Vintage Saxophone Pricing Guide

[pete]

Yes, I decided to work on this after doing one for NEW instruments (see http://www.woodwindforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2653). However, because I knew that this would be a big project, I asked for help -- and one of our CE's will be helping.

Now, several years ago, I mentioned on SOTW that I'd be working on a vintage sax pricing guide, but I never got much farther than dealing with Selmer. Hey, there was college and life, in general.

And doing a make other than Selmer is difficult because the sample size is much smaller.

==========

If you want to help, the best thing you can do is:

a. Describe a horn fully
b. Rate the condition of the horn you purchased
c. Tell me the price

An example:

1958 Selmer Mark VI alto. Lacquer. On a scale of one to five*, it's a 3.5. I bought it for $50,000 in 2009.

*Yes, I use a scale of 1 to 5. A five would be a totally overhauled, looks factory-new horn. This is extremely rare in the vintage world and almost impossible for lacquer instruments. Here's my scale:

5 = Perfect.
4 = Completely overhauled (like, within the past month or two), less than 10% lacquer/plating wear.
3 = Average playing condition. Less than 30% lacquer/plating wear.
2 = Bad shape. Can be made into playing condition, tho.
1 = Junk. Could be missing parts or have holes/split seams, etc.

If the horn is otherwise intact, you can take off 1 level for factory relacquer or missing neck. Bad relacquers = a 2.

===========

I plan to repost an updated Selmer guide in a few days, if not sooner.

 

[Dave Dolson]

Pete: It has been a few years since I last bought (or traded for) a vintage saxophone. So, does the passing of time make much difference in your quest? I'm guessing it does. If so, how can you account for that in a pricing study.

An example . . . In 1980, I bought a used MKVI alto AND a Buffet R13 clarinet together in a tray-pack case for $1K. I still have the R13 (I'm looking at it right now on a peg - I play it daily). I gifted the alto to my son a few years back. It is original and plays great.

I have others but time has passed. Are you interested in those? DAVE

 

[pete]

Pete: It has been a few years since I last bought (or traded for) a vintage saxophone. So, does the passing of time make much difference in your quest? I'm guessing it does. If so, how can you account for that in a pricing study.

An example . . . In 1980, I bought a used MKVI alto AND a Buffet R13 clarinet together in a tray-pack case for $1K. I still have the R13 (I'm looking at it right now on a peg - I play it daily). I gifted the alto to my son a few years back. It is original and plays great.

I have others but time has passed. Are you interested in those? DAVE

If you bought a new Mark VI back in 1954 and still have the receipt (or vividly remember the price, as I do with my 1989 YBS-52 [$1800 -- yah; prices have gone up a bit]), that'd be interesting, but I'm more interested in recent data for this pricing chart. Just wanna be as current as possible.

I've kept record of about thousand horns going back to about 2006 and I have some earlier records from about 2003 that other folks sent me that I use if I can't find any pricing data on a particular make/model. I think that there isn't too terribly much difference in used prices between now and 2006 (my partner and I are still investigating; I may be proven wrong). Used prices 30 years ago? Probably not that valid anymore ....

Overall, what I'd like to do is turn this into a "Kelly Blue Book" for vintage saxophones. Well, maybe more of a coin collector's blue book.

Speaking of a KBB for used instruments, I have seen a couple of industry ones, but they only go back a couple of years.

 

[Dave Dolson]

Pete. Okay; it has been several years since my last acquisition so I won't bother listing all of them for you. DAVE

 

[Carl H.]

Yesterday I picked up a Yamaha/VITO for $75. 70% lacquer, needing a few pads, 3 guard screws and one guard foot. In a nice pro-tec shaped case.

That's the latest purchase for me.

 

[Al Stevens]

A year and a half ago I bought this '74 mark vi tenor for $3600.

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=81731

You can read the description there. And see pictures. If there are other questions, I will answer them here.

About two months ago I had it completely overhauled locally for $500. Those original pads finally gave out and there were rattles in the rods.

