Which SML Won Gold Medal--Rev D or Gold Medal?

[Swingtone]

I have read several ebay listings for Revision D's recently in which the seller claims that the Rev. D was actually the sax that won the Gold back in the 50's at some legendary international woodwind contest in the Hague. However, there seem to more credible online articles and past posts on this forum indicating that the actual Gold Medal series was the sax that won the medal.

I am inclined to believe the latter, actually. Why would a company name a new model of saxophone after an award that that sax didn't even win? Or going further, why would they name a new redesigned horn after an old retired model, even if that older model did win an award?

Does anyone have any authoritative documentation or history on this? I have already looked over saxpics.com, and as far as I can see, there is nothing authoritative on there supporting the case for either side.

[Sigmund451]

It was the revision D which was then produced as the GM.

[Swingtone]

OK, so what's your source on that? I do know for a fact that the Gold Medal was significantly different than the Rev. D, with more overall features (e.g., larger bell)--so I'm a little confused.

[cornific]

OK, so what's your source on that? I do know for a fact that the Gold Medal was significantly different than the Rev. D, with more overall features (e.g., larger bell)--so I'm a little confused.

hmmm ... if that’s the case, this is news to me. perhaps you are thinking of the rev C getting the upgrades? as i understand it the rev D horn won the gold medal and was subsequently produced as the GM model, in effect bragging about the rev D achievement. i play a standard two tone that is acoustically the same as a gold medal but minus, in my case, three of the famous SML features (rth's, adjustment screws, and rocking thumb rest). for me, my standard is the bomb!!! sporting oversized flat brass resos, and its' many battle scars. it may be ugly to look at but close your eyes, it rips!!! i have been happy enough with my standard that i never pine for the pristine gold medals. mine is a player!!! although i must confess to sometimes drooling while looking at the silver rev D's. i don't think i would buy one because i would want to move the RH thumb hook and strap ring around to adjust the ergos to my taste, in doing so mar the aesthetics. give me my war horse any day!

[tjontheroad]

The chicken (Rev D) came before the egg (Gold Metal). But, I think that with the Gold Metal there was still some minor refinements over the Rev D.

[Swingtone]

Here is what saxpics says on the subject:

<<Around s/n 15xxx, SML introduced the Gold Medal models. They are the pinnacle of SML design: rolled tone holes, elaborate engraving, etc. As a matter of fact, the name comes from the fact that these horns won a couple of gold medals at the International Music Festival at The Hague (Holland) back in the 50's for their excellent design and performance.

The horn is NOT just a repackaged "Rev. D", although they do look similar. The bow and neck of the alto and tenor are NOT interchangeable with their Rev. D counterparts, leading one to assume that the bore is completely different.>>

Since no one has posted any evidence to contradict the above info, then I must say for the record, that the actual gold medal was most likely awarded to the SML "Gold Medal" model at the legendary woodwind festival in the Hague--not the Revision D. As saxpics points out, there were many differences between the two models and the necks were not interchangeable. This leads me to believe that the Gold Medal was probably a brand new prototype at the time SML entered it into the competition; hence, the name--they probably hadn't even named it yet, and the award made the naming process a no-brainer.

If someone has any solid evidence to the contrary, I--and I'm sure other--SML afficionados would love to read it. In the meantime, the theory that the medal was bestowed upon a model other than the Gold Medal is just that--a theory--kind of like other urban legends in saxophone history, like the notion that the early Mark VI's were the best because they were made of brass taken from WWII bomb shell casings--what a bunch of malarkey! It's interesting how these stories get started, and just grow and grow.... However, if anyone has any evidence to prove the latter theory, I'd be all ears for that as well. :)

[tjontheroad]

Well, I'm certainly inclined to agree with Pete (saxpics) and yourself. My point was the differences between the Rev D and the Gold Metal were evolutionary rather than it being a completely new design. I guess the core of your question is what did they call the Gold Metal before it was awarded as such? Pete himself says he pretty much invented the "Rev A, B, C & D" designations. As far as I know, SML never really called them that.

[Swingtone]

That's true, but there was one called the "Gold Medal," and I am inclined to believe that it was the actual model that won the Gold Medal--not its predecessor. Since the story that the Rev. D won it has been floating around on several threads, etc. for quite a while, I am still wondering what the original source of this info was. Those who tend to proclaim the latter do so fairly emphatically, so maybe there is some solid evidence out there for this argument. But then again, with almost 80 page views and no evidence posted, it appears that this story may have flowed from heresay and just grown and grown, as so many things on the Internet have a tendency to do....

