Sax on the Web Forum

Sax on the Web Forum Archive / Conn Saxophones / 16Ms: US or Mexico?

Back 20 Messages

jbach
User ID: 9412633 Jun 13th 5:13 PM
Many remarks around about the drop in quality in Mexican built horns. Not clear how to tell the difference visually. Some folks warn against serial# with a letter prefix (especially 'N' for Nogales) but it seems that ALL Conns from the 50s on had letters, the letter changing from year to year. Saxpix mentions bell keys on the right hand side as a mark of Mexi-conns. Does anyone have more precise serial number or configuration info?
Or should one just write off any 16M after 1960?

saxpics
User ID: 2818304 Jun 25th 12:26 PM
I disagree with your comments on the tooling, as post 1948/1949 horns lack rolled tone holes, which suggests different tooling, as Conn RTH weren't soldered -- and the other apocryphal stories that say a factory worker broke the 10M mold, and Conn had to make another one.

Also note that the 16M more resembles the Pan American produced in the 1930's, than it does a pre-1948/9 10M -- and many folks say the 16M is based on the Pan Am design. (And my best notes say the 16/18M was introduced in 1955. I'll give you the year, tho :)

Anyhow, you've started the seed of doubt eith pictures of your horn, but I've got pictures of a later E-series (1965) and an H-series 6M (1966) with WK. They're also different from your horn (nice customization job, I might add) in that they don't have the Conn "C" body brace. Does the other horn that you've seen have the same brace? There's gotta be another reason why there's a significant design difference.

Your horn is what, '67 or '68? Could it be an early '69? That could make it a MacMillian horn, in the first year of their ownership and then the 6/10M was discontinued -- as I've mentioned, I haven't been able to come up with a completely satisfying date that the Conn-designed 6/10M went away.

How 'bout "All Conns with SMK, except for SOME 6/10M's and ALL 92/94/108/110M's, are junk"? Again, as I mention, I was unaware that Conn was actually selling 6 or 10M's with SMK prior to 1969 -- and I bet 99% of the sax community is, too, but I'm not 100% convinced on your E-series 10M -- the keyguard could have been added later. If it's got the same bell-to-body brace as your tenor, I think your point has been proven.

MojoBari
User ID: 1320554 Jun 25th 2:48 PM
Here's a real early '63 smk 10M on eBay now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=887238876.

I dont know where I got my notes on the tooling changes. I just started jotting down things a bunch of years ago. Your logic about the RTH stop being the start of "new tooling" makes more sense.

As for 6M features not agreeing with 10M features, it does not appear that Conn tried to change them at the same time. The 6M had a double socket neck and underside octave vent a bunch of years before the 10M. The 6M may have even stopped using it by the time the 10M started. I mostly just jot down 10M notes, since that is what I have (L17015, K20210). They both have the "C" brace like the one on eBay now. I actually bought the "L" new in 1971. Who know where it was from '68 to '71. The "K" is the black one.

I dont know about the 16M keyguards. I learned on a 16M Conn that was probaly a 60's horn. It was owned by the school and had nickle plated keys. I'm pretty sure it had smk, but I was just a kid. I would need to pay attention to 16M eBay listings to observe when 16M features changed.

saxpics
User ID: 2818304 Jun 25th 4:28 PM
IMHO, you can't worry too much about the 16/18M's, as these model numbers WERE transitioned to student horns, albeit different pitches (18M, for instance, became an intermediate alto by 1970), so one can say SMK on 16/18M's means "watch out", especially as we've just proved that there may have been more than one version of any Conn model at this time.

But, in any event, the 16/18M were intermediate horns to begin with. Folks can argue whether they're intermediate quality, but Conn called 'em intermediate horns when they were introduced.

On the 10M, at least, I think you've proved your point: SMK doesn't necessarily mean "junk", if you're talking about a horn produced before 1969.

Do note that your horns and the ones you mention are some of the last horns built in the US under the aegis of Conn, rather than MacMillian. I dunno why there were two somewhat different models available at the same time, but my opinion is that it's a case of, "We have this horn ready right now. Let's ship it. Clear out the other inventory when it's ready."

I agree and can support what you say about the 6M: they had the underslung octave key, except for the first year or so the 26M was available. I'd think that you could get the over-the-top octave key as an option at any point, though. I'm not sure about the double-socket on the 6M's. I know the microtuner was removed about 1954.

Even though you've proven your point, one could still haggle about the relative value/playability of the full line of 10M's, from RTH to not to underslung octave to SMK. I still believe that the RTH horn would be the most valued and the SMK the least. As far as which sounds the best, that's a matter of opinion.

I don't believe that we can talk about the 10M SMK being to the 10M RTH like the Buescher Super 400 is to the 400 "Top Hat and Cane"; i.e. a slightly watered-down version.

saxpics
User ID: 2818304 Jun 25th 4:33 PM
So, how 'bout a summary:

* 6/10/16/18M horns produced before 1969 with sheet metal keyguards: probably OK, to a great extent. Playtest before buying.
* Horns produced after 1969: forget about it.
* Wire keyguards: you're probably in good shape.
* 92/94/108/110M altos and tenors: their Keilwerth horns, so you're in good shape.

'sallright?

MojoBari
User ID: 1320554 Jun 26th 9:43 AM
Sounds pretty good.

Except I have a note that I saw a "R" series 10M once on eBay that looked like mine. That would be a 1972. I would call that a fluke. You may choose to to soften the after 1969 comment or not.

I have not played the MexiConns, but most do say they are bad.

saxpics
User ID: 2818304 Jun 26th 11:14 AM
I hate it when I do that: "They're" instead of "their". Thinking and typing at the same time.

I agree on flukiness. Probably MacMillian getting rid of stock.

jbach
User ID: 9412633 Jun 29th 3:35 PM
Y'all can see, this is quite a can of worms once you start digging.

1.The 'N' serial numbers just happen to correspond to the Nogales plant opening, as lettered serial numbers begin several years earlier and continue after 'N' on 'Mexi-Conns.'

2. Sheet metal keyguards show up on pre 'Mexi-Conn' horns.

My attempt at a summary:
"1969 is probably the cutoff year for Conn quality. Earlier changes (non-rolled toneholes, sheet metal guards, underslung 8ve keys etc.) are incidental to Conn's manufacturing decline. US horns may be OK, if less prime than pre-1960 versions"

Does that cover it allright?

soreliprick
User ID: 0366544 Jun 30th 12:19 AM
If it actually says "MEXICO" under the serial number like mine, there is no doubt. No cabe duda.

saxpics
User ID: 0185894 Jul 1st 4:53 PM
This thread is getting a tad ridiculous. I think we've just proven that there are no absolutes. The generalization that has been made, "SMK Conns are junk" is inaccurate. So is, "all Conns with straight tone holes are junk".

The best generalization is, "After 1948 (when RTH were discontinued), you have to start worrying about the quality of the Conn you're looking at. After 1955 (the introduction of the Director), you've got to worry a bit more. In 1960 (the date of purchase of the Best Manufacturing plant in Nogales), you have more to worry about. After 1969 (the purchase of Conn by MacMillian), alarm bells should be sounding in your brain."

As has been demonstrated, there are some fairly decent horns that were produced throughout this time period, but the ratio of "decent horn" to "junk" seems to have just been higher -- after 1960, especially.

jbach, the main problem I have with your summary is that folks here will argue endlessly about whether the non-rth horns are better or as good as the rth horns. It's true that rth has no effect on the horn's sound, but rth Conns appear to be somewhat higher quality -- and they generally sell for a considerably higher price than those without.

(Basically, while taken individually, none of the features you mention have any bearing on how a horn sounds. It's just the combination of them on a Conn GENERALLY -- not always -- means, "This isn't a high quality instrument.")

In any event, I've had no takers come out and specifically said, "This mint 1968 10M is equally as good as my mint 1946 10M." (Nor have I had anyone tell me that "My mint 1960 16M is as good as a 1968 10M" -- but I have, vice versa.)

Unfortunately, this argument isn't like comparing, say, different Selmer Mark VI's. The Mark VI did have minor changes thoughout its lifetime and some people argue that there are better "vintages" of Mark VI (e.g. "Five digit serial number horns are best"), but the 6/10M changes are dramatic -- almost like there were several different models.

Anyhow, I've got sufficient fodder here to update my Conn M-series page. I'll probably do that within the next few days.

jbach
User ID: 9412633 Jul 1st 5:34 PM
thanks pix

I was only trying to coin a generalization about Conn quality during the decline--1960 on, or perhaps 1955 on. There doesn't seem to be much, if any controversy about the superiority of pre '55, or perhaps pre '48 horns.

Didn't some one say the Nogales maquiladora opened in '69?

Back 20 Messages

jbach User ID: 9412633	Jun 13th 5:13 PM Many remarks around about the drop in quality in Mexican built horns. Not clear how to tell the difference visually. Some folks warn against serial# with a letter prefix (especially 'N' for Nogales) but it seems that ALL Conns from the 50s on had letters, the letter changing from year to year. Saxpix mentions bell keys on the right hand side as a mark of Mexi-conns. Does anyone have more precise serial number or configuration info? Or should one just write off any 16M after 1960?
saxpics User ID: 2818304	Jun 25th 12:26 PM I disagree with your comments on the tooling, as post 1948/1949 horns lack rolled tone holes, which suggests different tooling, as Conn RTH weren't soldered -- and the other apocryphal stories that say a factory worker broke the 10M mold, and Conn had to make another one. Also note that the 16M more resembles the Pan American produced in the 1930's, than it does a pre-1948/9 10M -- and many folks say the 16M is based on the Pan Am design. (And my best notes say the 16/18M was introduced in 1955. I'll give you the year, tho :) Anyhow, you've started the seed of doubt eith pictures of your horn, but I've got pictures of a later E-series (1965) and an H-series 6M (1966) with WK. They're also different from your horn (nice customization job, I might add) in that they don't have the Conn "C" body brace. Does the other horn that you've seen have the same brace? There's gotta be another reason why there's a significant design difference. Your horn is what, '67 or '68? Could it be an early '69? That could make it a MacMillian horn, in the first year of their ownership and then the 6/10M was discontinued -- as I've mentioned, I haven't been able to come up with a completely satisfying date that the Conn-designed 6/10M went away. How 'bout "All Conns with SMK, except for SOME 6/10M's and ALL 92/94/108/110M's, are junk"? Again, as I mention, I was unaware that Conn was actually selling 6 or 10M's with SMK prior to 1969 -- and I bet 99% of the sax community is, too, but I'm not 100% convinced on your E-series 10M -- the keyguard could have been added later. If it's got the same bell-to-body brace as your tenor, I think your point has been proven.
MojoBari User ID: 1320554	Jun 25th 2:48 PM Here's a real early '63 smk 10M on eBay now: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=887238876. I dont know where I got my notes on the tooling changes. I just started jotting down things a bunch of years ago. Your logic about the RTH stop being the start of "new tooling" makes more sense. As for 6M features not agreeing with 10M features, it does not appear that Conn tried to change them at the same time. The 6M had a double socket neck and underside octave vent a bunch of years before the 10M. The 6M may have even stopped using it by the time the 10M started. I mostly just jot down 10M notes, since that is what I have (L17015, K20210). They both have the "C" brace like the one on eBay now. I actually bought the "L" new in 1971. Who know where it was from '68 to '71. The "K" is the black one. I dont know about the 16M keyguards. I learned on a 16M Conn that was probaly a 60's horn. It was owned by the school and had nickle plated keys. I'm pretty sure it had smk, but I was just a kid. I would need to pay attention to 16M eBay listings to observe when 16M features changed.
saxpics User ID: 2818304	Jun 25th 4:28 PM IMHO, you can't worry too much about the 16/18M's, as these model numbers WERE transitioned to student horns, albeit different pitches (18M, for instance, became an intermediate alto by 1970), so one can say SMK on 16/18M's means "watch out", especially as we've just proved that there may have been more than one version of any Conn model at this time. But, in any event, the 16/18M were intermediate horns to begin with. Folks can argue whether they're intermediate quality, but Conn called 'em intermediate horns when they were introduced. On the 10M, at least, I think you've proved your point: SMK doesn't necessarily mean "junk", if you're talking about a horn produced before 1969. Do note that your horns and the ones you mention are some of the last horns built in the US under the aegis of Conn, rather than MacMillian. I dunno why there were two somewhat different models available at the same time, but my opinion is that it's a case of, "We have this horn ready right now. Let's ship it. Clear out the other inventory when it's ready." I agree and can support what you say about the 6M: they had the underslung octave key, except for the first year or so the 26M was available. I'd think that you could get the over-the-top octave key as an option at any point, though. I'm not sure about the double-socket on the 6M's. I know the microtuner was removed about 1954. Even though you've proven your point, one could still haggle about the relative value/playability of the full line of 10M's, from RTH to not to underslung octave to SMK. I still believe that the RTH horn would be the most valued and the SMK the least. As far as which sounds the best, that's a matter of opinion. I don't believe that we can talk about the 10M SMK being to the 10M RTH like the Buescher Super 400 is to the 400 "Top Hat and Cane"; i.e. a slightly watered-down version.
saxpics User ID: 2818304	Jun 25th 4:33 PM So, how 'bout a summary: * 6/10/16/18M horns produced before 1969 with sheet metal keyguards: probably OK, to a great extent. Playtest before buying. * Horns produced after 1969: forget about it. * Wire keyguards: you're probably in good shape. * 92/94/108/110M altos and tenors: their Keilwerth horns, so you're in good shape. 'sallright?
MojoBari User ID: 1320554	Jun 26th 9:43 AM Sounds pretty good. Except I have a note that I saw a "R" series 10M once on eBay that looked like mine. That would be a 1972. I would call that a fluke. You may choose to to soften the after 1969 comment or not. I have not played the MexiConns, but most do say they are bad.
saxpics User ID: 2818304	Jun 26th 11:14 AM I hate it when I do that: "They're" instead of "their". Thinking and typing at the same time. I agree on flukiness. Probably MacMillian getting rid of stock.
jbach User ID: 9412633	Jun 29th 3:35 PM Y'all can see, this is quite a can of worms once you start digging. 1.The 'N' serial numbers just happen to correspond to the Nogales plant opening, as lettered serial numbers begin several years earlier and continue after 'N' on 'Mexi-Conns.' 2. Sheet metal keyguards show up on pre 'Mexi-Conn' horns. My attempt at a summary: "1969 is probably the cutoff year for Conn quality. Earlier changes (non-rolled toneholes, sheet metal guards, underslung 8ve keys etc.) are incidental to Conn's manufacturing decline. US horns may be OK, if less prime than pre-1960 versions" Does that cover it allright?
soreliprick User ID: 0366544	Jun 30th 12:19 AM If it actually says "MEXICO" under the serial number like mine, there is no doubt. No cabe duda.
saxpics User ID: 0185894	Jul 1st 4:53 PM This thread is getting a tad ridiculous. I think we've just proven that there are no absolutes. The generalization that has been made, "SMK Conns are junk" is inaccurate. So is, "all Conns with straight tone holes are junk". The best generalization is, "After 1948 (when RTH were discontinued), you have to start worrying about the quality of the Conn you're looking at. After 1955 (the introduction of the Director), you've got to worry a bit more. In 1960 (the date of purchase of the Best Manufacturing plant in Nogales), you have more to worry about. After 1969 (the purchase of Conn by MacMillian), alarm bells should be sounding in your brain." As has been demonstrated, there are some fairly decent horns that were produced throughout this time period, but the ratio of "decent horn" to "junk" seems to have just been higher -- after 1960, especially. jbach, the main problem I have with your summary is that folks here will argue endlessly about whether the non-rth horns are better or as good as the rth horns. It's true that rth has no effect on the horn's sound, but rth Conns appear to be somewhat higher quality -- and they generally sell for a considerably higher price than those without. (Basically, while taken individually, none of the features you mention have any bearing on how a horn sounds. It's just the combination of them on a Conn GENERALLY -- not always -- means, "This isn't a high quality instrument.") In any event, I've had no takers come out and specifically said, "This mint 1968 10M is equally as good as my mint 1946 10M." (Nor have I had anyone tell me that "My mint 1960 16M is as good as a 1968 10M" -- but I have, vice versa.) Unfortunately, this argument isn't like comparing, say, different Selmer Mark VI's. The Mark VI did have minor changes thoughout its lifetime and some people argue that there are better "vintages" of Mark VI (e.g. "Five digit serial number horns are best"), but the 6/10M changes are dramatic -- almost like there were several different models. Anyhow, I've got sufficient fodder here to update my Conn M-series page. I'll probably do that within the next few days.
jbach User ID: 9412633	Jul 1st 5:34 PM thanks pix I was only trying to coin a generalization about Conn quality during the decline--1960 on, or perhaps 1955 on. There doesn't seem to be much, if any controversy about the superiority of pre '55, or perhaps pre '48 horns. Didn't some one say the Nogales maquiladora opened in '69?