So I have $4100 in it.

Its previous overhaul several years ago (I don't know how many) was by USA Horn.

Using your rating criteria, I give it a 4. With the possible exception that just based on wear patterns, the neck might not be original. But with no serial number, how can I know?

Given what the economy has done since then, I don't know how applicable the purchase price would be now.

 

[saxhound]

In August 2008, I bought a Yamaha YTS-62 (original not 62-II, but no purple logo) for $1500 from a SOTW member. It was recently overhauled, with no pings, dings or re-solders, and the lacquer is 99% - just a little bit of wear around the strap ring. I'll call it a 4.5. Lately, I have seen these selling for $1200 - $1400, but don't know in what condition.

FWIW, I bought my Mark VI alto new in 1972 for $636 (6% tax included) - I still have the receipt around here somewhere. It's not for sale, so I don't know what it's worth right now, but I keep it insured for $5000.

 

[pete]

Yesterday I picked up a Yamaha/VITO for $75. 70% lacquer, needing a few pads, 3 guard screws and one guard foot. In a nice pro-tec shaped case.

That's the latest purchase for me.

Thanks, but we're only going to do pro horns. Sorry that I wasn't more specific.

 

[pete]

Here are some introductory remarks:

-> Because I have a large enough sample size of Mark VI's, I'm doing something that a lot of statisticians do: throwing out the highest ($14,000) and lowest ($1350) values before I take my averages.

-> I inflation-adjusted my data used to calculate the averages used in my 2006 post (see http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=50539 and http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=50744).

-> Condition of the VI doesn't affect the average price much, as long as the horn is in playable shape or better (what I call a "3").

I'm sure there's a logical, reasonable explanation for this. Maybe. Perhaps. Other than people see "Mark VI" and go nuts.

I had an equal amount of horns that I rated around a "3" and those I rated around a "4". There was only a small variance in average price -- maybe $200. I had only a couple I rated as a 5 (as mentioned previously, a lacquer vintage sax that's a 5 is almost impossible to find) -- and the 5's had a LOWER average price than the 4's (minus the recent ad where someone paid $14,000) and about the same as the 3's.

-> Yes, there is a 5-digit mystique for the Selmers: if you have a 5-digit serial number, you do get a higher average price than a 6-digit -- by approximately $1200 (see below) -- HOWEVER, the currently most expensive 6 sold in the past 3 years was a lacquer horn with the serial of 144074 ($14,000) -- it was sold a couple weeks ago and it wasn't even in perfect shape. The next highest, at $11,000, was a 5-digit horn (87269), but that was gold plated and in perfect shape.

No, neither was from Quinn .

(For $11,000, I can buy THREE new Ref. 54 Kookaburra altos from Kessler ....)

So, the average values of lacquer Mark VI altos:

* 5-digit: $5330
* 6-digit: $4121
Average, all Mark VI Altos: $4434

Two-Tone (lacquer, nickel keywork): No change.
Two-Tone (lacquer, silver-plated keywork): No change.
Colored Lacquer: ? (no data). I've seen only three of these, evar.
Nickel Plate: ? (no data).
Silver Plate: +10%
Gold Plate: +75%
Low A: -35%
Relacquer: -35%, if it's "decent" (I didn't even bother with the really bad relacquers).
Altissimo F#: Not enough data. Probably no change.

Again, let's break out the Inflation Calculator. Using saxhound's price, his horn was $598, before tax. That's $3072 in today's money. That means the AVERAGE Mark VI is besting inflation.

===========

Finally, please again note that this little sample is based on AVERAGE closed eBay ads and posted prices on dealer websites. When we get into other vintage horns, I might be able to massage that average into a different price.

 

[steen]

*Yes, I use a scale of 1 to 5. A five would be a totally overhauled, looks factory-new horn. This is extremely rare in the vintage world and almost impossible for lacquer instruments. Here's my scale:

5 = Perfect.
4 = Completely overhauled (like, within the past month or two), less than 10% lacquer/plating wear.
3 = Average playing condition. Less than 30% lacquer/plating wear.
2 = Bad shape. Can be made into playing condition, tho.
1 = Junk. Could be missing parts or have holes/split seams, etc...

