What the heck is the Martin Margin?
This morning I was browsing eBay and I happened across a very interesting vintage print ad from Martin. According to the seller, the ad is from 1954, and it very clearly shows a Committee III, AKA The Martin, saxophone… Or at least I thought so.
The ad however, makes reference of the martin margin, and I quickly went through my memory banks trying to remember if I had ever heard of a Martin Margin. Of course I hadn’t, so then I carefully read the ad’s text, and it all became clear to me…
Source: Vintage Ad Service on eBay.com
… An extra margin of control and performance… Now I get it. It was a clever marketing strategy by the ad execs heading up the advertising campaign for The Martin Band Instrument Company… But how true was it?
I love my two Martins. I have both a Committee III baritone, as well as a Handcraft tenor. The are both kick-ass horns whose tone will vibrate the glasses in a china cabinet. But what of the claim that “the ‘Martin Margin’ of performance helps you play with complete ease and freedom”? 
The saxophone that gives you an extra margin of control is—Martin! Here’s flexibility that helps you play with greater sureness, more solid tone…in all registers.
Note the year that this ad is from. Is it just coincidence that it came out the same year that Selmer introduced its Mark VI?
As the owner of quite a few—approx. 30 at last count—vintage saxophones, I can tell you that while my Martins have an incredible sound, they are not necessarily the easiest to play.
Yes, they rank among my favourite horns tone-wise, but some of my other vintage horns are indeed easier to play. Most notably, my Conn 10M and Selmer Mark VI come to mind.
That said, of all my vintage saxophones, my Martins do have the greatest and most solid tone in all registers. So in that sense, the ad execs got it right, and the Martin Margin was no hyperbole.
Hi All,
I’m fairly certain that “martin margin” is just a catch phrase, not a model name.
The claim to “ease and freedom” needs a little background to argue.
In his Treatise on Instrumentation, Hector Berlioz states: “The body of the instrument [saxophone] is a parabolic cone with a system of keys.” The key word here is parabolic. The sides of the bore, when seen in profile, should not be straight as a literal cone, but rather a narrow parabola. This is by design, in order to facilitate greater harmonicity of the partials, similar to the way that the slipping force of a bow constrains an almost perfect harmonicity in stringed instruments.
By the 1920s several makers were already experimenting with different formulas. Even without taking detailed measurements, this is particularly easy to see if one places straight sopranos made by Buescher and Conn side by side. The Buescher has an obviously curved profile almost from the end of the neck cork, and the Conn is obviously straight like a wide-bored oboe. If you then place an early Mark VI next to them, there is a cone-shaped profile for approximately one-sixth of the length then an impossible to miss bulge where the parabolic profile begins.
In short, it is the introduction of literal conic profiles that make such saxes feel more responsive and easier to articulate. Brass players make the same comparison between trumpets with typically cylindrical lead pipes (feel more resistant and “centered”) and cornets with conical lead pipes (feel more responsive and “spread”).
I haven’t done the measurements, so take the following observation with a large dollop of mustard. Based on my experience playing them, I suspect that the Martins would show a very short cylindrical profile at the mouthpiece end and smoothly transition to a parabola through the bow and bell until the final bell flare.
To someone who has become accustomed to modern trends in saxophone design, this very different mix of bores would feel counter-intuitive. The comfort zone for Martins is not where they blow “freely” but rather where they develop some resistance. Once that resonance is discovered, they require almost no air flow at all to produce a full timbre at pianissimo, a bone-rattling fortissimo, and a smooth transition between the extremes without losing control of tone quality or pitch.
On a good day, that is. 😉
Edited to correct some rather fractured grammar. 😮
An absolutely perfect description! Thank you Paul. You have a way of describing things that I am not nearly capable of… :bow:
Yes indeed, the resistance factor is what makes the Martin more “difficult” than my Mark VI or 10M… Despite both of them being vintage. The Conn is about the most free-blowing sax I’ve ever played. My main tenor, a 1950 Zeph, is about the same resistance-wise as my Mark VI. When I pick up my Handcraft after not playing it for months though, I’m always shocked at how much resistance there is. But what you describe is right on the money… It takes just a minute, and then it feels like no effort at all is required to produce that Martin sound.
Hi Leon,
When you need some measurements on saxophone profiles you could try the site written by M. Postma.
The site is in Dutch and shows measurements on a part of the Leo Oostrom collection. They are filed under “boringprofielen” The average conicity is calculated as the length in mm which gives an increase of 1 mm diameter. A pop-up shows the profiles.
No Martin included.
Hi Theo,
Thank you, yet I do think you intended to include a link to the site, where it is indeed available in both English and Dutch. 😉
paul
Hi Helen. Interesting. Did you read the engraving on the sax in the ad? I got as far as ‘The Martin Art of’
Wonder if it was a fake, or they actually engraved one like that.
It’s not “The Martin Art Of”, it’s “The Martin Alto”, quite consistent with the way they normally labeled their instruments.