York Silver Eb's from circa 1912 +/-

[mbrown]

i have two... one - is in playing shape, looks pretty good when shined, i bought it to learn Eb for a reenactment group. high pitch. have not used it in a long time.
two - is a bit older, it was found in an old music store closet. it's apart, but i have all the pieces. needs a good clean, lots of dark tarnish.

i don't play Eb anymore and if i decide to, i'll got a newer instrument.

is there any value in these to anyone?

when i was playing #1, i had it chemically cleaned (i kept thinking spanish flu) i doubt the bacteria would still be there, but still, it gave me the creeps not knowing what lurked in the darkness... the valve corks/felts, etc replaced.

[opus37]

These can have value, but it depends. First and for most, condition. If they are in great shape then they are worth more. Next is size and style. Old Yorks come is at least two sizes and can be front or top action. The ones with the most value are the front action, 4 valve large size horns. If in good to great shape, you might get up to $2000 or more for it. A really nice example might go for a lot more. The small size, 3 valve top action horns might go for $500 or so. Some people want those to make a small F tuba. Others just like to play them. The one in pieces might go for a couple of hundred if the bell and large branches are in good shape. People like those parts to make a frankentuba using a King valve set. Check on the tubenet for more information. The folks there will give you a better valuation and sale possibility than most can give you here.

I owned a small size 3 valve top action horn for a while. It was a challenge to find all the missing parts and get it in playing condition. I played it at tuba Christmas. It had a great full large sound for a small horn. It now is somewhere in Maine being loved by another player.

[mbrown]

Thank you... When I figure out how, I'll send you a picture. F TUBA, i had not thought about that.

[mbrown]

york picture




my little York Eb beside a King 2280. the other is a twin...

[opus37]

You have a model 641 (or maybe a 642). It is a 3/4 size or small size top action 3 valve Eb. It is a high pitch. That means it is tuned to about 445 or 450. You will have a lot of trouble pulling out the slides far enough to get it to play 440 to make it usable with any modern band. If it hasn't been (and it doesn't look like it) tuned (aka slides lengthened) yet, you will need to take it to an experienced tech and have him/her lengthen the slides. That commonly means creating new slides. The low pitch version of this horn has a "W" shape in the main tuning slide. If you find one of those that fits, you can shorten it which is much easier. The catch is finding one. York changed designs in the 1902 through 1915 time period a bit and older slides do not fit the newer horns. These are fun horns to play and have a big sound. They are reasonably in tune across the range. The false or ghost tones are hit and miss. The valves on these horns are usually in poor to not playable shape. With the high/low pitch issues and bad valves, you can understand the attraction to convert these to an F tuba. The bell design and metal is legendary. That is why folks find these to be a great horns for upgrading with modern parts. Most folks change the mouthpiece receiver because this horn only accepts a small shank mouthpiece. There are a few who like the small shank mouthpieces and feel that the horn plays better with them. That has not been my experience, but to each his own.

[ghmerrill]

I would say that high pitch makes it considerably less attractive as a player. I'm not sure how useful a 3-valve F tuba would be -- especially if the surgery left it with intonation issues. The problem in this regard can often be the tuning of the 2nd valve since tuning the instrument higher may likely require shortening each of the valve circuits (even if it starts off life as a high pitch Eb), and there's just not much to work with in the case of the 2nd valve. If someone wants to play in a group, then intonation tends to matter a lot. So horns like this tend to be either: (a) of historical interest, as is; (b) perhaps useful just for grins and maybe for playing in ensembles that don't care too much about exact tuning (Tuba Christmas, German band, ...?); or (c) project horns with somewhat unpredictable results.

[mbrown]

thank you... perhaps this "matched" pair would make some great yard art... i thought about floor lamps until i saw the discussion about the old holtons.

[mbrown]

Do these little horns use a different mouthpiece? The mouthpieces I use with the BBb work but to find one that felt right I went to a Bach 25 and still felt like I could go smaller. Maybe because I've been playing so much euph lately. It played well... Despite that I was fighting fingerings and I haven't played much tuba recently. I'm tempted to relearn Eb fingers again and buy a modern version.

My 2341 gets heavier every year... I find myself playing euphonium more and more. A little Eb might keep me in the tuba world for a while longer. This one is not much larger than the king 2280 euphonium. (see photo attachment up thread)

[mbrown]

i think i like this little fellow... thinking about how to use it, would it be ridiculous to have it changed to F and take a valve from the other one and have a 4th loop added? or would just have an old junk F tuba?

[ghmerrill]

Really impossible to predict unless you've already done it to that model tuba and know how it came out. There are people who have done this sort of thing. You should post the proposal to Tubenet and see what responses you get.

[sirendude2015]

Classic Eb tubas from the era used quite small mouthpieces. I have a Conn "S" mouthpiece that was probably the standard shipment for their earlier Eb's, possibly their Monster models as well. As far as measurement goes, it is very comparable to mouthpieces made specifically for cimbasso and contrabass trombone. In fact it is only slightly larger than a Denis Wick 00AL.

It is very possible that York tubas weren't much different than Conn in that era and used a smaller mouthpiece like that.

[ghmerrill]

Classic Eb tubas from the era used quite small mouthpieces. I have a Conn "S" mouthpiece that was probably the standard shipment for their earlier Eb's, possibly their Monster models as well. As far as measurement goes, it is very comparable to mouthpieces made specifically for cimbasso and contrabass trombone. In fact it is only slightly larger than a Denis Wick 00AL.

In the tuba world it appears to be a matter of dogma that these instruments were provided with (and hence need to be used with) smaller and shallower mouthpieces than we typically use today. Unfortunately, it's close to impossible to get any details either illustrating such mouthpieces or supporting these claims. I've tried pretty much every modern mouthpiece available on my Buescher (primarily bass and contra-bass trombone mouthpieces) and found them very wanting in terms of tone and/or intonation. So I'm very curious about this Conn S mouthpiece.

Most often, what's referred to with respect to Conns of the era (and hence by extension to Buescher as well) is the Conn #2. The only S I've seen referenced is the 120S which is a large Helleberg mouthpiece. It also seems to be generally conceded that the legendary #2 (through several incarnations over the years) is very close to the 7B (regarded as a small version of the 120S). So with that as background ...

Do you have dimensions on this Conn S mouthpiece (diameter, rim width, cup depth and shape?? Is it actually marked 'S'? What's the shank size? And how did you come by it?

Also, how would you characterize the tone you get from one of these vintage tubas with this mouthpiece? My experience was that when I went in the "bass trombone direction" I could get pretty good intonation, but it didn't sound like a tuba -- it sounded like a tuba being played with a trombone mouthpiece (lost a lot of the "conical bore" sound quality).

Eventually, I settled on a Wick 4 (NOT the 4L) which was pretty good but not great. Then I sanded down the shank on a Kelly 25, and that worked well too, but not great. Finally, I managed to snag one of the (probably the last) Dillon shank adapters made for these instruments and since then have been using my Miraphone TU17 mouthpiece. Of all the things I tried, this seems to be the best in terms of tone, pitch, and intonation. A TU7 or a TU3 (both shallower) might be better, but Miraphone mouthpieces are expensive, and I got tired of extensive mouthpiece experimentation for a horn I rarely play. Note that they're also not an option for use in the original small receivers of these instruments. I guess that if I had a really good horn of this type/vintage and really wanted to play it a lot, I'd throw money at Doug Elliott to get a "correct" mouthpiece for it.

So I'm very curious about this S mouthpiece.

[sirendude2015]

So I'm very curious about this Conn S mouthpiece.
Do you have dimensions on this Conn S mouthpiece (diameter, rim width, cup depth and shape?? Is it actually marked 'S'? What's the shank size? And how did you come by it?

Also, how would you characterize the tone you get from one of these vintage tubas with this mouthpiece?

All measurements made with a digital caliper as I typed this post.

The cup diameter (inner rim width at the inner edge of the "bite")= 1.14 inches/29mm.
Rim width (inner edge to outer edge, semi-rounded rim)= 0.298 inches/7.58mm.
Cup depth from the inner edge of the "bite" to the end of the lathe marks in the cup (middle of the backbore transition) approximately= 1.14 inches/29mm.
Cup shape is what I'd say a standard bowl-shaped cup looks like. Similar to a 'berg, but deeper before the inward taper and less gradual of a cup-backbore transition.
Backbore diameter, to my closest estimation (standard wooden pencil fits through with ease, but not much wiggle room)= 0.305 inches/7.75mm.

Yes, it's literally marked "CONN S". It was stamped by hand. I can tell because the letters line up kinda weird.
It is a small shank mouthpiece. It sits kinda comfortably in the receiver of my bass trombone and was a perfect fit for my 1912 Buescher Eb helicon (my "vintage" Eb tuba)

Sound... I only ever used this mouthpiece in the aforementioned helicon, but this piece definitely gave it a solid sound that was fitting of the Eb key... not too thin and bass-bone like, but not too warm and round like it's trying to sound bigger than it is... a lighter sound, but still full and strong, quite responsive. Can get brighter if pushed, and can get kinda dark (but not woofy) if you warm up the airstream. The "bite" is rounded, feels about the same as a 'berg. Literally a perfect fit for that helicon. Intonation with that piece was very good, better than any other piece I had... but only as good as the helicon would allow

If I still had that horn I'd give you a sound comparison, but alas, I traded it a couple weeks ago.
Oh yeah... all those playing characteristics were with a quarter-inch split in the shank, lol.

[ghmerrill]

Great. So some pretty rough comparisons that are still interesting:

It's actually fairly close to the Bach/Kelly 25. And not too far off from the TU-17 except in depth (which isn't surprising). The rim width is narrower than either of these (also not surprising).

Measuring cup depth is tricky and difficult to interpret, but we probably need to concede that this is shallower than either the 25 or the TU-17. I make the 25 cup depth to be maybe about 33-34 mm. The TU-17 is deeper (Miraphone calls it "deep"). So it's looking a bit like a "shallow Bach 25".

My guess is that the backbore is significantly narrower. For both the Kelly 25 (and probably the Bach), this is 8 mm. And I suspect the backbore on your S may be a bit less than your estimate. The throat likely makes a difference as well. And the throat/backbore can make a huge difference on a tuba mouthpiece.

It appears to be VERY close to the TU-03 (Miraphone F tuba/Eb tuba/contrabass trombone mouthpiece), but significantly shallower. And this has a 7 mm backbore. Or perhaps the TU-13 (Winston Morris model oriented to high range playing and F tuba), though the cup on that is 32 mm wide.

I think/suspect that the problem with modern mouthpieces on these older Eb horns is not so much the sizes (diameters and depths) that we can get today, but the backbore. I'd guess, from what you say, that the backbore on this S mouthpiece is somewhere around 7.5 mm, or certainly 7.5-7.75 mm. It's hard to find a combination of a reasonably wide and fairly shallow bowl with that smaller bore size. The Wick 1AL and 0AL bass trombone mouthpieces have a 7.45 mm bore, but their cup diameters are 27.11 and 27.42 respectively. The 00AL bumps its bore up to 8.2 mm and still has only a 28 mm cup. I tried these on my Buescher, and the results weren't good.

On the other hand, the Wick 4 tuba mouthpiece has a good cup diameter (30.50), but it's really too deep and the bore is 8.27.

On the other hand, if you try to replicate the effect of those older mouthpieces, I think you give up having generally decent ghost tones and a usable pedal range.