"stuffy"

[Mary Ann]

I'm surprised the shop Mary Ann purchased it from didn't insist that she get it checked out locally before returning it for a refund

[Mary Ann]

I'm with Mark on this, there had to be something really wrong if you simply can blow easy through the instrument.

What question that brings up for me is, since they are tuba players at that store, why they didn't fix that problem before they tried to sell it, or --- did they try and couldn't, or, is it really a problem? I'm pretty sure they are monitoring this discussion. Obviously I do not put the name of the store here. And the question still remains as to whether I have a problem or it had a problem. Not until I play another one, will I have the answer to that.

I now have the Hagen 3/4 here that Mark played at the Army conference. It plays perfectly and there WAS something WRONG with the OTHER one I had here. Absolutely positively something wrong. And I paid $600 shipping on that dog that I couldn't blow air through without meeting incredible resistance. Why they would send that out to people is beyond me.

THIS one is wonderful, delightful, and every other superlative adjective I can come up with. Need I say that Dillon Music has my business from now on?

[Mary Ann]

A happy customer for @Matt Walters

Congrats! I was very impressed with the hagen, and disappointed that miraphone didn't have one at TMEA so I could play one for my wife

[Mary Ann]

@bloke told me that the early Hagens had cork bumpers (?) as half the bumpers, and that they squish down and then the valves are not positioning correctly. However, I did pull the 4th valve and look down the tube, and to my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the valve looked like it was positioned correctly.
However, the 184 I sold recently, that I had no trouble playing, I was told by the new owner that it had the wrong bumpers in it and was twice as loud after they were replaced with the right ones. But that 184, that I now know had the wrong bumpers, was not resistant like this Hagen was. Eventually I will calm down and quit talking about it.

And now I think I will go make enough noise to pester the neighbors.

[PlayTheTuba]

...THIS one is wonderful, delightful, and every other superlative adjective I can come up with. Need I say that Dillon Music has my business from now on?

YYYYUUUUUSSSSSS!!!!!

[Mary Ann]

What Steve Ferguson wrote me when I wrote and said he should refund my $600 shipping for having sent me a tuba with something clearly wrong with it:

Thank you for the note. I understand your feeling and I did play this exact tuba and I liked it and I didn't have another one to compare it to. I intended to send you a great instrument and that's what I thought it was. Our agreement was that you pay round trip shipping.
Best,
Steve

[LeMark]

I'm wondering what he did with the horn when he received it. Did he test it to see what happened to it in shipping?

[bloke]

Jeff Anderson could make a dirty boot sound "not stuffy"!

Already being right up there at the top of the symphonic tuba player game, just imagine what he would sound like if he had a really great B-flat tuba.

[arpthark]

Jeff Anderson could make a dirty boot sound "not stuffy"!

Already being right up there at the top of the symphonic tuba player game, just imagine what he would sound like if he had a really great B-flat tuba.

Or a really great dirty boot...

[bloke]

Maybe with extra dirt, to boot?

[Mary Ann]

What Steve Ferguson wrote me when I wrote and said he should refund my $600 shipping for having sent me a tuba with something clearly wrong with it:

Thank you for the note. I understand your feeling and I did play this exact tuba and I liked it and I didn't have another one to compare it to. I intended to send you a great instrument and that's what I thought it was. Our agreement was that you pay round trip shipping.
Best,
Steve

He should have at least offer dropping half the fair. He should have notice something surely when he got it back.
Certainly would have lost me as a costumer.

"consultative approach to our customers whom we consider friends"
Who needs friends like this?

The reason he didn't notice something was wrong with it when it came back was because he sent it out that way; it's not like I did something to it. They were playing it all the way up to when it was sent out, and guess what? No one bought it. Apparently he is such an incompetent player and / or such an incompentet repair person that he needed a 74 year old 95 pound amateur lady to tell him there was something wrong. OR the obvious --- he clearly knew something was wrong and is just re-sending it out and having people pay shipping until he finds a fool who keeps it.

His email in case anyone wants to tell him their opnion of what he does to customers: S Ferguson <info@hornguys.com>

I want every tuba player in the country to know about this, because it is NOT what should happen between a seller and a customer.

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

I'd choose $600 to not own a tuba that I don't like vs. $8K to own a tuba that I don't like.

Obviously, I'd choose neither, given that third choice.

The only tubas that I ever bought new/mail order were two Miraphones - a 186C in 1974 and a 188 (early 80's, when the goldbrass ones were first released). Both of those were the absolute WORST of EITHER model that I've EVER played...and my 4+2 B&S Symphonie (1982) which is the best tuba I've ever played.

After that, I've always bought used/in-person (even if way the hell off somewhere).

When I bought my (likely, just about the best of those) used/first-batch-shipped-to-the-USA model 5450, I first drove ALL the way up to Elkhart, played one at Brasswind (it sucked bad, and I knew it sucked - compared to others, because I had PREVIOUSLY played a VERY NICE one when they were brand new - in an elephant room), and then I drove down into Ohio (and bought a used one). It had two or three (previously not disclosed) dents, and (typical, as tuba players don't maintain their instruments) shitty valve action, but it PLAYED like (or even better than) the really good new/demo that I had played in an elephant room. I got in home and (by the next day, of course) the dents were gone, and the valves were fine. Being one of those "first batch" ones, the slides were aligned nearly as well as I would have set them up myself.

I still suspect there's something (packing material, etc.) down in the 494.
For quite a while, I've just not encountered a (new) Miraphone instrument that played worst/better than another.
Some say that the "demo" model 98 (which they displayed in the past) was a "bad" one, but - when I played it (undamaged) it was wonderful, and (as is my understanding) it was subsequently fairly seriously damaged and sort-of repaired.


postscript:
In-between the 186 and the 188, I also owned two different model 184C tubas. They were both great but (per 184C) required "fingerings" (as did that stinky 186C). I also owned a really pretty-sounding (very old: 1950's...but not all that old, at that time) Alex C... As the receiver ends of those mouthpipes were so straight, I made a 4-inch-long insert (from a ruined Conn 88H trombone goldbrass outside slide tube) which reduced the size of the capillary portion of the mouthpipe, and defined that instrument as MUCH easier to play. It was tricky to make and insert (requiring a final step after insertion, which fit the large end of that insert out to the bore of the original mouthpipe...I used a cable and a ball, inserted from the #1 rotor casing).

The last of the two 184 tubas was disposed of when I bought the B&S Symphonie Modell F. A full-time German orchestra tuba player was headed to the USA to perform in a big tuba shindig, and bought it for me in East Germany (as West Germans were allowed into and back out of East Germany, and certainly if it was their intention to purchase goods). That same player continued to try to convince me to have them purchase a new Alex F for me...but (well...and with apologies to Alex F fans) I knew better.

bloke "Model 184 tuba feel 'stuffy' compared to many tubas made these days, but do not feel 'stuffy' after playing them for an hour/day/week - ie. however long it takes for someone to become accustomed to a different model."

[bort2.0]

There are two sides for every story.

I'm not saying that I doubt Mary Ann, But Steve's been in this business for very long time, and something doesn't seem right there. And especially since Mary Ann has played several other rotary tubas by this brand, I don't think it's like she doesn't know how to play it, or doesn't know what she's looking for. It's really easy to tell when there's something wrong with the tuba. So yes, I do believe her that something was wrong.

My first guess would be a piece of packaging material is lodged down inside of the instrument somewhere. Possibly not from when Steve sent it to you, but from when it was shipped from Germany to Steve.

I mean we're all making up our best guesses here, but what if A piece of styrofoam was loose, and sitting in the bottom bow of the tuba. I think you could play a tuba all day long, and not notice there was a piece of styrofoam in there. Especially if there's any moisture, it will just stick where it is and not fall out even if you turn the tuba upside down.

The tuba then gets shipped to Arizona. It's much drier, and the styrofoam becomes dislodged and can move around inside the tuba. Or maybe there's some weird static charges, and it moves a little farther up the side branches.

To but then gets playtested with the newly re-stuck styrofoam that is not visible or accessible. Tuba plays poorly, with no obvious obstructions visible. And in my experience, one piece of Styrofoam is all it takes to really screw things up.

Tuba gets shipped back to Steve, and perhaps it gets dislodged again, or otherwise just around and is again non-problematic, or maybe even fell out when he unpackaged the tuba and discarded the most recent shipping materials.

That is a highly contrived story, which may or may not have actually happened. Very likely it did not happen.

But I do think there's some combination of scenarios or events that could have cost Steve to have a good experience and you have a bad experience. There should really be three data points here to compare, Steve before shipping, you upon receipt, and Steve after shipping back.

Did you ask anybody else in Arizona to try it before you sent it back? If not, I wonder if getting the tuba flushed out, or at least given a once-over by a repair person would have been a good idea. No, I would not expect that to be necessary for this brand, but it seems illogical and unexpected that something so wrong could happen with this tuba, both in terms of it shipping from the factory to Steve, and then Steve sending it along to you.... And maybe, Steve would have helped with the repair costs, if it was found that a piece of packaging material was lodged way up inside. Because that would never have been your fault.

Sorry this all happened to you, and I think it would do Steve well to have the tuba checked out by somebody else on his side as well. Who knows, maybe the rotors got out of alignment or something.

$600 is a lot of dollars, but you were already on the hook for $300, no matter what. But even if Steve finds something stuck in the tuba now, it's impossible to say when that happened, how it happened, etc. Somebody's going to be out the shipping money, and it's kind of a lose lose for both people. He's not trying to play one over on you, and you aren't trying to play one over on him.

Is there still an open chance for more resolution? Or is this closed and shut at - $600?

[iiipopes]

Something, whether a leak, misplaced brace, too tight a tubing turn, occluded valve port, etc., interfering with an anti-node.

[bort2.0]

So you will buy a brand-new car and the first thing you do is to go to a local garage to pinpoint the faults on your brand-new car.
Then you pay the local repair guy and hope the car seller will chip in to pay for the repairs.

Maybe you should read over what you have written

Bloke's commentary is strangely missing

New cars are totally different... They come with warranties for manufacturing defects, and the process of buying a car is much more hands-on with the buyer and seller together. There are even lemon laws, to protect you if it's brand new but just a total piece of junk.

New tubas... You're on your own. Might as well be a used tuba.

[dp]

With a little shame I found that on tpin there were lots of posts with some sound scientifical arguments. We, tuba community are miles behind the trumpets in this regard.

speak for yourself

[bloke]

@dp
When I post crap like that, I'm trolling.
When he does, he's actually serious.

I'm thinking of ALL the trumpet players around here - hundreds of 'em - and how such a VERY small percentage - in spite of all their weighted caps, replacement pipes, "alignment" jobs, freezing procedures, and all that sort of $h!t - who do NOT suck (like only a couple dozen).

bloke "Let's all be as mad as Hell !!! about tuba crap!"




and even more commentary:

[Rick Denney]

I'm with MA on this one.

Warranty, by law, covers defects in materials and workmanship. It does not cover faulty design or the variations within the tolerances claimed by the maker. Even though all warranties state that there is no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, most states outlaw that provision for items sold new.

The agreement for auditioning an instrument that places the cost of shipping on the customer depends on the assumption that one is auditioning the design, or at least defect-free variations in construction that conform to the design. Any customer agreeing to such should be able to assume that the instrument in question has no defects in materials and workmanship or damage outside the hands of the customer.

Several possibilities:

1. MA is acting in bad faith, and just rejected the tuba because she didn't like it and sought to blame it on a defect to try to get the shipping money back. This is refuted by the fact that she then paid another company to provide another example of the same instrument, demonstrating commitment to the assessment that there was a defect.

2. MA is incompetent to evaluate instruments. Then why notice the significant difference in its replacement? Why assume that without being sure?

3. MA is acting in good faith, and is competent to evaluate instruments.

Hornguys should treat the third of these as the most likely until they have evidence otherwise--only that would be consistent with their rhetoric, and with express and implied warranties.

Two possible responses:

1. Assume that the instrument is just as Miraphone intended it and MA just didn't like the design. This is not a fair assumption in that they have made no comparison with other examples nor put in a good-faith search for a defect. Surely had they done either of those things, they would have said so.

2. Assume that the instrument has a defect, and search for it until they find it or satisfy themselves that it does not. Defects like this should be obvious and easy to find. Can they pass a dent ball that is maybe .020 smaller than the bore through the valve branch? That will find a solder blob big enough to cause a problem this noticeable. Did they pressurize the branch to make sure there were no leaks? I bought a tuba that had already been on the demo circuit that had a gap in a solder joint in the second-valve branch. I felt the breeze on my right hand. It played better after I fixed it, too, even though I had only been playing a year after a long hiatus. Did they inspect every brace to ensure the instrument had not been tweaked in shipping? A band-mate bought a new-style King 2341 some years ago, and it was just not good at all. Inspection revealed that a couple of the braces were depressed into the bows they were soldered to, indicating the instrument had received a big shock at some point. That probably filled the instrument with all sorts of residual stresses, like having to wind the instrument up to assemble it instead of working the parts so it fit together properly. We were sure that releasing some of those solder joints would have made a lot of noise. It's replacement was altogether better (it was covered under warranty by the company selling it).

And if the instrument has a defect, they should return MA the shipping money, because the arrangement for buying on approval wasn't to troubleshoot defects, but to evaluate designs, or normal variations that conform to the designs. And then they should work with Miraphone to make them whole, if the defect was from the factory. My suspicion is that the entrance of instruments from you-know-where in the market have made it difficult to press warranty claims back to the factories, just as it was with the Czech-made instrument (from back in the Communist days) that had the leak in the second valve branch. And the retailer in that case didn't even profess friendship-based customer relationships. And it was just as easy to fix it as to try to send it back. But premier companies can't get away with the prices they charge if they expect their customers (both wholesale and retail) to provide their quality control.

I normally don't like litigating these issues online, because we never can be sure we know the whole story. That's why I showed possibilities that can be verified if the parties involved want to verify it.

Rick "noting that MA's long public presence and contributions on tuba forums has established some level of bona fides that should be respected by respectable retailers" Denney

[donn]

I normally don't like litigating these issues online, because we never can be sure we know the whole story.

I think you can be pretty sure about it, really - it's a given. Ferguson would be a fool to wade in here. The general term for this kind of litigation is "kangaroo court."