Slide plating

[bassbone1993]

Hey all,

Anybody have any ideas where to get an inner slide replated? Got a Holton with a few spots that I'd like to get replated since I'll be holding onto it for a while. Difficulty is that one of them is on a .559 slide.

Thanks!

[BGuttman]

There are very few platers doing chrome plate. The solutions are an absolute nightmare from a pollution control standpoint. Also, spot plating of an inner slide is almost never done. The best solution to a worn chrome plated inner is a tube replacement.

If you can't easily get a replacement tube, the next best thing is what I have done with a heap of slides with "Conn wear". Polish up the exposed brass as well as you can. Then apply some slide cream (I use Trombotine). Follow up with a normal lube for the rest of the slide. The exposed brass will eventually oxidize and you will need to repeat the process.

You may get longer life if you coat the exposed brass with a good wax. Steve Shires used to use Pledge (aerosol). You could also use a good car wax.

Another solution, if the wear is all on the same side of the slide, is to have the inner rotated. Now the outer will ride on a more pristine surface and you can get more life out of the tube.

It would be possible to strip the chrome plate from a tube and replate it, but the cost may be rather high.

[Wade]

Dan Oberloh in Seattle Washington does this.

[hornbuilder]

You could have it replated. The slide tube would need to be pulled from the inner slide assembly. The existing chrome is stripped, the tube is then buffed and cleaned, before replating. Note that the areas that have already been worn away may still be evident after replating. The only way to "remove" them is to buff down to the lowest point, removing quite a bit of material depending on the depth of the pits. The slide is then reassembled. It is not an inexpensive job.

[brassmedic]

I would just replace the tubes with new ones that have the same stocking outer diameter and not worry about nominal differences in bore size. I'm not even sure where the ".559" figure came from. I only see people using that figure but never explaining where they got it. Did Holton really make a new mandrel that was only 3 thousandths smaller than the normal size? Why? And Allied lists the Bach 50 tubes they sell as ".560" bore, only 1 thousandth different anyway. But I don't consider that very important. The important figure is the OD of the stockings. If I could find a match I would just go with that.

[hornbuilder]

what he said!!

[bassbone1993]

That's what I'm starting to think. Any suggestions where to start? M/k drawing?

[ithinknot]

I would just replace the tubes with new ones that have the same stocking outer diameter and not worry about nominal differences in bore size. I'm not even sure where the ".559" figure came from. I only see people using that figure but never explaining where they got it. Did Holton really make a new mandrel that was only 3 thousandths smaller than the normal size? Why? And Allied lists the Bach 50 tubes they sell as ".560" bore, only 1 thousandth different anyway. But I don't consider that very important. The important figure is the OD of the stockings. If I could find a match I would just go with that.

50 tubes will be fine. On the Holtons there shouldn't be any length issues - the tube terminates internally before the tenon, which is then around .575 ID.

90s 156 lower tube
.559 ID at the stocking (inside beyond the rounding)
.590 stocking OD
.602 outer ID

Late 70s/early 80s 159
.559/.593/.606

Corp 50
.562/.593/.603

[JohnL]

Did Holton really make a new mandrel that was only 3 thousandths smaller than the normal size?

Probably not. They might have had a .559" mandrel on hand for drawing tube for a non-trombone application. It's also possible they had what was originally supposed to be a .562" mandrel on hand that was either made slightly undersize in error or that was "used up" and ended up at .559" when they skimmed it to clean up the surface. Back when I was in the tube drawing business, our tool room would take worn tooling and clean up and resize it to the next size up (for dies) or down (for mandrels) all the time.

At least as far as I understand it. the .547"/.559" was originally used on an "artist model" for Jay Friedman. Maybe they went with .559" to make it "extra special" for marketing purposes.

[brassmedic]

Did Holton really make a new mandrel that was only 3 thousandths smaller than the normal size?

Probably not. They might have had a .559" mandrel on hand for drawing tube for a non-trombone application. It's also possible they had what was originally supposed to be a .562" mandrel on hand that was either made slightly undersize in error or that was "used up" and ended up at .559" when they skimmed it to clean up the surface. Back when I was in the tube drawing business, our tool room would take worn tooling and clean up and resize it to the next size up (for dies) or down (for mandrels) all the time.

