[notes_norton]

What's with the original lacquer vs. re-lacquer fetish?

Before the 1980s if you brought your horn in for an overhaul, re-lacquering was automatic and just part of the service. Nobody ever questioned it. I was there, touring all over the USA, I know this, I experienced this.

The relaq fetish only applies to saxophones, not trumpets, trombones, French horns, or tubas.

I had my old Mark VI re-lacquered a few times and it never made a bit of difference in the sound, intonation or anything else. I make my living playing music, at that time 6 nights a week, 5 hours per night. I would know if it made a difference.

Before that I had a Selmer Modele 26 re-lacquered and still won first chair and section leader (as a tenor) in the all state band when I was in school. Second and third year I had the VI and still won first chair and section leader (on tenor). I never got anything less than "Superior" in state contests.

I had my H.Couf re-lacquered and it also sounded the same. Then they quit re-lacquering horns and it slowly turned green.

Stan Getz played a re-lacquered horn and there was nothing wrong with his tone.

John Coltrane played re-lac horns as did Charlie Parker, Dexter Gordon, Lester Young, Ben Webster, Gerry Mulligan, Paul Desmond, Junior Walker, Gato Barbieri, Gene Ammons, Sonny Stitt, Sam Taylor, Zoot Sims, Tex Beneke, Sam Butera, Flip Phillips, Ike Quebec, Plas Johnson , Art Pepper, Pepper Adams, and just about everybody else who had a horn overhauled before 1980.

So what makes you think re-lacquering a horn makes it worse?

What makes you think a classic horn with original lacquer is worth an extra $1,000.00 or more?

What makes you think any old horn you see advertised as original lacquer actually is original lacquer?

Remember, if it was overhauled before 1980, there is a >99% chance it's a re-laq.

So why the fetish?

Insights and incites by Notes

 

[J-Moen]

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with playing horns and them being good. Too many people collecting/flipping horns and this drives up the value. Whether or not the horn is good - the market isn't dictated by the players, its dictated by collectors and flippers who generally are buying/selling a lot more than players.

 

[jman1977]

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with playing horns and them being good. Too many people collecting/flipping horns and this drives up the value. Whether or not the horn is good - the market isn't dictated by the players, its dictated by collectors and flippers who generally are buying/selling a lot more than players.

This. Ultimately it's about correct pricing. My favorite alto is a relacquered VI. But like it or not, the market values lacquered and relacquered horns differently, so in the end I just need to to make sure I pay the proper prices for the horns I buy. That is the only relevance of lacquered vs. relacquered to me -- pricing purposes.

Other than that, others have very legitimate concerns about the quality of the entire relacquering process and the competence of the person(s) who did the relacquering. There are also legitimate concerns that relacquering/replating was used as a means to hide some more serious issues with the condition of the horn.

What I'm more interested in in the OP, however, is this assertion:"Remember, if it was overhauled before 1980, there is a >99% chance it's a re-laq."

That is a pretty bold assertion to make and I am going to need some very convincing corroborating evidence to accept an assertion like that. There are how many thousands of these horns in the world? No matter how extensive one person's experience and knowledge may be, there is simply no way I am going to believe that one person's experience and knowledge and say-so by themselves are sufficient to support such a sweeping assertion. I'm going to need cites to documented and published research and other authority (pretty much like Theo Wanne's, Nicolas Trefeil's and Douglas Pipher's works).

 

[ZootTheSim]

I bought an old JK Tone King stencil alto in non-playing condition (a literal barn find), which was relacquered at some point, for like $22. It was a terrible job--the metal was clearly over-buffed, and the (very yellow) lacquer over-sprayed. It's unlikely that whoever did it reassembled the horn properly, though it may have since been adjusted. Hard to say, as it's not yet in playing condition.

On the other hand, my rare TH&C tenor seems to be an old, gentle, professionally done relac. My tech, who replaced several pads, thinks it's original lacquer, but I have my doubts. And the horn plays fabulously.

