".

The Czech stuff has always seemed to feature acceptable rotors and slides. Were it that any of them (to me) "played like a dream", I could see myself ridding one of them of marginal-grade/dubious linkage, etc. - for my personal use. Again, there's not a single production tuba (that I've ever bought) that satisfied me (new or used) "out of the box".

inferior brass: To me, that can only mean that it has a hole in it, or that - when bells are creased - they're difficult to straighten back out...and - on this very specific topic - the RM tubas come to mind, yes?

bloke "the guy who - currently tumbling down through a B-flat rabbit-hole - may well be like some recently-having-quit smokers - regarding most any C instruments (regardless of their nationality)...but I'll probably get over this soon, and start posting, 'Why are professionals trying to convince their students to switch from C to B-flat !?!?!' "

LeMark wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:07 pm I'm not sure I've ever places the blame on my perception of the lack of quality of the newer Cerveny tubas on the thin brass. It's possible it's either an inferior quality of brass or just a lack of skill in assembly.

I've played a bunch of them, and I've never played one that I would take over one built from 1960-1990

Price drop to $2300