Told A901 but actually A900µ - should I be upset?

[djembeman]

Hi all,

First post on this forum! :)

I'm quite new to the sax and after carefully weighing my options and investigating for a while, I took the plunge and purchased a Yanagisawa Alto sax. I also did what most people say you shouldn't do: I purchased a used horn over Ebay! :shock:

Anyway, the horn has arrived and it looks fine - I'm about to take it to a technician for him to check out. But, what was explicitely described to me via email as an A901 is actually an A900µ (that's the greek leter "mu"). :? The seller told me the serial number and it dates the horn to 1995. Upon digging a little here, I think now that maybe I should have realized that the A901 was only introduced somewhere around 1998 or thereabouts...

Anyway, what I'm wondering is: assuming the horn is otherwise fine, should I be upset with the seller? Are there significant differences between the two models? Did I overpay for this model thinking it was an 901? The going price was about $US1k.

Thanks for any opinions!

[Morry]

That's probably a fair price for the horn in very nice condition, although it would be better if you had received what was agreed to.

[M Exner]

First I'll say that you probably have a great horn. Yanis are historically superb saxes. But I suspect you were purposely deceived by model numbers and serial numbers not alligning up as they should.

Usually Yanigasawa changes model numbers when improvements have been made. It has been my observation (unlike many sax manufacturers) that the newer the Yani, the better the Yani.

I've compared SC-900 and SC-901 sopranos and there were significant differences between the two. Keywork in the upper register of the horns. I bought the SC-901. Remember though, I'm talking sopranos. The altos may (not) be that significantly different.

I would like to see the completed auction page to see exactly what was said . This may be much ado about nothing, but something really stinks here and then there is the matter of principle.

Mike

[djembeman]

Well, the horn is in excellent condition. One pad apparently needs to be slightly adjusted in order to seal properly, which I am told is a minor adjustment. Other than that, it looks almost new.

The Ebay listing didn't mention the model number. Upon inquiry via email, the seller claimed the model to be A901 and that he'd purchased it new about 4 years ago. Most likely the seller purchased it new, but maybe 7 years ago.

BTW, I did do many things to attempt to make sure things were as they were announced. For example, the seller sent his home phone number and I called (unannounced) and asked that he play the horn for me. Except for being an A900µ instead of an A901, the item was accurately described.

The auction listing is here (http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2543180027&category=16 232&rd=1), BTW.

Since it seems likely that the differences between A900µ and A901 are fairly minor, and the price I paid is apparently fair, I've pretty much decided the issue isn't worth quarelling about. Not sure about giving the seller Ebay feedback though - he's already given me positive feedback about the deal... Anyway, I'll stop now because this is turning into an Ebay thread.

[Fred]

FWIW - It could have been purchased 4 yrs ago - lots of stores have old stock sitting there waiting to sell.

[JfW]

you got a real nice horn for a song (pun intended),

It may not be exactly as advertised, but at least it was close and came in very good condition. The model number snafu was probably unintentional as any seller who would be able to play would realize there is probably no real difference between the values of either the 901 or 900u at this point (I've never even heard of the 'u'). Most ebay frauds/innocent ignorant statments reek of deceptions of condition of the instrument. There was nothing to gain by stating the incorrect model number.

[DaveKessler]

Well At first, I say try and get a little refund, but then I saw that you got 8 mouthpieces with it.

Mind telling us what all the mouthpieces are? You could get a fair amount of money for some of them.

[djembeman]

So I decided it was a good enough deal. I left the seller some positive feedback and sent an email to inquire about the model number snafu and haven't heard the slighest thing back. Hmmmm...

Mind telling us what all the mouthpieces are? You could get a fair amount of money for some of them.

- Selmer C**
- Yanagisawa OEM
- Holton (metal chamber with reddish hard rubber (?) exterior)
- Silver Selmer D (no ligature, slightly rought shape, with cleaning brush)
- Name illegible, hard rubber, large chamber
- Rousseau JDX5 (pretty good shape)
- Selmer Goldentone 3
- Bundy 3 tenor (!? - too big for the instrument anyway)

Like I said, I'm pretty much a newbie, so it's hard to tell if any besides the Selmer D might be marketable. But I figured it'd be a good way for me to learn how the mouthpiece can change the sound of the instrument. They're all at least moderately worn and a few have quite significant teeth marks. BTW, is it possible to get a ligature for the Selmer D? Looks like the nicest thing in the bunch, but it's so slender that none of the ligatures included will fit...

[Hurling Frootmig]

It's nice to have a variety of mouthpieces to try out as you chase the sound that you hear in your head. You've got some interesting pieces there.

Enjoy.

[Dr G]

Regarding finding a ligature for the Selmer (metal) D: you could either buy one from someone like Woodwind and Brasswind (for about $20) or consider getting a Rovner. The metal Selmer lig is a popular substitute lig on Otto Link metal mouthpieces. The Rovner is perhaps more forgiving. If you go to the Rovner website, you may find a table that gives the correct size for your mouthpiece.

That Rousseau mouthpiece should be a good playing 'piece as well.

Enjoy!