Posted by Rick Denney on February 09, 2003 at 17:30:04:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Tuba overhaul web page completed posted by Daniel C. Oberloh on February 09, 2003 at 15:10:40:
I can appreciate your approach. The decisions one might make for a horn that will be sold as an overhauled instrument might by quite different than the restoration of an owner's beloved axe. When my own Miraphone was overhauled, I would not have accepted a replacement bell.
With considerable respect, however, this position begs the question: Why replace the garland and the guard mouldings?
When my Miraphone was overhauled, I didn't want the horn to look brand new--I wanted it to be as much like the it was when new as possible. That is a completely different objective. I told him not to use sandpaper or files to remove imperfections, because I didn't want the brass thinned at all. He re-used the existing guard mouldings, and he rolled out the bell with the original garland in place. I realize that leaving the original garland will cause a shadow of it to show through the brass inside the bell, and it also runs the risk of vibration. I have a bit of that imprint on my Miraphone, but no vibration. I can see marks of dent repair and rolling that were not buffed out, but they are invisible from any distance. It's not the approach I'd have taken with a horn that I'd intended to sell, where appearance would have gotten a higher consideration.
Please understand that I have nothing but admiration for your fine craftsmanship, and am not challenging the approach you have taken, which clearly yields beautiful results. I'm merely interested in the philosophy behind the decisions to replace some parts and not others, and to remove all visible traces of repair versus restoring the instrument to its original playing condition.
Rick "for whom cost was a factor in the overhaul of his Miraphone" Denney