[turf3]

A thread on a late model King Zephyr baritone got me to thinking - what is the longest known production run of a saxophone, with the same design? Changes in the name or changes in the engraving don't count - what I'm talking about is when the basic horn is the same - same mechanism, same acoustics. Here are some candidates -

Buescher 400 baritone - morphed into Bundy and then to Selmer USA, but the same horn (distinctive back-of-the bell placement of low keys).

King Zephyr baritone - from sometime in the 1930s to maybe even as late as 1980? It lost the fork Eb and gained a front F but the split-bell-keys remained to the end.

Conn 12M baritone - mid 30s maybe before, to maybe as late as 1980? I'm not sure whether the split-bell-key ones should be considered a different model than the same-side key models, because as far as I have ever been able to see from photos, it looks like every bit of the mechanism except for that one key was the same.

It's not surprising that new-model development lagged on baritones due to smaller production quantities.

Conn New Wonder tenor - the New Wonder 2 tenor (late 20s?) appears to have been converted into the 16M, which continued clear through the Mexi-Conn days. My late 70s Mexi-conn tenor appears identical to a NW2 except for engraving, a few key touch shapes, and a few other minor details.

 

[JayeLID]

I think you nailed it with the 12M and the Zeph baritones. 12M's (or their design) actually appeared past 1980 since UMI took over Conn the, and there are "Armstrong 12M's" which they made at least thru the 1980's if not well into the 90's.

Likewise UMI kept making 16M's into the mid-late 80's...so if one uses your yardstick, 16M's were 'born' as Pan Americans in the 1930's and the only diff really was the pinky table, keyguards, and neckbrace design.

(I don't think it is fair to draw a lineage from a New Wonder to a 16M, however. Most folks consider the NWII to have been supplanted by the 10M, and consider the 10M a separate model, really. The Pan Am/16M is a 10M body and neck minus rth, and a significant amount of keywork is even the same. So using NW as a date start is cheating a bit, IMHO)

So, both the 16M and 12M may well have made it into the mid 90's.....which might overtake the Zeph by a good 5+ years or so as far as length of production....

For Bundy-esque baritones, I don't think the run goes that long. Buescher kept split-bellkey bighorns well into the 1930's and then after that their same-side ones were Aristocrats, I believe. I have never seen a 400 THC Baritone...I do not believe they existed. I think the 400 model replaced the Aristocrat baritone in the 60's...so even when one throws in Bundys and Selmer USA's... that would be a much shorter run than the Conns or Zeph.

If one wishes to push an argument that the Yamaha 21/23 'mould' actually still existed until very recently, I believe they can, as well...since is not the pretty recent 275/280 basically little different than an old 21 from the late 70's ? (exceptions being keyguard, a few small keywork mech changes, bow attachment, and some iterations of their student horn having the high F#)...so that'd be pushing 35+ years...not bad.

Holton Collegiates would be an interesting one to posit. The Collegiate name existed as early as the late 20's, and Holton went same-side bellkey horns in the late 30's and I believe their factory produced domestically into the 70's...so there could be a 35+ year run there of the Collegiates as well. I am just speculating, however...most same-side ones I have seen seem to be 40's - late 60's....If we could find a pre-war Collegiate same-side keys, then that argument would solidify...

 

[paulwl]

Definitely the 12M. Only minor changes from 1928-'69.

 

[turf3]

Definitely the 12M. Only minor changes from 1928-'69.

And maybe longer than that - see mention of "Armstrong" baritones that were essentially Conn 12Ms wtihout the fork Eb - I have seen photos of one of these.

Maybe the 11M low A should be considered a 12M since the low-A-ness of it was just a string-and-sealing-wax sort of kluge, anyway?

 

[paulwl]

No, adding tubing to a sax is about the most major thing you can do short of a full retool. The changes in the 12M were things like front F or nickel plated keys.

By comparison the 6M and 10M changed quite a bit - new octave systems, bell brace/stamped cages, losing the Eb/G# trills and micro tuner. But even they were basically the same horn from 1931 (6M) and 1934 (10M).

 

[datsaxman]

The tubing added to make the 12m into the 11m changes very little of the 12m.
153mm of pipe added plus one pad.
The mechanism is the same with the low A key tacked on.

For what that is worth...

 

[Hornlip]

[ . . . ]
For Bundy-esque baritones, I don't think the run goes that long. Buescher kept split-bellkey bighorns well into the 1930's and then after that their same-side ones were Aristocrats, I believe. I have never seen a 400 THC Baritone...I do not believe they existed. I think the 400 model replaced the Aristocrat baritone in the 60's...so even when one throws in Bundys and Selmer USA's... that would be a much shorter run than the Conns or Zeph. [ . . . ]

With regards to its saxophones, there's evidence that Buescher only gave a horn a new model number if there was some kind of substantial modification to the body tube dimensions. Over the years there were different model numbers for the various altos and tenors, but IIRC the model number for the baritones never changed over the entire period the True Tone / New Aristocrat / Aristocrat baris were made. So though keywork may have changed a lot, could be the same horn body was in production from 1919 or so until they dropped the Aristocrat bari.

I don't believe a THC 400 ever existed either - the 400 baris appeared after they stopped making the THC altos & tenors. That would be a pretty horn to see, though!

 

[soybean]

This is a fascinating question and I'm enjoying everyone's answers.

One could also ask if the long production runs were warranted (smart) or did they lead to obsolete designs and antiquated fingerings?

 

[JayeLID]

Definitely the 12M. Only minor changes from 1928-'69.

actually to 1990's, really....

 

[JayeLID]

With regards to its saxophones, there's evidence that Buescher only gave a horn a new model number if there was some kind of substantial modification to the body tube dimensions. Over the years there were different model numbers for the various altos and tenors, but IIRC the model number for the baritones never changed over the entire period the True Tone / New Aristocrat / Aristocrat baris were made. So though keywork may have changed a lot, could be the same horn body was in production from 1919 or so until they dropped the Aristocrat bari.

Could be, you raise an interesting speculation - after all, it IS true that the Bundy II alto body tube IS identical to the TT body tubes (I checked myself, being a disbeliever in that claim).....but here are two arguments against that theory:

1) Their Baris switched from opp-side bellkeys to same-side, so one can fairly argue it was not the same design, IMHO.

2) For quite a long run, their opp-key Baris had inherent instability in the Low E and D note areas (Matt Stohrer confirms this as well). Yet their same-side bellkey models have no such attribute...leading one to speculate something changed in design of body tube, upper bow, lower bow, possibly neck, or a combo of two or more of these things. I don't believe simply changing the bellpiece from opp to same-side would fix an instability (gurgle) in the low D and E areas....

Yeah a THC Bighorn, that would have been spectacular....

 

[Tranechaser]

Adolphe sax Original Soprano? The Mark VI soprano had the same keywork all the way through the early 1980’s

 

[JayeLID]

The tubing added to make the 12m into the 11m changes very little of the 12m.
153mm of pipe added plus one pad.
The mechanism is the same with the low A key tacked on.

For what that is worth...

Agreed. Especially when 'tubing' is added at the Bell end of things...

...although some do say that Altissimo on an 11M is more of a labor than on a 12M....

 

[JayeLID]

No, adding tubing to a sax is about the most major thing you can do short of a full retool. The changes in the 12M were things like front F or nickel plated keys.

By comparison the 6M and 10M changed quite a bit - new octave systems, bell brace/stamped cages, losing the Eb/G# trills and micro tuner. But even they were basically the same horn from 1931 (6M) and 1934 (10M).

Actually I would not agree with "6M and 10M's changed quite a bit".

Having refurbed around 100 of each, they were actually one of the most consistent designs of sax ever.

For both, it was the change from RTH and change to nickel keywork - both quite arguably resulting in no difference in horn performance.

Bell braces ...loss of microtuner ....neck brace , slight position change of strap eyelet ? I still do not consider those things 'significant'.

Yes, 10M went underslung neck, but all that changed was the neck key and octave mechanism on the body, Neck tube, body tube, tonehole placements (except for body pip) bow specifications, bell specifications, 90% of keywork remained identical.

