[saxplay]

Hey for those who are looking for a great horn under $1K look out for one of these. I just grabbed a 10M with an 873XXX serial range. This is one of the last 10M's with the wire key guards, the "Naked Lady" engraving with the original wire bell brace and also before the under slung neck was added. Well holy cow! what a surprise this was. It plays every bit as strong as a horn costing four times the amount and the intonation is fantastic. Also lots a sub-tone and complexity with a good MPC. I recently let my 5 digit Silver Plated VI go due to this crappy economy and you I think I am going to be okay for a while with my new cheap and awesome Conn 10M. Although if Joel Peskin reads this, I want my Selmer back

 

[JayeLID]

Yes, indeedy. I have sold several and I have a pair for sale right now. Some of the last Naked Lady horns.

Exact same body as the earlier ones, just the neck design was changed and some of the keywork mechanisms. At one point I had pretty much thewhole spectrum of 'em in here...'37, '41, '50. '55, '59. '65. '67. Even the 60's ones, post-Lady, are quite good. The later models stood up to their earlier brethren very, very well.

Conns most always have good intonation (unless the keyheights are hecka screwed up).


Play it for a while...you'll get over your selmer. There ain't no sound like a 10M.

 

[saxplay]

Thanks JayeSF, I have a gig this Sunday and I am excited.

 

[William Bua]

I'll go one better.
I recently did an overhaul on a Conn Pan American for fellow member sactopete. That horn played great on horrible pads and now, it really kicks butt. I don't care for the ergos on the conns whether its a Pan American or a 10m, but they sound far better than most of the junk I play that comes through the shop. I am tempted by the 30m. I'm sure I will run into one in my buying travels. One thing's for sure, you can do one heck of a lot worse for twice the money.

 

[jicaino]

It's better to have a late 10M surprise than a tranny surprise... :mrgreen:

I agree with WB's and Jaye's comments. Also the 600k 16M are a lot of horn for the money.

 

[saxplay]

Well for ergos I was actually surprised by the ease of the palm keys. Having grown up on a Super 20 followed by Selmer and Yamaha , ll great horns. I think the 10M does very well, maybe it's the later serial run. Much better than say an SML or a Buffet SDA IMHO. The SML sound great but the G# key stack for example is near your kneecap. and those are now selling for $3K

 

[jicaino]

I prefer the 10M and conn in general after they lose the RTH's.

 

[SAXISMYAXE]

I prefer the 10M and conn in general after they lose the RTH's.

Same here.

 

[wwjdwithca]

Same here.

Yea, me three.[rolleyes]

 

[JayeLID]

it's better to have a late 10m surprise than a tranny surprise... :mrgreen:

HO !!!!!! Comment of the year !!!!!!!!!!! :cheers: :shaking2: :sign5:

 

[jicaino]

HO !!!!!! Comment of the year !!!!!!!!!!! :cheers: :shaking2: :sign5:

Wait.... I think that I know why Trannies sounds ballsier than naked ladies... :bluewink: hehehe :twisted:

 

[Sax Magic]

I agree with several other posts here: the 1950's and 1960's 10Ms, and the 6Ms as well, are superior horns to their older bretheren. This attitude is not the prevailing wisdom, but note in this thread that the discovery is spreading.
Besides that, the 1950's 6M and the 1960's 10M both have double socket necks and underslung octave keys, which looks great as a matched pair on the bandstand. Whether you care about the looks or not, the late 6M/10M horns are great players, and worth your attention.
Sax Magic

 

[BOPITY FUNK]

I prefer the 10M and conn in general after they lose the RTH's.

Add me to that line of thinking--now watch the prices go up on these!!

 

[Hornlip]

Same here.

Y'all talking tone, playability, what?

I had a post-tone hold 6M for a while. It was a very strong player. The other horn I played mostly then was an early Mark VI and the Conn was no less of a horn. In fact, the Mark VI played darker than any other VI alto I've played, and the two horns sounded very similar. But, it was after Conn removed the microtuners, and something about the neck angle bugged me. And, even though it was a strong horn it didn't really thrill me -- overall I liked my late Chu alto better. I sold the 6M when I got hold of a Martin Centennial. Still got that!!

At the time I also had an early Conn 16M tenor, not too far removed in time from the 6M, that was a rollicking monster. IIRC the 16M was basically a Pan Am (which is to say, a Conn). Paid like $250.00 for it, ready-to-play. I would like to try one of those late 10M horns including the socket-neck version.

 

[SAXISMYAXE]

Y'all talking tone, playability, what?

Intonation primarily. In my experience, it tends to be improved with the later models.

 

[Sax Magic]

Re: Late Model Conn 10M Surprise

+1 for Saxismyaxe's comment. I had a 1967 10M that had a huge sound and great intonation. I also had 1955 and 1957 6Ms that were "ballsy" as well. When I had fewer opportunities to play, I starting thinning the herd, and these all went away. I miss them! I went from twelve horns down to six currently, but it surely was difficult to decide whether to sell the matched Martins, the matched Bueschers, or the matched Conns. Ultimately, I just posted them all and let the marketplace sort it out for me.
Don't overlook the 1950's and 1960's 6M/10M/12M Artist horns. They have serious game.
Sax Magic

 

[GFC12]

I prefer the 10M and conn in general after they lose the RTH's.

HERESY!

I suspect the post- and pre- 1955 10Ms are best suited to different groups of players. I found the same setup to get the big vintage sound on an older 10M got kind of a raspy sound from a later 10M. Someone who uses a smaller chambered setup might prefer a later 10M, since those are the setups that seem to bring forth the intonation issues with the earlier 10Ms. And a less aggressive setup is less likely to bring forth the undesirable characteristics of the later 10Ms. If a later 10M gets you what you need, good on ya. You can laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[jicaino]

HERESY!

:mrgreen: :tsk:

I suspect the post- and pre- 1955 10Ms are best suited to different groups of players. I found the same setup to get the big vintage sound on an older 10M got kind of a raspy sound from a later 10M. Someone who uses a smaller chambered setup might prefer a later 10M, since those are the setups that seem to bring forth the intonation issues with the earlier 10Ms. And a less aggressive setup is less likely to bring forth the undesirable characteristics of the later 10Ms. If a later 10M gets you what you need, good on ya. You can laugh all the way to the bank.

Just to show how diffrerent we all are and think, I use ToneMaster NY's and old links in general. I can't stand high baffles or medium small chambers or such. And I do prefer the 10M's after they loose the RTH.

 

[GFC12]

:mrgreen: :tsk:



Just to show how diffrerent we all are and think, I use ToneMaster NY's and old links in general. I can't stand high baffles or medium small chambers or such. And I do prefer the 10M's after they loose the RTH.

Are your preferred horns the 47-55 "tweeners" with the neck clamp on the body, or the later horns with the double socket neck?

A big chamber with a softer reed seems to work nicely with the later horns. Big mellow sound, just not *the* sound I'm after.

 

[jicaino]

Are your preferred horns the 47-55 "tweeners" with the neck clamp on the body, or the later horns with the double socket neck?

A big chamber with a softer reed seems to work nicely with the later horns. Big mellow sound, just not *the* sound I'm after.

I like them "tweeners" wich are basically good 10M's with no RTH's
I use big chambers in about .110 to .120 tips with #3 reeds as "soft side" of my strenght preferences... I'm not after the big mellow sound (not that I like small, nervous and lean either). You just keep on trying to generalise! :bluewink: