[14470]

I have never met Otto Link, but he sure makes a load of mouthpieces. I have played various Link style mouthpiece of which Ponzols and Saxscapes are/were excellent. I have been deterred by knowledgable players about investing lump sums in vintage Floridas etc, because you never know what you get. A high proportion of vintage Links played by members of this forum appear to have been refaced. So why spend the big bucks on a vintage link when there are so many mouthpiece craftsmen making Link style pieces without the need of refacing. What it is about them old Links that are so special (OK other than the association with past greats and that they fit so well on 5 digits MKVIs). I never quite understood. Moreover, the are 600 - perhaps slight exaggeration but best to have Giganova's Link dendrogram at hand when checking out one - various vintage Links, so how do you know where to start in terms of what works for you? Just curious. Does it have to say 'Otto' on it to make you feel better. Are some of the old pieces so unique that copies like those of Saxhama don't do the job just as well at half or one third the cost. If Brian Powell has to reface the vintage Link in order for it to play great, why not buy a new piece at a fraction of the cost and have him fix that instead. BTW, the only Otto's I have owned have been new unadulterated ones and they certainly had nothing going for them that a Link style Saxscape or a Ponzol doesn't run circles around.

So please excuse my ignorance and help me eradicate it. What makes an old Link worth $1K, i.e. more than a new piece Link styled piece from top craftsmen? Is Otto just an oportunistic flake or is there something I am missing (hardly seems possible but you never know)?

Thanks in advance.

Yours truly,

Missing Link

 

[skeller047]

I think you are missing the point. It's the plating on the old Links that give them their great sound. New plating, because the solutions have to meet modern day health standards, just doesn't cut it. And the way that the plating wears is dependent on who played it - good players will leave a distinctive wear pattern with the sides near the tip worn completely away, and the silver underneath the gold shows at the edge of the wear area. You never see that on a modern Link because they use nickel. Everyone knows that the nickel underplating gives an inferior sound, because nickel is so bright.

Also, the wear at the top of the piece is significant. Truly great pieces have wear at the very end of the ridge at the top, because the great players (e.g. Dexter) all kept their ligatures as far back as possible.

On the other hand, you could just have too much common sense to post on SOTW...

 

[Dr G]

What it is about them old Links that are so special???

The interior.

 

[Pete Thomas]

So please excuse my ignorance and help me eradicate it. What makes an old Link worth $1K,

As everyone keeps saying, you get what you pay for. So what makes an old Link so good is the fact that it costs a lot of money. Stands to reason.

 

[buddy lee]

As everyone keeps saying, you get what you pay for. So what makes an old Link so good is the fact that it costs a lot of money. Stands to reason.

But his point is, a lot of these vintage FL Links have been re-faced. And there's no guarantee that if you buy an original one for $1k that you're going to get one that plays well. His observation is, why not just buy something like a Sakshama Florida for example ($400 or so) and you know it will be well-faced and play well for half the money.

Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Buck Laughlin]

But his point is, a lot of these vintage FL Links have been re-faced. And there's no guarantee that if you buy an original one for $1k that you're going to get one that plays well. His observation is, why not just buy something like a Sakshama Florida for example ($400 or so) and you know it will be well-faced and play well for half the money.

Just playing devil's advocate.

See Post #3. And, although some will not agree, I would add the metal or rubber used.

 

[Pete Thomas]

See Post #3. And, although some will not agree, I would add the metal or rubber used.

Is the metal different in older links?

 

[Dr G]

But his point is, a lot of these vintage FL Links have been re-faced...

I played a lot of "vintage" Links (not the ones that say "Vintage") when they were new, off the shelf at Ponti's in New York. There were a lot with bad facings. Correcting a bad original facing is the right thing to do. The chamber dimensions, however, were a result of the core mold and the casting process. That is what influences the character of the 'piece. The facing influences the response.

I would not pay Big Dollar$ for originality knowing from first hand experience that "original" may mean that it was never great to start with. It may, however, have great potential - still waiting for a correct facing.

Is the metal different in older links?

I doubt it. Casting material is likely the same. The free-machining brass alloy that contains lead and other chip formers is not used for casting. If someone really wants to know, send a couple of samples, old and new, to NSL, or similar, for chemical analysis. It'll cost about $100/sample to have unequivocal results.

 

[ismail]

I think you are missing the point. It's the plating on the old Links that give them their great sound. New plating, because the solutions have to meet modern day health standards, just doesn't cut it. And the way that the plating wears is dependent on who played it - good players will leave a distinctive wear pattern with the sides near the tip worn completely away, and the silver underneath the gold shows at the edge of the wear area. You never see that on a modern Link because they use nickel. Everyone knows that the nickel underplating gives an inferior sound, because nickel is so bright.

Also, the wear at the top of the piece is significant. Truly great pieces have wear at the very end of the ridge at the top, because the great players (e.g. Dexter) all kept their ligatures as far back as possible.

On the other hand, you could just have too much common sense to post on SOTW...

lol.
You really had me there, until your last sentence.
There are probably too many people who really believe stuff like that, so I didn't realize you were joking.

 

[Sakshama]

I would say run from the Otto Link metal as far as you can if it is not plated. The alloy has 2.5% Lead in it. Machining melts the lead and it goes on the surface so you experience in your mouth much more lead than the 2.5%. I find the differences in the Brass/Bronze alloys very small but bronze would be superior in most people's book. Old Links didn't use different metal than the one they use now. They simply use the most playable version of the machining brass that will put the smallest tax on their tools.
The interior and the hand facing of the vintage Links are the things why they are good at the first place. Although many try to connect their product to the vintage Links in some way, few are going the distance and actually study the interior and extract the things that work. It is not just the large chamber but many minute details and geometry make a Link.

 

[Dr G]

Why do you think that a Link has that much lead in it? It doesn't make sense that one would buy machining brass for casting. I agree that the concern exists especially for unplated CNC mouthpieces - those would be made from bar stock of free-machining brass alloy.

Have you done a swipe on the surface to test for presence of lead? I'll admit that I have not.

Thank you, Sakshama, for corroborating the issue regarding interior geometry.

 

[14470]

So the interior of vintage Links is what makes them so great. Why is it that it cannot be recreated? We can measure the size of crates on planet in outer space, and reconstruct cells in three dimensions that exist in our bodies. We can manipulate complicated things at will. So what makes current mouthpiece makers with more advanced tools than in the past incapable of recreating the interior from a vintage Link or even improve on those dimensions. In my profession (biomedicine), few things were done better or made better in the past (nurses representing a possible exception). I can understand the affection for vintage horns, as vintage American saxes in particular were made to fit a different concept, but with mouthpieces it seems that the concept of Links hasn't moved a thousands of an inch, so they should be possible to copy. I am not quite sure that I buy that lack of effort is an explanation for many of the highly skilled craftsmen out there.

 

[Dr G]

You've got it. That's why some folks are chasing the grail of finding the old mold cores, doing lost wax castings, or chasing complex geometry via multi-axis CNC.

It is all possible - the exception being, as you noted, replicating babes of yesteryear (and even they don't look as good any more, damn gravity).

 

[Sigmund451]

I never played a mouthpiece worth a thousand dollars. Sorry....not close.

 

[Sakshama]

Why do you think that a Link has that much lead in it?

I called Otto Link company and asked what kind of brass alloy they use. They told me and I check the specification.
There is a lot of machining on an Otto Link although they cast them.

 

[Dr G]

I called Otto Link company and asked what kind of brass alloy they use. They told me and I check the specification.
There is a lot of machining on an Otto Link although they cast them.

Good info.

Thanks.

 

[craigmultireedguy]

Brasscane, I have to tell you that not every Link reface is for sheer performance purposes. Every vintage Link I've ever played worked wonders, even the original ones. Actually, my Florida Link used to be a completely original 6 and it played GREAT, but I had it refaced to an 8 because I'm more comfortable with that size. Just so you know, it's not because they're bad pieces to begin with, it's about personal preferences.

 

[Enviroguy]

Yep,

The unique acoustic qualities of the rhodium under-plating and warn-down bite plate give a quantifiable effect of at least 0.0000631 percent. And as we know from this forum, other finishes have zero effect. That 0.0000631 percent is the difference between a mediocre performance and a...... well an infinitesimally better performance. And that makes all the difference in the world as long as you have no concept of statistics, mathematics or much else.

In truth, I just enjoy playing a vintage mouthpiece that is a piece of history even though I'm sure the great tone comes more from EZ's reface work and less from poor old Otto. Mine is a no-USA Florida STM #6 opened up to a 7 and perfected by EZ (as seen in my Avatar). It plays great and I love it so there's no reason to change. :bluewink:

 

[hgiles]

Brasscane, i think youre trying to draw some corollary between collectibility (high cost) and playability (intrinsic value) when there really is no relationship between the two.

 

[warp x]

What makes an old Link worth $1K,

The market?
Obviously people want to pay these sort of prices for mouthpieces.
I have an early 80's Link I bought on the forum for $120. It's a great mouthpiece, really a very good Link. If it would play the same but look different (like an EB or FL) it would be worth 5 times more, while still being the same mouthpiece.