TubaForum.net

An accomplished frankentubaist friend of mine determined for certain that York absolutely made these bells and bows for Holton.

This explains why my Holton that I put together and (per typical) stuck a King valve section on sounds completely like a York instrument.

Their proof - at least to themselves - is as follows:

(and it's enough to convince me, though - before - I was neither leaning towards or away from this theory, but was just happy to have lucked out and been able to pick up such a great-sounding instrument for only a handful of hundreds of dollars, as far as something to start with)

When my friend un-soldered the bell and bows of one of the E flat versions of the Holton instruments, they found "51" stamped on one of the bows where it inserts into the connecting ferrule.

51, they went on to tell me, was the model of the York E-flat.

I tend to wonder about the old pre-345 Holton 6/4 instruments as well.

Further, this explains to me why the very similar-looking Phillips models - - models 330 and 331 (created/sold before G. Leblanc, USA was shuttered, and some of their tooling was sold to Conn-Selmer) completely "missed the boat" (resonance), and don't sound the same nor play the same at all... with apologies to those of you who own and love your Phillips models...(and - by the same token - all power to you. )

I don't doubt you, and I've heard this theory before, which I believe.

But -- if York made the bows and bell for Holton, how did Holton later make the similar-shaped Harvey Phillips stuff? I'm assuming they later acquired the tooling? But I thought all the York tooling went to Carl Fischer/Boehm & Meinl (York Master, etc.).

Murky!

arpthark wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 9:54 am I don't doubt you, and I've heard this theory before, which I believe.

But -- if York made the bows and bell for Holton, how did Holton later make the similar-shaped Harvey Phillips stuff? I'm assuming they later acquired the tooling? But I thought all the York tooling went to Carl Fischer/Boehm & Meinl (York Master, etc.).

Murky!

The Phillips bells were 18" (not 19"...though that would have been easy with a mandrel which would accommodate a 19" bell).
It's possible (??) that that (later - when York was shuttered) Holton DID quietly purchase some of the York tooling.

This would explain why my HOLTON instrument (with a 1960's serial number) is so very York-like (and - just fwiw, as a sidebar - the "York metal" myth is a pile of nonsense). I'm thinking that Holton's 1960's 19"-bell Holton-like instruments (yet still with the definitely-Holton 665" bore - 3-valve top-action config. machine) were marketed at a "student" model... (In the past, I could recite the model number...but my brain hasn't been able to retain that.)

Holton made a BFD about designing the "Phillips" models..."the first COMPUTER-DESIGNED" tuba (etc., etc.) as well as other hoopla...but (if they had the old York tooling, the Phillips stuff could have been easier to throw together...
...BUT THEN AGAIN...There's no damn way I'd trade my Holton 32" tall BB-flat for a Phillips 331 BB-flat...

My Holton Monster Eb had a 51 on the bell end hidden by the bottom bow ferrule. I had a York here, taken apart, for a friend, and all the parts measured out to be identical and were fully interchangeable.

the elephant wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:49 am My Holton Monster Eb had a 51 on the bell end hidden by the bottom bow ferrule. I had a York here, taken apart, for a friend, and all the parts measured out to be identical and were fully interchangeable.

Yes sir, and the sound as well.
Regardless of whatever (including C compared to B-flat and all that stuff), these are just another level beyond the Eastman/King stuff... As well as everything past the bottom bow (York) being a bit smaller than those.

It's a really convenient theory to try and increase the value of old Holton stock, but there is no factual evidence except the 'ol trust me bro. They all copied each other back then.

I ain't your bro, and I even forgotten who you really are, but my Holton ain't for sale so I don't give a f' what it's worth monetarily... so there goes your theory out the window.

... while your signature lets me know what territory you're trying to protect.

... so tell me about the secret formula metal...

Dont take it personal. I didn't mean you were trying to sell it for more, but I know who keeps peddling that theory and what may motivate them to do so. Back on old tubenet I posted evidence for the contrary....that the bell tenons were different sizes as with the branches on the horns i have found, and doing measurements. Who was it who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

bloke wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 9:45 am When my friend un-soldered the bell and bows of one of the E flat versions of the Holton instruments, they found "51" stamped on one of the bows where it inserts into the connecting ferrule.

51, they went on to tell me, was the model of the York E-flat.

I would have thought that this was proof they were made in Area 51 using captured alien technology.

.

They are simply too (precisely) the same.
It's not like "Jinbao is just like 186 and Hirsbrunner - which Jinbao is not.
Holton and York are precisely the same - as far as the 19" bell 32" tall tubas' bells and bows sets are concerned... and we now have a second credible person who reports a York model number stamped on the soldered portion of a Holton bow.

Obviously everyone likes a no patches / no cracks / no overhaul shop heavy buffing bell with the full-blown "York" engraving on it, but everyone knows that a USA line bell (with the beautiful eagle on it) is the same bell and bows, and I believe a thinking person would choose a no cracks never-overhauled USA line bell and bows (for a project) over a same design York-branded (old top action tuba with worn valves) that has had the crap buffed out of it with a patch or two...and - just as I would choose a much more viable USA line instrument for a project - I would certainly also choose one they made for Holton in the same condition that I just described (never buffed / no patches / no cracks).

Curiously, Jake's tuba was ruined by an overhaul shop (it's alarmingly lightweight and was buffed so over-aggressively that the original satin finish is completely gone and it now has a smooth finish, and - when it picks up dents in the modern era - those dents tend to be large, due to the instrument being so skeletal), thus not something I would ever be interested in buying - even if it was offered to me what would be considered to be a bargain price - other than to flip it... Of course it never will be for sale, but just as an example of the above.

I didn't take it personally.
I started the thread.
I'm not the one who was triggered by the topic of the thread, but I've been teasing a person who was triggered, just a little bit.

Pretty sure the pre-340/345 (model 99?) 6/4 BBb bells and bows were also York made.

If you have a Holton tuba that has a stamped 51 on it, then that might be proof that early on Holton, while they were getting started in Chicago had York stencil their tubas. Until I see a picture though, it's not proof. I also would want to see a York tuba with a 51 stamp to prove that York stamped the inside of their bells.

I also don't buy this partnership, if it existed, continued very long. I know it didn't because I have 6/4 horns from chicago and grand rapids which are completely different from similar years.

Furthermore, what's to say Holton, which didn't have early model numbers, called it a 51 because that's who they stole the design from?

hilarious...facebook-ish

matt g wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 5:38 pm Pretty sure the pre-340/345 (model 99?) 6/4 BBb bells and bows were also York made.

yeah...which explains why the old (made when York was still making instruments) 6/4 Holton large top bows were over an inch wider than the 340/345 (made long after York was shuttered) top bows (those OLD top bows proving to all to be epically NON-compatible with 340/345 instruments)...as well as (LOL) why the Holton model 340/345 tubas' bows were sorta $h!tty. (as Holton was then making them themselves, rather than buying them from York)...

...still chuckling over the territorial protectionism...

I also believe that I like (if handed an oem three-valve top-action) Holton's .665" bore valveset as opposed to York's .656" (or so) bore valveset.
Even though the difference may seem miniscule, bore size difference is always added to the largest part of the area of a circle (duh, the big outside part) and seemingly tiny differences in diameter end up being (albeit not huge) larger differences in area. When "upgrading" (so to speak) these instruments, most of us seem to like the 11/16ths bore (.687" King or Reynolds 5/4) valvesets vs. the same-bore-as-original York (Olds O-99/Conn 5J) valvesets...

...but .687" seems to be about maximum or ideal, with and anything larger probably exceeding the optimum machine bore for these instrument bodies.

When I enhanced a York E-flat oem front-action valveset (with an additional/matching piston donated by a York-made (stencil-brand...though some don't seem to embrace the fact that York made stuff for other makers) skinny sousaphone, it played/plays (multiple owners since I enhanced that instrument) well, but I tend to wonder if .687" might have offered just a bit more "umph"...still (at .656"), it's a great tuba...

@bloke I recall you had an alternate bell for your Holton BBb that you never used? Lyon and Healy or some such. I’m sorry- mostly off topic, but I just wondering if anything ever happened with that

Edit:

Now I remember that what sparked my curiousity was seeing this ad

https://www.tubaforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=11843

matt g wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 5:38 pm Pretty sure the pre-340/345 (model 99?) 6/4 BBb bells and bows were also York made.

What makes you sure?

Your York- engraved stuff isn't threatened in value. LOL.
People are always going to prefer the York engraving pattern over the USA line or the Holton engraving, even though the Holton engraving is look pretty cool looking.

All I know is my great Holton 5v Eb impressed the late, great Toby Hanks enough for him to ask to buy it from me, and to 'name my price'. Told him it wasn't for sale --- and I still use it to this day.