Sax on the Web Forum banner

Mark VI and Mark VII questions

12K views 32 replies 19 participants last post by  milandro  
#1 ·
These are questions for Selmer junkies who love to share their knowledge. I know some of this may be common knowledge, but it's not to me.


1. What were the years of manufacture for the VI and VII, respectively?

2. What years are considered to be the best VIs, and what made them better than the years before them and what made the ones after that period not as good?

3. What were the main differences between the VII and the VI and why do people feel that the VII isn't as good as the VI?


Thanks!
 
#2 ·
Wow. What an open field! How to begin? Okay, okay, we'll start at the beginning; MK VI made from 1954 to 1974, MK VII made from 1974 to somewhere around 1980 when the Super Action 80 came out.
VIs from all periods can be great or not so great - particularly now that the latest ones are 40 years old and the early ones are 60 years old. Selmer made a number of revisions along the way to address perceived problems or to change manufacturing procedures. Players like different ones and it is entirely subjective. I think my 1971 is the best one I've played, and its my third one. The earlier ones are 'better' in quality of assembly and overall design. They found many ways to save money on them over the years without compromising playing or sound, but the earlier ones are more visually appealing.
The MK VII is a different sax than the MK VI. Those of us who were playing Selmer at the time were not concerned because we didn't know that. We couldn't just get online and find out the details. I can only speak for myself, but I remember the general feeling among players i knew was that if Selmer wanted to improve the MK VI, great. There was absolutely no rush to go out and buy saxophones. Then, when the VII arrived, everybody hated it. Suddenly it hit us - what the hell were we supposed to play when the MK VIs wore out? That's when MK VI value began to take off and it never has stopped. So what was the big deal? I didn't know at the time. I played one and didn't like it. It felt strange somehow. Many years later it dawned on me that the neck is shorter which makes you hold the sax closer to your body. This changes everything - arm/hand positions, mouthpiece angle, etc. Some guys said it wouldn't 'bend' notes. Others said it was 'thin'. Others didn't like the different feel of the keywork. All of them had the high F# key which many players simply did not want and they insisted that it ruined the sax. Now, I'm talking only about the tenor here. The others don't matter. Altos are altos and they didn't make a MK VII baritone as far as I know. Selmer refused to admit they had made a huge mistake. The SA80 still had the short, high-arched neck. It wasn't until the Series III that Selmer finally changed the neck to the late MK VI contour, but the low-profile keywork and overall feel of the MK VI is gone forever as far as a new Selmer is concerned.
Considering what new horns are available today, the MK VII can be a tremendous value. Remember; it was only 'bad' to those who had been playing the previous Selmer Paris tenors for many years. Taken out of context and placed in today's market, I would buy one in a minute - but I would put a Series III neck on it. :)
 
#6 ·
the neck is shorter which makes you hold the sax closer to your body. This changes everything - arm/hand positions, mouthpiece angle, etc.
Not a big deal really on the VII tenor... considering, for example, one also has to adjust to playing a Buescher Aristocrat differently,
with the neck strap cinched up more and elbows in.
Or, put up with the Conn cobra and holding the 10m differently.
 
#3 ·
I have a question. Were MKVI horns made at any time with a varitone pickup in the neck? The reason I ask is that I went to play one once that had the hole plugged up from a pickup. I thought the horn was o k at best but not worth what they were asking for it, I don't remember what vintage the horn was, just that it didn't do it for me.
 
#4 ·
1. What 1saxman said, but there's some overlap with late Mark VIs, and you had some that were made even after the mark VII came out (up to around 240k serial)
2. "Considered" is anything 100k below for alto and tenor. For tenor it's 70-80k. For alto it's around 80k, when they had the "medium" bow that's supposed to be better for intonation. Then around 145k altos are coveted as that's in the Sanborn range. But ultimately you can't get too hung up on serial numbers. Played a poor five digit, and a phenomenal 200k horn.
3. Mainly ergos, but the Mark VII also was generally darker in sound, which isn't necessarily bad. Heck a good Mark VII can be as good as a good Mark VI. Really hate the keywork though, personally.
 
#16 ·
To further add to the confusion, you could get a baritone stamped with "Mark VII" and "80 Super Action", but they were still Mark VI's through and through. The first real redesign, for baritones, was the SA80II. The soprano followed in a similar manner, except the SA80 sopranos had a Mark VI body tube with SA80 keywork.
 
#9 ·
I actually own a MK VII Alto (somewhere between 74-76 I think) A professor I was studying with in college once played my horn and I played his (He had a MK VI Alto). After about 5 minutes I looked at him and said, " Your horn is like feather." and he said in responses " Your Horn is Brick". MK VIIs are super heavy horn compared to MK VIs and I think that was another reason why players didn't like them as much.

I've read an interview by Wayne Shorter stating that he used to play on a MK VII Tenor after his Bundy Stencil got stolen from a gig one night. He stated that it was a nice horn, but the key work made you work too hard and that it made you use a weird hand position on it. This could also be another why sax player didn't like this horn as much.

As far as the MK VII's necks being shorter than a MK VI's necks umm I don't know how true that is. From what I remember from comparing it to my professors VI's, my VII's neck was longer. Why, I don't know....

PS. Fun little fact about MKVII Tenor and Alto Low Bb's table key, they are interchangeable. They are practically the same key.
 
#11 ·
As far as the MK VII's necks being shorter than a MK VI's necks umm I don't know how true that is. From what I remember from comparing it to my professors VI's, my VII's neck was longer. Why, I don't know....
1saxman was talking about tenor necks, the arch is different.
 
#12 ·
the Mark VII has a very arched shape of neck which makes it look (and some say sound) more similar to American and German saxophones.

The Mark VI neck that people are wild about ( although there were variations in the shape and I have even seen some with necks with a very similar arch as a Mark VII) has an elongated shape which was more common among French ( and often also Italian saxophones, some clearly inspired by the French school) saxophones than it was among American and German saxophones.

As for necks with a plugged in pick up.

The original neck on my Super 20 had a ( wonderfully repaired) pick up hole which was plugged. The repair was almost invisible but it did bother me.

I have then acquired a Gloger Solid Silver Neck and a King Solid Silver Neck. At one point I had the three and they played all more or less the same.

Image
 
#13 ·
In case anyone cares about the alto necks for the Mark VI and VII, I owned an actual Selmer Mark VII alto neck for many years, and tried it on my Mark VI, and compared how it looked (and sounded) to my original Mark VI alto neck. Their sizes were the same, and I could barely tell any difference in the the sound or feel of using these 2 necks on my Mark VI alto.

There was another Mark VII neck I had tried on my Mark VI alto, back around 1982, which made a big difference in improving the evenness of sound across the range of my alto, but that Mark VII neck went with the Mark VII alto that belonged to my sax teacher so it was not available.
 
#15 ·
There was also a story out that Fred Hemke helped design the VII to fit his large hands. Some say the bore on the VII is larger and that the modern Selmers have the same larger bore.

Possibly both of these 'stories' have proven to be not true, not sure about the bore size story though.
 
#19 ·
There was also a story out that Fred Hemke helped design the VII to fit his large hands. Some say the bore on the VII is larger and that the modern Selmers have the same larger bore.

Possibly both of these 'stories' have proven to be not true, not sure about the bore size story though.
The VII has a different bore than the VI and Hemke had a lot to do with the VII. So we rate the story as 'True'. :)
 
#20 ·
This is not a " story" but an historical, well known and documented fact.

Frederick Hemke was heavily involved ( if not in charge) with the Mark VII project and this is an original letter that he wrote about it ( as reported by several sites, the typos are original...), he also says that he was previously involved with the development of the VI.

" For two and a half years, I watched the growth and development of a remarkably innovative Saxophone, the Selmer Mark VII, under the vision and supervision of Iean Selmer and the advice of Michel Nouaux, solo saxophonist of the Garde Republicaine Band.

In order to acquaint the saxophonist with this new instrument. a number o technical and mechanical changes demand discussion. but by far the most significant change involve the concept of the new instrument's sound. It is vibrant. full, rich, and gratifying. Moreover, the sound is in uniform with these qualities throughout the entire range of the instrument-a unique achievement. The combination of the new design, a new neck and the new -square chambered S-80 mouthpiece has produced a sound similar to that of its great predecessor, the Mark VI, but with a richer, more controlled, more uniform quality that seems almost effortless to produce. The sound of the Mark VI was beautiful: the Mark VII has neatly refined and enhanced this attribute. While such differences might not he perceived in the beginting student's sound, the accomplished performer will immediately appreciate the subtle but significant change.

The Mark VII has not lost any of the established quality look of Selmer saxophones. but a close examination reveals pertinent mechanical improvements The right hand little finger spatulas of the Eb and C. keys have been redesigned to improve their gliding characteristics. The two keys are now mounted on separate posts and rods, which results in a lighter, easier and faster action. The left hand little finger spatulas have also been redesigned into a larger finger board area. More controIled shifts to low B and Bb are the result .A new height to the high left hand D Eb and F keys places them closer into i the left hand palm and allows a freer. more controllable feel. The octave key has been provided with a new pivot point for easier operation. All of the lower stack rods which provide articulation to and from the left hand little finger, have been mounted on a single arch for a more comfortable left hand feel. The professional saxophonist will also appreciate the elongated and newly shaped right-hand chromatic F# key and the redesigned shape of the right hand high, E and F# keys.

The performer will also notice changes in the body ,calculated to improve the intonation and response. Bore changes create for the performer, a tremendous potential for a room filling exspansive sound.The instrument possesses a richer dynamic: range. from must be the ultimate of pianissimos to a fortissimo more powerful than ever. The neck affects the intonation and production of sound conspicuously enough to allow the sensitive listener as well as the performer to recognize the improvement .To the discriminating musician these differences are substantial enough to cross the line between that which was excellent and that which has been refined into something truly unique.

During the developement of the ,Mark VI I, I worked intermittently !n an advisory capacity with Jean Selmer and his prlzed new instrument, and it has been gratifying to observe how a large instrument cornpanv has not closed its mind and ears to the possibilities of innovation and improvement, Selmer has consistently sought to accommodate The suggestions of those of us who have worked with the instrumenrt They have rernained keenly aware of the performers aesthetic and mechanical needs, and of the listener's fresh musical experience. This will surerly not be the final Saxophone which the Selmer Company will produce. but it is, at present the ultimate achievement in Saxophone design. it truly represents "the state of the art."...."
 
#21 ·
Milandro, it appears to me that his mention of the "Mark VI I" should probably be read as "Mark VII".

Although Hemke was in Paris in 1955 and 1956 studying with Marcel Mule, he was a 20 year old student.
Is it possible that he would have been working in an "advisory capacity" while just a student?
Of course, Mule may have showed him around the factory ... but I would think that Mark VI development work would have been been completed in 1954, before Hemke arrived in Paris.
 
#22 ·
If I understand correctly, during the long life of the Mark VI, the saxophone was revised several times, especially the alto, in parts such as the neck and the bend in the saxophone.

I believe that Hemke advised Selmer on these matters affecting the VI towards the end of the run of the Mark VI and he was certainly more or less the architect of the VII and of the mouthpiece which appeared later the S80.
 
#23 ·
If I understand correctly, during the long life of the Mark VI, the saxophone was revised several times, especially the alto, in parts such as the neck and the bend in the saxophone.

I believe that Hemke advised Selmer on these matters affecting the VI towards the end of the run of the Mark VI and he was certainly more or less the architect of the VII and of the mouthpiece which appeared later the S80.
With regard to Hemke's influence on the design or development of the MKVI, the changes to the neck and bow (if that's what you mean by 'the bend in the saxophone') were done relatively early on, and to the best of my knowledge there were no major design changes after around the mid sixties.

I agree with Douglas that Mark VI I must be a simple typo for Mark VII.