 

[Pete Thomas]

It is nothing to do with players, the fetish applies to saxophone collectors. I have met a couple over the years.

But the resulting affect on prices and perceived value does of course trickle down to players who want to buy instruments just to play. It's possible that some people who note that the so-called value of original lacquer is higher then mistakenly think it's something to do with the sound. And so a myth is born and it perpetuates itself.

 

[jman1977]

It is nothing to do with players, the fetish applies to saxophone collectors. I have met a couple over the years.

But the resulting affect on prices and perceived value does of course trickle down to players who want to buy instruments just to play. It's possible that some people who note that the so-called value of original lacquer is higher then mistakenly think it's something to do with the sound. And so a myth is born and it perpetuates itself.

Simon (in his Q&A thread) did note that he found that relacquering does alter the sound, although the change is not necessarily good or bad, just different. Here is the relevant quote (including his other thoughts on relacquering):

"It could make sense that the original 69xxx had a cleaner sound than the 69xxx relacq. Often times I find that the relacquers can loose some of that core, especially if they were buffed obviously. I find that heavily buffed horns (not saying yours was) tend to loose the core almost all the way and get spread and have a rippy quality. Rippy would probably be equivalent to your dirtier/grittier adjectives. Maybe I should switch to that term gritty, because that's really what it is. Back to relacq, it doesn't make them worse, just different. In fact, some people like them better! I have thought that as you take the mass away and thin the metal some, you loose the core some. It makes sense in my mind as I always associate mass with added core. That's why those heavy mass screws and bell weights etc can really darken and focus (uh oh, can of worms, I know).

Your observations are nice to hear. I appreciate them.

**Two side notes about buffing and relacqs ...

1) I have seen many relacqs that were "hand ragged" and not buffed at all. It's a process Randy has told me about that they used in really good shops and the Selmer factory in Elkhart some. They tend to exhibit almost none of the "relacquer" qualities I notice in the more buffed horns.

2) I notice different trends in BA and SBA relacqs, probably because they don't have near the core that VIs do. I tend to like re-lacquered BAs a lot better than originals for some reason. Same with SBAs most of the time."

But yeah, ultimately its the collectibility of the vintage horns that prop up their prices, which makes complete sense. A collectible that is in original state should definitely cost more than a collectible that is no longer in its original state.

 

[StuartSax]

"It could make sense that the original 69xxx had a cleaner sound than the 69xxx relacq. Often times I find that the relacquers can loose some of that core, especially if they were buffed obviously. I find that heavily buffed horns (not saying yours was) tend to loose the core almost all the way and get spread and have a rippy quality.

Sorry, but it is impossible to compare two Selmers and conclude that the lacquer is the factor detrmining the variations. It is far more demonstrable that the sound goes with the neck when you swap them around.

As to Notes' initial question, it is one way to help determine price when buying/selling/trading - particularly when doing so sight unseen. Let's be realistic here. If I advertise my 2x relac'd Mark 6 tenor (I don't have one, btw) as the best player ever and thus worth as much as the same vintage in original condition, who's going to buy it? You, Bob Norton?

 

[dzve]

I love the way a relaquer can play, open. If its done well and the engraving isnt buffed out then I dont have a problem with it at all.

 

[jman1977]

Sorry, but it is impossible to compare two Selmers and conclude that the lacquer is the factor detrmining the variations. It is far more demonstrable that the sound goes with the neck when you swap them around.

As to Notes' initial question, it is one way to help determine price when buying/selling/trading - particularly when doing so sight unseen. Let's be realistic here. If I advertise my 2x relac'd Mark 6 tenor (I don't have one, btw) as the best player ever and thus worth as much as the same vintage in original condition, who's going to buy it? You, Bob Norton?

You might want to take that up with Simon in his thread. He based his statements not just on 2 horns, but on all the horns he's had the opportunity to work on/play in the shop through the years. He was just saying that based on his experience with all those horns, he wasn't surprised at how I described the difference between my two VI's that were only a few hundred digits apart (one being a relacquer and the other being an original lacquer).