I think there is a major, major GAP between 2 and 3, as well as 3 and 4. Whether a horn was completely overhauled a week or a year ago may not matter if the horn has been well taken care of. A sax with substantial lacquer wear may be in perfect playing condition. Oppositely, obtaining a horn in condition 4 (actually with max 1% plating wear) but roopads that have fat leaks in them would probably fit better into catagory 3 at most. It happened to me last year and I think my next experiment will be stripping off unplayed roo pads and replacing them with regular leather pads.

 

[pete]

I think there is a major, major GAP between 2 and 3, as well as 3 and 4. Whether a horn was completely overhauled a week or a year ago may not matter if the horn has been well taken care of. A sax with substantial lacquer wear may be in perfect playing condition. Oppositely, obtaining a horn in condition 4 (actually with max 1% plating wear) but roopads that have fat leaks in them would probably fit better into catagory 3 at most. It happened to me last year and I think my next experiment will be stripping off unplayed roo pads and replacing them with regular leather pads.

Any "condition" guide is bound to have problems. The main one is that we all know it's not how shiny the horn is, but how well it plays -- but wouldn't you want a mint horn that has rotted pads? How much of a trade off between bad mechanicals and bad finish are you willing to accept and still say the horn is worth as much as a horn with either more shiny or better mechanicals? Hey, if you're talking a plated horn, you can always get it replated. Lacquer? If you relacquer it, I'm suddenly not interested in buying, unless it's exceptionally rare or a good horn at a phenomenal price.

My Zen of rating is to look at both the condition of the finish and the condition of whatever mechanicals I see and then estimate what I'd think is best -- and I've conveyed that to the person helping me out. However, the only solid way of knowing that you have a 4 or 5 is if you buy a horn from a dealer that either specializes in overhauls or has a good overhaul tech. We know that that's not going to happen, thus we need to make a trade-off.

> Whether a horn was completely overhauled a week or a year ago may not matter if the horn has been well taken care of.
Then you open the Pandora's box of "how long?" and "is that number variable based on the tech that did the overhaul?"

Personally, if YOU say the horn was overhauled a year ago and it's in good shape, I believe you. I don't believe a random guy on eBay. And there are eBay ads that say things like, "Overhauled 10 years ago by A. Sax himself. Put in stasis ever since." Mmm. Suuuuure.

BTB, I initially thought of a scale of 1 to 10, but that's too unwieldy and it makes people tune out. As I said earlier, I collected coins for a time and I remember their ratings scales: Proof, Uncirculated, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor -- and some guides did graduations between them: VG10, VG15, VG25, etc. It's nuts. And the coin guides only had to deal with the shininess of the item (but even those descriptions were nuts: "If you can see Lincoln's sideburns, it's VG25. If you can see his sideburns, but not his hat, it's VG15. Wait. He doesn't have a hat. Or sideburns. We're just messing with your head.").

So, I think my "scale" is a very workable trade-off, particularly when you read eBay ads that say, "95% lacquer intact!" and the horn looks like it's been dipped in lacquer remover. In any event, I can always say, "Here's the 'average' price and a 'minimum' price and a 'maximum' price."

 

[steen]

I take your point - sort of. I would still do away with category 5. It isn't really worthwhile including junk on a scale for pro-horns. That gives you at least one extra category without it being overwhelming. My main objection, which I should have stated better, was the linkage of lacquer percentage to mechanical condition, and absence of past major repairs. Missing lacquer is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Bad pads can be replaced. However, a horn that for instance has had the bell to body brace pushed in would sink way down on my scale even after a repair, no matter that it has 100 percent lacquer/plating and fresh pads.

 

[pete]

"Category 1", actually. You're backwards .

