Mirafone fantasy

Tubas, euphoniums, mouthpieces, and anything music-related.
Forum rules
This section is for posts that are directly related to performance, performers, or equipment. Social issues are allowed, as long as they are directly related to those categories. If you see a post that you cannot respond to with respect and courtesy, we ask that you do not respond at all.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

I grew up in circumstances not dissimilar from Bloke’s oft-mentioned youth. There’s just no way our family could have afforded a thousand-dollar tuba in 1970, when I first played the instrument, or even private lessons. I have no regrets, and believe my life enjoyed abundant good fortune, but that doesn’t preclude the occasional venture into an alternate reality.

I have this fantasy that maybe 1.) I was more talented and dedicated, 2.) I had a private instructor who could tell me about the tuba world, and 3.) I had the option of buying (or receiving from my parents) a new tuba. In that fantasy, the instructor would have been Bill Rose and the tuba would have been a Mirafone 186.

(A good friend, known to us all, lived that fantasy, so I know how it goes.)

I can’t go back and study with a top pro as a teenager. I did get to enjoy a 186 while in school, though. My high school band director arranged to borrow a Mirafone from Rice University. He was buddies with the director of bands there, and played in the MOB (as did Mike Lynch, and at about the same time). This was 1975, and by then I knew that a Mirafone was the aspirational instrument for such as me. I played Carmina Burana on that instrument, including the high E, in contest.

But let’s say I did get that Mirafone in 1970. There is about a 1 in maybe 600 chance that this is the instrument I’d have owned:

Image

(I prepped this pic a couple of weeks ago and I just know I’ve posted it already, but I just can’t find where I did, so maybe that was also a fantasy.)

And if a 186 was bought for me in 1970, this is about the condition it would be in now.

I described buying it at the Army Workshop in the thread on that workshop, so I won’t reiterate that here. Let’s just say it was a unique buying opportunity, with a high value ratio.

I’ve owned a 186 previously, and traded it (plus a LOT of cash) for the Hirsbrunner 193. My thought at the time was that Miraphones were common, and I could always replace it. But 193’s are rare and special and I’d never get another shot at owning one. That 186 had been ironed out but was a run-of-the-mill late-70’s example in raw brass with valves with worn bearings. Nevertheless, I owned that 186 from 1992 to 2015, and always felt at home with it, despite that wasn’t the best of the breed.

My first gig with it was this last week. The quintet was hired to play the National Anthem at a local conference, and the Todd Marchand arrangement needed the bottom of a 4/4 contrabass. It was easy to play, melded well with the group, and played in tune. With that validation, I really wanted to spruce it up enough to present well to an audience. The lacquer was splotchy and the outer branches were a mixed of z61 flattening and scratched and pitted lacquer, especially around the bell, which is what the audience will see. The above photo is more flattering than reality, but it doesn’t show the ugly brown spots on the inside of the bell where the tech had burned the lacquer to anneal the brass for straightening the bell.

So, I made use of today’s warm Spring weather and removed most of the lacquer from the bell and outer branches using Ferree’s lacquer stripper. Then, I did a bit more dent work and then buffed-polished it with white compound, rouge, and Wenol.

Here it is, passing, as hoped, the 50-foot test. The bell shows scars, but they blend rather than clash.

Image

And just for fun, here’s is the Mirafone 186 next to a Giardinelli-branded B&S 101. The tall bell of the latter gives it more projection, but the Miraphone has a meatier, warmer sound.

Image

I also worked out the small remaining issues in the valves, and now it’s flooding me with nostalgic memories I don’t even possess.

Rick “home again” Denney
These users thanked the author Rick Denney for the post (total 9):
graybach (Sun Mar 08, 2026 11:16 pm) • MN_TimTuba (Sun Mar 08, 2026 11:34 pm) • the elephant (Sun Mar 08, 2026 11:54 pm) • York-aholic (Sun Mar 08, 2026 11:59 pm) • gocsick (Mon Mar 09, 2026 5:07 am) and 4 more users


prodigal
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri May 30, 2025 2:22 pm
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by prodigal »

Those are two great BBbs right there, and that's coming from a CC guy. (Granted, there ARE more great BBbs than great CCs...)
1960 186CC
B&S 5099/PT-15
Cerveny 653
A bunch of string instruments
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 24361
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 5223 times
Been thanked: 5886 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by bloke »

I've always sort of been enchanted with those model 80 15-inch bell Miraphone F tubas, but every time I see one priced pretty well, I know that - were I to buy it - I would only fool around with it a few times a year and it would collect dust. ... Or I would want to convert it to a 4 + 2, whereby no one else would want to buy it. :laugh:

Plus, I already have two (both, far nicer than a model 80) F instruments that - these days - only get used occasionally.
(The recording bell 3 + 1 compensating E flat probably gets used more than either of those, these days, and - when playing it - I don't even know what notes I'm playing, most of the time... though I am starting to read lead sheets occasionally when playing it - and not just "music" - but the note names are beginning to pop into my head with more regularity, rather than just capo-ing the tuba . :tuba: )

Even with an early 4/4 B&S already at hand, at least a Miraphone 86 B-flat is a practical instrument, though (you know me) I would pick one and flip the other.

As we reach the last 15 or 20 years of our lives (or 5 or 10 :bugeyes: ) simply owning instruments and devices that we hopelessly admired from afar as teenagers still gives us a little rush.
I guess I like owning such things for a few months (until I have time to pretty them up, mess with them for a bit, and then be reminded of what I already have) and then letting someone else own them.

There is one "secret euphonium" (compensating, and probably '80s vintage - one that has more recently become something else) upstairs that some seem to think I might possibly choose over the one that I already have, but I bought it missing all the valves and slides, later acquired all the valves and slides for it new, but have never been able to find the time to fit all of them to the instrument.
The very last time I needed to use a euphonium, I didn't use my big compensating one; I used my little brown $100 Yamaha 321, though I'm sure the big one will get a lot of use on Easter Sunday (and - once again - pay for itself in full).

bloke "a bottom-feeder, when it comes to buying things for myself or to sell to others"
These users thanked the author bloke for the post:
prodigal (Mon Mar 09, 2026 6:15 pm)
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

I have too many 4/4 Bb tubas, for sure. It will probably take me a little while to know which one to move along, but I suspect the Mirafone will be the last one standing--the intonation is much closer without alternate fingerings--as you say more practical.

But I also think it's okay to have an instrument or two that stay in the fleet because of warm fuzzies. I think this Mirafone was the cheapest Bb tuba at the Army workshop by a healthy distance, and by far the best cheap Bb tuba, even setting the "cheap" threshold at twice what I paid. Even so, I think I'm the only person to have touched it, though Aaron would know better if someone else also showed interest when I wasn't looking. Point being: I don't think my buying this 186 just for warm fuzzies kept anyone from having the instrument of their dreams.

Likewise, the 101 was even cheaper the year I bought it, and in poorer condition, and I suspect Matt sighed in relief when I was willing to buy it from him. I don't know what its fate would have been had I not bought it, but I suspect the scrap pile was not out of the question. I got my value out of it in the fun of messing with it out in the shop.

I have actually sold tubas in the past, in case anyone was wondering. :laugh: Including, as it happens, a Vespro-branded VMI made in the same factory as the 101, and the aforementioned 11,xxx-serial 186. Both of these show more scars, but still play better than the ones I sold.

Rick "more sentimental than Joe, but let's face it--not a high bar :laugh: " Denney
These users thanked the author Rick Denney for the post (total 2):
bloke (Mon Mar 09, 2026 12:31 pm) • prodigal (Mon Mar 09, 2026 6:15 pm)
User avatar
Stryk
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:51 am
Has thanked: 201 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Stryk »

It's really hard to beat a 70s Mirafone 186! REALLY hard.
These users thanked the author Stryk for the post:
prodigal (Mon Mar 09, 2026 6:15 pm)
Terry Stryker
Mirafone 186C, 186BBb, 184C, 186C clone
Gebr. Alexander New 163C, Vintage 163C, Vintage 163BBb
Amati 481C
Lyon & Healy 6/4
Kane Stealth tuba
A plethora of others....
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 24361
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 5223 times
Been thanked: 5886 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by bloke »

A flaw of the 1970's (as well as later 1960's and beyond) 186 BB-flats is that they substituted (previous design) THREE #2 slide bows (to construct the slide for the 4th circuit) with the same slide bow as is used on the #1 and #3 slides.

The previous (as described) is the only way (without a serious reconfig) to offer a long enough #4 circuit (for the "best" - in bloke's modest opinion) tuning of 2-4 played pitches (B and E).

I would probably pull #1 (to play most at-least-a-quarter-note-long C's) with 1-3, use 2-4 (with the very-old-style loop-under LONGER #4 slide (for B-natural, use 4 for low F, and suffer with 2-4 (but far less suffering than with the modern-era shorter #4 slide) for low E.

#4 slide - late 60's and beyond:
modern.png
modern.png (1.9 KiB) Viewed 45367 times
#4 slide - very early era:
oldstyle.png
oldstyle.png (1.85 KiB) Viewed 45367 times

a bloke belief:
Properly-built BB-flat tubas' #1 slides (if they are to be moved on the fly for closer-to-optimum intonation and resonance) should be able to be pushed in enough to play 2nd space C (1st valve) up to pitch, yet should be able to be pulled out enough to play 1-3 C (octave lower) down to pitch.


bloke "neither crappy diagram drawn carefully, nor to scale...but the OLD style COULD be pulled out far enough to play 2-4 B-natural down to pitch, as - per the way the 86 BB-flat #4 slide is 'boxed in' to the guts of the valveset, the #4 slide pull is quite limited."
..
These users thanked the author bloke for the post:
York-aholic (Mon Mar 09, 2026 9:57 pm)
prodigal
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri May 30, 2025 2:22 pm
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by prodigal »

I've only played newer 186 BBbs, so do the older ones 60s-70s) have more intonation issues than the CCs? (Just honest ignorance here..)
1960 186CC
B&S 5099/PT-15
Cerveny 653
A bunch of string instruments
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

prodigal wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 6:19 pm I've only played newer 186 BBbs, so do the older ones 60s-70s) have more intonation issues than the CCs? (Just honest ignorance here..)
No. No tuba is perfect, but the 186 (Bb and C) were about as close to a complete 4/4 package as anyone hoped for. They have both been and continue to be bedrock instruments in countless professional situations (well, maybe “countless” is wishful thinking these days). We should understand that people did make music with good intonation in the 70’s, and the 186 made it a lot less difficult than most.

Where the 186 was a bit less strong was in making a big, orchestral sound (loud, yes), or in providing a broad floor for an orchestra. The 188 was intended to address that a bit, and Roger Bobo didn’t have any trouble making it work. But the orchestra pros of the day either battled their Alexanders to get that sound or they battled their Holtons—the only Yorkish option before the Yorkbrunner—to get a different sound. Compared to those, the Miraphone was dead easy.

There are plenty of tubas made today that don’t play as well in tune, that’s for sure.

Rick “remembering when a certain Memphis music store had a 188 in its T.U.B.A. ads” Denney
These users thanked the author Rick Denney for the post:
prodigal (Tue Mar 10, 2026 10:14 am)
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 24361
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 5223 times
Been thanked: 5886 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by bloke »

We sold a few.
These users thanked the author bloke for the post (total 2):
Rick Denney (Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:59 pm) • prodigal (Tue Mar 10, 2026 10:14 am)
York-aholic
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:39 pm
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by York-aholic »

bloke wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 12:47 pm A flaw of the 1970's (as well as later 1960's and beyond) 186 BB-flats is that they substituted (previous design) THREE #2 slide bows (to construct the slide for the 4th circuit) with the same slide bow as is used on the #1 and #3 slides.

