Selmer? Probably not ....

pete

pete

Brassica Oleracea
Staff member
Administrator
http://www.woodwindforum.com/forums/album.php?albumid=30

This is a fun horn that I got in my e-mail. Here's the e-mailage:

may be you could do me a favour and can help me with your sax
experiences to categorize the sax I just bought.

The tenor sax I bought is silvered and looks 100% like a MKVI with a SBA
neck but it has not the Selmer typical serial number and Selmer logo.
Beside this, I can't see any differences between this sax and a MKVI.
On the body is the serial number 970 and 00970 stamped. On the neck is
also 00970 stamped.

It is in a case, that looks like a case from the fifties.
Click to expand...
Now, if you glance at the horn really quick, you'll say "Mark VI" or "SBA" or even "BA". But it's not.

* There is no "Selmer" stamp or engraving anywhere on the horn.
* There are no Selmer patent stamps under the thumbrest.
* The neck looks like it's from a BA, but the rest of the horn looks very un-BA: the most obvious is that the bottom most key post should be on the bell-to-bow ring seal and the octave key is all wrong. That looks like a VI.
* Some of the other details, like the adjustment screws on the G# bridge, are just a little ... off.
* The keywork doesn't look "radial" enough (i.e. as ergonomic) as the VI.

Bottom line, though is that this looks an awful lot like a LATE VI that had a little custom work, both on the keys and, say, was buffed down and replated.

My opinion, because I've seen copies of VIs from this company before and the serial number does line up, is that this is a Parker (sometimes called "Heimer") stencil. However, it does look too old for that. Additionally, production models of the Heimer/Parkers are junk and have very ill-fitting keywork. This doesn't look bad.

Comments? Further points of deviation?
 
The key guards are wrong. They don't look like anything Selmer has ever made. They also don't look like they came from a Yamaha or a Yanagisawa. The horn is obviously a copy but as you say not an exact copy.

It reminds me of a Soviet made horn I saw some years ago. The thing that is confusing is that even that horn had a name engraved on it. This one doesn't. The case doesn't seem to offer up any clues either but I am curious as to if the case is original to the horn or not.
 
Hi,

it seems that the keyguards where later added to the sax. Two keyguards does not really fit. Although the legs of the keyguards where twisted. (Sorry for my english). You can not see this really good on the pictures. I add some pictures later.
 
Hi,
I have read, that it could be possible, that in former times some saxophones were build without serial number/logo and they were taken by employees for their own personal use. Quasi a sax instead of salary. May be it is such a sax.
 
EKC said:
Hi,
I have read, that it could be possible, that in former times some saxophones were build without serial number/logo and they were taken by employees for their own personal use. Quasi a sax instead of salary. May be it is such a sax.
Click to expand...
EKC, of course, is the owner. Thanks for posting.

You've got three problems with this theory:

* It's got a serial number. Just not a Selmer one.
* While it's possible that an employee might be given a sax, I've even seen prototypes with more-or-less standard serial numbers (sometimes appended with an X or E or something) and other identifiable markings. Hey, GM employees are given free cars, sometimes, but they still have a VIN.
* I've pointed out that some of the parts are just ... not Mark VI.

I can accept that the keyguards were replaced at some point in this horn's life. That's relatively easy and I've seen multiple horn with different keyguards. But the neck, too? And it got stamped with the same serial number as the horn? That's a bit too much of a stretch for me.

One thing I haven't asked is: how's it play?

As one other offhand comment: Jason DuMars (I think) also has a horn that looks a lot like a Mark VI -- but it isn't. He says it plays pretty good, too.
 
Hello Pete,

of course is the sound a matter of taste, but it plays great for me, I can compared it with the saxes I have played til now. (Keilwerth New King, Buescher (BIG-B, Aristocrat I), Malerne , Dolnet, Kohlert, Buffet S-Dynact. and S1). so its not my first old sax.
I had a light bulb moment when I started playing it. Ok, the Bueschers and Buffets sounds also good and of course the other saxes too - I will not displease somebody. At the moment I play also an Aristocrat I.

