Opinions on Raw Brass

[btcampbellTUBA]

Currently thinking of stripping the lacquer off the bell of my 632. I'm wondering what peoples general opinions are on raw brass vs lacquer.
Arguably doing it would be stupid for me(No lacquer issues currently on the bell, I just really enjoy the look of a raw brass bell).

How badly would this affect the resale value of the horn?
Should I try and do just the bell at home or should I pay the premium and take it down to the nearest trusted repair shop (Tuba Exchange) and have them do it?
Would it Really affect the sound, or would it just be for cosmetic purposes?

[bloke]

Currently thinking of stripping the lacquer off the bell of my 632. I'm wondering what peoples general opinions are on raw brass vs lacquer.
Arguably doing it would be stupid for me(No lacquer issues currently on the bell, I just really enjoy the look of a raw brass bell).

How badly would this affect the resale value of the horn?
for me personally, significantly, I would tend to assume that bell damage which was cloaked by having had the sh!t buffed out of the bell.
Should I try and do just the bell at home or should I pay the premium and take it down to the nearest trusted repair shop (Tuba Exchange) and have them do it?
Would it Really affect the sound, or would it just be for cosmetic purposes?
"cosmetic"...OK...you're telling us the bell isn't damaged. I've owned several remarkably nice-playing tubas - which I like better than the YEB-632...and I DO LIKE the 632, YET I sold them later. I'm pretty sure that - to many - a stripped bell looks suspiciously like a damaged-and-repaired bell. sound...?? no effect...though many have convinced themselves otherwise (yet there's no A/B comparison available, as A will have been eliminated).

My advice is based on liking this model, preserving your resale value, and having sold countless tubas over the past several decades.
Regardless of the type of equipment/machinery, "bone stock" is the easiest to sell.

[Bassboner]

I think it effects the response of the horn slightly. Maybe very slightly. It responds just a little faster. If the lacquer job was really bad, it might make a bigger improvement.

It will, however, have a more noticeable effect on the resale value. I've got a horn that plays great but with funky patchy lacquer and I just can't seem to sell it. (This was a home EZ-Off job - good excuse to have a pro do it). If I polished it up (even with no lacquer) it would probably sell for a better price. People are fickle that way, especially younger people. I bought a tuba recently for just a few hundred dollars. Great player. I think it would have been worth twice that if it had lacquer. Honestly the lacquer doesn't give it any extra value other than the perceptions of people with money to spend.

The only other disadvantage to removing lacquer is that your hands and especially white shirts can get discolored more easily from a delacquered brass instrument.

[BopEuph]

I've only stripped lacquer of horns when the lacquer is in bad shape, or the horn has a lot of dents. A super shiny horn is going to show all the imperfections easily, while you wont notice most small dings until you're close if there's a nice patina.

If the lacquer is at least 75% or so in tact (and in your case, it sounds like 100%), I'd leave it, unless the horn is super beat up...and then, I'd only have dents rolled out first. I feel any improvement on sound would be negligible; certainly not enough that people would come up and compliment you on how much better your sound is (unless, of course, you're seeking confirmation by asking "doesn't it sound so much better?").

And yes, doing something like that would hurt the resell value.

[Sousaswag]

If you’re someone like me who constantly has little things done to your horns, raw brass will be your friend. It doesn’t scar nearly as bad as silver or lacquer after dent and solder work.

Lacquer looks bad after repair work, regardless of the damage type, and a nice patina really looks good, even if it makes your hands smell like tuba.

Should you strip your 100% lacquered tuba. Absolutely not. Unless you like the LOOK of raw brass, but yeah, you’ll lose value compared to a finished tuba.

[prodigal]

I'm playing a raw brass 186CC right now. I think raw brass responds faster, but people think that is looks ugly. But it sounds better.

I won't strip my shiny pretty PT-15, yet. Emphasis on yet.

[Rick Denney]

Raw brass makes no difference in sound or playing characteristics. Those who perceive otherwise are, I believe, noting a placebo effect—they expect a difference and so they detect it. That may not be true for instruments that are sibilant at the frequencies of brass vibration, but tubas and euphs are not among those. Lacquer will have no effect on the vibration of large brass structures resonating below about 600 Hz, where the bulk of tuba sound exists.

