Sax on the Web Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, word on the net is that the Omega (162) alto had a larger bore than the AS100. Also that the only differences between the AS100 and the AS110 (first series, Made in USA with 3 point ring body to bell brace), were only cosmetic (different engraving/finish and some changes in key touches - namely top F# and front F): but has anyone had a chance to compare the 3 models side by side?
Has anyone found any bore size differences?

If not, would the owners of any of the 3 models be able to post the following: internal diameter of neck tenon, internal diameter of neck mouth (mouthpiece side), outside diameter of body just above the bow to body removable ring, anything other relevant dimension that could be easy to measure?

Just personal curiosity...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Where did you get this "word on the net?" As far as I know, the AS100 and the Model 162 only have cosmetic differences. Of course, the earlier numbered saxes were hand crafted and generally seemed to be superior to later numbered models. The 162 Omega was the only alto that Selmer USA marketed as a professional model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Where did you get this "word on the net?" As far as I know, the AS100 and the Model 162 only have cosmetic differences. Of course, the earlier numbered saxes were hand crafted and generally seemed to be superior to later numbered models. The 162 Omega was the only alto that Selmer USA marketed as a professional model.
Steve,

well that is what I heard, I cannot give you a precise source (it was reported through another forum), and yes I agree the differences "seem" only cosmetic.

Reason why I would like to find out is that in my opinion the greatest difference in sound is produced by bore size, so if the 162 is the same as the AS100 and the AS100 is the same as the AS110, then the Omega is the same (aside from cosmetic/manufacturing differences) as the AS110 (first model before numbering changed to 7 digits)... that is what I would like to find out.

I'm not here to stir up trouble or criticise or less any of these models (which all seem very valid to me), just trying to gather technical info to make an informed decision.
Cheers,
M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
No problem, I didn't take offense. I have a Model 162 (#820xxx) which, sometime before I acquired it, had lost it's original neck and was replaced by an AS 100 neck which has a different colored lacquer. The neck tenon for the AS100 is exactly the same as that for the 162 (actually, it's the same for all of the Selmer Paris necks as well with the exception of the MkVII or so I have read.) I have a MkVI neck on my sax with a Meyer 6M mpc and my sax sings!

Also, I was subbing for one of our high school's band classes and noticed a Selmer USA sax and with permission, I had an opportunity to examine it. It was an AS 100 (#823xxx) and with the exception of some cosmetic changes such as gold lacquer rather than rose gold and a pearl F# key rather than a MkVI style bar, it was identical to my sax! When you compare the AS100 neck with the MkVI's, you notice right off that the angle is different. The MkVI neck seems to improve the centering of the tone. Of course, the whole thing didn't come together until I tried the Meyer! I'm now very happy with my alto!

As to the AS110, what was different about it vs the AS100 and any other changes that may have been made I can't say. What I can say is that these instruments, once properly set up, are extremely good and (IMHO) seriously underpriced at the moment! The original Omega model really is reminiscent of a MkVI but with a sound uniquely it's own! It's a worthy sax in it's own right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
The only differences between a 162 and an AS100 that I've commonly read about on the net are:
Metal bar F# and pearl oval F#
Metal thumb rest and plastic thumb rest
Rose gold lacquer and lighter gold lacquer
Slightly more elaborate engraving on the bell of the 162

Actually, I'm not sure at what point in the evolution of F# keys, thumb rests, lacquer, and engraving that the horn transitioned from a model 162 to an AS100.

I haven't heard anything about a bore difference. Unfortunately I haven't had an opportunity to play both a 162 and an AS100 (or a 164 and a TS100). I have a 162 alto (820xxx) and a TS100 tenor (828xxx) and I love them. I'm dying to play their counterparts for comparison!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for the reply.
Yes so far, these are the keywork differences. Well when I'll have my AS110 back maybe we can exchange this info.
As I said, my only reason to find this out, is to establish "if" the 162/as100/as110 transition only carries keywork/cosmetic differences or whether more substantial design changes were introduced.

I would like to add a couple of things to VSJ725's post I found out in my "net research":
the early 162 Omega had metal bar top F# and round F# (this can be seen on the early 80s publicity page with Richie Cole/Donald Sinta), later 162s already have the oval top and side F# (my 1987 Selmer USA brochure shows this) like the AS100.

The AS100 saxes have model number stamped on the side of the bell, the keywork on the AS100 looks the same as the later 162.
The AS110 (in the 830000 range) has changed the front F to spatula, the top F# to angled metal bar, thumb hook is now plastic, the neck octave has also changed: no longer the wraparound key with "S" in diamond, but the octave now sits between the posts with a small "S" logo. Also the engraving looks very different (in single vine lines) and extends to the bow.

The later AS110s (with the 7 digits) have a bar neck brace, top F# is now oval metal (no pearl) the bell to body is no longer the 3 point ring but a simple flat bar with "S" logo (like the Signet) and I think has no bell engraving either.

Cheers,
M.

As an aside, the 80s publicity page also mentions that "alto is here now, tenor will be available in 1982"
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top