First, I should mention that you can certainly use all the Conn pics in
my "new" pic gallery. Link to 'em or download, I don't mind. They're not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. If there's something on Saxpics.com (reminder: I don't own that 'site any more, but I do have backups) that's broken or you'd like me to attempt to clarify, RSVP.
Hi Pete. Thanks for the comments and the healthy skepticism.
It's actually more of, "This is what I experienced, so you should also be ready for it."
Historically, FA Buescher made the first US sax while in the employ of Col Conn.
Yes, I know. I think I have #16 on Saxpics.com. It's essentially an A. Sax clone, IIRC.
Let me start by saying I have about 12" of printed documents, several gig of electronic documents, including catalogs and brochures from 1924 to 1965, advertising from 1917 to 1955, US Patent Office documents (patents and trademarks), record of incorporation filings, trade journal articles from the 1870's to 1969, pictures etc. I also consult the catalogs on saxophone.org and saxquest,com. Currently, my Pan American registry includes 1457 brass, 387 woodwinds, and 1371 saxes currently; the Cavalier line has 505 brass, 378 clarinets and 179 saxes; the International is all brass and numbers at 30. I might add, the Buescher/Elkhart registry is approaching similar numbers. I have yet to stratify and count my ART/Pedler registry. My Conn registry is smaller at 912 instruments and is for the purpose of understanding the serial stamping, the transitional period and at what serial number did CG Conn engraving become CG Conn Ltd Engraving. I have a small collection of about 45 instruments (some are for playing and some are for research).
This post is useless without pics. Or links to pics. Or links to appropriate pages in a catalog you've seen posted online.
The problem with stencil conclusions drawn to this point, in my humble opinion, is people look to what is in common and not what is different. This is the same as what separates a Chevrolet from a Buick or a Cadillac, or a Ford from a Lincoln, or a GM Yukon, from a GM Yukon Denali, etc. Within a company there is always "family" resemblance. What separates the products are the unique features and specific design elements and the definitions used by the company itself. In my opinion, based on the way conclusions are drawn a Buescher sax could be a Conn sax stencil. After all they are both saxes with many similar design features?
Oooh. Slippery slope. Let me make it hard. Is a Vito VSP baritone sax a completely different horn because it says "Vito VSP" on the bell or is it really a Yanagisawa 901 with different engraving? We can do cars, too: is a 1993 Mercury Sable a different car than a 1993 Ford Taurus because it's got a different front clip? This is actually an incredibly difficult argument because everyone can be sort-of right. OK, the manufacturer says that a Taurus and Sable are different, even though they share 99% of the same parts. However, if I was going to buy one -- all other things being the same -- why wouldn't I go for the one that's $500 cheaper? Or, getting back to the sax world, why wouldn't I buy a brand new Vito VSP bari if it's $500 cheaper than a Yanagisawa 901? If I needed parts, would I insist that my spark plugs said, "Made for Mercury Sable" on the side?
(I've owned a Taurus and a Sable, at different times.)
I'm not denying that Pan Am saxophones with something other than the Haynes patent/date on the horn are different from the Conn pro horns. I agree that they are. They're supposed to be. I'm also not saying that a Conn horn, stamped with the 1914 Haynes patent/date, but not engraved "Conn, Ltd." is a New Wonder model. It's a stencil: it's always going to be missing rolled tone holes. However, it's difficult to argue that each horn made by Conn that looked like a New Wonder, sans rolled tone holes, is a model unto itself. I'd call that bad for business because you're going to have to spend something on advertising, engraving, and/or tooling. But, maybe they should be thought of that way. Hey, I've said that Selmer NY horns made by Conn are generally considered pretty high quality by the folks that own them.
Also, you really, really shouldn't use Buescher in the stencil argument. I can fairly easily find a Buescher True Tone and a True Tone stencil that will look 100% the same -- I know, because I've had folks send me pics in the past. The only difference is supposed to have been in quality control and using older tooling.
However, one of my contacts has measured Pan American tenor and alto saxes from the 1920s and compared them to the Conn's of the same period. The Pan Am's are slightly shorter and have a slightly smaller bore.
I'm assuming you're referring to Pan Ams with the Haynes patent/date stamped, yes? How far apart is the serial number range that's being looked at? Conn changed a LOT of stuff over very brief periods of time, especially in the 1920s. Make sure you check the amount and size of tone holes, too.
Cavalier models are neither Pan American or Conn stencils. They are a line of Pan American. They are unique models based on design elements from the 1930's and 1940's.
All you'd need to do is show an ad from Pan Am saying something like, "A new line of instruments from Pan American, the Cavalier!" You don't specifically say that you've seen something like that.
I would then like to compare it to other Conn horns and see what the similarities and differences are.
============
Really, the only reason I care at all is because I
guarantee that I'll start seeing eBay ads saying something like, "Pan American was another professional line manufactured by Conn!" I don't think that's good for the buying public, especially because that's not true. Pan Am was Conn's second line. Well, I also care because I don't want to have to go back and start collecting bunches of Pan Am pictures.
I think I've mentioned that I've owned a Pan American metal clarinet. I thought it was a very decent instrument. However, it's not something I'd recommend for a modern beginner. I also dislike ALL the Conn (or "Conn affiliated") saxophones I've played from the New Wonder period and earlier. And all Cavaliers. I know a lot of folks like them, though.
I really can't speak about Conn's other instruments, like trumpets, and stuff. I can certainly believe that Conn shifted marketing focus after 1929, for instance, and there probably are an awful lot more brass winds to look at than sax models. I give you mad props for trying to look at all the horns Conn had. If you find out more about the New Invention saxophones and/or any interesting prototype saxophones, I'll be very happy to see them.