I'm posting this with Theo's permission. He was extremely professional and courteous. The letter I sent him reads first, then his response.
"Subject: mouthpiece pricing
Hi again. Your new mouthpiece description certainly sounds revolutionary!
I'm writing, though, because it is disappointing to me that I and most sax players I know around here, along with the vast majority of players on such forums as Sax On The Web, will not be able to own one. On that particular message board, there's a 3-page thread regarding your mouthpiece with zero reviews. Zero actual reviews, and everyone has been really excited for several months because we know how AMAZING your work truly is. There's no hype with Theo Wanne products; it's the real deal. Either way, the majority of popular mouthpieces, like Links, Morgans, Runyons, Jody Jazz, etc etc are relatively good and drastically less expensive than the new AMMA. Sure, hard work and real craftsmanship costs big money, not to mention the R&D that went into developing everything. And it is fair to say that a LOT of today's mpc products are total ****. But that's the market, with most players using sub-$200 pieces, a proportionately-smaller amount using the $350 pieces like Phil Barone's stuff and the Jody Jazz DVs, and an even smaller percent of the dedicated sax population purchasing the vintage Links and Dukoffs for $400+. That market clearly drastically drops off past $500....Sir, nobody's doubting your work. Nobody's calling you scammer. And that's huge; people are always quick to yell scammer if somebody puts out an expensive product.
It's just that a $650 mouthpiece is completely unattainable for the vast overwhelming majority of sax players, even professional, dedicated sax players, out there. You have every right to disagree; I just wanted to state my point."
Theo's response:
"Sent: Mon 7/02/07 6:44 PM
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Security scan upon download
att2f4b9.jpg (4.7 KB)
Dear Brad,
Thank for sharing your perspective from such a clear, informed, and compassionate place. I appreciate you taking the time give me feedback. It is valuable information for me.
I started refacing mouthpieces because I wanted a particular sound only a large chamber could get me. Over the years, and with the help of a lot of musicians, I gained some success in my ability to create the sounds I, and many others, were looking for.
As my work load grew I began to see trends in my work. I was repeatedly making designs that while desired by many of my customers, did not yet exist on the market. This is why I started the process of mouthpiece manufacturing: to help more musicians get the sound they were looking for than I could accomplish with just my own two hands. My commitment to quality is so unflinching, though, that I will not lower my standards for a production mouthpiece. Hence, I have done whatever it takes to make the same, or higher, quality mouthpieces than what I previously was making by hand. At some point I will post the process I go through to make the AMMA. It is significant! It is time consuming, and it is very expensive. Even with the AMMAs high price point, our profit margins are far below many mouthpiece manufacturers, far below.
A majority of the mouthpieces I made by hand were very expensive. Just to get a Florida vintage Otto Link and redo it would actually cost as much or more than the AMMA. Also by manufacturing the AMMA I am able to make innovations I could not by simply modifying a Florida Otto Link. The AMMA includes three patented features I could not include in a refaced mouthpiece. Hence, in my eyes, I am making a mouthpiece superior to anything I could do solely by hand. I did actually make a mouthpiece all by hand. That was the predecessor to the AMMA. It took so many hours to make, that in the end it cost almost as much as the AMMA. Yet I still feel it fell quite short of the AMMAs quality.
First and foremost, I wanted to make a mouthpiece like that AMMA available to musicians. The price was not my objective. Simply making the piece available was.
So why do I put price second to my desire to just have a mouthpiece like the AMMA available? Because the mouthpiece is SO important. It is where the sound wave shape is formed. It has vastly more impact on the musicians sound than the saxophone. Spending a few hundred more dollars on a mouthpiece has the potential to impact the musicians sound far more than spending a few hundred dollars more on the saxophone. So if I can truly make a superior mouthpiece for a few hundred dollars, then to me, it really is worth it.
Now if there is no difference between a $100 mouthpiece and a $675 mouthpiece, than indeed it is a waste of money! I firmly believe though, that we have done something with the AMMA that warrants the increase in price. I tried to make the AMMA with less expensive methods. But it did not get quality I desired. I failed. I want a perfectly flat table. I want a perfect curve. I want a true large chamber with an exquisitely shaped chamber and inner side rails that is truly accurate. I want the perfectly shaped baffle with a tip rail like art. I want every mouthpiece to play like a million bucks! What it took to do that was what you currently see.
Why no reviews yet? No one has played it. I am only now comfortable with sending some out to review. I am a bit of a perfectionist. We get a finished product, then I say, "no wait, I want to make this one last change." I have had a lot of last changes. I actually praise my brother for his patience with me.
Skip Spratt of Saxshed is one of only two people yet to receive an AMMA. I believe he has posted a preliminary review on Sax on the Web. Please be patient. Soon the mouthpiece will be out to many people, and I am sure there will be many reviews.
Your point regarding price is valid and an important one. I would LOVE to make AMMAs in the price ranges you refer too. The manufacturing costs currently do not make that possible, though. That said. I am indeed aware of your situation. It is dear to my heart, and I have my full attention on making a budget version.
My intention with the release of the AMMA is to have my dream mouthpiece available to the market. But please have faith in me. I have heard your concerns loud and clear. My attention is directly and firmly planting on making mouthpiece you can afford too! In fact, my intention is to receive an email from you, some day soon, stating, "Theo, Thank You. I now have a mouthpiece I can afford that fully represents the sound I want with and the quality I know you stand for!"
Please feel free to share this information if you desire to. I appreciate your input, and am sure others have similar concerns as well.
Sincerely, Theo Wanne
"Subject: mouthpiece pricing
Hi again. Your new mouthpiece description certainly sounds revolutionary!
I'm writing, though, because it is disappointing to me that I and most sax players I know around here, along with the vast majority of players on such forums as Sax On The Web, will not be able to own one. On that particular message board, there's a 3-page thread regarding your mouthpiece with zero reviews. Zero actual reviews, and everyone has been really excited for several months because we know how AMAZING your work truly is. There's no hype with Theo Wanne products; it's the real deal. Either way, the majority of popular mouthpieces, like Links, Morgans, Runyons, Jody Jazz, etc etc are relatively good and drastically less expensive than the new AMMA. Sure, hard work and real craftsmanship costs big money, not to mention the R&D that went into developing everything. And it is fair to say that a LOT of today's mpc products are total ****. But that's the market, with most players using sub-$200 pieces, a proportionately-smaller amount using the $350 pieces like Phil Barone's stuff and the Jody Jazz DVs, and an even smaller percent of the dedicated sax population purchasing the vintage Links and Dukoffs for $400+. That market clearly drastically drops off past $500....Sir, nobody's doubting your work. Nobody's calling you scammer. And that's huge; people are always quick to yell scammer if somebody puts out an expensive product.
It's just that a $650 mouthpiece is completely unattainable for the vast overwhelming majority of sax players, even professional, dedicated sax players, out there. You have every right to disagree; I just wanted to state my point."
Theo's response:
"Sent: Mon 7/02/07 6:44 PM
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Security scan upon download
att2f4b9.jpg (4.7 KB)
Dear Brad,
Thank for sharing your perspective from such a clear, informed, and compassionate place. I appreciate you taking the time give me feedback. It is valuable information for me.
I started refacing mouthpieces because I wanted a particular sound only a large chamber could get me. Over the years, and with the help of a lot of musicians, I gained some success in my ability to create the sounds I, and many others, were looking for.