At least as far as I understand it. the .547"/.559" was originally used on an "artist model" for Jay Friedman. Maybe they went with .559" to make it "extra special" for marketing purposes.

Where exactly was it published that this instrument was .559?

[JohnL]

Probably not. They might have had a .559" mandrel on hand for drawing tube for a non-trombone application. It's also possible they had what was originally supposed to be a .562" mandrel on hand that was either made slightly undersize in error or that was "used up" and ended up at .559" when they skimmed it to clean up the surface. Back when I was in the tube drawing business, our tool room would take worn tooling and clean up and resize it to the next size up (for dies) or down (for mandrels) all the time.

At least as far as I understand it. the .547"/.559" was originally used on an "artist model" for Jay Friedman. Maybe they went with .559" to make it "extra special" for marketing purposes.

Where exactly was it published that this instrument was .559?

You'll have to ask the Holton guys about that. I don't see any Holton catalogs of the necessary vintage online, and I'm coming up with a goose egg trying to find anything in the Wayback Machine. I found the pre-Conn-Selmer site, but the actual descriptions were apparently in pdf format and didn't get archived.

That said, I would expect that, since you're the one questioning the received wisdom, you'll need to come up with some evidence before you convince anyone other than yourself. It was not easy to convince the community that Olds had been making doubles long before Holton or Reynolds.

Out of curiosity - does the Allied catalog recommend the same replacement inners for the 159 and the Holton basses?

[ithinknot]

Where exactly was it published that this instrument was .559?

I agree that it's a non-issue in practical terms, but as you asked:

1988 156 info sheet - photo saved from FB, don't recall the source

holton tr-156 1988 info sheet.jpg

Elsewhere, the 1998 Leblanc website gives .559 for the 159 but .562 for the basses

...and revisit the glory days of the young internet, when Al Gore was still tying its shoes, with the no-Flash version of the "Hot for Holton?" quize (sic). Heck, dot matrix it on continuous form paper and share with the other villagers.

(Also, see my measurements above... I'm not "trying" to get those numbers. I like calling BS on rumor as much as anyone, but it does seem true in this case.)

[WGWTR180]

Twice I have replaced old Holton inner slide tubes with Bach tubes. They fit but the sound completely changed on the instrument. I didn’t like it. The tubes can be the same size but the weight of each tube also makes a difference.

[ithinknot]

Twice I have replaced old Holton inner slide tubes with Bach tubes. They fit but the sound completely changed on the instrument. I didn’t like it. The tubes can be the same size but the weight of each tube also makes a difference.

Fair. I didn't include the OD of the main inner tube length above the stockings in my measurements above, but like the other measurements that's also not entirely consistent between the two Holton .559 slide tubes I have.

Bach tubes might be different to a given Holton, but if Holtons themselves aren't consistent between generations then there's no guarantee that even an OEM part will actually match to the standard you're looking for.

Stripping and buffing the original tube will also change things, as Matthew points out above, so there's no perfect option.

[tbonesullivan]

Are the holton inner tubes nickel silver, or are they made from brass? Another thing to consider is how many draw passes were used to make the slide tubes. It is my understanding that these days they usually get a lot less work hardening during the drawing process than they used to.

[brassmedic]

You'll have to ask the Holton guys about that. I don't see any Holton catalogs of the necessary vintage online, and I'm coming up with a goose egg trying to find anything in the Wayback Machine. I found the pre-Conn-Selmer site, but the actual descriptions were apparently in pdf format and didn't get archived.

That said, I would expect that, since you're the one questioning the received wisdom, you'll need to come up with some evidence before you convince anyone other than yourself. It was not easy to convince the community that Olds had been making doubles long before Holton or Reynolds.

Out of curiosity - does the Allied catalog recommend the same replacement inners for the 159 and the Holton basses?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything; I was just asking a question. I don't think your comparison is very good: making a double valve bass trombone was an eminently practical idea, and Olds was an innovative company, so I don't know why anyone would question that. I certainly don't. But designing a slide tube that is only 3 thousandths smaller than the tube they already make is completely illogical, which is why I wondered if it were perhaps a difference that only exists in people's minds (Like Conn Selmer calling Bach 50 tubes .562 while Allied calls the same tubes .560).