Raw brass is the easiest to repair and modify, as has been pointed out. But it almost invariably means an instrument has been repaired or modified, and the (difficult) burden of proof is on the seller that such modifications make an improvement. Any hint that repairs have been performed lowers value.

But so does splotchy and patchy lacquer, particularly on instruments that have been repaired. Old nitrocellulose lacquer isn’t particularly durable, and may be patchy just from age and use rather than repairs. If it’s bad enough, removing what remains might be worthwhile for appearance sake, and better than the sanding and buffing one might do to prep it for new lacquer, which can simply ruin an instrument.

A new-looking silver-plated or polished and lacquered instrument nevertheless presents the best on stage, of course.

Rick “has owned a number of raw brass instruments, all of which were the result of repairs and age that damaged the original lacquer” Denney

[windshieldbug]

Let me say this about that.
The lacquer on my slant rotor Marzan was wearing down because it was built in the mid-seventies.
So I stripped the bell with a lot of work, and thought it sounded better.
And, at the time, a lot of players were recommending raw brass.
So I asked ears I trust (my trombone section), and they listened both up close and out in the house.
And said they couldn't hear any difference.
So I listened to our archive recordings, then being recorded by the same person (George Blood) on the same equipment used to record the Philadelphia Orchestra. And I couldn't hear any difference either (pre/post strip), yet I swore it made a difference when I played it. It seemed more responsive to me.
I eventually came to the conclusion that it was more than just placebo effect, but probably didn't make it more than a foot away, so it had no practical effect. Plus I was left with all that brass to polish.
So if you are looking for opinions, mine is don't do it.

[catgrowlB]

I think raw brass can look OK if it has a deep, even patina all over. Especially a deep coffee-brown patina evenly all over, wiped down every now and then. But yellow, green, and brown tarnish-smeared fingerprints on raw brass is butt-ugly, imo.

I personally prefer lacquered or even metallic/pearlescent painted surfaces on tubas and sousas. I also like silver-plated surfaces, but don't enjoy how it tarnishes over time

[bloke]

Silver plating looks kind of cool when it's all shined up, but - in the past - I've never felt like shining up my silver plated gigantic tubas, because I do that kind of crap all day out in the barn to other people's instruments... so - most of the time - any silver plated instruments that I had were black or dark brown from silver tarnish.
I would never buy a brand new silver plated instrument, because almost none of them - regardless of country of origin and price point - are dialed in, and - in order to dial them in - the multi-thousand-dollar silver plating job has to be ruined here and there, at least a little bit.
Finally, every one of us is going to eventually bump these giant instruments on something, and - if we have to take something apart to fix it, well...there's yet more damage to that fragile finish that's only about 4/10,000ths of an inch thick for which we paid extra thousands of dollars to have applied to our instruments.

Spot silver plating lasts until somebody rubs their hand on it about four or five times, but spot lacquering is nearly as durable as factory lacquer.

Hey... We don't play volleyball with our instruments like high school students do with school-owned instruments, but think about how the silver plating on a sousaphone (the additional cost of silver plating on sousaphones being probably one of the most idiotic and wasteful expenses involved in purchases made for band departments in schools) looks after only only three years of use.

Doc Severinsen doesn't play trumpet anymore, his Getzen Eterna bright silver plated trumpet - which was introduced into almost all American homes on television in the last half of the 1960s, - began the bright silver plated finish craze.
Trumpet players mostly gotten over it.
Horn and trombone players never bought into it.
Who cares about euphonium players, as they are sort of the saxophones and orphan children of the brass family.
Tuba players need to get over it.

[gocsick]

Silver plating looks kind of cool when it's all shined up, but...

Tuba players need to get over it.

High school band directors bed to get over it. I rarely see lacquered instruments on the field. Ask the school have matching sets of silver performance horns.

[bloke]

Silver plating looks kind of cool when it's all shined up, but...

Tuba players need to get over it.

High school band directors bed to get over it. I rarely see lacquered instruments on the field. Ask the school have matching sets of silver performance horns.

It's all about trophies and thinking that they have to have blah blah
Also, it's not their money. It's taxpayer money which to them is just free stuff.

Once a silver plated finish gets all screwed up on a sousaphone or a marching baritone, even if the sousaphones cost $12,000 or the marching baritones cost $3,000, it's time to toss them in the trash because dent removal, refinishing, and replating costs so much, so they just buy new ones again.

Also, there are the schools that go back and forth between contras and sousaphones - depending on who the current band director is. Think about how much money that wastes.

Of course, so much more money is wasted on other things government buys and does, but the fact that some other level, bureau, or department of the government wastes more than another isn't any defense for waste.

If they like silver colored outdoor instruments, they need to go back to chrome plating, as in the 1970s.

[tubatodd]

Currently thinking of stripping the lacquer off the bell of my 632. I'm wondering what peoples general opinions are on raw brass vs lacquer.
Arguably doing it would be stupid for me(No lacquer issues currently on the bell, I just really enjoy the look of a raw brass bell).

How badly would this affect the resale value of the horn?
Should I try and do just the bell at home or should I pay the premium and take it down to the nearest trusted repair shop (Tuba Exchange) and have them do it?
Would it Really affect the sound, or would it just be for cosmetic purposes?

a) I have a wonderful raw brass 40+ year old Rudolph Meinl. I do NOT like that playing a raw brass horn results in your hands smelling like patina. I really wish this horn had the original lacquer.
b) I've owned 2 Meinl Weston 2165 horns. The first was lacquered and the second was not. Same comment as above. Not a huge fan of the patina smell.

My advice....don't strip the lacquer.

[the elephant]

I have loved raw brass tubas since I first saw the Alexander that Mike Sanders used in San Antonio. That was his first year there, which I think may have been 1981, maybe as early as 1979? @Rick Denney?

I loved it so much that the third tuba I ever owned was a raw brass Alexander 163, which was very much like Mike's. I played that for work every day for about twelve years.

I replaced that tuba with a Rusk-cut Holton 345 that had some peeling silver plate, which I eventually removed. I have stripped lacquer from most of my horns, but not all. Some lacquer and some plating I left untouched.

Why?

Because I have only ever come across one tuba where the removal of the lacquer really did anything perceptible to the sound. That was my old Alex, which had a factory lacquer job. Back in the 1950s, they did not normally lacquer their instruments, from what I was told by Anton Alexander in letters sent back and forth in 1995. He admitted to me that lacquer was an option, and on something as large as a tuba, sometimes the lacquer would be applied with a brush, so it was decent looking, but very thick. This may be why removing lacquer was such an underground trend back in the 1960s.

Since sprayed-on lacquer is so thin, it does not really deaden the bell at all. The old stuff was thin, fragile, and could discolor over time, but the stuff widely in use today is much better. I would never remove lacquer from a modern horn unless…

• It is flaking or peeling off all over
• You like to take your tuba apart with a torch

Leave it alone.

Same with silver plating. If it is in decent condition and is not actually peeling (just wearing thin), I would leave it alone, again, if neither of the two bulleted points above applies to a given instrument.

Removal of plating and coatings does not affect sound production unless it is lacquer that is way too thick.

Outside of a few weirdos like me who PREFER the look of a tarnished tuba, 99% of those who do this are looking for some sort of improvement that really only comes through long tones and airflow studies. Removal almost always lowers the resale value. That being said, to buy a tuba for the resale value is pretty stupid, IMHO; buy it to play it. (Not speaking to actual resellers, of course. This is for "daily duffers".)

[bloke]

If I had the energy and gumption ("spirited initiative"), I would COMPLETE the 50% lacquer job on my cimbasso. my compact 4/4 Holton BB-flat (which needs c. three hours of "corrective build" first), and my F tuba needs new lacquer (after 44 years).

I would ALSO re-lacquer my 1958 Besson compensating E-flat (rare version with a 22" detachable recording bell, but it now additionally has a (no lacquer, right now) 19" upright detachable bell.