As far as the pricing guide is concerned, the categories are a bit more for my benefit -- they're for me to say, "Hey, provided the Mark VI is in playing condition and not mangled beyond belief, someone is going to pay good $ for it." Or for me to say, "Well, I can't find any more 1843 A. Sax C basses, but the one I found was missing parts and sold for $15,000,000."

If I/we do expand this to book(let) form, I will include a section on the categories.

 

[steen]

You're backwards

It is a global conspiracy...my Mom, my wife, my friends...and now someone on the internet that I have never met in person.

 

[pete]

No, it's not, neets!



("Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to getcha.")

 

[pete]

Using your rating criteria, I give it a 4. With the possible exception that just based on wear patterns, the neck might not be original. But with no serial number, how can I know?

I'd go, conservatively, at 80% lacquer, but that's me -- or could be the pics. My opinion would also be that it's not an original neck, but it is definitely a Selmer neck and there's no real way to "prove" it's not an original because they didn't all have serial numbers -- and necks get more wear than the rest of the horn.

Full overhaul, though, so I assume you got all the dents massaged out. I could call it a 3.5 or 4.

I played two different Mark VI tenors in HS that were terribly beat, but played great. I stumbled across them when I was practicing. I had been using my school's minty (at least visually) Martin Committee that had a nice sound, but poor intonation. So I was really, really happy to find the VIs. I also found a couple Eb sopranino clarinets ....

They wouldn't let me buy the VIs. I was disappointed.

 

[Al Stevens]

I'd go, conservatively, at 80% lacquer, but that's me -- or could be the pics.

The pics aren't very good. IANAP. Probably more than 80%. Doesn't seem to have 20% of brass showing.

Full overhaul, though, so I assume you got all the dents massaged out.

There were no dents. The sax has been well cared for.

I was mistaken about a previous overhaul at USA horns. That was my other VI tenor. This one had 9 original pads when I bought it last year.

My other VI is a ratty looking 5-digit relaq. Because of the anti-relaq bias and other reasons, I can't assign it a rating.

I use it mainly in the studio. It doesn't leave here often because I don't want to risk losing or damaging it.

Imagine having a 5-digit VI and no bragging rights because it never leaves home. I've been thinking about putting a sticker on the gigging '74 VI that says, "My other VI is a 5-digit."

It's an example of a sax that doesn't fit any of your criteria for a rating. Besides the relaq, it looks crappy but is in great playing condition. Very spotty lacquer wear. Maybe 30% left on the relaq. There doesn't seem to be a category for that. Then I'd have to add something because of the mystical 5 digits. And subtract for the relaq. Maybe add something for the original Selmer case, which is as crappy looking as the horn.

It has a lot of brown spots of something dirty spotting it, too. Really rough looking horn, but it plays better than any other tenor I've played, so I'm afraid to mess with it cosmetically.

That could be a new topic on the other sax forum: "Does dirt affect tone?" That could heat things up over there.

I paid $4500 for it about five years ago. It had a recent USA Horn overhaul just before I bought it. The price was high at that time even for a 5-digit, but I bought it because of how it played.

 

[pete]

It's an example of a sax that doesn't fit any of your criteria for a rating. Besides the relaq, it looks crappy but is in great playing condition. Very spotty lacquer wear. Maybe 30% left on the relaq. There doesn't seem to be a category for that. Then I'd have to add something because of the mystical 5 digits. And subtract for the relaq. Maybe add something for the original Selmer case, which is as crappy looking as the horn.

It actually does fit my criteria. I mention that a relacquer immediately drops my evaluation of any horn by one level. You then take it from there. In other words, if it looks perfect and has had an overhaul, but it's a relacquer, you've got no better than a 4 (rather than a 5). You can call it "anti-relacquer bias", but I've seen too many really bad relacquers and I know that a relacquer can strip metal and that can be a bad thing, i.e., "Looks good, plays like junk". So, a horn with 30% lacquer remaining from a relacquer and no recent overhaul = 2.