Allied does not list any parts for the TR 159 nor any basses.

[brassmedic]

Where exactly was it published that this instrument was .559?

I agree that it's a non-issue in practical terms, but as you asked:

1988 156 info sheet - photo saved from FB, don't recall the source

holton tr-156 1988 info sheet.jpg


Elsewhere, the 1998 Leblanc website gives .559 for the 159 but .562 for the basses

...and revisit the glory days of the young internet, when Al Gore was still tying its shoes, with the no-Flash version of the "Hot for Holton?" quize (sic). Heck, dot matrix it on continuous form paper and share with the other villagers.

(Also, see my measurements above... I'm not "trying" to get those numbers. I like calling BS on rumor as much as anyone, but it does seem true in this case.)

Wow! Thanks. Great research. You wouldn't happen to have a Holton bass trombone from the same era, would you? What I would really be interested in would be measurements of the Holton .559 tube compared to a .562 Holton tube from the same era. It's still blowing my mind that they would do that. Did they use the same size outer tube as the basses? Wouldn't it be leaky? Or did they make a special outer mandrel to match the undersized inner? It's just so weird, but then Holton did a lot of weird things.

[WGWTR180]

Twice I have replaced old Holton inner slide tubes with Bach tubes. They fit but the sound completely changed on the instrument. I didn’t like it. The tubes can be the same size but the weight of each tube also makes a difference.

Fair. I didn't include the OD of the main inner tube length above the stockings in my measurements above, but like the other measurements that's also not entirely consistent between the two Holton .559 slide tubes I have.

Bach tubes might be different to a given Holton, but if Holtons themselves aren't consistent between generations then there's no guarantee that even an OEM part will actually match to the standard you're looking for.

Stripping and buffing the original tube will also change things, as Matthew points out above, so there's no perfect option.

Yes as Holton was always consistently inconsistent you’d also need to replace the outers as well to ensure good compression. I realize no option is perfect- just sharing my experiences.

[ithinknot]

Wow! Thanks. Great research. You wouldn't happen to have a Holton bass trombone from the same era, would you?

For worse, or possibly better, I'm afraid I don't

What I would really be interested in would be measurements of the Holton .559 tube compared to a .562 Holton tube from the same era. It's still blowing my mind that they would do that. Did they use the same size outer tube as the basses? Wouldn't it be leaky? Or did they make a special outer mandrel to match the undersized inner? It's just so weird, but then Holton did a lot of weird things.

Even with a ouija board and two horns from the same week I don't know how much you'd learn. My stocking OD vs outer ID measurements give you a leaky .016 gap from one mismatched pair, but .009 for the opposite swap isn't unreasonably tight. It's tempting to suggest that the earlier dated outer tube seems more "bass shareable" than the newer one, but who knows.

I've never owned anything earlier, but by the 70s Holton doesn't seem to have been overly concerned with slide compression. I have one of their very early Martin Urbies, probably from the first couple years of production, and that's .014 - not quite leaky, but pretty loose for a pro horn. My first non-rental trombone was the super obscure TR102 (basically the Urbie bell with a .495/.509 slide), which I never measured, but played loudly in 6th or 7th you could feel the sirocco coming back atcha. (Great horn in other respects.) Compared to Bachs - .007 in the good days - they're noticeably sloppier.

My complete guess for the origin story is the same as JohnL's: they had a .559 mandrel for factory/refurb reasons of one kind or another, and chose to use it on the 156 by way of 'specialness' on a tenor model. (Silly, but you can understand the marketing angle... and people still seem to get confused about the 9" Bell = Bass issue, so any differenciation might have seemed desirable.) Stocking diameters might well still match the basses - same die over different mandrels? - and shared outers? Seems like the least crazy option, but what do you want from the monsters responsible for their eponymous valve...

[brassmedic]

Even with a ouija board and two horns from the same week I don't know how much you'd learn. My stocking OD vs outer ID measurements give you a leaky .016 gap from one mismatched pair, but .009 for the opposite swap isn't unreasonably tight. It's tempting to suggest that the earlier dated outer tube seems more "bass shareable" than the newer one, but who knows.

