[Qwinkly3]

Some folks have said this thread is absurd. Obviously, they were not disgruntled clarinetists forced to play that beastly antique monster every Fall for marching band. Obviously, they didn't have a half MILE hike 6 days a week to the practice field. (My tone is just kidding, here, not meant for insult.)

I asked the web how much a tenor sax weighed, wanting the info for a blog article, and it directed me here - to you group of sax lovers. So forgive the intrusion of this one lazy and disgruntled clarinetist.

I also asked the web how much a GALLON of MILK weighs, for comparison - 8.6 pounds.

Now, can anyone tell me what were common weights for really old monstrous tenors with extra keys? Mine was so old it's color was deeper than gold, and a professional saxophonist bought it because the entire thing, (keys and all) was so unusual. Even the case was a monster. You could sit on this thing, in any direction without it denting.

I KNOW this puppy was way more than a gallon of MILK ! Even the college BOYS who carried it to the field for me complained. (Pretty girls don't have to carry heavy things, if they've learned to flirt properly. Bwah-ha-ha !)

 

[JL]

Now, can anyone tell me what were common weights for really old monstrous tenors with extra keys? Mine was so old it's color was deeper than gold, and a professional saxophonist bought it because the entire thing, (keys and all) was so unusual. Even the case was a monster. You could sit on this thing, in any direction without it denting.

The really old (I assume you mean vintage--somewhere in the '30s or '40s) tenors were no more 'monstrous' than today's horns. And the keywork was simpler on many of them, so probably there was less weight in the keys. In some cases the brass was thicker, so maybe some of those horns were a bit heavier in that respect. I have 3 tenors. The '40 Buescher and my '65 MKVI weigh about the same. The VI has more complex keywork, and the Buescher might have slightly thicker brass (or a bigger bore) so that balances out. Then I have an 'old monstrous' 1950 Buescher that is lighter than either of the others. Noticeably so.

What kind of horn did you have? I'd be surprised if it weighted more than 8.6 pounds by itself. But in a heavy case it certainly would!

 

[action]

If anyone is still interested...1958 Mark VI = 7.14 LBS; TK Melody Yardbird = 7.80; Yanagisawa T990 = 7.20

 

[DuddlyDoRight]

Depends upon the number of clams contained therein on any given night; I can show you via this simple formula:

W= (nC+Siii)JN
W-weight, n-number, C-Clams, Siii-weight of My Axe, JN-job night.

 

[bapreb]

My Couf Superba I weighs in at 7 lbs 6 oz.

 

[Theodore]

Stumbled into this old thread owing to idle curiosity. Every time someone picks up my wonky nickel-plated Mark VI tenor, the first comment I hear is "This is a heavy horn!" I figured that the plating (which was added at some point by a previous owner) was likely to blame. Just weighed it using a kitchen scale (very carefully balanced and secured!) and a bathroom scale, and if both are calibrated correctly, looks like my Mark VI is not particularly heavy compared to the figures above - it weighs in at about 7 lbs 4 oz. Or my scales are reading low and I'm fatter than I think I am!

 

[Dr G]

Stumbled into this old thread owing to idle curiosity. Every time someone picks up my wonky nickel-plated Mark VI tenor, the first comment I hear is "This is a heavy horn!" I figured that the plating (which was added at some point by a previous owner) was likely to blame.

How thick is the plating? What do you estimate is the surface area of a saxophone? I've seen this claim several times before, maybe it's time for a lil' math.

The density of pure nickel is 8.9 g/cc.

 

[Theodore]

Couldn't tell you with any mathematical accuracy - but I can say that the engraving is all clearly visible and well defined, so it wasn't an extra thick coat...

It is an early 70s Mark VI, so it has the extra keywork for the high F#.

 

[Dr G]

Maximum recommended thickness in the plating industry is 0.01-0.02mm. Let's estimate the surface of a saxophone at 1/4 sq meter.

(0.001cm)*0.25*(100cm)^2*8.9g/cc = 22.25g

That's less than an ounce. Do you think you could feel that difference?

An extra key would weigh more than the mass of the plating.

 

[1953SBAALTO]

How thick is the plating? What do you estimate is the surface area of a saxophone? I've seen this claim several times before, maybe it's time for a lil' math.

The density of pure nickel is 8.9 g/cc.

My Machinery's Handbook (27th edition, page 1469) lists anywhere from .0004 to .002 inches thick for most applications. There I go with the engineering again...