FWIW, if I had a choice of a relacquer or a horn that just had 70% lacquer wear, I'd take the one that just has the wear.

As far as eBay copy is concerned, at least, a horn that has been hit by a truck, dropped out of an airplane at 10,000 feet, sent globetrotting through UPS in a cardboard box without any packing material and finally melted down is "in great playing condition". Seriously: look at some of the ads. I saw one for a Mark VI that had soldered on patches in at least three places and a pickup on the neck described as such.

Again, I don't care about the serial number, because all the VIs I've tried have been equally good: the market does, though, so you need to convince them (I've tried). When I did my first pricewatch on the Mark VI, there were two serial ranges with pricebumps. I'm now only really seeing that in the 5-digit range. FWIW, I'd rather have a low A horn (which is cheaper) and, if the horn was cheap enough, I'd have it overhauled and replated, if I was really into the shiny. I'm not and if it was in good mechanical shape, I wouldn't do anything else -- but I'd also not expect to get as much for it as a shiny horn.

Selmer and King (at least, for the Super 20 and Silversonic) are the only makes that it seems to matter if you have that original case, primarily for the traypack (flute, clarinet, sax) ones. However, I'm not into putting a value on cases because you can't play a case.

There were no dents

Dings, then. Right above the bow. Looks like standard dinging from a chair, if you play with the horn slung off your right.

 

[Al Stevens]

In other words, if it looks perfect and has had an overhaul, but it's a relacquer, you've got no better than a 4 (rather than a 5).

That criterion along with the other things you've said, does not seem to take into account playability. In other words, in this system a relaq that plays well gets the same rating as a relaq that plays like crap, all other things being equal. Assuming I understand the system, which I don't claim to do. The more I get into its details, the more abstruse it becomes. Not your fault, though. It's probably an impossible task. There are too many variables to codify. I agree that anything more complicated than 1-5 can become unmanageable. But I think that anything as simple as 1-5 is not sufficient to describe the condition, history, and playability of all vintage horns. But that's just me. I applaud you for trying.

You can call it "anti-relacquer bias"

I have a lot of company there. I guess maybe "collector mentality" would be more to the point. Usually players don't care about lacquer if the horn plays well. Actually, we're happy that collectors are anti-relaq-biased, because it helps keep prices down on some fine-playing saxes.

FWIW, if I had a choice of a relacquer or a horn that just had 70% lacquer wear, I'd take the one that just has the wear.

Without regard to which one plays better?

Again, I don't care about the serial number...

This rating system, however, is not set up only to define what you want and don't want and how much you will pay and will not pay. (I guess that is presumptuous. It's your system; it can be whatever you want it to be.) As I understand it (or not) it is meant to be useful for the rest of us. Those of us not trying to sell you a saxophone, that is. If I'm wrong about that, then I have no dog in this fight.

...because all the VIs I've tried have been equally good: the market does [care about the serial number], though, so you need to convince them (I've tried).

That's my experience, too (the playing part, not the convincing part), although I'm sure you've played many more VIs than I have. That market mentality is driven by irrational collectors and predatory investors, not players. At least not mature ones. But it exists, nonetheless, and if a rating system does not take it into account, the system does not reflect reality, and conclusions drawn and decisions made from its use are suspect. The system is said to be a vintage sax pricing guide. I don't see it becoming an effective one unless it includes all the parameters that affect what people are willing to pay based on empirical evidence. And like it or not, that includes factors such as the case and the serial number, which you have decided to disregard, and the playability, which I see as far more important than your system or the marketplace permits. (Which is that other reality called sight-unseen purchases, alas.)

Dings, then. Right above the bow. Looks like standard dinging from a chair, if you play with the horn slung off your right.

Those are reflections. Or the product of crappy photography. There are no dings. (Can't speak for previous owners, but I play that sax standing up.)

 

[pete]

That criterion along with the other things you've said, does not seem to take into account playability. In other words, in this system a relaq that plays well gets the same rating as a relaq that plays like crap, all other things being equal. Assuming I understand the system, which I don't claim to do.

