{"id":38810,"date":"2013-08-27T08:42:05","date_gmt":"2013-08-27T16:42:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bassic-sax.info\/blog\/?p=38810"},"modified":"2024-06-08T18:01:29","modified_gmt":"2024-06-09T01:01:29","slug":"exactly-what-is-a-vintage-saxophone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bassic-sax.info\/blog\/2013\/exactly-what-is-a-vintage-saxophone\/","title":{"rendered":"Exactly What Is A Vintage Saxophone?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A thread on SOTW<\/a> got me thinking about a term that is bandied about so much, that it has basically become meaningless. The term vintage saxophone<\/em> has been used to describe everything from 100+ year-old horns\u2014which would really be considered antiques in the truest sense of the word<\/a>\u2014to modern horns with a faux vintage finish.<\/p>\n

For example, this is my Evette & Schaeffer HP baritone from 1886. It is not a vintage sax. This is, in fact, an antique.<\/p>\n

Not a vintage saxophone, but rather an antique<\/h2>\n
\"baritone<\/a>
Buffet-Crampon (Evette Schaeffer), HP bari, serial # 75XX. This horn is keyed from low B to high Eb, and has duel octave keys.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This SX 90 R by Keilwerth is not a vintage sax either. It’s just one of the countless modern horns that manufacturers of both expensive and cheap horns are currently producing with faux vintage finishes, in an effort to try to cash in on the current interest in vintage saxophones.<\/p>\n

Not even close to being a vintage saxophone<\/h2>\n
\"tenor<\/a>
SX90R Vintage Edition tenor, Source: Curiosity Consignment on eBay.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is the above tenor’s bell engraving. Oh, just as an aside, if it says “vintage” on the engraving, it’s not a vintage saxophone… yet. \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n

\"tenor<\/a>
SX90R Vintage Edition tenor, Source: Curiosity Consignment on eBay.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Years ago, saxophone historian Pete Hales provided a good working definition of vintage saxophone:<\/p>\n

There is a difference between \u201cvintage\u201d and \u201cold\u201d. To me, when you say that you have a \u201cvintage instrument\u201d it should \u2026.<\/p>\n

a. No longer be produced, anywhere.<\/p>\n

b. Have been considered a professional make and model when it was made.<\/p>\n

c. Have value as a professional make and model, today, as a playable instrument or have value as a collectible make and model (for instance, a high-pitch Conn New Wonder alto saxophone in Virtuoso Deluxe finish \u2014 a very expensive, elaborate, gold plated, heavily engraved finish with additional pearl key touches \u2014 is still \u201cvintage\u201d, even though it has virtually no playability value).<\/p>\n

d. Have maintained its original value, adjusted for inflation, or increased in value.<\/p>\n

\u201cVintage\u201d, to me, should have the connotation of a fine wine: \u201cIt\u2019s an excellent vintage.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or, using an analogy from the automobile world, a 1934 Cord is vintage. A 1972 Ford Pinto is old.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the saxophone world, think of it this way: A Martin Master is vintage, a Bundy II is old. Or how about this one: a Julius Keilwerth Toneking is vintage, while a Super Grange is old.<\/p>\n

A true vintage saxophone<\/h2>\n
\"vintage<\/a>
Gold plated Martin Master, AKA “Typewriter”, Serial # 98621, Source: Randy Cole on eBay.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

There is one part of Pete’s definition that I disagree with.  In section b. Pete writes that the horn should have been considered a professional make and model when it was made. I don’t necessarily think this always needs to be the case.<\/p>\n

Case in point: the Pan American horns that were built by Conn. These horns were Conn’s second-line horns, but I would argue they are still vintage saxophones.<\/p>\n

Pan American saxophones ranged a great deal in features and styles over the years, and some were pretty striped down versions<\/a>. However, for the most part, many still meet the rest of Pete’s criteria for vintage saxophones:<\/p>\n