I could affect each of these will not too much difficulty, but I have to much other stuff that's undone which is so much more important.

[the elephant]

I agree. I plan to relacquer the bugle of my F tuba… someday…

I will use a car spray rig with the correct tip to use with lacquer and the extra chemicals needed. (Retardant, anyone? It is super humid out this way) I have lacquered instruments with a spray rig in a very slick downdraft painting booth at the music store I worked at for ten years. But I never learned to mix the goodies in the cup myself. The results are head-and-shoulders above rattle can lacquer.

With my limited skills as a "lacquer boy", I will still get a much better result than that craptacular finish that was on my 1959 Alexander. AND IT WILL NOT AFFECT ANYTHING AT ALL… except for the smell and greenness of my hands after playing.

And if I do a really good job, it might ENHANCE the value of the tuba.

[catgrowlB]

My weirdo self would love to see more tubas & sousas with quality metallic and pearlescent paint finishes. Someone here (tubatodd?) posted a while back on some school sousas that were finished with a pearlescent-cream paint finish. I thought it looked great
Fiberglass sousas in particular are perfect 'guinea pigs' to explore different lacquers and paint finishes on

I think silver plating does look great and catches the eyes because it's a bright, white shiny metal. It is to brass instrument finishes what white (clear) diamonds are to jewelry. Its bright and sparkly and catches the eye. But it has its drawbacks as posted above. It's not 'all that' to everyone. Some prefer different finishes.

I've already used metallic paint on a couple of my horns, and plan to do another one maybe this spring. Not sure what color to settle on yet. But I've only done that on horns that had a splotchy or uneven finish. Raw brass is the bottom choice of finishes for me.

[Bassboner]

Some silver plated instruments are in turn lacquered, and never lose that shine. Raw silver plate has to be polished, and also can discolor your white shirts. You can find chrome or nickel plated pieces, more common I think on smaller instruments.

One time I actually sold a horn because it looked too good and I was afraid to dent or scratch it, and didn't even want to touch it. I bought a nice playing ugly horn to replace it and was very happy.

And it's a little known fact that trombone players consider silver plating to be a double. And if it's a silver plated bass trombone, the scale just goes up.

About half of my horns are lacquered. I've never de-lacquered a nicely lacquered horn, but several times I have removed ugly lacquer, especially that orange stuff King put on horns for a spell. I have a delacquered horn with a special acid finish applied by Scott Sweeney. It has shades of blue, purple, orange and brown. I bought it that way, but now I wish all my horns were like that.

Some people like to have shiny unlacquered horns. That's a lot of work. Sometimes I put wraps on raw brass that will discolor hands or clothes or leave a funny odor. Leather grips or even cloth or cork bicycle/tennis/drumstick wraps work well. Although some people think they deaden the sound

[bloke]

I've seen some instruments that have had lacquer over silver plating, but it doesn't seem to bond very well for some reason.
It was never factory lacquer, but it looked like it was done pretty well at some shop.

King always lacquered their solid silver bells (well, after the 40s I'm thinking), and it didn't seem to stick very well either, ,nor to the gold plating over the solid silver on the bell interiors.

The epoxy lacquer that Conn sprayed on the nickel plated brass Connstellation bells seems to have held up through many decades on many of those bell sections, even though one would think that the nickel plating would be the plating which would be difficult for lacquer to bond to, since nickel plating is so slick...(??)

doubling:
Bruce Faske mentioned on social media that he was going to use his 36 to play Bolero this next week. I asked him if he was getting doubling pay. (No. I actually did not ask him that.)

[Rick Denney]

I have loved raw brass tubas since I first saw the Alexander that Mike Sanders used in San Antonio. That was his first year there, which I think may have been 1981, maybe as early as 1979? @Rick Denney?
…

1973. He studied at Eastman under Cherry Beauregard.

My lessons with him were in 1984 or ‘85, but based on some session I attended I seem to recall he was well-established there when the A&M Symphonic Band went to TMEA in 1977.

Rick “hazy memories of that event” Denney