The only way I could determine if your relacquered and overhauled horn plays perfectly is if I played it. I refer you to my above comment about the eBay seller's definition of "great playing horn".

If I (obviously) can't play your horn, I have to go by what you say when you say, "Perfect condition. Beautifully relacquered and completely overhauled!" Of course, I might see the pics and see that the engraving is completely rubbed out and there is red goo all over the place and swirl marks in the lacquer and say that the horn is no better than a 2.

The more I get into its details, the more abstruse it becomes. Not your fault, though. It's probably an impossible task. There are too many variables to codify. I agree that anything more complicated than 1-5 can become unmanageable. But I think that anything as simple as 1-5 is not sufficient to describe the condition, history, and playability of all vintage horns. But that's just me. I applaud you for trying.

The task is impossible on two fronts: doing it in such a way that pleases everyone and because someone may look at a horn differently and "grade" it differently. If you see a horn that looks perfect and the ad says nothing else, you might say it's a 5. I might counter with, "There's nothing that says it's been overhauled. The person might not have photographed the scratches on the bell or something -- hey, I don't see the left side in the photo. I'm going to say that it needs a full strip-down and overhaul. It's a 4, at best."

(Photographs can lie, of course.)

Again, I want to simplify things and have some degree of consistency, but you've got the two-variable problem. I could have a scale for "shiny" and a scale for "mechanical" and average the two to come up with a number, however I think that it'd give folks another variable to complain about and it's EXTREMELY difficult to gauge "mechanical" unless you playtest or if you see obvious damage.

Finally, the only "best" approach would be to have everyone ship me their horns for me to say what one rates. I think the approach I currently have is "good enough" and isn't cumbersome, but if you WANT to send me some horns, please do.

This rating system, however, is not set up only to define what you want and don't want and how much you will pay and will not pay.

...

That's my experience, too (the playing part, not the convincing part), although I'm sure you've played many more VIs than I have. That market mentality is driven by irrational collectors and predatory investors, not players. At least not mature ones. But it exists, nonetheless, and if a rating system does not take it into account, the system does not reflect reality, and conclusions drawn and decisions made from its use are suspect. The system is said to be a vintage sax pricing guide. I don't see it becoming an effective one unless it includes all the parameters that affect what people are willing to pay based on empirical evidence. And like it or not, that includes factors such as the case and the serial number, which you have decided to disregard, and the playability, which I see as far more important than your system or the marketplace permits. (Which is that other reality called sight-unseen purchases, alas.)

I think you disagreed then agreed with me, Al .

Note that when I popped out the prices for the VI, above, I gave you several numbers: highest, lowest, average for 5-digit, average for 6-digit and average of all the VIs put together. While I still insist (as I've done several times in this thread) that a 5-digit VI is not necessarily any better than a 6-digit horn, the market doesn't agree with me, thus I posted what I did. The market does agree with me that relacquered horns aren't better than horns that aren't relacquered and I've posted that.

Regarding the cases, one of the problems is that I can't always check to see what kind of case it is and even if it is some super-gonzo-great case, it's not going to add that significant of a value to the horn, especially for a VI. What, an extra $100? If the horn was $11,000, that's under 1%.

I think some people are also under the wrong impression: when I say that $4434 is about the average you'll get for a Mark VI alto in average condition or better, that DOESN'T mean that you'll get $4434. You could get more or less. It's a guide. Just like saying that Kelly Blue Book says my car's worth $11,000. That doesn't mean that Joe Dealer is going to buy it for that. (Personally, I'd rather have my car for $11,000 than that VI.)

Finally, I DO think ANY pricing guide that's based on some data -- any data -- is an awful lot better than some dealer making a statement that "SMLs are worth $2000", regardless of pitch, year or finish.

Oh. Sorry. Wanted to mention one other thing. Remember that I said that that not-perfect lacquer 6-digit VI sold for $14K while a 5-digit gold-plated VI sold for $8K. It's definitely something to think about.