[saxoclese]

I've decided to finally stick my neck out on this topic. I know "conventional wisdom" among sax players is to never touch a rolled tone hole with a file for fear that the rolled portion will be completely filed through. However, I have found a way that it can be done safely and have done it on several vintage instruments.

I strive to make the tone holes perfectly level when I overhaul a saxophone that has rolled tone holes. The first step is to mechanically make the tone hole as close to flat as possible by lifting low areas and tapping down high areas. Then the tone hole is carefully and judiciously filed using a rotary diamond file. Care is taken to never remove even close to the amount of material it would take to go completely through the rolled portion. The next step is to use magnification and sand the "corners" that have been created using craft sticks starting with 240 grit and finishing with 800. The illustration below shows the basic process. The amount of the "circle" filed off in the picture is much more than would be taken off leveling the tone hole, and is shown "exaggerated" to make the steps more clear. If the tone hole is on a silver plated saxophone the sanded area is touched up by "brush plating". If the tone hole is on a lacquered saxophone it is left as is. At the end of the process it is difficult to tell the tone holes that have been filed from those that have not.

 

[B Flat]

This certainly looks like a great way to level rolled tone holes.
And for those like yourself who can get or bother to get the tone holes as close as possible to level mechanically, it is a perfect solution.
I’m not convinced that all or even many techs can get the first stage close enough to make the filing stage safe.

 

[simso]

The problem with your picture john is that it displays the rolled area as the same thickness as the rest of wall structure of the tone hole, the roll area i would debate has a starting thickness of less than 2/3 of the surrounding brass.

If we take for example an old selmer, with say an approx tube wall thickness of around 30 thou, i contend that the top of the roll would be 20 thou "ish" so thats for metric people around 0.5mm, filing anything flat that has a total starting thickness of 0.5mm to me is a questionable process and would IMO lead to areas of possible collapse during said levelling or post levelling and require a tone hole replacement.

Steve

 

[saxoclese]

The problem with your picture john is that it displays the rolled area as the same thickness as the rest of wall structure of the tone hole, the roll area i would debate has a starting thickness of less than 2/3 of the surrounding brass.

If we take for example an old selmer, with say an approx tube wall thickness of around 30 thou, i contend that the top of the roll would be 20 thou "ish" so thats for metric people around 0.5mm, filing anything flat that has a total starting thickness of 0.5mm to me is a questionable process and would IMO lead to areas of possible collapse during said levelling or post levelling and require a tone hole replacement.

Steve

Your point is well taken and coincides with my own thickness estimates, however I draw a different conclusion. This is my understanding of how a tonehole is "formed".

​

In the saxophone manufacturing process an oval hole is cut at each of the locations for each tonehole. A round steel form is then mechanically pulled up through the oval to "draw" the sides of the tonehole up from the body tube to form the tonehole. The sides or walls of the toneholes then are the same thickness of the body material less the minute amount as a result of the brass being stretched as it is pulled. The illustration below shows the tooling invented for rolling or "beading" the top of toneholes on Conn saxophones. Figure 6 represents the tonehole once it has been "rolled".

I have a Conn parts tenor in my shop with straight toneholes that I have measured the thickness of the walls of several toneholes on the body. The average measurement is about .025". Subtracting say .005" to compensate for stretching the brass as the tonehole is "pulled", it is reasonable to conclude the thickness of the rolled portion of a vintage Conn tonehole to be approximately .020". My method of filing using diamond rotary tonehole files removes no more than 1 to 2 thousandths of an inch of material which I believe to be in the "safe" area. Checking the area where light shows through with a .001" feeler gauge when a flat disk is placed on top of the tonehole gives me a close estimate of the amount needed to be taken off the high areas to make the top completely flat.

 

[Graysax]

My only input on that is if you establish it is ok to file rolled tone holes, and other people start doing it, even if it is done to the same level of exactness as you, there will be a point in time (it may be 100 years) when somebody will break through the roll by filing. Nobody knows what has been done before them, especially if it has been made to look invisible. People fall through the ice because from the surface nobody knows how thick it is.

 

[Jerry K.]

Having seen several horns with the tone hole filed through, I’m never ok with filing them. I would “never” buy a horn with visible evidence of filing, as it destroys the horns resale value. Why not just mechanically level per your first step and use a pad soft enough to comply with the imperfect tone hole?

 

[clarnibass]

My only input on that is if you establish it is ok to file rolled tone holes, and other people start doing it, even if it is done to the same level of exactness as you, there will be a point in time (it may be 100 years) when somebody will break through the roll by filing.

I agree with the rest of your post, and even though I generally suggest to not file rolled tone hole, I don't agree with this argument. You can't stop doing something (specifically filing rolled tone holes) just because others might abuse it or problems might happen in a very long time of some people also doing it. I'd say in the case of filing rolled tone hole this is not a good enough reason to not file them. However...

That said, it's much less clear what the thickness of the metal is in the first place. The metal becomes thinner first when the tone hole itself is stretched to a significantly larger diameter, then again when it is rolled. It's really hard to say what the actual thickness is unless you cut some original tone holes to gather enough statistics, or maybe roughly calculate if you know how to, based on the behavior of the specific metal and how it's actually done (still partially speculating as the metal type and thickness might vary). Then consider the thinnest cases as a definite possibility.

To counter that... many of these really don't have any value other than to the player/owner... so... if you/they prefer the result of accurate filed tone holes, why not just explain the risk to the player, how big/small it is, what would need to be done if it breaks through the roll, what the difference in the result will be between the two options, etc. and then they can make an informed decision.

In the very rare case where I did file a rolled tone hole, I purposely didn't make it invisible.
I have also seen what I'm sure were filed rolled tone holes from the factory and I think I remember at least one other repairer mentioning that he has seen evidence of that too.

A bit off topic but I recently saw a Conn where two tone holes had about 1/6 of the roll missing. That's from the circumference, not thickness. It looked like it probably had a (maybe invisible) crack that eventually gave and broke off.

 

[Bkenes]

I respect you for being open and honest about this controversal method! That takes courage

I don't file rolled toneholes myself.

But I really respect that you are making the repair as invisible as possible.
There isn't a lot of material that has to come off to make tone holes flat. So I can see that you'e found a good method.
I push up or tap the toneholes that are too uneven. Then I usually float the pads with enough adhesive to compensate for the small uneven parts of the toneholes.
I use semi-firm pads. Hard pads would probably need some leveling to seal perfectly.

 

[Dr G]

Re: My name is John and I de-file rolled toneholes

... let me tell you how. :twisted: :bluewink:

First I level and file them, then I radius the edges to re-round or de-file them.

 

[saxoclese]

Re: My name is John and I de-file rolled toneholes

... let me tell you how. :twisted: :bluewink:

First I level and file them, then I radius the edges to re-round or de-file them.

LOL You're on a roll today Dr G.

 

[Graysax]

I agree with the rest of your post, and even though I generally suggest to not file rolled tone hole, I don't agree with this argument. You can't stop doing something (specifically filing rolled tone holes) just because others might abuse it or problems might happen in a very long time of some people also doing it. I'd say in the case of filing rolled tone hole this is not a good enough reason to not file them. However...

That said, it's much less clear what the thickness of the metal is in the first place. The metal becomes thinner first when the tone hole itself is stretched to a significantly larger diameter, then again when it is rolled. It's really hard to say what the actual thickness is unless you cut some original tone holes to gather enough statistics, or maybe roughly calculate if you know how to, based on the behavior of the specific metal and how it's actually done (still partially speculating as the metal type and thickness might vary). Then consider the thinnest cases as a definite possibility.

To counter that... many of these really don't have any value other than to the player/owner... so... if you/they prefer the result of accurate filed tone holes, why not just explain the risk to the player, how big/small it is, what would need to be done if it breaks through the roll, what the difference in the result will be between the two options, etc. and then they can make an informed decision.

In the very rare case where I did file a rolled tone hole, I purposely didn't make it invisible.
I have also seen what I'm sure were filed rolled tone holes from the factory and I think I remember at least one other repairer mentioning that he has seen evidence of that too.

A bit off topic but I recently saw a Conn where two tone holes had about 1/6 of the roll missing. That's from the circumference, not thickness. It looked like it probably had a (maybe invisible) crack that eventually gave and broke off.

So - does that mean you have a problem with "flattening the curve"? lol. My point is that by not filing now, somebody later has a better chance if they want to file or not. Also (as a Conn Lover) who's to say that years from now they woln't have a stupid value?

 

[JayeLID]

Having seen several horns with the tone hole filed through, I'm never ok with filing them. I would "never" buy a horn with visible evidence of filing, as it destroys the horns resale value. Why not just mechanically level per your first step and use a pad soft enough to comply with the imperfect tone hole?

It really does not destroy resale value at all, actually. This is taking things to the absolute extreme. Unless the filing of the holes is really extreme.

People really seem to have problems discerning between a well-done RTH tonehole leveling job which includes some filing, and the down and dirty overfiling of them.

To most people, filing simply is bad, and the tech who did it must be a hack. We have all seen overfiled holes, and of course it is these which get way more internet exposure than nicely done ones, eh ? But the problem here is....like other aspects which sorta catch fire on the www and take on a life of their own....this gets way overstated and emphasized sometimes to an obsession. To the point where, indeed....there is born the equivalency of 'filed RTH' with 'bad job' or 'get a new tech'.

This is really over the top, IMHO, and I think John here has illustrated a method where a bit of filing is quite appropriate and really cannot be twisted into an argument of "oooh...damage !".

There ARE techs who do it right, is basically what I am saying.

In regards to the argument "but you cannot tell how much material is left"...come now. A tech with an experienced eye can visually examine an unlevel RTH and look for things which will tell him/her "this hole edge is approaching a bad point" vs. "this hole edge is pretty safe to take a bit of filing".

Gotta say, having refurbed easily over 100 RTH Conn Artist horns...the VAST majority of them which have come thru here, never had 'alarming' RTH edge issues....so again, what some folks will try to characterize as 'the norm', in my experience, is anything but....

So - does that mean you have a problem with "flattening the curve"? lol. My point is that by not filing now, somebody later has a better chance if they want to file or not. Also (as a Conn Lover) who's to say that years from now they woln't have a stupid value?

That's not a hecka compelling argument, really. I mean, you are a tech, you have the horn on your bench, you are well aware of how RTH's can be improperly leveled....over the years you feel you have come up with a good methodology, and you wanna do the best job you can do on the horn for your client.

You can't stop doing something (specifically filing rolled tone holes) just because others might abuse it or problems might happen in a very long time of some people also doing it.

Exactly.
You are gonna employ the techniques you feel will deliver a good, professional, successful solution/result. That's about the size of it. To overthink it further, not much point, really....

 

[StuartSax]

So, if you're a player and you want to have your Conn tone holes leveled via removal of some material, that's actually fine by me. If at some point the value of the instrument is less, that should not be of concern to someone who wants the sax maintained in that manner. If you're a collector, the risk of de-valuation will override impulses. As many rolled tone hole Conns are plated, it would be difficult to hide the work.

As an owner of 4 Conns and, especially as someone skeptical of technicians charging high rates for work I'd rather not have done, no business to be had from my horns.

 

[Jerry K.]

"It really does not destroy resale value at all, actually. This is taking things to the absolute extreme. Unless the filing of the holes is really extreme.

People really seem to have problems discerning between a well-done RTH tonehole leveling job which includes some filing, and the down and dirty overfiling of them.

To most people, filing simply is bad, and the tech who did it must be a hack. We have all seen overfiled holes, and of course it is these which get way more internet exposure than nicely done ones, eh ? But the problem here is....like other aspects which sorta catch fire on the www and take on a life of their own....this gets way overstated and emphasized sometimes to an obsession. To the point where, indeed....there is born the equivalency of 'filed RTH' with 'bad job' or 'get a new tech'.

This is really over the top, IMHO, and I think John here has illustrated a method where a bit of filing is quite appropriate and really cannot be twisted into an argument of "oooh...damage !".

There ARE techs who do it right, is basically what I am saying.

In regards to the argument "but you cannot tell how much material is left"...come now. A tech with an experienced eye can visually examine an unlevel RTH and look for things which will tell him/her "this hole edge is approaching a bad point" vs. "this hole edge is pretty safe to take a bit of filing".

Gotta say, having refurbed easily over 100 RTH Conn Artist horns...the VAST majority of them which have come thru here, never had 'alarming' RTH edge issues....so again, what some folks will try to characterize as 'the norm', in my experience, is anything but...."

Just trying to be disagreeable? I was referring to horns that had tone holes that had clearly been filed! I have seen several horns that someone had filed through the rolled edge leaving holes in the top edge. I believe most people would pass on these horns, as I did. Your blanket statement that "It really does not destroy resale value at all, actually" is just plain silly and annoying. I once had a neighbor who was a know it all and she used actually a lot! Nobody liked her, least of all my wife. Just saying.

 

[clarnibass]

Also (as a Conn Lover) who's to say that years from now they woln't have a stupid value?

What about water? That's the most extreme example to illustrate the point.
More realistically... would filing the tone holes slightly (and I'm not necessarily suggesting to do that) affect the value that much? If it's not "like new" would that be the determining factor between "valuable" and not?
I have some action figures I played with as a kid, in a box somewhere. They are not worth much. If I kept them new in their package they would be worth a ridiculous amount now. Should I have kept them that way and never played with them...?
That's a choice you can make and the same with a Conn saxophone or anything really.
BTW I generally don't file rolled tone holes and have only done it on very rare occasions. I just disagree with those reasons.

 

[musekatcher]

There are probably a few lamp and decor sax candidates that could be cut up to provide cross sections, and measure how much thinning occurs when they roll the hole edges.

Also, I think its important to pre-level the crown before filing, as described. I could see a die that would fit under the roll, and lift underneath, while another crowned die, basically a female, would control and press down from the top, squeezing the two dies together to straighten, round and level the roll. After that, I'd be tempted to use a similar female form to file the top, with some burr or abrasive feature inside, for the last bit of precise profile.

 

[simso]

In regards to the argument "but you cannot tell how much material is left"...come now. A tech with an experienced eye can visually examine an unlevel RTH and look for things which will tell him/her "this hole edge is approaching a bad point" vs. "this hole edge is pretty safe to take a bit of filing".]

Actually incorrect, I typically try not to say correct or incorrect on most peoples reaponses, but feel extremely over qualified on this one.

Not many know, I am ex military and was blessed with being given some incredible career paths. One of those careers paths was Non Destructive Testing, the Military reminded us daily during our NDT apprenticeship that it cost 1.4million dollars to train a single indivdual in this field to be capable of inspecting Civilian and Military Aircraft for cracks and defects and material thickness's, no sax repair tech any where in the world can assess when a rolled brass surface is approaching a ""bad point"", saying so is almost comical, even more so when the starting point is 0.5mm.

I repair Musical instruments for the love of the job, not for the money.

Steve

 

[Hassles]

the levelling of RTH by mechanical means (very similar to the dent removal process) must be considered the ultimate means and first steps at levelling RTHs. IF the RTHs cannot be perfectly levelled by this method then the options are then greatly reduced. A consultation with the owner should then be undertaken who can make a final decision. The careful and judicious filing to implement a perfect end result must be considered as a viable option. Not necessarily desirable but most certainly viable. At the end of the day we want / need a tone-hole levelling procedure to be a success.

 

[saxoclese]

no sax repair tech any where in the world can assess when a rolled brass surface is approaching a ""bad point"", saying so is almost comical, even more so when the starting point is 0.5mm.

I would argue that there are visual clues that an intelligent and experienced saxophone repair tech can use to make that kind of determination. A conservative estimate of the thickness of the brass material at the top of the roll on an undamaged Conn tonehole from actual measurements is .020" or .50mm*. If that portion of the brass material has been made thinner than its original dimension either by tapping or by filing such changes would be apparent upon visual inspection. Removing approximately 1/20th of the material from the top of an undamaged tonehole to create a flat surface for a pad to be seated upon does no harm to the integrity of that part of the instrument, based upon my first hand experience with many such repairs.

* thanks to rhysonsax for the correction

 

[rhysonsax]

..... A conservative estimate of the thickness of the brass material at the top of the roll on an undamaged Conn tonehole from actual measurements is .020" or .050mm.

An extra zero has crept in somehow. 0.020" is 0.50mm (approx.).

Rhys