Saxophones

A friends 'discovered' Chu Berry alto has revitalised my interest in saxes. I want to try some pre-WWII instruments to see if I can find that sound that everybody says is unique to that era. Is it possible for a no-talenter to tell the difference? These are all the instruments I have owned so far.

1923 Buescher Truetone.

1929 Buescher Truetone.

1941 Buescher 'Big B'.

1959 Buescher model 141.

1925 Buescher C Melody.

Yamaha YTS23.

Vito VSP/Yanagisawa

Selmer SA80 series III

I think that is the full set now... Rubbish! Again!!
Earnest deliberations and lifestyle searching persuaded me that after 45 years saving for a rainy day, even allowing for fripperies like fridges and cookers and roofs, it was possible to invest in a modern sax against which I could compare the vintage horns I had rebuilt. I shouldn't have sold the Yamaha 62, but if I hadn't I wouldn't have had to buy a new Selmer would I? Why a Selmer? (like the man said, nobody gets sacked for buying IBM...) I have always been impressed by Selmer design/build in clarinets whenever I have been able to get hold of one, and I haven't managed to get my hands on a good Selmer sax. I could have tried to get a classic model like a Mk VI or balanced action, cigar cutter, whatever, but the pundits tell me that less than half of them are worthy of their reputation as they vary so much. How many players are there who are in blissful ignorance of the fact that they own one of the 60% duff horns that the 'experts' say are around? Why are 100% of the horns sold on eBay 'fine examples'? Are poor horns the same for everybody or are they like mouthpieces - some fit some? Who is the arbiter?
So, using them as nature intended, as benchmarks for price, I was able to save as much as I spent by buying new instead of classic. I am confident that modern production methods mean that most of current production are good, so at least I won't get a dud and not know it.
If I took up classic car restoring I could save thousands buying new instead... And what about a barn conversion...
I know I have wasted money buying new. At my level of use and expertise I waste money buying reeds. My interest has to be mechanical as I cannot play enough for it to be musical, and anyway what is wrong with wanting to possess a fine example of something in pristine condition? There you are, you have my justification such as it is.
I tried a 1937 'Balanced Action' briefly, as it was there. It was the easiest and most responsive horn I have ever played by a long way. Almost no resistance, not to everyone's taste. Remarkable, but still not worth nearly twice the new SA80.
I find it difficult to explain the series III. Certainly it feels good (90% of the battle), and it plays easily and with control. Does it sound better than the others? I don't know. It is certainly no worse and I could persuade myself it is better, but whether that is because it responds evenly and reliably I can't be sure. Time may tell. One word to sum it up would be 'smooth'. It is a fact that I shall have no reason to ever need a better one. A different one maybe...
My persistent breaking G problem has been solved by fitting a (removable) sleeve to reduce the lower vent to 1.45mm dia. in the same way as for the Yana and Ref 36 tenors. (See last para of Yana comments below.) SA80 front SA80 LHS SA80 C# closing adjuster SA80/Buescher G# and Bb