 

[Dr G]

My Machinery's Handbook (27th edition, page 1469) lists anywhere from .0004 to .002 inches thick for most applications. There I go with the engineering again...

...and using ******* units... :twisted:

 

[Theodore]

Maximum recommended thickness in the plating industry is 0.01-0.02mm. Let's estimate the surface of a saxophone at 1/4 sq meter.

(0.001cm)*0.25*(100cm)^2*8.9g/cc = 22.25g

That's less than an ounce. Do you think you could feel that difference?

An extra key would weigh more than the mass of the plating.

I don't know - I suppose if you pick up the same horn 1000+ times over the course of a year and you get really accustomed to the feel of the weight of the instrument, and then you switch to a horn that's an ounce or two heavier, you might notice the difference.

I will say: I just weighed my other tenor (yes, I have too much spare time today) - a Yamaha - and I always felt that the Mark VI was the heavier horn - but it turns out that they weigh almost exactly the same (assuming my scale is working). So maybe it's something about the nickel-plating that makes the horn that makes the horn look heavier. The nickel is more slippery to the touch than lacquer, so it's harder to get a good grip on it - maybe that adds to the impression of more weight.

 

[1953SBAALTO]

...and using ******* units... :twisted:

what can I say, I'm just a simple mechanical engineer turned project manager...Of course my new company does everything in metric, so I'm all sorts of confused. I guess since we are talking French saxophones we should use metric units. If we were talking Conns that would be another story...

 

[Dr G]

I don't know - I suppose if you pick up the same horn 1000+ times over the course of a year and you get really accustomed to the feel of the weight of the instrument, and then you switch to a horn that's an ounce or two heavier, you might notice the difference.

I will say: I just weighed my other tenor (yes, I have too much spare time today) - a Yamaha - and I always felt that the Mark VI was the heavier horn - but it turns out that they weigh almost exactly the same (assuming my scale is working). So maybe it's something about the nickel-plating that makes the horn that makes the horn look heavier. The nickel is more slippery to the touch than lacquer, so it's harder to get a good grip on it - maybe that adds to the impression of more weight.

Wow, you are really reaching to make the contrary conclusion.

"Information vs affirmation" strikes again...

 

[Dr G]

what can I say, I'm just a simple mechanical engineer turned project manager...Of course my new company does everything in metric, so I'm all sorts of confused. I guess since we are talking French saxophones we should use metric units. If we were talking Conns that would be another story...

Density calculations are SO much easier in metric units - and most scientific calculations as well. Unit manipulation in ******* units is too much work.

Simple engineer vs lazy scientist... Hey, you're the one that said you were "simple"! :twisted:

 

[Theodore]

Wow, you are really reaching to make the contrary conclusion.

"Information vs affirmation" strikes again...

What affirmation am I looking for? I swear, you're the king of snark on here, Dr. G...

 

[Dr G]

What affirmation am I looking for? I swear, you're the king of snark on here, Dr. G...

Duh, the affirmation that your nickel plate horn feels heavier.

Sheesh, I've got to update my Ignore List...

 

[1953SBAALTO]

Density calculations are SO much easier in metric units - and most scientific calculations as well. Unit manipulation in ******* units is too much work.

Simple engineer vs lazy scientist... Hey, you're the one that said you were "simple"! :twisted:

True, true, true. But as a product designer you come to understand what a .020 tolerance means to a machinist or in terms of mold design. When I have a product design in mm, I have to constantly refer to a conversion table to know what .05 mm means in regards to manufacturability, it's almost like speaking a different language. However, thinking back to my thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluids classes I can appreciate how much easier metric units make life in those areas.

 

[1953SBAALTO]

I think someone should make a Molybdenum sax, I wonder how heavy that would feel. :bluewink: :twisted:

 

[djm0226]

I will say: I just weighed my other tenor (yes, I have too much spare time today) - a Yamaha - and I always felt that the Mark VI was the heavier horn - but it turns out that they weigh almost exactly the same (assuming my scale is working). So maybe it's something about the nickel-plating that makes the horn that makes the horn look heavier. The nickel is more slippery to the touch than lacquer, so it's harder to get a good grip on it - maybe that adds to the impression of more weight.

I've never seen someone go so far as to say that because a horn is plated, it seems heavier...right after saying it's the same weight. :faceinpalm:

I was going to try to come up with an intelligent response to this...but I can't. :dontknow: