Sax on the Web Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 119 Posts

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
Either a special order from the factory, or King experimenting with pimping out a production model Super 20 of the era to sell for more dough, or an aftermarket job.
I guess we should rule out an aftermarket job because it's engraved as a "Super 22". Although, that could be a typo. A friend of mine has a series 3 Super 20 that has "silver sonc" engraved on the bell.
 

·
Forum Contributor 2012-2015
Joined
·
757 Posts
The new King Super 20 is the Keilwerth MKX. Felt just like my 397xxx S20. Just sounded more modern and very reasonant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Do you know about the King Super 21 ? Read about them here:- http://www.saxpics.com/king/s21.htm
During the 90's, it looks like their experimental/prototype horns weren't quite finished with the 21...
Edit:- Upon further research and subsequent posts from more knowledgeable members, I concur that this horn has AFTER-MARKET engraving and customization; NOT a new previously unheard-of King model ....
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,595 Posts
the Super 21 was never really a production horn, only a dozen or so were sold and it was the last attempt made by King before disappearing.

Nobody has ever heard, at least as far as I know, of a Super 22.

The pictures show a horn with very crisp and special details, considering that this could have been as late as 1995, it is possible that it is kosher.


BUT...........Lacking (????) any documents proving its UMI origin this could be a job done by some gifted technician. The value of this horn is all in its provenance. If there is one than it might excite the collectors. If there isn’t one it might just interest them.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Technician.
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
The full pearls weren't done in this period, were they? I have heard of people doing up Super 20s to make them look like full pearl models. Maybe this is one of those?
Itis a late serial number and there were rumours of the workers making up horns from the last remaining parts. By that time they weren't even using the name Super 20 on the bell. This is a late one http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Tenor/Late_KingS20_tenor.htm But we've seen later ones then that without the Super 20 name, just the model. They tended to get less elaborate.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,595 Posts
in this period there were no full pearls and no engraving (surely not like that!), but if this is kosher, it was a one off. Not long ago another poster posted about a Super 20 which, supposedly, was made in France, by SML, with parts left over.

All of these stories are just, I am sorry to say, stories as long as there is no official paperwork or at the very least the witness account of a former worker, not connected with the sale of any of this, to corroborate a story, charming though they all are.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
the Super 21 was never really a production horn, only a dozen or so were sold and it was the last attempt made by King before disappearing.
The Super 21 programme at UMI was also known as "Operation: **** Polish".
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,595 Posts
somewhere between 1985 (they became UMI then) and 1995
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2016
Joined
·
18,989 Posts
Yup.

Lets roll back a bit here. King, as we know it, was bought out by Danny Henkin in 1980, the same time he purchased Conn, Armstrong, and Artley.

He sold the whole bunch to UMI in 1984-5. Although it is highly likely he started combining the production of Conn and Armstrong instruments into the same facility....all Kings from '80-'85 still overwhelmingly seem to have been made at the King facilities which existed prior to the Henkin purchase.

While details of Armstrong and Conn horns start to sorta fuse into one anther beginning with Henkin...not so the last Kings.

When UMI took over, King horns began to take on the attributes of the other 2 brands....quite obviously. So at that point, it is more than safe to say King production under UMI was no longer taking place at the old King plant, as it had been up until '84-5. But rather King, Armstrong, and Conn horns were now all being made in the same place.

The serial number of this horn in the auction...is a KING serial number, it is not an UMI one.

UMI, therefore has no involvement in this horn. If you even look at the paper tags, that is not an UMI publication. Their TM's and fonts were different than the one show in the auction.

So, fair to say the seller has the time period correct, based on the original King serial sequences still in use during Henkin. The only questions becomes...is there any difference between THIS horn and an S20 of the period (besides the aesthetic flourishes) ?...and, is that engraving from the King factory ? Or did someone just hire a good engraver to copy and counterfeit one ?

It may well have just been a special order horn. Or it may be a late S20/2416 model which had an engraving added later.

The Super 21 was probably far from a polished ****, I would guess. UMI could make some good models back then, they exhibited it with some late Conn horns (5M and 9M). If their goal was to introduce a re-engineered S20, they had the capabilities to do it. Far from being a dying company in the '90's, UMI was doing quite well. actually.

The problem with calling something a Super 22 is that it suggests it came after the Super 21.
The horn in the auction predates a Super 21 by 10 years, however.

This is where things get fishy, IMHO, as to the veracity of the claim....and where it becomes a fair assumption that the engraving was not present on the original '80's horn in the auction. Unless that paper tag actually is printed "Super 22" somewhere....

All of these stories are just, I am sorry to say, stories as long as there is no official paperwork or at the very least the witness account of a former worker, not connected with the sale of any of this, to corroborate a story, charming though they all are.
Yup....
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2013
Joined
·
4,337 Posts
I dealt with this seller a long time ago and the item was misrepresented. I doubt this one is for real. If anyone could spot what is different from a late, late Super 20, I would be interested. Mostly inclined to believe the that it is a typo as suggested by BarySachs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
That's quite an interesting horn. Sunburst engraving on lots of the keys, full pearls, "N3" engraved on the clothes guard (any ideas what that could mean?), neck is plated (not sterling), engraving is a different style than my Eastlake (see photo). Jason Dumars would probably be able to tell a lot from those photos - can someone get him to chime in?
Gold Textile Sleeve Material property Embellishment

I'd guess it might be a one-off. It looks like a legit King, but with the unique pearls added, and an engraver went to town on it. As stated though, without documentation, those unique features don't add much (if any) value.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,595 Posts
he is a member of SOTW.........so I guess you can PM him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Also, that's a REALLY late serial number (858xxx). The Super 21 experiment was on horns from 7355xx - 736xxx (1995 to 1996), which would put this one... circa 2000?

Saxpics says about late S20s: "My opinion, combining the three or so different opinions on why there are Super 20's much newer than what the serial number charts indicate, is that UMI found that they had a stock of Super 20 parts ("blanks") and would assemble a few, engrave a serial number and then ship it on off. However it's also possible that the horns with higher serial numbers were produced in or available only in Europe -- the 788xxx horn I saw was at a music store in Germany."
 
1 - 20 of 119 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top