The previous (as described) is the only way (without a serious reconfig) to offer a long enough #4 circuit (for the "best" - in bloke's modest opinion) tuning of 2-4 played pitches (B and E).

I would probably pull #1 (to play most at-least-a-quarter-note-long C's) with 1-3, use 2-4 (with the very-old-style loop-under LONGER #4 slide (for B-natural, use 4 for low F, and suffer with 2-4 (but far less suffering than with the modern-era shorter #4 slide) for low E.

#4 slide - late 60's and beyond:

modern.png

#4 slide - very early era:

oldstyle.png


a bloke belief:
Properly-built BB-flat tubas' #1 slides (if they are to be moved on the fly for closer-to-optimum intonation and resonance) should be able to be pushed in enough to play 2nd space C (1st valve) up to pitch, yet should be able to be pulled out enough to play 1-3 C (octave lower) down to pitch.


bloke "neither crappy diagram drawn carefully, nor to scale...but the OLD style COULD be pulled out far enough to play 2-4 B-natural down to pitch, as - per the way the 86 BB-flat #4 slide is 'boxed in' to the guts of the valveset, the #4 slide pull is quite limited."
..
I'm working on a 1972 186 BBb for myself. While looking at pictures on that World Wide Web thingy, I saw a 186 that had that W in the fourth slide but it used two 2nd crooks on top and a 1st or 3rd crook on the bottom.

Mine has a #1 or #3 crook on top (ie too short for 2/4). My plan is to add a fifth valve above 1st, routing both tubes upward and make it a flat half step.

While it is scary good in the intonation department, it needs the main slide pushed in ALL the way. It needed a new leadpipe (was in 3 pieces when I bought it as a box of parts) so when I found a deal on an old but new CC (4 or 5 valve) leadpipe, I bought it. The vertical height with the added fifth valve should be right to match up to the BBb top bow and hopefully be about right length wise to give me a bit of pull on the main slide. If it's too sharp, I'll be listing it here. :-)
Some old Yorks, Martins, and perhaps a King rotary valved CC
User avatar
Mary Ann
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:24 am
Has thanked: 803 times
Been thanked: 915 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Mary Ann »

I'd like the opportunity to play one and compare it to my 494. Pretty sure I can't heft it at this point in my ongoing physical demise, but still curious.
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 24361
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 5223 times
Been thanked: 5886 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by bloke »

York-aholic wrote:I'm working on a 1972 186 BBb for myself. While looking at pictures on that World Wide Web thingy, I saw a 186 that had that W in the fourth slide but it used two 2nd crooks on top and a 1st or 3rd crook on the bottom.
...as long as that extra amount doesn't define that pushing #4 in all the way isn't yet too long of a circuit for "low F" or (for those who also try to use the 4th circuit for C) rather than a "somewhat flat" C, a "dreadfully flat" C.

The 4th slide on that model is very short, and (imo) the BB-flat 4th circuit should be config'ed as on the C version.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

Mary Ann wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 9:37 am I'd like the opportunity to play one and compare it to my 494. Pretty sure I can't heft it at this point in my ongoing physical demise, but still curious.
The 494 I played is a great tuba. It would be an interesting comparison.

Rick “thinking the 494 is a bit smaller, but bigger than a 184” Denney
Last edited by Rick Denney on Tue Mar 10, 2026 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
aarongsmith
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:40 am
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by aarongsmith »

Rick Denney wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:32 am Even so, I think I'm the only person to have touched it, though Aaron would know better if someone else also showed interest when I wasn't looking.
There was another interested party, but it was a means to an end for them. I prefer when horns end up with people that are truly happy to own and play them. Everybody's situation is different, but it's nice to know that a horn you sold is going to someone who will love it.

Also, it looks much nicer without the lacquer! I knew there was a handsome horn under the ugly, spotty lacquer.
These users thanked the author aarongsmith for the post:
Rick Denney (Tue Mar 10, 2026 2:08 pm)
Rudolf Meinl 5/4CC
Mirafone 186-5U CC
Miraphone Norwegian Star
Besson New Standard Euph
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 24361
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 5223 times
Been thanked: 5886 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by bloke »

Original lacquer (regardless of appearance) is about the only way to know for certain whether-or-not something has had the crap buffed out of it.

I might (??) look at a re-lacquered tuba with a bunch of well-defined pits and scratches under the new lacquer.

Brown tubas are too difficult to examine for signs of epic polishing away of them.
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 24361
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 5223 times
Been thanked: 5886 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by bloke »

@Rick Denney

I've often thought about "which were the most accessible (playing-wise) tubas available in 1970? ...had I managed to acquire "the best" and had concentrated - at that time - on the tuba (which - at that time - I only considered to be "a way to not be in general music, singing with the sissies") rather than on the guitar
(my first school year with the tuba was 1969 - 1970, whereby I switched from trumpet to tuba after Christmas...so - for me - 1970 as well.)

most European tubas: unavailable/unknown and (most often, based on modern-day experiences) with epically flat open D/D-flat as well as (often) quite a few other epic anomalies.

King: The two-piece 2341 did not yet exist, therefore only the 1241 (with 3-valve-tuba-lengths-way-too-long 1st and 3rd circuits) was available...and I would have been too ignorant (and lacking in resources or able repair peeps) to know what to do about those problems...

...so (I guess) 1970 186 BB-flat were probably just about all there was to consider as "tops"...other than (maybe...??) the "York Master" B/M knock-off of the York model 712 tubas. For a short time, I had access to a recording bell (B/M-made) York Master with three .750" bore front-action valves...but (at that time) I wasn't much of a player, though I spend a good amount of time playing it at home - for that short period of time, because it was shiny. (It belonged to the Memphis Park Commission Band, which also owned a Conn 36K fiberglass sousaphone.)

bloke "yeah...Had a York 712 fallen into my lap, I might have actually concentrated on 'tuba'."


York 712
Image
Last edited by bloke on Tue Mar 10, 2026 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

bloke wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 1:13 pm Original lacquer (regardless of appearance) is about the only way to know for certain whether-or-not something has had the crap buffed out of it.

I might (??) look at a re-lacquered tuba with a bunch of well-defined pits and scratches under the new lacquer.

Brown tubas are too difficult to examine for signs of epic polishing away of them.
Yes—nothing was hidden here, for better or worse. Of course, nothing I did hid the scratches and pitting that made it through the old lacquer.

Rick “has no problem with evidence of history, but wanted it to present better on stage” Denney
York-aholic
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:39 pm
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by York-aholic »

bloke wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 10:13 am
York-aholic wrote:I'm working on a 1972 186 BBb for myself. While looking at pictures on that World Wide Web thingy, I saw a 186 that had that W in the fourth slide but it used two 2nd crooks on top and a 1st or 3rd crook on the bottom.
...as long as that extra amount doesn't define that pushing #4 in all the way isn't yet too long of a circuit for "low F" or (for those who also try to use the 4th circuit for C) rather than a "somewhat flat" C, a "dreadfully flat" C.

The 4th slide on that model is very short, and (imo) the BB-flat 4th circuit should be config'ed as on the C version.
Now you're getting downright picky!

Other than that single picture, all others used just one wide crook (too short) or three 2nd valve narrow crooks. I have no idea if the one with two 2nd and one 3rd crook was factory. Maybe someone just came up short on narrow 2nd crooks...