But I have to say that also in terms of qualatiy and workmanship it is exceptional good and very solid. Not to much play in the rods - nothing is quick and dirty assembled. Everthing is accurately fitted - except of the keyguards.
 
Hello again,

attempt of explantation

>>>>> Some of the other details, like the adjustment screws on the G# bridge, are just a little ... off.
Ok, may be one screw was lost and both where replaced, because the repairman had not the same.
>>>>> The neck looks as it would be from a SBA or BA.
Ok, but this neck looks also as it would be from a VI but its from a SBA.
http://www.saxpics.com/?v=gal&a=1860 May be it is also backwards possible.
>>>> The keywork doesn't look "radial" enough (i.e. as ergonomic) as the VI.
OK, I think I can find this out exactly. I will make some congruent pictures of the keywork so one can directly compare it to existing pictures from a VI in the www.

I will inspect the sax a little bit more. Wherefrom are the keyguards which does not fit ? I would like to know something more about its orgin.
 
EKC said:
Hello again,

attempt of explantation

>>>>> Some of the other details, like the adjustment screws on the G# bridge, are just a little ... off.
Ok, may be one screw was lost and both where replaced, because the repairman had not the same.
>>>>> The neck looks as it would be from a SBA or BA.
Ok, but this neck looks also as it would be from a VI but its from a SBA.
http://www.saxpics.com/?v=gal&a=1860 May be it is also backwards possible.
>>>> The keywork doesn't look "radial" enough (i.e. as ergonomic) as the VI.
OK, I think I can find this out exactly. I will make some congruent pictures of the keywork so one can directly compare it to existing pictures from a VI in the www.

I will inspect the sax a little bit more. Wherefrom are the keyguards which does not fit ? I would like to know something more about its orgin.
Click to expand...
Your neck doesn't have a big "S" on it. Yes, that's important. Different metalwork.

Some BA/SBA necks have the same look as your horn's, but they also have the Selmer logo, either ON the actual key or below it, near the tenon.

There were lotsa different necks available for the VI, but this "model" isn't one of them. At least, not that I've seen and I've seen quite a few.

You're gonna have to ask Ed about the keyguards. They look like ... keyguards to me.
 
Look closely at the low c key guard. Looks like it came from a cheap knock off to me. And I see the same lack of workmanship in the other key guards, the metal's too thin and cheesey looking. The close up pic of the left hand keys seems to show that the pearls are glued in, not set as they would be in a real selmer. I don't see how they could have ever been set in. And the pic of the horn laying in the case shows that the keywork doesn't have the quality machine work you come to expect from the selmer brand. Heavy and unfinished looking.

I don't have the pictures in front of me now, but I saw lots of red flags.

Close, but no cigar.
 
Hi,

hereby a picture of the low C keyguard. You can see that the keyguard
could not be original and must be added later.
There is also a slight color difference between the body and the keyguard.
Maybe they are chromed. I think you can't recognize it on the picture.
 
Possible.

There are a lot of "possibles" with this horn, and very few "definites". Keyguards, as I mentioned, can be replaced.

I do still think it's not a Selmer. There are just too many little things that are problems, the biggest of which is the lack of any Selmer insignia, patent or serial number stamps.
 
My my thought is that it seems whoever had it in the past really, really, liked to stamp numbers on it.
 
short remark in my lunchtime.

>>> really, liked to stamp numbers on it.

I would like to find a stamp, imagine you would have bought an old Van Gogh for song on a marketplace, but you can not find his signature.

But I ask myself ,which manufactory or workshop or whoever invested money in saxophone forming tools to build such a sax without a name or serial number. I think the sax is easily 30-40 years old, so they must have do the invest in this age. I think also in former times it was usual that a sold sax - stencil or not - had a name. Probably they made only small quantities of it. I myself have never seen the same sax with another serial number. May be sometime somewhere a equal sax appears.
 
EKC said:
I mean the sax with the serial number #78065
Click to expand...
You click on the pic and it's for a horn with SN 51092. It has a typical SBA neck. Logo is above the tenon.

I would like to find a stamp, imagine you would have bought an old Van Gogh for song on a marketplace, but you can not find his signature.
Click to expand...
What happens, in the art world, is if you find a painting that seems to have been made by, say, Van Gogh, and you don't have any other supporting evidence that he actually painted it, you take it to some experts in Van Gogh and they give the definitive answer.

I'm calling myself an expert, in this case, of course :).

My opinions are either:

* Its a heavily modified late Mark VI. It's had a full replate, the original engravings/stamps were buffed out, some keywork/mechanisms was/were replaced, the neck was replaced and some keyguards were replaced or modified (the last is per Ed's comments).

* It's not a Selmer. Best guess, based on the "00" serial number and because there was a company that did put out clones that looked similar to the real thing is Heimer/Parker.

But I ask myself ,which manufactory or workshop or whoever invested money in saxophone forming tools to build such a sax without a name or serial number.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, there is precedent for no-name Selmer clones. There is also precedent for other manufacturers to falsely label their horns, as in the case of the Chinese firm that was stamping horns "SML" -- SML's marketing guy came out and that they were gonna make 'em stop.

(I really don't want to have to find the references for these for you. They were discussed on SOTW a few years back and I've detailed them in the above posts.)

Bottom line is, of course, if the horn plays well, keep it. If you're trying to sell it, I just don't think you can realistically call it a Selmer. Other than the overall look of the horn, there's nothing to support that it's a Selmer. Hey, my Vito bari from the 1960's looked almost exactly like a Mark VI -- except for the fact that it was engraved "Vito" and had a larger bell-to-body ring.

I do think it's an interesting horn. I'm very happy that it plays well. Heck, I could even go for better pictures and I'll put it in my book or calendar.
 
To corroborate Pete's discussion, I'll cite an example of a horn I acquired a while back (from Frank Ballatore, who posts on this site). It is a straight soprano saxophone in lacquered brass. It has all the features of a Selmer MKVI soprano. It has a serial number stamped lengthwise on the tube below the right thumb rest and the only other marking is a name "Kustom" engraved near the bell.

Further, it plays like every MKVI soprano I've owned or blown - fine tone, questionable intonation but sufficient for anyone who knows how to play a saxophone in tune. Meaning, that I have to work to play it in tune but it can be done - just like the VI's I've played.

If anyone saw it from afar, they'd think I was playing a MKVI.

I have not been able to identify this instrument. I've had e-mail and PM's with Pete, Dave Kessler, and a guy from Yanagisawa who posted on SOTW (and a few others) and the best I can guess is that it was made in Taiwan, probably by the folks who make Antigua Winds.

There have been other discussions on SOTW about the requirement for a country-of-origin to be plainly stamped on products imported to the U.S. but I think we all recognize that this so-called requirement is not being enforced. No where on my Antigua soprano are the words "Made In Taiwan" or my Kessler tenor "Made in VietNam" (or wherever they are made).

So, your alto is not unique, just frustrating. DAVE
 
Hello Dave,

(>>>the best I can guess is that it was made in Taiwan, probably by the folks who make Antigua Winds. <<<)

I believe it is to old for that. (It is a tenor not an alto)

I decteded two parts in the engraving which should not be at this place. A example picture is attached. But whatever this is insignificant. I will take it to a well known saxdoc in Cologne - this is not far away. I believe he has over 40 years experiences with saxophones. Many international professional players goes to him for an overhauling of their instruments. He was also one of the two main consultants for the Jupiter Company by the development of their first saxophones. May be he has an idea to this sax.
 
EKC: I was describing my MKVI-clone soprano, not your horn about which you inquired. I was citing MY horn as an example of how there are saxophones out there without adequate identifiers on them. DAVE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom