TubaForum.net

6/4 recording tubas produce false tones even more easily and more solidly than regular 6/4 tubas (in my experience), so - as one of your tubas has three valves - that's the one to feature three.

... same goes with 5/4...Unlike most people who own old Besson tubas, I have both a 24-in recording belt and a 17 inch upright bell for my compensating Besson B-flat. The false tones are much easier with the recording bell offering the additional curve at the end of the instrument.

That's a nice pair of instruments you have there!

.

Okay, I found a mouthpiece combo this tuba really likes.

@bloke piece Symphony, with an Orchestra Grand Euro shank.

False tones... YEAH!!! This thing eats them up. I played it a bunch today, and pitch/response stability is MUCH better on this one than my original-ish condition 340.

Once that thing goes together with some care, I think I'll have some dangerous weaponry on my hands. Rebuilt valves, carefully soldered together, dent free, raw brass... Drool.

MiBrassFS wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:00 am Wondering out loud… in text… I wonder if that bell-elbow-curve reflects the sound back in a bit allowing it to be pushed against resulting in better false tones?

Maybe we need a “Show us your bell front tuba” thread.


“Bellbow” Wasn’t he in “The Hobbit?”

Great idea! Let's show our bell fronts some love

I had the mouthpipe moved for the sake of comfortability. Before, it was much too high, and just came straight off the bell, which meant that I literally had to turn the tuba to point almost sideways to (un)comfortably play it.

It actually hits between the old factory brace mark and the newer, higher, before location. Now, it fits me perfectly, the bell can be pointed straight ahead, and doesn't impede slide movement at all. I am one happy camper. It also looks less weird with this nicely re-bent pipe on it.

Guys, seriously, this is the BEST sounding tuba that I own. It's just amazing the quality and quantity of sound that it puts out. I'll record it sometime but that won't do it justice.

Really, all that's left to do is get the big dent out of the top bow, and the big one out of the bottom bow, and strip what's left of the finish off. I probably won't be doing that dent work for a L O N G time, as I'm more focused on my 345, and this one's just a big ol' ugly bell front that I'll use in the summer and for Tuba Xmas, but really, that's what gives it the cool factor, isn't it?

[

Hey, long time no see in this thread! I've been busy collecting parts for my 2165, getting that valve work done to my F tuba, and Keith had another tuba in his queue before this Holton resurrection, but now we're finally able to proceed with this huge project.

Earlier today, Keith stripped the lacquer off the body. I know some of you felt I should leave it alone, but again, the tuba is going through so much dent work, and the lacquer was already spotty anyway. It just makes sense. I'll also be having the same sort of brushed finish done on this one as my 2165, which may help hide some of the previous dent scarring.

Just a refresher...

This horn will pretty much be going through a complete rebirth. Soon, the body will be completely taken apart and resoldered and dents removed, just like my 2165 but more thorough because, well, it's a Holton, and it was also in rougher condition. This means the bottom bow guard will come off, all the guard wire will be replaced, and every solder joint will be re-done, the right way.

Keith has also made ALL the slide crooks I was missing, and I think has repaired the damaged ones I did have. Namely, the upper/lower 4th crooks needed to be fabricated because I didn't have them, and the entire valve section is .750" bore. This will help the valve section go together quicker, later.

Additionally, I found a new receiver (NOT marked BB-340) because, well, it would bother me. Say what you will. It IS Holton, just unmarked. No, I don't have the old one anymore.

I ALSO found something that I'd been looking for under the radar for a while. I don't have it yet, but I'll post about it when I do.

[
Here it is during the lacquer removal process. I have some of this stuff for my bell front Holton as well. Once life slows down a bit, I'll get the rest of the terrible lacquer off that horn myself.

Just a moment for a word from or sponsor:
------------------------
m charging a lot for them, but I have some upper #4 slide1-inch span bows for Holton 345 tubas for sale.

100 bucks... Yes, that's a lot, but I have them.

In my last post I alluded to finding something cool to go along with this project.

That thing is a Holton Revelation 52 that I got from the Bay. I didn't pay much money for it at all. It will be restored/plated. Keith's gonna do it when my 345 is closer to being done/when he sends other stuff out to the plater. I just think it will be really cool to have the mouthpiece that came with these tubas along with 'em.

It actually doesn't play or sound too bad when I tested it out with my recording bell Holton. Yes, it fit the receiver perfectly.

[
I always wonder what happens to these things over the course of their lives to accrue so much damage. I know it probably won't be perfect, but it will be way better than it is. I don't know exactly what he's gonna do to get it ready for plating, but I said "whatever you need to do, do it."

[

Nice! I am a big fan of pairing up tubas with their original mouthpieces, for posterity’s sake if nothing else (typically not performance).

I actually have a big-ass “52” that is not labeled Holton although it matches the blank of a Revelation down to the machining of the decorative bits. I keep it mostly for kicks. You can lose something in it if you’re not careful…

Another update:

Keith has the bottom bow completely dent free, and round again.

He's also got the bottom bow guard dent free and reinstalled, with a nice new guard wire on top of that.

The top bow is ALSO dent free, complete with a new guard wire.

Next up, I'm assuming, is the bell and it's many small dents and pings throughout, a few small dents on the inner branches (though most are in remarkable shape), and then soldering the main body together.

After that comes the really tough work of the valve section. While the pistons/casings have been rebuilt, I'm anticipating a challenge as with Joe's Holton, getting things parallel and moving freely. As with all of these, there's going to be a compromise between looking "right" and square, and, well, where the factory decided they wanted to put the valve block on the day they made this tuba. It didn't look far off with the 3v section on it though, so fingers crossed nothing looks too wonky.