I agree that they should have made the BBb 4th routing like the CC but perhaps, knowing that most of the BBb would end up in schools, they wanted that nestled inside the chassis for protection...

I thought seriously about redoing my 4th to mimic the CC version but don't see a way without buying a the CC pieces that come out of the 4th valve... Maybe I should give that some more thought...
Some old Yorks, Martins, and perhaps a King rotary valved CC
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

bloke wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 1:26 pm @Rick Denney

I've often thought about "which were the most accessible (playing-wise) tubas available in 1970?
(my first school year with the tuba was 1969 - 1970, whereby I switched to tuba after Christmas...so - for me - 1970 as well.)

most European tubas: unavailable/unknown and (most often, based on modern-day experiences) with epically flat open D/D-flat as well as (often) quite a few other epic anomalies.

King: The two-piece 2341 did not yet exist, therefore only the 1241 (with 3-valve-tuba-length-way-too-long 1st and 3rd circuits) was available...and I would have been too ignorant (and lacking in resources or able repair peeps) to know what to do about those problems...

...so (I guess) 186 BB-flat were probably just about all there was to consider as "tops"...other than (maybe...??) the "York Master" B/M knock-off of the York model 730/712 tubas. For a short time, I had access to a recording bell (B/M-made) York Master with three .750" bore front-action valves...but (at that time) I wasn't much of a player, though I spend a good amount of time playing it at home - for that short period of time, because it was shiny. (It belonged to the Memphis Park Commission Band, which also owned a Conn 36K fiberglass sousaphone.)
I think there was a regional aspect—Texas, like California, was Miraphone Country. My understanding is that “back east,” Meinl-Weston held that status, and maybe the Model 25 was the default European rotary tuba everyone wanted.

But don’t forget Besson. My high school, the all/city band in Houston, and the (extra-curricular) A&M Symphonic Band all had large Besson tubas, uncompensated, like the Stratford. I might have played that in high school had that instrument been in playable condition. I’m sure that one was bought new when the school opened in 1962, and by 1974 when I entered high school, it was beat to death and had a broken receiver. My band director gave it to me, and in adulthood I had it repaired and used it. It wasn’t too terrible once I installed a proper receiver and cut all the slides to provide a little adjustment room. I later traded it for a valve trombone at Walter Hutcherson’s Musical Exchange in Austin.

The junior high all-city band also had some top-action Bach tubas which were probably Conn 10J’s in those days. I think top-action 3-valve tubas were standard issue in schools in those days. None of the schools had Miraphones.

Rick “Miraphones were aspirational” Denney
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Mirafone fantasy

Post by Rick Denney »

aarongsmith wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 11:34 am
Rick Denney wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:32 am Even so, I think I'm the only person to have touched it, though Aaron would know better if someone else also showed interest when I wasn't looking.
There was another interested party, but it was a means to an end for them. I prefer when horns end up with people that are truly happy to own and play them. Everybody's situation is different, but it's nice to know that a horn you sold is going to someone who will love it.

Also, it looks much nicer without the lacquer! I knew there was a handsome horn under the ugly, spotty lacquer.
The camera is kind. But it simulates the appearance from a safe distance, which was the objective. Up close, there's texture not visible from afar.

I might spray some lacquer on the bell to keep it looking like it does, but so far I haven't been able to get motivated about doing so. At least it will patina uniformly rather that the patina making it look worse. My before picture looked better already--I had already wiped off the patina from the unlacquered areas where the bell creases were ironed out using Wenol. I have a couple of rattle cans of Nikolas lacquer for some work I did on bronze plaques at the church.

I'm glad you enjoy it when a tuba goes to a happy home, but really first money must be honored. But given that there was another interested party, I'm glad I made you stay late to process the payment and didn't decide to come back the next morning. :)

Rick "hopefully the purchase helped make the booth seem worthwhile to your bosses" Denney
Post Reply