It may depend on the buyer’s needs, the reputation and desirability of the individual saxophone involved, and what the seller is willing to accept in payment. Meaning, there are many variables in selling any saxophone, including re-lacqs and that any claimed percentage of loss is just opinion and nothing else. DAVE
I think the issue is basic economics. Supply and demand. Some older vintage horns are worth more when they have nice original lacquer because there are not that many around. The cost for a relacquer usually makes it not worth the expense, and then there are not many people looking for a relacquered horn. It would not be unusual to pay about 2K to have a horn overhauled and relacquered (alto). Pretty hard to get that back. Even when done the right way you lose the demand side as many believe the relacquer takes away from the original performance as well as removing the nostalgia of the horn. It appears to be a loss in most aspects.
I think if you looked at the bell curve you would see a couple of deviations (where the bell was not as shiny).
I’m not a repair technician but I’ve read that the biggest concern with a relaq for someone who is buying it to play is the quality and care taken during the process. If the tone holes were damaged, or too much buffing was done it can cause serious problems adversely affecting playability
A forum community dedicated to saxophone players and enthusiasts bought to you by Harri Rautiainen. Come join the discussion about collections, care, displays, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!