 

[jman1977]

I love the way a relaquer can play, open. If its done well and the engraving isnt buffed out then I dont have a problem with it at all.

... and/or priced right and/or sounds great. My 72xxx's engraving was almost completely buffed out when it was relacquered and it's not winning any beauty contests any time soon (or ever), and yet I still like its sound best of all the VI's I own and have owned. Fat and complex when needed. I'm only switching to a 79xxx original lacquer as my main alto because it plays a bit smoother and is lighter (when you hold the 72xxx in one hand and my other VI's in the other, you will easily feel the difference in weight... now that I think of it, I'll probably do a proper weight comparison using a scale soon). The 72xxx also feels more solid overall (tank-like is what comes to mind), buffing notwithstanding.

I'm probably never going to sell that relacquered 72xxx (incidentally, it's the VI that I've owned the longest).

 

[JayeLID]

The relaq fetish only applies to saxophones, not trumpets, trombones, French horns, or tubas.

Actually, it applies somewhat to second-hand trumpets and trombones. I sell those, so I can report it IS an 'issue', so to speak.

But it doesn't effect market value as much as it does in the case of saxes, generally speaking.

 

[JayeLID]

Sorry, but it is impossible to compare two Selmers and conclude that the lacquer is the factor detrmining the variations. It is far more demonstrable that the sound goes with the neck when you swap them around.

I agree. There's variations from horn to horn within most vintage horns of same model and period, anyway. Significant variations in performance. Plus what sorta tack they are in, regulation of one vs. other, etc...
Once again, to claim that one variable made the difference ?
It's not likely to float unless all other variables are equal/constant.

Also, the notion that buffing (or 'overbuffing') can actually seriously reduce the metal thickness of a sax body.....therefore effect how the horn actually plays ? It's an interesting notion...

But does anyone who trumpets this notion.... actually HAVE a mechanical buffing wheel, and have they actually buffed instrument bodies ?

Because most folks have NO idea how much a person would have to lean into an instrument body to seriously start thinning the body metal by anything approaching 'arguably significant'. The amount of pressure, the amount of tooth in the rouge one would have to use, and the temperature the body would heat up to....folks have no idea.

This is why even 'bad' relacqs still usually show very significant remains of their engravings. Even for a neanderthal tech, it is really hard to 'damage' a horn body by buffing it. I mean, one would almost have to intend to damage it, pretty much. Or just be incredibly inept.

Yes, I have seen some bad jobs, I'd argue those are outliers...most relacqs aren't/weren't hack jobs, from what I have seen (and trust me, I have had over 1500 saxes circulate thru here, and I have seen plenty of relacqs in that bunch).

But again, the notion that somehow the structural or sonic integrity of an instrument would be ruined or effected in any demonstrable way ? This notion taken as a 'rule of thumb' or a 'given' ? Apocryphal ....to put it nicely.
Yet this seems to be the equivalency most folks draw these days.

Thus I can appreciate Notes' frustration....

As to Notes' initial question, it is one way to help determine price when buying/selling/trading - particularly when doing so sight unseen. Let's be realistic here. If I advertise my 2x relac'd Mark 6 tenor (I don't have one, btw) as the best player ever and thus worth as much as the same vintage in original condition, who's going to buy it? You, Bob Norton?

Perhaps a MORE interesting question would be: I have an XXX which is a relacq ....and such a GOOD relacq that it fools almost everyone.
Horn is serviced and plays like a dream.

Should that horn be valued less than one with original lacq that looks much worse, has maybe 60% orig lacq, desperately needs a chem bath, and also plays well - albeit on older pads and in need of a tune-up fairly soon ?

 

[musekatcher]

The more original, the more valuable. This is universal and ubiquitous among collectors, and they set the standards. It includes museums and organizations charted to preserve historically significant property, because without an original unaltered piece, you have no definition of the item. There is a market for less original property, but make sure you aren't tempted to pay something more than its worth, but less than an original piece. You don't want to be disappointed when it comes time to sell or replace it, at a substantially lower market value.

 

[jman1977]

Here is the thread from where I extracted the quote for anyone who wants to take up the discussion with Simon, which would be more useful and enlightening to anyone following these discussions than taking it up on this thread. Why not take it up directly with him? I'm sure the resulting discussion would be more educational for the rest of us when both sides present their opinions in the same thread rather than the rebuttals being given in a different thread. That will also help minimize the chances of statements being miscast and inaccurately reframed, such as what happened here. Simon never said he based his analysis on just my 2 horns. He based it on the thousands of horns he's had the opportunity to work on and play through the years.

https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showt...-amp-A-Focus-on-Vintage-Horns-and-Mouthpieces

To facilitate the discussion, the relevant post is no. 64.

 

[JayeLID]

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with playing horns and them being good. Too many people collecting/flipping horns and this drives up the value. Whether or not the horn is good - the market isn't dictated by the players, its dictated by collectors and flippers who generally are buying/selling a lot more than players.

I wouldn't say it in quite this way, but I would say that when instrument selling/buying transactions began to take flight on the www, there came to be certain aspects or details which both buyers and sellers would use to:

1) justify the instrument's value and price tag

2) justify that the instrument 'isn't worth that much because of this particular condition present'....therefore it should fetch less.

So it wasn't/isn't solely sellers....buyers also were and are trying to argue reductions in prices/values because of a), b), c), etc...

As you said, little to do with how well the horn performs (much of the time).

 

[Dr G]

So why the fetish?

Why call it a fetish?

 

[JayeLID]

Here is the thread from where I extracted the quote for anyone who wants to take up the discussion with Simon, which would be more useful and enlightening to anyone following these discussions than taking it up on this thread. Why not take it up directly with him? I'm sure the resulting discussion would be more educational for the rest of us when both sides present their opinions in the same thread rather than the rebuttals being given in a different thread. That will also help minimize the chances of statements being miscast and inaccurately reframed, such as what happened here. Simon never said he based his analysis on just my 2 horns. He based it on the thousands of horns he's had the opportunity to work on and play through the years.

https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showt...-amp-A-Focus-on-Vintage-Horns-and-Mouthpieces

To facilitate the discussion, the relevant post is no. 64.

Then I respectfully disagree with that assessment. And unless every aspect of your two horns was constant (regulation i.e. keyheights, newness of pads, same level of servicing and good tack, etc) I will submit that there was more than the sole variable of the lacquer at work there.

And although I do not have the same numbers of examples as Simon, who I greatly respect BTW, given the well over 100 sax relacqs I have refurbed, I will reiterate:

A decently done relacquer will not have overbuffed the instrument, or in any way have damaged the 'integrity' of the horn; nor somehow have automatically 'taken something away' from the factory original as far as performance of the instrument.

And will further reiterate:

The only way to ascertain whether one quality/condition is responsible for a 'change' in the performance quality of the instrument is first to have:

a) playtested the instrument before the quality/condition/aspect in question was altered; then playtested it afterward

and

b) if doing a playtest comparison; playtest to the same model where the only variable is the variable in question which you are seeking to draw a conclusion about. THIS b) even becomes a bit flawed when dealing with models or eras of horns where the exact same model actually had some variability from one to the other (i.e. "this is a particulary GOOD S20" or "I have played a lotta 5-digit VI's, this one seems off", etc....)

The problem with a) is, in the case of relacqs...nobody is gonna do a relacq and not repad the horn....and nobody is gonna do a repad first, THEN relacq the horn.
So it'd be hard to do that test.

If more than one variable exists among the test subjects, then one cannot concretely conclude that it was 'THAT one' variable which is the 'cause', vs. the other variables. Furtehrmore, when it comes to vintage horns, it could just be that the fact that they were two different horns of the same model (even if they were close in serial range) which created enough of a variable right there.