[Sigmund451]

I suppose I stand corrected. Id definitely go with Saxpics. Pete knows his business.

[tjontheroad]

We can start our own rumor and call it the Rev E if you'd like ;)

[saxyben]

Hi, Sorry for coming in on this thread as well, but I think that this discussion might be related to my post in http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=42822.
My own theory is ( and I am a recentish convert to the SML enigma, so I am happy to be proved wrong) is that SML never really bothered with model names ( apart from the Standards and Supers) - lets face it marketing couldn't have been their strong point otherwise they would have sold more- and once they won the Gold Medal competition with the sax at the time the Rev D, all of their Pro saxes were engraved as such. However at the same time their design evolved with the larger bells or it might have been that a prototype with the larger bell won the competition etc.
My guess is that there are GM1s that are different to each other (possibly US / Europe models), some identical to Rev Ds (possibly the ones with the flower engraving ) and the evolved model with the slightly larger bore and bell(possibly the ones with the more elaborate engraving).
Car Models often overlap, so why not saxophones and the engraving would be the last part of the production line. I have put up some pictures <a href "http://www.mcelhone.co.uk/sml.htm"here</a> that compare a silver 26xxx KM Tenor with a lacquer flower engraved 169xx GM1 Tenor.
If anyone has a GM1 with rth with the larger bell 16.5cm (6 1/2 inches), or a Rev D with the same bell 16cm(6 1/4 inches) or a Rev D with an even smaller bell can they please get involved to help prove me right or wrong.:?
The other question I have about the Gold Medal competition is if Selmer were in it?

[HonestLiar]

Got a GMI tenor with serial 193xx. Rim diameter is 16,3 cm.
Seems like this adds even more confusion to the discussion

[pth]

Does anyone know what the competition was actually about? Who participated? What were the criteria? Did companies have to enter a whole line (SATB) of saxes? Was there a best-overall-line award, best-soprano award, best-alto award, ... and if so, which of these did SML win?

Now days, you don't often see industry competitions that allow prototypes. Generally competitions are for currently available products, and the products are chosen at random (i.e. cannot be specially tweaked by the manufacturer). Was that one of the criteria for this competition? If so, it would seem that the award would have had to have been given to the Rev. D

I have had two SML tenors, an absolutely mint GM1 Reynolds Contempra and a GM2 King Marigaux. I also still have a Rev D. alto and have seen a GM1 alto. I did not keep the tenors, which had a huge spread sound which is not to my taste; I couldn't get enough core sound out of them. I had a similar feeling about the GM1 alto. But the Rev D. alto is very focused and has a tone that makes you want to keep playing it. If I were considering giving a gold medal to a horn the Rev. D alto would be a serious contender, IMO.

[Swingtone]

Does anyone know what the competition was actually about? Who participated? What were the criteria? Did companies have to enter a whole line (SATB) of saxes? Was there a best-overall-line award, best-soprano award, best-alto award, ... and if so, which of these did SML win?

Now days, you don't often see industry competitions that allow prototypes. Generally competitions are for currently available products, and the products are chosen at random (i.e. cannot be specially tweaked by the manufacturer). Was that one of the criteria for this competition? If so, it would seem that the award would have had to have been given to the Rev. D

I have had two SML tenors, an absolutely mint GM1 Reynolds Contempra and a GM2 King Marigaux. I also still have a Rev D. alto and have seen a GM1 alto. I did not keep the tenors, which had a huge spread sound which is not to my taste; I couldn't get enough core sound out of them. I had a similar feeling about the GM1 alto. But the Rev D. alto is very focused and has a tone that makes you want to keep playing it. If I were considering giving a gold medal to a horn the Rev. D alto would be a serious contender, IMO.

I guess we're both entitled to our opinions--we just reached a different conclusion based on different thought processes. But until someone actually produces something authoritative on this, we're both pretty much spittin' in the wind, if you ask me. :D I still maintain that a company would most likely name a specific product after a specific award that that product had won. I don't think they would name a new product after an award that an earlier model had won. That would be like if Toyota won an award for the Camry and then named a totally new model called the Silver after the award that the earlier model had won. It would be like SML was saying--"We are a gold medal company with gold medal quality products." Instead of making the boastful statement: "This product won the Gold Medal, and that's why we're calling it that."

BTW--as chronicled in the "Devil's Horn" by Segell, I think it was quite common in European instrument competitions dating back to Adolphe Sax's day for instrument makers to enter prototypes in a competition. In fact, they were extremely secretive about their creations, and if you've read the book, you know why--there were often physical threats and fights that broke out between envious instrument inventors. Since the competition was so intense, it only makes sense that inventors would not enter a current product, but instead unveil their latest "secret weapon," that no one, except for the artisans behind your factory walls, knew about. Just my 2 cents....

[hafuch]

Dear All,

Frankly, claims that SML's Rev D design won the gold medal award at this international competition defy not only the sources we currently have (largely at www.saxpics.com), but common sense as well.

It would be plainly preposterous, if not downright disingenuous, of SML to promote a redesigned saxophone (as indeed the Gold Medal models distinctly differ from the Rev. D models) under the name Gold Medal - in clear, unambiguous reference to its having won the gold medal award at this international musical instrument competition - if it had not in fact won the claimed award.

To suggest otherwise is to rely on rumor and Internet hyperbole over research (presented on the Saxpics website) and common sense.

In truth, both models are outstanding, as anyone who has played one in decent condition will tell you, and not only rival the best of the vintage saxes, but truly merit the claim many have made of them: that SMLs have earned their place among the finest saxes ever made.

But for the sake of posterity, let's try to keep the record straight ...

Respectfully,

SMeLmer :)

[Drumroll]

It would make sense to me that the Rev D had to win the Gold Medal.If not SML would have had to of had a Gold Medal model that won the Gold Medal.This makes no sense.The Rev D had to be the horn to have won it and then SML ran with that.Started the Gold Medal model at serial 15xxx (which was after the Hague festival) and added some bells and whistles!I have a Gold Medal alto that is fabulous and everybody I talk to that has a Rev D says the same thing.I am not sold on the bore size being different on RevD and the GM.I would have to test a number of them to verify that.These being hand made might have a little tolerence differences in an isolated case.

[Swingtone]

In "The Devil's Horn," Segell writes about the long-standing tradition of European instrument inventors such as Adolphe Sax taking top-secret prototypes of new instruments to these international competitions and then unveiling them to those in attendence, guarding their "secret weapons" with their proverbial lives right up to the time they were unveiled.

So intense were the rivalries between these Old World instrument makers that they would actually spar over the results of these competitions; and I believe that Mssr. Sax had at least one attempt made upon his life by a envious competitor. No, I'm leaning toward the theory that the sax that received the medal was the Gold Medal prototype, which was most likely unveiled at this legendary competition.

[saxyben]

I have to agree with Drumroll on this. As I have stated elsewhere, I have A GM1 Tenor 169XX and a late KM Tenor 26XXX and the bore and bell size is different.
It could have been a prototype that won the medal, but I personally think there are a number of production GM1s that are identical to late Rev Ds. A small manufacturer would have had an overlap of parts and I could be wrong, but the engraving was probably the last thing done.

[indicative]

I 'll throw in my experiences....
Rev D horns have a bell flare of 6.25 in and the GM tend to have a flare of 6.5 in.
I did see an early GM sold in the UK where the seller told me that it had a flare of 6.25 in.
And that horn also had a serial number earlier than some rev d's I've seen.
So I guess its a GO FIGURE situation.
Having played a '65 GM, '78 king marigaux, and '51, '55, '56 rev d's; I found the rev d's to have a darker sound than the gm or King marigaux;
the gm and king sounded virtually the same-a little brighter and slightly better projection than the rev d's.
There's got to be some old French guy out there who built these who could settle this!

[indicative]

Here's one for the sml sax sleuths-on ebay now a 1955 rev d alto with a piece of sml advertising that states that they had won 7 awards for their alto, tenor saxes and flutes, english horns, oboes and clarinets.

link: http://cgi.ebay.com/STRASSER-MARIGAUX-SML-ALTO-SAXOPHONE-13390-PARIS-1955_W0QQitemZ130174309793QQihZ003QQcategoryZ16232 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

4th pic down on left

I've emailed the seller asking if they'd send me a pic of the inside and back of that little ad.

[indicative]

Got the pics-PM me if you want to see them-I will forward them to Pete on saxpics.
Seller thinks they are original with the 1955 horn.
States clearly that sml alto and tenor saxes had won gold medal awards in the international music festival at the Hague , Netherlands.

My conclusion:
SML rev D design won the gold medal for alto and tenor saxes. So only those 2 were later engraved as gold medal (the sop and bari never were)

SML made slight design modifications to these Gold Medal horns over the years. (NOT SURPRISING!!!! Selmer did the same with the mk vi's! The bores were not the same for all mk vi's. Play a 64K , next to a 86K next to a 178K mk vi and you'll hear it!-I have)

I did take measurements on the sml tenors I've seen/played (listed in prev post) and found the neck and main tubes to be the same, but the bow and bells changed.
I did notice that the neck from the king marigaux was 1/4 in shorter that the ones engraved SML .... but have also been told by someone in the know who works directly with designers and manufacturers that sometimes when instruments are imported, the company doing the importing 'improves' the design by doing small things.

[pth]

That all makes perfect sense to me (as I argued in a previous post). In any case, I will be offering my Rev D. (1954, I believe) alto 12xxx for sale soon. If anyone reading this thread is interested, PM me.

[hafuch]

Hi All, based on some measurements I have recently come across, I'm stepping back from my earlier position that the Gold Medal model, believing it to be a distinct departure from the Rev D model, was the one that won the gold medal.

At present, I agree with some of the others here who have suggested that it was the Rev D that actually won the medal in the first place, and that SML simply honored it with "Gold Medal" engraving. It seems the Rev Ds and GMs are pretty much the same saxophone as they share the same neck tenon, bore and taper measurements (a few features here and there not withstanding).

Merry Christmas to all!

Hafuch

[BeyondSax]

I agree with the last couple of posts, but decided to check it out. I happen to have my Rev D Tenor #1486X right next to my Gold Medal Tenor #1802X and guess what? The necks are interchangeable and the bores (measured at a three different spots) are exactly the same. There is a difference in final bell opening, with the Rev. D measuring 16.4 cm and the Gold Medal measuring 15.5 cm at the widest point. All parts except the bell seem to be interchangeable, though admittedly I haven't taken all the bits off to try them out. Also, if I take one neck, put the mp on and tune it to A=440 and then place the neck and mouthpiece undisturbed on the other horn, it is still perfectly in tune. There are a couple of other differences between my horns. For instance, the Rev. D has a swivelling LH thumbrest and adjustable (screw in) felt bumper pads while the Gold Medal does not. Overall, it seems to indicate that the Rev. D and Gold Medal are almost exactly the same.......except for the bell opening, the logo, the swivelling thumbrest and the adjustable pad felts!!!

[Swingtone]

Good research. I'm just wondering for argument's sake if it's possible that this competition was held more than once. If so, then it's also possible that the true Gold Medal could have won the Gold, too. As others have indicated, it's kind of a silly argument because the Gold Medal and the nameless model that preceeded it (Saxpics created the whole "Rev" nomenclature) are so very similar. In other words I always thought it was absurd that some people selling the so-called Rev D's tried to make this stipulation, implying that their horns were just as good as the Gold Medal, when actually the latter was an improved horn with more features including the larger bell flare. Indeed, I've always kind of thought that people selling these horns bring this fact up in an effort to get a higher price for their horns, which seem less fancy and more plain than the Gold Medals.

[BeyondSax]

Swingtone, what I have noted above is that my Rev. D is the horn with the larger bell flare and more features than my Gold Medal version. I don't have any axe to grind on the matter as I own both types and love 'em equally. Also, as I noted above, the bore and action seem to be exactly the same on the two horns. It may well be that SML over a period of time - to cut costs - started to remove features from the Gold Medal branded versions??

When I am looking to purchase SMLs, I do tend to look for horns in the Rev. D and later serial numbers, ie 83XX-202XX.

I just bought a couple of SML sopranos (not yet in hand) and when I get those I will compare the earlier and later versions in a similar fashion to see if there was a trend by SML to remove features.

[Swingtone]

Neither do I, and I'm willing to admit when I was wrong, as I was when I first posted this thread. I'm just glad that my inquisitive nature helped rejuvenate this issue to the point where we finally have a pretty clear answer.

I'm just a little surprised that your Rev. D has a larger bell flare than your GM. I owned a 1953 SML tenor (which would be a Rev. D according to saxpics) earlier this year and though it had a fairly large bell, the flare was noticeably smaller than on my 1967 King Marigaux, which is essentially a Gold Medal with the King name stamped on it. However, if you get technical the KM is actually a stencil of what saxpics calls the GM II, which may have had a larger bell flare than the GM I?

In the end I do not claim to be an expert, but I owned both the Rev D and Gold Medal stencil at the same time, and the latter had a huge bell flare, most likely the same as the one that Carmen Leggio talks about in that article posted somewhere on SOTW (I never measured it because I'm not a natural techno-nerd, I guess--I'm mainly interested in making beautiful sounds on the things). Also it was always my understanding that the 6 1/2-inch bell flare on the Gold Medal was one of its famous 22 features, and if so, it seems odd that it would've also been a feature of the Rev. D.