As my work load grew I began to see trends in my work. I was repeatedly making designs that while desired by many of my customers, did not yet exist on the market. This is why I started the process of mouthpiece manufacturing: to help more musicians get the sound they were looking for than I could accomplish with just my own two hands. My commitment to quality is so unflinching, though, that I will not lower my standards for a production mouthpiece. Hence, I have done whatever it takes to make the same, or higher, quality mouthpieces than what I previously was making by hand. At some point I will post the process I go through to make the AMMA. It is significant! It is time consuming, and it is very expensive. Even with the AMMAs high price point, our profit margins are far below many mouthpiece manufacturers, far below.
A majority of the mouthpieces I made by hand were very expensive. Just to get a Florida vintage Otto Link and redo it would actually cost as much or more than the AMMA. Also by manufacturing the AMMA I am able to make innovations I could not by simply modifying a Florida Otto Link. The AMMA includes three patented features I could not include in a refaced mouthpiece. Hence, in my eyes, I am making a mouthpiece superior to anything I could do solely by hand. I did actually make a mouthpiece all by hand. That was the predecessor to the AMMA. It took so many hours to make, that in the end it cost almost as much as the AMMA. Yet I still feel it fell quite short of the AMMAs quality.
First and foremost, I wanted to make a mouthpiece like that AMMA available to musicians. The price was not my objective. Simply making the piece available was.
So why do I put price second to my desire to just have a mouthpiece like the AMMA available? Because the mouthpiece is SO important. It is where the sound wave shape is formed. It has vastly more impact on the musicians sound than the saxophone. Spending a few hundred more dollars on a mouthpiece has the potential to impact the musicians sound far more than spending a few hundred dollars more on the saxophone. So if I can truly make a superior mouthpiece for a few hundred dollars, then to me, it really is worth it.
Now if there is no difference between a $100 mouthpiece and a $675 mouthpiece, than indeed it is a waste of money! I firmly believe though, that we have done something with the AMMA that warrants the increase in price. I tried to make the AMMA with less expensive methods. But it did not get quality I desired. I failed. I want a perfectly flat table. I want a perfect curve. I want a true large chamber with an exquisitely shaped chamber and inner side rails that is truly accurate. I want the perfectly shaped baffle with a tip rail like art. I want every mouthpiece to play like a million bucks! What it took to do that was what you currently see.
Why no reviews yet? No one has played it. I am only now comfortable with sending some out to review. I am a bit of a perfectionist. We get a finished product, then I say, "no wait, I want to make this one last change." I have had a lot of last changes. I actually praise my brother for his patience with me.
Skip Spratt of Saxshed is one of only two people yet to receive an AMMA. I believe he has posted a preliminary review on Sax on the Web. Please be patient. Soon the mouthpiece will be out to many people, and I am sure there will be many reviews.
Your point regarding price is valid and an important one. I would LOVE to make AMMAs in the price ranges you refer too. The manufacturing costs currently do not make that possible, though. That said. I am indeed aware of your situation. It is dear to my heart, and I have my full attention on making a budget version.
My intention with the release of the AMMA is to have my dream mouthpiece available to the market. But please have faith in me. I have heard your concerns loud and clear. My attention is directly and firmly planting on making mouthpiece you can afford too! In fact, my intention is to receive an email from you, some day soon, stating, "Theo, Thank You. I now have a mouthpiece I can afford that fully represents the sound I want with and the quality I know you stand for!"
Please feel free to share this information if you desire to. I appreciate your input, and am sure others have similar concerns as well.
Sincerely, Theo Wanne
I bought an AMMA. In my opinion, the AMMA is by far the best mouthpiece I've ever played on my tenor. I've tried a number of other mouthpieces (Bergs, Links, Barone, Meyer, Jody Jazz and others), but admittedly not all, for example, I've never tried one of the vaunted Guardalas. For me, the AMMA blows all the rest away. Troubles I've had in the lower and upper end of the horn are gone. Now, as a relatively inexperienced player, it is my belief that a mouthpiece like the AMMA can make more of a dramatic difference in a less experienced player's sound (as it has for me) than it would for a more experienced player, who has the experience to make a wider range of mouthpieces work.