Yanagisawa T991

OK I give in - I shall carry on buying horns 'til the world is at peace...
Thanks to a nice gentleman who made me an amicable swap for an alto clarinet, I became the owner of another tenor - a 'Super Pennsylvania' made by Yanasigawa. I couldn't find any reference to an 'SP' other than a Selmer stencil sold in the sixties. My new 'SP' was much later than that and a Mk VI layout, not what Selmer would have put out opposite to the real Mk VI. But it was an inspiration insofar as it conspired with my super YTS-23 to convince me that a tenor can be a pleasant sound even when I play it.
Having convinced myself of the justification for buying the SA80 I thought it a shame to waste that excellent argument on just one item, so I bought a T991 as well.
Looking at the T901 in comparison I noticed that the main difference was in the posts being mounted on an intermediate plate quoted charmingly by Yana' as; "One key column long seat-Functioning in favor of the shock-proof nature of the pipe." and "Seat of one left hand side key-Post is erected on one long seat and a stand-alone key is arranged. Steady sound is obtained in the middle ranges, and moreover, the stability of a good sound is gained."
They must employ a real expert to make these translations sound so authenticaly oriental.Yana link
Any road up, (as we charmingly say in the Black Country without aid from translators), I like the idea, not new by a long way, but sensible to me and worth every penny of an extra £50. Trouble is the extra cost is £350... c'est la vie. There are the double arm C and B keys, another good idea, but why not the C# and Bb keys? 'Accidental' omission one might say. Fat tubular key rods might be more effective in stabilising the key sideways movement but that wouldn't be 'cool' would it. Even more, something to support the long rods near the bell strut would avoid the 'oh so easy' crushing of the rods by picking up the horn at it's mid point; not the correct thing to do, but the correct thing is not always done, is it. Do it once and the bell key pads are out of line with the carefully cultivated pad seating.

So, the 991 didn't feel £350 better than the 901, but maybe in twelve months or twelve years it would. On the other hand it was easier to convince myself that the bronze body of the xx2 series didn't do anything that I could appreciate having far too much to learn about mouthpieces, reeds, ligatures and technique first; not to mention, (again), that I play for myself, quietly, having an understanding but not insensitive spouse. I'm sure body resonance only affects the lesser harmonics and at high excitation, not a condition I visit outside my Victor Meldrew imago. T991 instead of T992 has saved £350 so I can have the T991 instead of the T901 for nothing.(?)
By gad sir, it's a lovely horn. First impression is that it is very sensitive to reed strength on any mouthpiece I've tried. Much more so than the alto or a bass clarinet. Goes from silky to sulky in a grade. Maybe that's my embouchure letting me down by not holding up, as it were. I must practise...
I have a remaining problem. With some mouthpieces (the Yana that came with it is worst of all), second octave A is 20c sharp and so dull it nearly chokes up. The G below it tends to break into low register if not carefully controlled. A smaller lower octave vent, or closing down the pad height simply moves the problem, but damping the vent with a piece of cotton gauze over it solves the problem like magic except under extreme provocation. A very much smaller lower octave vent, 1.45mm dia. instead of 3.1mm is as good as the cotton gauze but only solves the problem at low volume - it gets much worse at loud playing. (Not quite forté more like thirté.) A rubber Otto Link gives an acceptable A but tastes like an old inner tube. (I can't get on with metal mps unfortunately.) The Selmer crook, in spite of being a lesser volume because the Selmer crook receiver is 5mm longer, solves the stuffy A but loses the Yana's advantage around the bow notes.

Yanagisawa T992

When an 'as new' T992 came up on Ebay I was tempted, and fell. The copper colour was almost enough but I wanted to see if the copper body made any difference to the sound. Let me say straight away that, (at my standard of playing - low), it makes no difference at all. It's a tad brighter but I put that down to metal reflectors instead of the plastic of the T991. It still has the same inherent faults; yes, I insist that they are faults; maybe not insurmountable or even noticeable to a good player, and maybe there as a consequence of incorporating some desirable feature that I do not appreciate, but acoustic inconsistencies (faults) nonetheless. I refer of course to the sharp stuffy second octave A and the G below it which wants to drop an octave if not tightly held. Fortunately I still have the spare Selmer Ref. neck which virtually solves both problems, but I wanted to try to modify a proper Yana neck to make it work just the same. I was able to try out the three official Yana (brass) necks and honestly could find no difference between them, by measurement or trial. Cutting a very long story very short, after many non-destructive tests with blue tack and and sticky backed plastic, lots of esoteric (and probably wrong) calculations, and even cutting 15mm off the mouthpiece end, I worked out that the neck needed to be reduced 0.5mm at the top of the bend. So I did that and solved the problem! I hope I don't need to do another; my beginners luck probably ran out! I had restored the shortened mouthpiece end after trying all sorts of inserts, rough bores and size changes, none of which did anything good I could find.
The reduction largely solved the G growl and stuffy A but the A was still sharp. If I played the A with the smallest (or no) octave hole it was far less sharp, 10cents. So the position and size of the octave hole affected the pitch of the note at whose node it was placed. Fancy that. So I moved the hole up the neck 15mm so it affected A less. But it affected G more, only it isn't open for G is it! So why don't manufacturers put it there? Probably affects altissimo, somewhere I don't go.Modified neck_001 Modified neck_003
So now I have a T992 that suits me - just wish I could play it.

Reference 36 Tenor

I couldn't resist (again), a mint Selmer Reference 36. Another dream come true and even more un-justified. The SIII tenor is usually quoted as 'brighter' than its siblings, a feature I don't want, so in spite of my liking for the alto SIII I felt the Reference 36 should be more me. (There you see, I believe the hype in spite of myself.) This is a 'modernised' Balanced Action supposedly sounding like its forbear but made by modern methods. O.K. there may be some minor design features which lean its acoustics more to one old horn than another, but if there are, Selmer are sure not going to tell anybody what they are because the original performance was so ephemeral that nobody could pin it down anyway! I like the SA80 type spring loaded key pivot bearings, even if they have been tapped out of square, and the darkish gold laquer, even if it does cover what looks like the quality inspectors fault marker pen and have orange peel in the bend of the bow. Inside it has been sprayed with clear underseal I think; almost tears lumps out of the pullthrough; and it's original 'cause the body/bow jointing compound still drips down inside the bow. In true retro style it perpetuates the Selmer tradition of having low palm keys needing after market risers.
I felt the need to support the top rods as they were vulnerable to being bent down in the middle if gripped carelessly. So, don't grip them carelessly and everything is OK, but I can't guarantee not being careless. Brace
That's the bad news; the good news is that it plays like a dream. Bang on tonally and smooth as could be wished, just what I want. Is it better than the Yana? It's certainly not better made. It is more accurate tonally, (I am talking 20 cents here, hardly a big deal), but who is to say that I have the optimum setup and an adequate embouchure. The Yana is as good tonally when the Selmer crook is fitted to it, but maybe the preference would change at some other condition or with a different setup than the half dozen I have tried. The Yanagisawa mouthpiece doesn't suit me so obviously I am not your average customer.
And why do the crooks make a difference? Well the Selmer is 84cc and the Yana is 89cc. For the measured diameters at each end this calculates out that the Selmer is 20mm shorter so it must have a different shape to get the tuning back. In fact it is more tapered which should flatten the upper registers and indeed it is this that 'corrects' the tonality on the Yana - but at the expense of the 'bow and bell' notes which are more secure on the Yana with its own crook. The only thing I can find on the Selmer is that the crook bore is 0.29mm larger at the big end; a feature which should help the bell notes if all else were equal. In fact the weak tone is low D (heard that before?) while the Yana goes a tone lower before getting edgy. One thing it does do is make the crook so fragile that it bends so easily; the one I bought was bent and a I was lucky to get a replacement.
Selmer say the 'breaking G' problem is solved by opening out the lower vent by 0.004". Take it from me, it isn't if you play softly.(See last para of Yana comments above.) On the Selmer it happens a tone lower than the Yana, at F. (The wider crook?) Anyway although the 1.45mm vent sleeve seems OK so far on the Yana, the Selmer doesn't like it so I have a piece of linen taped permanently across the vent which works fine.

So how good is the Ref 36? Like the MkVI retro the Reference 54, half the 'critiques' say it is better, half say its worse, half different and the other half the same. (The arithmetic is as good as the rest of the evidence.)
Then everybody and his uncle claims how much better it can be to put a silver crook on it, or even use a Ref 54 crook on a Ref 36, or face East when playing at an angle of 23 and one half degrees. I can't find any difference between any of the modern layout horns that could be anything more than a minor preference and I can't believe that with all things being equal they sound any different. That of course doesn't stop anyone from liking one or the other, but I wish there could be some science applied to the claptrap spouted...
If I bang on any more I shall have to get a set of drums and that would be a step too far...

Kohlert Curved soprano

I did a very silly thing - bid on impulse on eBay. I have been looking for some months for a cheap soprano sax, partly because a customer wanted one and partly for my own interest. I saw this Kohlert and knowing the name and excellent reputation I bid at a silly price for a vintage horn expecting to be outbid many times over. No-one else bid. It was only seconds after I had bid that it occurred to me that this is a new horn and Kohlert probably doesn't exist any more as an instrument maker. In fact the name has been sold in America to a box shifter and new 'Kohlert' instruments can be bought from Amazon. (The remains of the original Kohlert company does still makes bassoons in Germany. See Kohlert History). This Kohlert was made in the far east but so are most saxes these days I believe, including American Selmer!
In fact it is a great little horn, sturdy and well made to the ubiquitous Yamaha/Yanagisawa/Selmer VI basic design and has intonation I cannot fault. So, a stupid act has resulted in my learning something, a lesson from evolution no less. So, eBay to the rescue and a happy new owner.

Martin Handcraft Committee (A salutary tale)

This horn was a study in what not to do. It was another Ebay purchase bought after assurances that it had been the long-time instrument of a pro player, recently refurbished, re-padded, adjusted and played again by another pro. I have no doubts about any of that - it was just that the definitions of 'refurbished' and 're-padded' were not what I assumed. In fact the work had been an amateurish botch which sufficed to get the horn playing for long enough for the pro player to believe it was good.(charitable aren't I!) By the time I got it, it had gone out of adjustment so much that bell notes were impossible below gale force and all notes were stiff and leaky.
I stripped it and found;

Eight leaks found by leak light, mostly due to toneholes being warped.
Pads only secured with tiny spots of shellac, insufficient to allow 'floating in' and not enough to seal the back of the pad. I could blow through the rivet and out of the key cup!

G3 very stuffy due to next open tonehole not being open enough.

Top F sidekey rod excessively loose because end bearing holes worn larger than maximum pivot screw diameter.

Other keys also loose or with end play need swaging/bushing.

Neck tenon very loose and oval. The tenon had to be expanded and the socket rounded.

Enormous groove buffed out of body metal just under top thumbrest. Buffing Error

Metal left paper thin. Excessive buffing on parts of body and bell with coarse abrasive paper scratches still left in remaining lacquer. Lacquer burnt around buffed areas and on keys.

Three bumper corks missing.

Blue/green corrosion inside the bottom bow due to hole through seam into stiffener.Bow pinhole after cleaning

Blue/green corrosion around body/bow seam.


Over the years the metal stresses caused by the manufacture of sax bodies dissipate, relax, and even themselves out through the material with new ones being generated by use and mis-use. The inevitable result is movement of the body shape which most often distorts toneholes a tiny bit. Even a small distortion of a complicated shape like that means the flatness of the outer rim is compromised. This is best seen using a flat disc of something and holding it against the rim while using a leak light. A crescent shaped glimmer is often matched by another opposite to it on the rim. I imagine this to be a result of the local stresses made by drawing the toneholes and I was surprised to find exactly the same characteristics on this Martin which has toneholes of relatively thick brass made off the horn and soldered on separately. At soft soldering temperatures this shouldn't introduce much stress so I guess that rolling and piercing the body is the culprit.Distortion of palm key holes shown by rubbing a flat block over blacked rims.
Whatever, the holes sure were distorted so I had to grind them flat and flatten the key cups to match. Again, surprising how often key cups are not flat!
I was cheered by the apparent integrity of the tonehole soldering but to make sure I cleaned each joint from the bore side and offered it superthin, penetrating, cyano to seal any cracks I couldn't see. Then I deadened the area with soapy 'Scotchbrite' (not steel wool because it leaves rusty fragments), and coated inside with two part epoxy lacquer. The bow pinhole was cleaned as much as possible and filled with special penetrating silicone sealer. I didn't fancy messing with re-soldering the rib with all those soldered toneholes! Likewise the body/bell joint. After four months they show no sign of corrosion.
The inside I cleaned thoroughly by scrubbing with soapy panscrubber on a stick and applied a coat of polyurethane varnish. Why let it go green again? Modern horns are lacquered inside.
As this horn is not in museum condition, and never can be because of the buffing it suffered, I felt justified in adding a few adjusting screws to avoid the usual bending required to regulate the keywork. In the modern manner I added a separate arm to the F# keyrod to avoid the twisting moment on the key cup, with adjuster screws on it to regulate the Bb and G# interlocks.F# screwsThe D E F keys were also each fitted with adjusters to trim the F# closure. DEF screws

I repadded with black Roo pads with flat metal resonators. They are real good quality; flat, firm and tough, and they're not supposed to stick - that's the bit I like - we'll see. Now it plays so easily and sounds rich and wonderful. The action is the lightest I personally have had but if the Roos do happen to stick after all I might add a G# helper - must admit I forgot when it would have been convenient. The tuning is good but varies a bit more than my others with different mouthpieces. Remember my usual disclaimer! Roos

P Mauriat 66R

This one was a sane sensible decision to try a new horn on it's reputation/advertising for sound build, good looks and rich vintage sound.
How did it turn out? Well, it looked good, different, but I wonder what happens when it needs touching up or a bit of soldering. The finish was a bit short on finish, if you know what I mean. Not quite as good as first impressions which promised a real quality tool. Constructionally it was superficially good with simple reinforced posts.Not quite what it seems

The closer you look the more concerns you find which is a shame.

This palm F cup arm was a real finger sticker - like a needle!

There were numerous little blemishes which I thought were deeper than mere cosmetic 'bits of dirt' under the lacquer. Is it impure material? Where else is it lurking?
The lacquer also showed signs of losing its matt effect with very little rubbing.
Corrosion_001 Corrosion_002 Corrosion_003 Corrosion_004 Corrosion_005 Corrosion_006

I don't think anything will fall off, but I worry how tatty it will look in a very few years.
More worrying still were a few areas where problems were lining up to appear. Hinge pinParallel hinge pins give no chance to adjust wear which is not going to take long with rough pins like these. This is real penny pinching!
Pad_tight_fitWhen pads are this near the tonehole rim they can wedge against the edge of the cup effectively hardening the pad locally so not sealing as well on the opposite side.
Bad_tonehole This malformed, split and roughly filed C tonehole was a disgrace! Some of the other holes had only just been rolled enough to give a sealing surface. Note the blowholes at the base of the post.
Stripped Having spotted the C tonehole botchup I took off the top stack to look at it better. The key rod had a stripped thread - another botch.
The neck was lacquered over the tenon and already, (this was a new horn from a dealer), that had worn off leaving the neck unable to be tightened. Another botch.

Good points I wasn't expecting;
1. Much better case than reports suggest.
2. Strong key guards.
3. Decent material thickness, especially the neck although it has quite a prominent seam inside.
4. Light and quiet lower stack action.
5. Toneholes are flat! Just as well because some very skillful metal bashing is needed to flatten distorted rolled holes!
6. Good strap!

The best feature of this horn I thought, was the way it played. Very comfortable to hold, much like my Yana with dished keytops. The sound was rich and easy, just like the advertising, but no easier than my other horns. As I keep saying, this is a rank amateurs opinion.

I reported my findings to the dealer and gracefully, (I hope), declined the deal. Shame about the details - it could be a superb instrument.

Weights and measures

Necks and speaker hole position (See later entry of T992 above for more neck work)