I have a number of times taken keys off of a late 60's Artist model and transplanted them onto a pre-war one...they fit like a glove, really minimal tweaking of the later keys necessary. That's how consistent these were.

 

[paulwl]

Fantastic. Of course if you know a good thing when you find it, you leave yourself open to the charge of stodginess, and refusal to innovate.

 

[Ken]

My vote would go to the Martin Committee III which went from 1946 to around 1973 and maintained their manufacturing quality right until the end. Unlike other makers the late models sell for much the same as the early ones.

 

[Jazz House]

For some reason, I thought of the Selmer Series II, but of course that's not as long a run as some the horns people have mentioned. I have a feeling it might overtake some of the horns mentioned in this thread, though.

What about the Yanagisawa sopranino? Hasn't it been kind of the same forever?

 

[turf3]

This is a fascinating question and I'm enjoying everyone's answers.

One could also ask if the long production runs were warranted (smart) or did they lead to obsolete designs and antiquated fingerings?

Well, the fingerings of the saxophone have remained constant ever since the introduction of the automatic octave key (1900?) so "antiquated fingerings" hardly enter into it.

Most of the really long-run horns (original original acoustic designs from the 1920s) seem to be sensitive to using small-chamber mouthpieces, so that does in a sense constitute an "obsolete design". I love Conns, have played primarily Conns for over 40 years, but when everyone else can use dog whistle grass cutter pieces on their Selmer copies, while my Conn tenor and alto would play wicked sharp with that kind of piece, an argument could be made that the acoustic design of the Conn has been left behind. In my case the tone qualities of Conn, Buescher, King, Martin are worth dealing with limitations on mouthpiece selection.

Of course since the 6M plays beautifully and well in tune with basically any conceivable mouthpiece on earth, we have to exclude it. The 6M is a weird outlier in the world of saxophone where it shouldn't work very well and instead it's essentially the best alto sax ever made.

 

[paulwl]

although some do say that Altissimo on an 11M is more of a labor than on a 12M....

what you do then is take off the low A key and you have a 12M with a uselessly long bell. at least one Rascherian did this, so I assume it was to facilitate top-tone playing.

"antiquated fingerings" hardly enter into it.

then why don't saxes have Eb or G# trill keys anymore?

 

[Hornlip]

Could be, you raise an interesting speculation - after all, it IS true that the Bundy II alto body tube IS identical to the TT body tubes (I checked myself, being a disbeliever in that claim).....but here are two arguments against that theory:

1) Their Baris switched from opp-side bellkeys to same-side, so one can fairly argue it was not the same design, IMHO.

2) For quite a long run, their opp-key Baris had inherent instability in the Low E and D note areas (Matt Stohrer confirms this as well). Yet their same-side bellkey models have no such attribute...leading one to speculate something changed in design of body tube, upper bow, lower bow, possibly neck, or a combo of two or more of these things. I don't believe simply changing the bellpiece from opp to same-side would fix an instability (gurgle) in the low D and E areas....

Yeah a THC Bighorn, that would have been spectacular....

I think the idea was that the necks may have been tweaked but not the rest of the body tube. The TT altos were all model 126, but apparently there were neck changes along the way. During the split-bell New Aristocrat alto run there were three different neck options (#s 1, 2, or 3). The NA alto was model 135. The bell keys moved to the left side on the series one "Aristocrat", which appears to have adopted the #1 neck, but the model number didn't change. Then the Big-B altos appeared as model 140.

With regards to the bell-key move, I guess the assumption would have to be that the tube dimensions didn't change, they just moved the location where they drew the tone holes. But I don't know anything about sax manufacturing processes.

 

[Arundo Donax]

...then why don't saxes have Eb or G# trill keys anymore?

I think your question was rhetorical, but I'll toss in a guess on my part, anyway.

I think the mechanisms required to implement those trills result in higher complexity and manufacturing costs for what is perceived as little value.

Also, I've now encountered several such horns where those features have been disabled, ostensibly because they are troublesome to keep working and are a source of leaks.

That's sad, because I like those keys; my friend's Conn alto has them and they work perfectly.