York made the Holton (32" x 19") BB-flats' and E-flats' bells and bows...

[lost]

Everyone is entitled to their right and wrong opinions. I'll wait for some pictures and more proof, as well as the other York enthusiasts, whose opinion i respect, to weigh in. They fact that none of them have commented yet might say something?Honestly i didn't want to comment to incite a mob of armchair historians, but whatever.

[bloke]

It's all good...

USA Line and Holton (these two specific Holton-engraved versions) resonate/sound/weigh/are shaped/play/*repair/intonate like York...

If someone is looking for one of those things, any of the three above will do (as long as not buffed to hell and patched, which - to me - are the turnoffs - vs. the not-York engraving (which - again - is really campy...though the USA Line eagle is an amazing-looking engraving...so damn masculine...).

The York/USA/Holton 19"-bell/32-inch-tall E-flats are probably the best of the century-old "monster" E-flats, but (to me) the tuning is still (with most of these) a bit too wonky... (as with all the others: most of the E-flat versions featuring saggy 4th-and-8th partials - with a few rare anomalous exceptions).

...but the 32-inch-tall 19"-bell B-flats (NOT cut to C, which - again - messes up the tuning characteristics and cuts out some of the resonance) absolutely rock.

I'm told that the "tall" version (large 4/4 - same bows - taller bell - 3/4" bore) is also an super-winner ...but (well...) I ain't got one o' them...yet. (Truly,I don't need one...I currently have tuba-family instruments that cover every imaginable type of music and circumstance.)
I'm not aware of any USA-Line (nor Holton-engraved) having been made in the TALL and larger-bore version. ...I'm pretty sure that people with the tall, .750" bore version (and never having been thrown around a band room, nor ruined by an "overhaul" shop) aren't particularly eager to sell those (particularly NOT eager to sell them with 4-front-action great-condition pistons).

_______________________________
*...and hail no: Jinbao 186 don't repair the same as Miraphone 186...not at all...and no: the Holton knock-offs of Conn 8D and Geyer horns do NOT repair like Conn or Geyer horns, either...but those specific Holton tubas repair identical to York.

[arpthark]

I've been playing a York 6/4 BBb in rehearsals lately, but it's so large that I'm having trouble Holton on to it.

[bloke]

I've been playing a York 6/4 BBb in rehearsals lately, but it's so large that I'm having trouble Holton on to it.

< york-york-york...

[York-aholic]

I'm told that the "tall" version (large 4/4 - same bows - taller bell - 3/4" bore) is also an super-winner ...but (well...) I ain't got one o' them...yet. (Truly,I don't need one...I currently have tuba-family instruments that cover every imaginable type of music and circumstance.)
I'm not aware of any USA-Line (nor Holton-engraved) having been made in the TALL and larger-bore version. ...I'm pretty sure that people with the tall, .750" bore version (and never having been thrown around a band room, nor ruined by an "overhaul" shop) aren't particularly eager to sell those (particularly NOT eager to sell them with 4-front-action great-condition)

Admittingly nit picking: The York 700 series (36-37ish inches tall) share the same bottom bow as the Monster Eb and 4/4 Model 33 BBb, but the bows aren’t the same. They may taper the same (there is some difference in the smaller bows as things have to get down smaller on the .656 model 33 than the 700 series) but the bends are different and ferrules are in different spots (vertically on the tuba). Heck, even the bows on top action versus front action 700 series are different. When figuring out what to do with my 712 (front action) that had the bows cut in half, I bought a model 33 bugle hoping the bows would work: nope. Then I found a top action 700 (.750 bore) nope… I had really, really hoped one of them would match up…

I have seen a couple of USA line (or Grand Rapids Band Instrument Company) tall bell/750 bore, but only top action. Here is one from Horn u copia:


I have its twin, but in not as good shape. The last owner took the bell off to use on a 716 (fixed recording bell version of the front action 712). I have found a bell that is very similar to the stock one that I put on it. I dig the fourth valve wrap, similar to the Model 33 4th wrap. But you are right, the tall 700 series w/750 bore are pretty unusual to be engraved with USA line or GRBIco. The one from Hornucopia and mine are the only two I’ve seen. Another oddball, I saw a picture once of a 6/4 USA Line (like a Model 91, 3 top action valves).

As far as Holton versus York., uh, I dunno.

They are very similar. The 51 that was stamped into a Holton is pretty coincidental, given that York Eb was model 51 (and some are stamped with 51); https://www.tubaforum.net/viewtopic.ph ... ton#p46733 Is it irrefutable proof? No, but it would be pretty coincidental.

Having said all that, there are lots of parts that are pretty darn similar on different makes.

The bell on my 1958 (DC) USN Martin Mammoth (10 special ordered) is very, very similar to a Holton 340/345 bell (mounted on another Martin Mammoth flipped to front action): Original Martin bell on the left, Holton bell on the right.

IMG_2224.jpeg (114.88 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

That same Holton bell (on the left in this next picture) is very similar to a 1900 Lyon & Healy 6/4 bell (mounted on an original 6/4 York front action). Keep in mind both of these companies were in Chicago at the time. However, from what I have been able to see, this 1900 L&H bell was made before any advertisements of 6/4 tubas from Holton or York:

AdaptiveImageGlyph-D8E766B4-A491-46E7-AF97-9D67392532190.jpeg (33.56 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

Here is a low resolution picture of a York Model 33 (having been flipped to front action, smallest bow, dogleg, etc are King so ignore anything lacquered brass) on the top and a Holton 4/4 BBb carcass. My recollection was that the bell and bottom bow were visually the same. The top bow seemed to go up higher (ie closer to the bell), which also seems to be true with Bloke’s squat Holton. From there, the ferrules look to be in different places (vertically speaking) on the two instruments. I suppose I could take the Holton’s bugle apart and look for a 33 stamp but I was kind of hoping someone would just buy the poor thing (I can even supply a King bottom bow guard for it…)

IMG_0191.jpeg (31.42 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

Closer, but just as low resolution picture from the back.

IMG_0193.jpeg (33.89 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

So did York make parts for Holton to put together? Beats me. I’m just practicing my meager typing skills.

[bloke]

King bottom bows fit York/Holton but everything else on King is larger, though several of us know that the little King top bow fits Holton/York like a glove when converting Holton/York top action to front action.

I've been shouted down on this, but I'll never be convinced that King did not make the Canadian Brass/G-50 tubas... and so what if King made them, as long as they're good...(??)...

... This was around the same time that Accent (a brand name, not a manufacturer) came into being. The first trumpets that Accent sold were obviously King made, but King simply changed enough things like brace feet shape, valve cap shape, finger button shape, and mouthpiece receiver shape - on those trumpets - so that only those of us who work on instruments would notice that they were King.

[matt g]

Pretty sure the pre-340/345 (model 99?) 6/4 BBb bells and bows were also York made.

What makes you sure?

What Joe mentioned about the upper bow and other bows seeming to be a different dimension along with it possibly being the easier business practice to buy stuff from York and then put their own valve sets on them.

[catgrowlB]

I've been shouted down on this, but I'll never be convinced that King did not make the Canadian Brass/G-50 tubas... and so what if King made them, as long as they're good...(??)...

Weren't the CB/G-50 tubas' bells and outer bows made by Meinl-Weston? Are you saying those tubas were assembled/finished at the King (Eastlake) facility?

I could believe that because they have all resources to make tubas, sousas and all other brasses. And especially back in the 1990s when those G-50 tubas were made. That was back when King was part of UMI (United Musical Instruments) and the quality was still good.
I tooted on one of those "Getzen" G-50 tubas at a tuba conference, and it was fantastic

Things changed when everything went Conn-Selmer

[bloke]

I just don't see anything on those instruments that doesn't look to me like it was most likely made by King.
I know what people say.
I've been wrong before.
I don't mind being the one person in 10,000 that suggests that I might be right and the other 9999 are wrong, but - when shown how stupid I've been and shown to be stupid in front of the same 9999, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong... but I just don't think so in this case.

the person who purchased the remaining parts and is assembling them and selling one instrument at a time:

If I'm correct, I don't see how this makes those instruments any less valuable... They're really good instruments.

[York-aholic]

I would think Chuck Daellenbach might know a bit about the CB-50.

[lost]

I could go along with maybe in the early 1900's holton contracted with york to make bows for their tubas when they were getting their plant up and running, but this arrangement most likely was short lived, if it even existed. Holton had a huge plant when they moved to Wisconsin where they could build their own. Google the picture of the Wisconsin factory.

Screenshot_20250617_224623_Google~2.jpg (57.26 KiB) Viewed 1687 times

Again, at least with the larger horns, york and holton parts are competely different ...and i'm talking horns circa 1914 when they were still in chicago. Different contours, different girths...when I have time to take pictures and post maybe I'll do it on the york site which has a farther reach.

This romantic idea that holton tubas throughout history were basically york tubas doesn't cheapen york, but attempts to elevate holton, which is fine because i have a bunch of holton stuff and it is good, good enough to stand on its own, and not need a York bump from people looking to monetarily capitalize.

I'd be the first one to admit I'm wrong when someone posts pictures of stamped parts from holton and york matching. Until then, like 'holic said...we don't know.

[bloke]

Here's what's going on:

Those of us have completely disassembled York and Holton instruments and enhanced them into late 20 and 21st century professional instruments have had a really close look at these things and have seen that - particularly the 19-in x 32-in instruments feature the same body parts.

I've only personally messed with post-York era 6/4 holton 34X six quarter instruments (well, this isn't exactly true, because I've smoothed out bells and bows of early Holton six quarter instruments for other people). The ones that were post York era Holton 34X series instruments were sort of built pretty crappy, but those who have spent serious time enhancing earlier era Holton six quarter instruments into 4 + 1 front action have observed that those 6/4 Holton instruments of the York era feature the same bells and bows, as well as the earlier Holton 6/4 top bow geometry matching that of York, as those earlier top bows on Holton 6/4 tubas are incompatible with the later 34X Holton design.

Our conclusions are based on extensive observations/comparisons inside and out, whereas it seems like your claims are based on politics... Ie. *York mystique"... I have no idea if you're one of those that talks about how Pop Johnson beat on pieces of sheet brass to decide whether or not they're going to buy it on delivery, and that their brass was a secret formula and all that stuff... but I'm completely familiar with the mentality and have been subjected to the recitations. All of this stuff prompts eye rolling nearly as much as the former American manufacturer who made tubas out of some sort of bronze/brass alloy, and claimed that their instruments were made of "York brass". Also redundant, but I do see it as a damn shame that the CSO York tuba was ruined by an overhaul job decades ago and is now skeletal.

I don't really care that my Holton tuba's bell and bows were made by York. The engraving on my instrument was worn down pretty badly and - in the process of converting it to a front action 4 + 1 - I had it engraved back over again with Holton engraving, not York.

Again to be redundant, the York engraving pattern is okay. It's a typical flowery pattern from the era, but the eagle on the USA Line instruments that York made was a hell of a lot more masculine, incredibly detailed, and I much prefer it.

[lost]

So if i post pictures of a holton and york from roughly 2 years apart in the 1915's or thereabouts with lots of measuring tape next to the pictures to show you they were made different sizes and are different measurements, could we come to an agreement that Holton made ***some*** their own tubas?

What did holton do after 1940 when York stopped making their line of basses?

Can we agree that the Holton band company finally learned how to make their own basses by then?

[bloke]

The title of the thread is really quite specific about which ones are the same - as far as bows and bells.
Did I ever state that Holton didn't make any tubas?

Something pretty telling - even beyond measurements and York model stamping on parts (on to the playing characteristics of them) - is that when either the Holton or York engraved bows and bells specifically mentioned in the title of the thread are modernized with viable or rebuilt valve sections, they play very much the same, whereas the very similar looking (way past York manufacturing era) undeniably Holton-made 330/331 "Phillips" instruments don't play/sound anything like the instruments made back during the dual Holton/York era.

If you want to get into a REALLY confusing nightmare as to who made what, start looking at Lyon & Healy brass.