Pretty basic.

Does that mean I am saying all relacqs when properly set up will play just as well as all original factory finish horns...so buyers shouldn't worry about it ? No not necessarily.
Because relacqs are/were variable in their quality.

I AM saying that anyone who concludes and states that 'a relacquered horn is just not gonna be 'the same' or 'as good' as it was before the relacq (or vs. the same model which wasn't relacqued)....has drawn a faulty conclusion.
They have basically overstated.

I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[jman1977]

Then I respectfully disagree with that assessment. And unless every aspect of your two horns was constant (regularion, newness of pads, servicing, etc) I will submit that there was more than the sole variable of the lacquer at work there.

And although I do not have the same numbers of examples as Simon, who I greatly respect BTW, given the well over 100 sax relacqs I have refurbed, I will reiterate:

A decently done relacquer will not have overbuffed the instrument, or in any way have damaged the 'integrity' of the horn; nor somehow have automatically 'taken something away' from the factory original as far as performance of the instrument.

And will further reiterate:

The only way to ascertain whether one quality/condition is responsible for a 'change' in the performance quality of the instrument is first to have:

a) playtested the instrument before the quality/condition/aspect in question was altered

and

b) if doing a playtest comparison; playtest to the same model where the only variable is the variable in question which you are seeking to draw a conclusion about. THIS b) even becomes a bit flawed when dealing with models or eras of horns where the exact same model actually had some variability from one to the other (i.e. "this is a particulary GOOD S20" or "I have played a lotta 5-digit VI's, this one seems off", etc....)

If more than one variable exists among the test subjects, then one cannot concretely conclude that it was 'THAT one' variable which is the 'cause', vs. the other variables. Furtehrmore, when it comes to vintage horns, it could just be that the fact that they were two different horns of the same model created enough of a variable right there.

Pretty basic.

Does that mean I am saying all relacqs when properly set up will play just as well as all original factory finish horns...so buyers shouldn't worry about it ? No not necessarily.
Because relacqs are/were variable in their quality.

I AM saying that anyone who concludes and states that 'a relacquered horn is just not gonna be 'the same' or 'as good' as it was before the relacq (or vs. the same model which wasn't relacqued)....has drawn a faulty conclusion.
They have basically overstated.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Thanks for elaborating and I understand your position. However, I state again that he did not base his position on my 2 horns. He just noted that it seemed to be consistent with his experience with all the other horns. I also propose again that it would be better if you address his position directly in his thread. Here we have 2 apparently conflicting positions, and it would certainly be beneficial for those of us non-techs if there is an opportunity for both proponents (who both have extensive experience but seem to be drawing different conclusions from their experience) to address each other's rebuttals. He has been very responsive to people asking him questions and even challenging his positions.

On the other hand, I would also understand if professional courtesy dictates that two techs with varying positions would just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Tranechaser]

Pete Christlieb has had his trademark silver SBA with gold keys replated about 4 times. Doesn’t seem to hurt his sound at all! Given that his horn is a later SBA with the single keyguard, most of SOTW wouldn’t pay $5K for that horn if Pete wasn’t the guy that made a legendary career on it.

 

[turf3]

Overbuffing (to the point where the engraving disappears, as on one 10M I had), does appear to travel along with other aspects of hack work (like stretching metal in doing dent work, or filing a tone hole till the roll becomes just a little wire burr, or, or, or..)

Personally, though I haven't refubrished hundreds of saxophones, I strongly suspect that a light polish and respray doesn't have any effect. I question whether extremely heavy machine buffing can have any effect at all, either. If you believe it does - if you believe loss of a few thousandths of an inch wall thickness has a repeatable effect on tone - then please propose a mechanism by which that would happen - a mechanism that is consistent with how the tone generating mechanism of a saxophone actually works. (Don't tell us the horn "loses its anima when buffed", for example).