The tube has what they call, cataracts. Basically what it is, is there is an outer glass piece on the outside of the picture tube that is glued on. The cataracts can be removed. It can be repaired, it just a extensive process. Basically removing the glass and glue and re applying the glass with new glue. Assuming there is nothing else wrong with the tube/tv, you could still watch tv on that set.

Justin has already pointed out the solution for this tube.

We've got some 1950's B/W sets in which I've replaced the tube/chassis with a LED TV and kept the surround. Sure, you lose some picture, but it looks great. While vacuum tubes are great for audio - better than solid state for a variety of reasons - they weren't ideal for color TV, to put it mildly.

His 1969 design really does sound good as does his later mod (1979? 80?). Generally speaking, though, it's a problem of marketing (the more watts the better!) and a rather interesting characteristic of tubes vs. SS. Tubes are most linear at the lower output which is most often listened to. SS is least linear at the lower output levels most listened to in high-powered amps. The solution is obvious: Instead of 100 or 300 or 500 Watt SS amps, 10 watt amps. But nobody will believe this or follow this guideline.    And, yes, I know modern circuitry has made the 'lab' tests of both types look outstanding.     On a side note, I've read that one reason early CDs and other digital recordings sounded so awful was because sound engineers were also working with, at that time, 'new' SS microphone pre-amps and they clipped very hard at the levels which worked perfectly with the tube preamps they'd been used to.    Class A is a horrendous power waster, but there's a lot to be said for it: No crossover distortion and even SS can put out a decent attack. Here's one of Hood's first designs. Goodness - you'd want a heatsink of several kilograms!

And the 'D' means neither 'digital' nor SS can, if properly built, sound quite good. Not as good as a single-ended Class A triode in a perfectly designed and equipped amp, of course, but really not bad, at all.

Their main advantage lies in their efficiency at high output. At low output, they're actually close to or even slightly less efficient than really efficient Class AB solid state amps.

They're the reason a lot of portable audio sounds much better today than it used to.

To be fair, of course, no properly operating audio amp should have audible harmonic distortion.

It's also true that all humans (even ones who can't hear the difference between A and A'') feel genuine discomfort when third order harmonics are audible. Fourth and fifth order harmonics are pretty much negligible even in a bad SS amp.

Second order harmonics can be used in moderation to produce a pleasant sound and it's really easy to do this in a tube amp without increasing the third order harmonics to audible level. It's much harder to do in a SS amp (yes, darlings, MOSFETS, we know).

Clipping, of course, is the real problem facing SS equipment designers. Not only are tubes inherently more linear at real-world volume levels, their clipping artifacts are less horrid when transient than SS. 

While, on paper, one can make the argument that skew (or attack or rise time or whatever term makes  you happy) is equally good in a really well built SS amp and a really well built tube amp, there's no way around what really good testing equipment shows: Tubes attack faster and one needn't fight the 'ring' which haunts SS amps with super fast rise times.

I suspect, though, it's the cross-over distortion of badly setup/designed SS amps which people are 'hearing' and causing them to prefer Class A tubes. Who wouldn't?

I've also heard claims that one advantage of tubes in audio (at least at one time) was the circuitry was often simpler. Simple circuit=less to corrupt the sound.