Oh yes, the only other difference I noticed is that the necks were not interchangeable on the two horns above.

Yes, I am even less interested in these horns now that I sold both of them last year. What do I play now? A 1934 Selmer "Super," a 1936 Buescher Aristocrat and a 1956 King Zephyr, all tenors.

Right after I sold George Keith's King Marigaux (I have written about it in past threads), I had a pang of seller's remorse. However, the Paypal was already in the bank, and I had to go through with it. But really, I am quite happy with the horns I have right now. This may sound funny but all of them are of a comfortable weight; whereas the SML's just felt like leaden weights after about an hour of practicing. Though they are heavy horns, I think this problem would've been alleviated if I had had a second neck strap hook installed further down, more toward the center of gravity on these horns.

[JazzGospel]

Swingtone, your King Marigaux has given my son an excellent start. So, if it gives you comfort, he's been taking good care of it. It has given me great pleasure to hear him practice and learn. Interestingly, I found a Zephyr alto today and we're looking forward to that one too.

George

[Swingtone]

Wow! Small world! And glad to hear that.

BTW one of the members who posted in this thread was Keith's former student and the person who sold the horn on consignment through Tim Glessman's saxalley.com. I will PM you the details shortly, since he may possess some additional documentation/provenance (photos, etc.) regarding the horn that he can share with you.

[BeyondSax]

Neither do I, and I'm willing to admit when I was wrong, as I was when I first posted this thread. I'm just glad that my inquisitive nature helped rejuvenate this issue to the point where we finally have a pretty clear answer.

I'm just a little surprised that your Rev. D has a larger bell flare than your GM. I owned a 1953 SML tenor (which would be a Rev. D according to saxpics) earlier this year and though it had a fairly large bell, the flare was noticeably smaller than on my 1967 King Marigaux, which is essentially a Gold Medal with the King name stamped on it. However, if you get technical the KM is actually a stencil of what saxpics calls the GM II, which may have had a larger bell flare than the GM I?

In the end I do not claim to be an expert, but I owned both the Rev D and Gold Medal stencil at the same time, and the latter had a huge bell flare, most likely the same as the one that Carmen Leggio talks about in that article posted somewhere on SOTW (I never measured it because I'm not a natural techno-nerd, I guess--I'm mainly interested in making beautiful sounds on the things). Also it was always my understanding that the 6 1/2-inch bell flare on the Gold Medal was one of its famous 22 features, and if so, it seems odd that it would've also been a feature of the Rev. D.

Oh yes, the only other difference I noticed is that the necks were not interchangeable on the two horns above.

Yes, I am even less interested in these horns now that I sold both of them last year. What do I play now? A 1934 Selmer "Super," a 1936 Buescher Aristocrat and a 1956 King Zephyr, all tenors.

Right after I sold George Keith's King Marigaux (I have written about it in past threads), I had a pang of seller's remorse. However, the Paypal was already in the bank, and I had to go through with it. But really, I am quite happy with the horns I have right now. This may sound funny but all of them are of a comfortable weight; whereas the SML's just felt like leaden weights after about an hour of practicing. Though they are heavy horns, I think this problem would've been alleviated if I had had a second neck strap hook installed further down, more toward the center of gravity on these horns.

Swingtone:

An interesting development here locally, as I got another collector interested in SMLs and he has now purchased several, including two Gold Medal tenors. They are both two tones and both have the same (large) bell as my Rev. D two tone model, unlike the smaller bell on my own Gold Medal. So it looks like SML supplied Gold Medals in two sizes of bell... We are going to get all four horns together and see if the Rev. D still has the most features or if one of his Gold Medals also has them all.

[soybean]

I think this problem would've been alleviated if I had had a second neck strap hook installed further down, more toward the center of gravity on these horns.Is the sling-ring position something that SML eventually changed as they made improvements to the line? I know that Couesnon moved their strap ring lower in the later years.

It's always surprising to me how many manufacturers put the ring up so high. This must have been done to facilitate playing while seated. It certainly makes standing and playing a chore.

[DaddyRabbit]

This thread has me curious about bell size. My alto Rev D (10***) has a bell flare of 4 7/8. My tenor Rev D (11***) has a bell flare of 6 3/8. I always thought those were big compared to most. Anyone care to throw out their measurements? (And they say size doesn't matter.):?

[Peterogping]

Same. See below for models.