Buescher 400 bari

[Attila]

Hello,
I have been doing some research on these baris and I am a little bit confused. As much as I understood, there was no TH&C baris or just custom made ones. Selmer bought out Buescher around 1963-64 (s/n c. 400xxx). Saxpics writes that the horns on both sides of this serial number are pro saxes and after that they evolved into Bundy.
How rapid this evolving was? Where shell I draw the line between the earlier pro hons and the later intermediate/student horns? And how does it reflect in the prizes? Or is it just simply how it blows? Since I am planning to buy one online, I will have no opportunity to try it.
Does anyone have experienses of both (around 400xxx and later) 400 baris?


Thanks, Attila

p.s. Any recomendation, similar style, same $$$ but not the 400 bari?

[Dave dix]

The 400 stayed pro as after the selmer buy-out they carried on making it with the same machinery.
Try for an older aristocrat bari. I personally use a late true tone bari from 1928/29 as it suits me well and i haven't found a better sounding bari yet.
Dave

[MPL]

The Buescher 400 seems to be the great unknown of baritones. Buescher owners speak fondly of the True-Tones, the Big Bs, and the Aristocrats...but you never hear from those who play the 400s. They do seem to be easy to find on eBay, in various states of repair or disrepair, and since the modern Bundy is practically identical, spare parts are probably easy to obtain.

I've been tempted to pick one up just to see how it compares to my Martin Committee...but if it's really just an OK horn I'd be wasting cash.

[tomobari]

I like my 400 (360xxx) bari very much. I can only compare it to the Keilwerth Toneking (80xxx) bari that I play in a concert band and the Selmer SA80 bari that I was able to try a few months ago.
Both the Keilwerth and the Selmer have a much "thinner" (modern) sound in my perspective but who am I to say.... They both differ as well of course. I've tried both of them with different mpc's but in any setup that I tried I liked the sound of my Buescher better. On the other hand, it lacks the low A and high F# and certainly lacks the mechanical refinement. It's more like a tank... I love it though. It makes the sound engineer go to panic when I go to low Bb during soundcheck (grin). For use in a soul band it suits me just fine but I can imagine when playing classical music or "technically advanced" music in general, a more modern horn would be more appropriate. The Selmer needed only very little air to produce a tone, low A came out very easy!!!! So, in a nut-shell my Buescher needs working when operated but has a boom-boom sound. Great value for money i.m.o....

Marc,
The Netherlands

[retread]

I had a 358xxx bari with Aristocrat engraving, but otherwise just like the 400s. Tomobari described it well. Much of my bari playing is in a concert band, so I replaced the Buescher with a Vito VSP B901 clone. Lost a little in the bell note sound, but gained better tuning and technical facility. The Yanis play much more easily, and retain a good, full sound with the right mouthpiece (in my case a Tenny HR Link). But the Buescher has a remarkable low note resonance.

[Attila]

Well, is´s nice to hear such good things of these horns. Speaking of the Aristocrat engravement. Are there different saxes than the Buescher 400 engraved ones? And if, how? How long were they manufactured (the Aristocrats, with the rear bell keys)?