Maybe I'm not understanding you. I thought you were saying you measured a Holton tube as exactly .559 and a Bach tube at exactly .562. If so, there would be quite a bit to learn by measuring a Holton bass tube, if your measurements are that accurate. Personally, when I measure bore, the variation in roundness of the tube is more than that .003.

I've never owned anything earlier, but by the 70s Holton doesn't seem to have been overly concerned with slide compression. I have one of their very early Martin Urbies, probably from the first couple years of production, and that's .014 - not quite leaky, but pretty loose for a pro horn. My first non-rental trombone was the super obscure TR102 (basically the Urbie bell with a .495/.509 slide), which I never measured, but played loudly in 6th or 7th you could feel the sirocco coming back atcha. (Great horn in other respects.) Compared to Bachs - .007 in the good days - they're noticeably sloppier.

My complete guess for the origin story is the same as JohnL's: they had a .559 mandrel for factory/refurb reasons of one kind or another, and chose to use it on the 156 by way of 'specialness' on a tenor model. (Silly, but you can understand the marketing angle... and people still seem to get confused about the 9" Bell = Bass issue, so any differenciation might have seemed desirable.) Stocking diameters might well still match the basses - same die over different mandrels? - and shared outers? Seems like the least crazy option, but what do you want from the monsters responsible for their eponymous valve...

Or perhaps their mandrel wore down to .559 and the 156 had the same tube as the basses, but they didn't want to start saying the basses were .559 bore all of a sudden. I pulled out a TR 181 I have at the shop. Calipers are wholly inadequate to measure bore size, so I use ball gauges. As I said, the ball gauge fit completely differently when I turned it 45 degrees in both tubes, so the tubes are obviously out of round, but it does seem to be a slightly smaller bore than any other bass trombone tube I have at the shop. Was I subconsciously trying to get that result? Perhaps, but I also was able to insert a .560 dent ball into any other bass bone tube, but it won't go in to the 183 tube. It fits in the receiver, but stops when it gets to the slide tube. It's possible the solder shrunk that part of the tube, but it's also possible Holton was just making all the tubes on a worn out mandrel and the .559/.562 thing was just a bit of clever marketing. Guess we'll never know.

[brassmedic]

Oh, shoot. I forgot there's a 185 at the shop. Those tubes are more round. Measures exactly .559!

[ithinknot]

Even with a ouija board and two horns from the same week I don't know how much you'd learn. My stocking OD vs outer ID measurements give you a leaky .016 gap from one mismatched pair, but .009 for the opposite swap isn't unreasonably tight. It's tempting to suggest that the earlier dated outer tube seems more "bass shareable" than the newer one, but who knows.

Maybe I'm not understanding you. I thought you were saying you measured a Holton tube as exactly .559 and a Bach tube at exactly .562. If so, there would be quite a bit to learn by measuring a Holton bass tube, if your measurements are that accurate. Personally, when I measure bore, the variation in roundness of the tube is more than that .003.

Yes, those are the inner tube IDs I get. I was just being slightly hyperbolic talking about the variation between the generations - the .559 ID is the only thing that matches between mine, but the stocking OD and outer tube ID differ more obviously - and making the point that if all the measurements fall within a certain range, it gets pretty difficult to say what might be a "designed"/meaningful difference and what's the result of process variation at the factory.

Anyway, thanks for the bass measurements! All I knew was that the .559 claim seemed true for my tenors - looks like your suggestion might be right (same tubes all round, and a bit of artistic license in the bass specs).

[dbwhitaker]

Another solution, if the wear is all on the same side of the slide, is to have the inner rotated. Now the outer will ride on a more pristine surface and you can get more life out of the tube.

Is rotating the inner a good approach in this case? What if the majority of the wear is on one side but there is also a little bit of wear on another side?

I recently bought a horn from the OP and assume it has the slide that has been discussed. The majority of the wear is on the top side of the lower inner stocking. This wear is "long" but "narrow". But there is also a small spot of wear on one side. The stocking of the upper also has a small spot of wear at the very end on the top.

Another question I have is whether the slide is likely to get worse "quickly"? The slide currently isn't great but it is ok and playable. I suspect that a tech could straighten it a bit. Maybe that's all that is warranted for this horn?