I did ask Keith when we originally started this to try and use as much of the original Holton stuff as he could, knowing full well some of those tubes may be past their expiration date. I'm planning to let him do his thing, replace/make what needs to be replaced, and have a valve section that functions and moves the way I want it. No jammed up tuning slides on this horn!

Some may find that silly, but truthfully, I want this tuba to be the absolute best a Holton 345 can be, mechanically and structurally speaking. I think if those things are sound, the playing experience will be that much better. It really is what these tubas deserve.

Went by Keith's with my little Eb for a cleaning/MAW valve fitting, and saw my Holton in a "exploded" view

All the main bows are dent free/round, bell is mostly done, and I think he's still picking at the inner bows and such for roundness and smaller dents. If you recall, I asked him to re-solder every ferrule in the body of the horn, really because all these Holtons need it. It will probably be one of the most air-tight 345's around.

Surprisingly, things fit together pretty well overall, for one of these things. No uneven cuts, ferrules fit pretty well, bottom bow isn't horribly weird looking, again, like many of these things.

Unsurprisingly, many of the smaller inner bows were under a bunch of tension, so we'll get that eliminated on reassembly.

Oh, and he got that original bow guard repaired *perfectly.* It REALLY looks good.

All the other stuff there is what I have for the valve section. Remember, rebuilt pistons too, which is also a really, really good thing. He made an upper 4th crook, may make an upper third if needed, and will also need to make a lower 4th. I also like those long 2nd slide pull rings, but since the slides will all be really well aligned, may not need one of those.

Once this thing is stuck together, I'm anticipating re-bending the leadpipe since it's an entirely new valve section, and probably won't end up in the same place as the old one. We'll try to get that as "factory" as possible, even though there was pretty much no standard for these things anyway.

Goal is to be finished by March, maybe around my spring break would be really cool.

[

It's very difficult to put those together without them appearing "cockeyed". I suspect that the bottom bow (lacking any straight legs portions at all) is part-or-all of the cause of that difficulty. I tend to wonder if Holton (having possibly first made Mr. Jacobs' C version - as the original goal of the 345 was to claim that all the principals in the CSO played Holton instruments) cut down the older version of their 6/4 bottom bow (as part of their "cut to C" strategy) and then just decided to use the cut-down version of the bottom bow on both the C and B-flat versions of the 345.

I have an almost-completed (original-everything) BB-345 here that's very close to being completed...but I had to back up, because the only way to mount the valve section straight with the rest of the instrument would be to (as they did at the factory) mash tubing into other tubing. They did this because the upper bow of the 4th circuit (at the factory) was bent too wide, and - thus - crowded the dogleg (off the large side of the main slide).
To remedy this, I had to make a new upper section of the 4th circuit (with a narrower bow) from scratch...but (with so many school repairs) it sits-and-sits.

bloke "only wondering (in regards to why Holton bottom bows are so truncated)...not 'stating' anything"

My bottom bow was *difficult* to line up so that it did not look cattywampus. But the real alignment issue was that the top bow was over-bent and could NOT be aligned properly on both sides. If a centerline for the bow was plotted, you could see that one side of the U was about 7º too far in and would eventually touch the other side, if extended long enough. A top bow bent 187º can wreak havoc on a builder who wants the tuba to look "not weird". Even at the factory. I think that explains a lot about a bunch of these horns.

I got mine nicely lined up, save for one joint, where I hid all the errors in one go. It ended up looking really good, I feel.

As a risk-taker, I've encountered what Mr. Wade describes (particularly after smoothing out an epically beat-up one), but - once straightened out - I'll go ahead and sign myself for a bit more work, pull the legs out to the place were (likely inherited from my Mom, the commercial artist) the legs "look" right, and then (yup) go back and (only a bit of remedial work required) re-smooth the sides of the arch (upper sides) of the top bow.

Sometimes, I'm able to pull the legs out (a little bit at a time, gradually re-correcting, while removing dents) so that - when I'm done - I'm done.

bloke "When frankentubaists bring me their huge Holton bells, bottom bows, top bows, and inner bows, I typically sigh, and then get to work.

I know it won’t be perfect. I’ve also noticed the original Yorks and I think some Yamayorks with the weirdo looking bottom bow ferrules. However, those are probably designed that way. These weren’t.

We’ll get this thing as good as it can possibly be, certainly better than the Holton factory would’ve ever produced.

It does still have the original Euro receiver, which I’ll keep because it’s original. Luckily I try to have both shank sizes on my Houser stuff, so finding something to work with this tuba should be easy.

Those euro receivers were actually appropriate for the small end bore of those mouth pipe tubes.

...but those Holton 52 mouthpieces - which were stock - didn't offer much clarity.

I actually have one of those 52’s. All the plating is gone and I’ll probably have it restored down the line. Will I actually use it? Probably not, but it’s cool to have what the tuba actually came with.

I also have one, but just marked “52” and not Holton or Revelation or anything like that. It’s a massive, bottomless pit of a funnel, right?

Yeah. Scroll up a little bit in this thread and you’ll see it. Super deep cup for sure.

arpthark wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 9:34 am I also have one, but just marked “52” and not Holton or Revelation or anything like that. It’s a massive, bottomless pit of a funnel, right?

a full 4 inches long, an extremely deep straight funnel, a very large throat, a straight taper back bore, and with the outside edge of the rim area two full inches in width. (aka Conn 1, aka Conn "Chief")

@tubaing - when I did a so-called restoration on his very beat up Holton BB-345 (at his request) elongated the slide tubes on the main tuning slide, because the instrument was sharp natured.

The thing is this:
Playing that instrument with the supplied/stock mouthpiece, I doubt that it was sharp natured at all, but who's going to be playing one of those mouthpieces?