[lost]

I said some of their tubas, fully aware which tubas you mentioned. I think my point is that some people, including those who have commented have pushed the idea that a holton tuba is the same as a york tuba, muddying the waters, and really I am trying to filter the waters pointing out how unlikely a longterm york holton partnership was, if at all and definitely not past 1940...and the fact that holton had capabilities of making tubas.

[MiBrassFS]

.

[bloke]

internet and pre-internet...

Even recently, I've heard the fable repeated about Arnold Jacobs having only one lung.

[Robson]

The York/USA/Holton 19"-bell/32-inch-tall E-flats are probably the best of the century-old "monster" E-flats, but (to me) the tuning is still (with most of these) a bit too wonky... (as with all the others: most of the E-flat versions featuring saggy 4th-and-8th partials - with a few rare anomalous exceptions).

...but the 32-inch-tall 19"-bell B-flats (NOT cut to C, which - again - messes up the tuning characteristics and cuts out some of the resonance) absolutely rock.

Is it possible to build a B flat 32" x 19" starting with a York Monsters E flat body?

Sorry if it's a dumb question. I'm new here on the Tuba World....

[bloke]

The Holton/York 32-inch tall w/19" bell B-flat and E-flat tubas used the same bell. The bottom bow was nearly the same, but is/was a bit smaller on the small end. All the rest of the bows were smaller for the E-flat and - of course - several feet shorter.

Having owned one of the E-flats (one engraved "York" and with a York valve section) again, it was the most playable/usable of the big American made E-flats in in the earlier 20th century, but still much wonkier than the B flat version.

Were I to be forced to wager, I'd wager that lengthening one of the E-flat bugles to B-flat wouldn't result with a tuba that's particularly easy to play in tune. In my personal experience, shortening one of the B-flat ones just 2 feet shorter to C wonks up the tuning characteristics. No, the B-flat version isn't a "perfectly" in tune instrument (hey: it's a tuba), but it's pretty darn good.

The two pictures below are not posted to "demonstrate" nor "prove" anything...but just to look at.

This is a York-made (York-engraved/York-sold) "monster" E-flat tuba with its original bell, bows, it's original (3-valve) front-action .656" bore valve section, and another York-made/matching .656" bore piston which I harvested from a stencil-brand (yes, York made instruments for others, as well as parts of instruments) small-bore sousaphone. I also managed to reuse the original York mouthpipe tube (which is something that most of these types of jobs are unable to incorporate). The 5th rotor here is a .709" bore rotor. Per typical the 4th and 8th partials (open E-flats, and 2nd valve D's) were a bit saggy, and required my attention (though - again - less saggy vs. other American makes of same-vintage "monster" E-flat tubas). I built this for my own use, within a year an elderly gentleman insisted on buying it from me (who had just lost his wife, so I insisted on him waiting a year to buy it - which he did, and then bought it). Many years later, the same elderly gentleman put it up for sale, I bought it back, picked over it (bringing it back as nice as when I first sold it to him) and (yup) sold it again:



====================================================

This one is a Holton 19" x 32" B-flat with (blatantly obvious to me) York-made bell and bows:
(I discarded the Holton-made 3-valve .665" bore top-action valveset, turned the bows around, added a King 6th branch (for reasons that others understand who've done this) and pasted on a heavily-altered King model 2341 (.687" bore) valveset plus a 19mm bore 5th rotor:
(i put this one together fairly recently..."a few years ago"...and still own/use it.)

[Robson]

The Holton/York 32-inch tall B-flat and E-flat tubas used the same bell. The bottom bow was nearly the same, but is/was a bit smaller on the small end. All the rest of the bows were smaller for the E-flat and - of course - several feet shorter.

Having owned one of the E-flats (one engraved "York" and with a York valve section) again, it was the most playable/usable of the big American made E-flats in in the earlier 20th century, but still much wonkier than the B flat version.

Were I to be forced to wager, I'd wager that lengthening one of the E-flat bugles to B-flat wouldn't result with a tuba that's particularly easy to play in tune. In my personal experience, shortening one of the B-flat ones just 2 feet shorter to C wonks up the tuning characteristics. No, the B-flat version isn't a perfectly in tune instrument, but it's pretty darn good.

Thanks a lot!