Re-relacquer a vintage VI: Should I or shouldn't I?

[Al Stevens]

I have a five-digit 1956 Mark VI tenor. It's a real player, but it looks like bad plumbing in a Bowery flophouse. It was relacquered years ago, and much of that lacquer is gone.

Okay, it already has the dreaded stigma of having been relacquered. Collectors aren't interested. Neither are players who buy into the whole "relacquer = inferior tone" bullhockey. Doesn't matter. I'll keep this horn as long as I can play it.

So here's what I'm thinking only on a whim.


Overhaul including a quality 'nother relacquer.
Stock Design (http://www.artisticengraving.com/stockdesignsax.htm) Mark VI engraving by Artistic Engraving (http://www.artisticengraving.com/)
Sell my pristine Ref 54 LE to pay for all this.
Get something less expensive as a backup tenor.

I guess I'd need an overhauler who chemically strips the old lacquer in a way that does not compromise the brass, if that's possible. Any reason I shouldn't do this? Any recommendations for an overhaul shop? Or a good psychiatrist?

[ving]

If it were me, I wouldn't do anything to it, unless I felt the current lacquer thats on there now was deadening the horn or something. At the maximum I might consider having the remaining lacquer stripped and leaving it bare brass. But I wouldn't consider have it lacquered again--thats silly. If you are bothered my how it looks, then perhaps sell it and find something in better shape lacquer wise. I am sure Randy Jones at Tenor Madness would have something to offer in trade....by the way, thats quite a "back up" tenor.

[Dr G]

I'm with you, all for it, etc. Yes! That horn looks like it has spent too much time on/near the beach.

I know a good psychiatrist but he'd probably want to hypnotize you and talk you out of the horn. ;)

You're doing the horn a favor - and should have a great player in return. You might consider having it plated (silver or gold) as an alternative.

Randy Jones (TenorMadness.com) is the first to come to mind. Palo at JustSaxes.com is another. I've seen some lovely restorations at WorldWideSax.com.

[tjontheroad]

I'd strip, overhaul and leave bare. The sax I mean ;)

[Grumps]

Seeing that it's already lost its original finish, you simply have to balance the reward of a brand new look vs. the risk of potential for the horn to play differently, and of course the cost of doing same. I've got a TT soprano that had been restored at least twice; the latest time by my choice and it's still a powerful horn. I'm currently having the same done to an old Aristocrat tenor.

[Canadiain]

Is it really worth giving up the Ref 54 just to have a prettier mk VI?

Id rather have 2 fine sounding horns, one ugly, one pretty, than only one fine sounding pretty horn:? What is the long term prognosis for this horn...will the lacquer deterioration affect its lifespan or will it keep playing great anyway?

I can see these things heading into "antique" type territory, where any mucking about with the original finishes (or engraving in this case) wipes $$$s of the value, but if you are keeping it for life I guess that doesnt matter.

If you really dont want the Ref 54 any more, you can send it to me:D It just seems like a case of spending the money for the sake of it...not that there is anything wrong with that..its how capitalism works:)...just seems a bit superficial I guess for want of a better word.

[gary]

First off, I'm the guy who pays no attention to how my horns look. Plus, like a Karateka's black belt that is now worn white, a crappy horn says you've paid your dues. Superficial prestige, dude; prestige.

Now, having said that, if you want it to not look like crap, which it does, get it relaquered. IMO it's not the relaquering itself that's the problem, it's how it's done that might effect the sound. Just make sure it's done right. I've got a relaquered Conn Lady Face and if the relaquering did effect the sound I surely don't care. It's a great horn and has a great sound.

The only question to you, in my mind, is if you are willing to bite it on resale. But even then I wouldn't be so sure you'll lose out. Posters here assume that, because those in the know will discount the price because it is not original laquer, that that also means that average Joe-sax player gives a damn. S/he might even prefer the fresh look and pay a fair price.

[Dr G]

I'll keep this horn as long as I can play it.

That's the bottom line. If you want that horn to keep working as long as you are around, you need to stop the deterioration and get it properly restored. For people that live near the ocean, "as-is" or "bare" just doesn't work.

In my searches, the ONLY horn that surpassed my Ref 36 (that has the benefit of all Randy Jones' tweaks) was a closet example 5-digit Mk VI tenor.

I envy you the opportunity to do just as you propose, Al. G'luck!

[DukeCity]

Given all the factors you state in your first post, my vote would be to have a new finish put on the horn. I like Dr G's suggestion of looking into getting it plated. A great tenor player, Mark Colby, has a vintage Mk VI that he had gold plated several years ago, and in addition to looking beautiful, it sounded fine as well. In terms of sound, I'm guessing that the rebuild is going to make more difference (for the positive) than any difference in finish.

[Al Stevens]

Thanks for all the considered opinions. I doubt that the re-relacquer would effect the value. It's already been relacquered. The only thing that holds me back is that this horn is a real player and I hesitate to fix something that ain't broke, as Grumps suggests might happen. But, then again, the Ref 54 is a real player, too, and it's pretty, besides.

I'm saving this decision until sometime next year. Until then, I'll agonize.

[JL]

Hey Al, I'll second or third the suggestion to get it plated. You could get it silver-plated and overhauled and I'd bet anything it would sound as good as ever and the overhaul (if done properly) will help it play and sound better than ever.

[Sidepipes]

Hi Al, My Mk VI didn't look quite as bad as yours, but it was getting close. In late 2000 I had the full "Selmer" overhaul and relacquer done. It looks great and plays great. I know this is always a lively topic, but sometimes I think the reverence for a really ratty looking horn is somewhat akin to torn-at-the-knees jeans being cool! Anyway, the guys (and gals) that I play with are players, not collectors, so they don't mind that my VI looks good too.

--Sidepipes

[Teddy]

I would say plate & re-cut the engraving.I did and I don't regret it one bit.Mine was relaquered and needed much work and if anything the sound is better,also noticably heavier to pick up as the plating adds a little weight (closer to the way the horn was)back to it.

[Dr G]

That weight issue floors me. How can a couple micron thickness be something that one can detect by picking it up? I posit that you'd be more likely to feel the increase of mass by adding denser glue under the pads and installing heavier resonators - but I still don't think one could feel the difference. Maybe the tech used heavier felt and denser cork too...

[Chu-Jerry]

You could take advantage of Aronson's alto gold plating/restoration for $1700 on ebay. They'll do the total overhaul, recut the engraving, and plate it in 24K gold. http://cgi.ebay.com/Gold-Plating-Saxophone-Restoration-Conn-Buescher-Selmer_W0QQitemZ110052633016

[Bernards20040]

I say go for it give the horn a birthday.
It's already a relaq so it's practically worthless as it is :twisted:
Get the ovehaul, relaq, some nice engraving then play the c**p out of it and take it to your grave:D
If it plays great enjoy it to the max,

I think the whole relaq thing is stupid why wouldn't you want a nice looking horn. and as long as it hasn't been buffed who really cares. I just can't see why re laquering reduces the value. and when people say it affects the tone what the H**l does engraving do i mean that removes metal it's all a load of Bull

oops Rant off

[Chu-Jerry]

A relacquered horn is obviously not going to be worth as much a pristine original. But neither is a crappy worn looking one. Relacquering, if done appropriately without buffing, can actually raise the value of a horn if it was really bad to begin with.

A simple strip and light polish might improve the looks of Al's horn without incurring the stigma of relacquering, but a lot of folks don't like the funky metal smell that playing a bare brass horn leaves on the hands.

[Al Stevens]

....by the way, thats quite a "back up" tenor.
Yeah, I kind of fell into it. Or onto it. Or it fell onto me. I couldn't resist. It came along just when my VI had to go into the shop for a week or two. Two weeks without a tenor was unacceptable, so I bought the 54. One of those two-year-old closet horns. The owner bought the horn then had to go to Iraq. He came home needing money. Fool that I am...

[bruce bailey]

Being that it has be relacquered once, it has already been cursed with the stigma. It really looks to be too etched to get a decent finish on it now. I would either leave it alone OR have it blasted with a satin finish, silver plate the body satin and polish silver the keys or lacquer the keys. Another stange option would be to bead blast the body and then lacquer the whole thing. Again, I doubt a gloss lacquer will come out well, too wavy.

[Ian]

Al I have a 161... tenor Vl that was originally lacquer, and completely rebuilt and silver plated about 5 years ago. Yeah sure the engraving doesn't have great detail. The horn looks great and plays better! You'll have no regrets if a competent tech does that for you. And wrt value, I cannot believe I would ever sell it now for less than previously. . Not that that is of any relevance. Its not for sale.

[SaxyAcoustician]

It's a real player, but it looks like bad plumbing in a Bowery flophouse.
lol~

I say don't bother spending your money on a re-relacquer. In the end it's all about how the horn plays (and how YOU play). Besides, there's nothing quite like the look of a well-worn instrument. As well, the lacquer might be going but that brass isn't going ANYWHERE. It'll keep playing for you until you pass it on to your kids.

[Radjammin]

So your option is to Sell your 54 to get your backup horn in better condition?

Setting aside the GAS factor, would this really be an upgrade? Also if you turned 2 great horns into 1 great horn, you will still need to go buy another backup horn. Now the 54 should get more then what the work on the VI, right? I don't know if it will be enough to buy another quality backup horn.

So if you do this, you will pretty much have the same horn as your primary, a lesser quality horn as your backup, and it will cost you money out of pocket to do it all.

Sorry dude, the numbers aren't adding up. I am all for re-doing the already badly relaquered Mark VI but it just wouldn't work for your situation. I guess if you just had the VI work done and kept the 54 then it would be an upgrade, but it would be alot of money out of pocket.

Your kinda like in a situation where you have 2 star quarterbacks, well that's not gonna work. You probably need to trade off your other star and get a horn that's more of a backup. If you keep the Mark VI just the way it is, it can be the backup.

[JL]

So if you do this, you will pretty much have the same horn as your primary, a lesser quality horn as your backup,.....

Not necessarily. He could sell the ref, do the overhaul & plating on his VI, then get something like a vintage Buescher Aristocrat or a Martin as a backup, and maybe break even, or only have a little money out of pocket. And in this case, if he got the vintage horn in good condition, it wouldn't be "lesser quality" by any means.

Just to clarify one thing (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong), a silver or gold plate job is not the same thing as a relacquer. The plating will add metal (albeit a very thin coat) to the horn, whereas the relacquer removes metal and coats everything with lacquer. It's a different process and, arguably, a different result.

[Canadiain]

You still need to remove the laquer before you can plate. The amount of material added in plating is tiny...millionths of an inch.

Arguably yes, a different result. But Im a firm believer in the first rule of agricultural mechanics when it comes to saxes..."if it aint broke dont fix it".

The second rule ("hit it with a bigger hammer") is less applicable!


Now Im confused anyway, I thought the ref was the backup?. I still dont see the point in giving up a nice looking horn to have...another nice looking horn, and only one lesser horn while all the work is done. This guy couldnt go a fortnight without his VI without splurging on a Ref 54 after all!

Of all the original suggestions, I'd go with the psychiatrist!

Id rather have two good players even if one is a little ugly, than just one good player, and a backup of unknown, but probably lower quality. Personally Id love to have either...If I had both I know I must have died and gone to heaven (which is soooo unlikely...but thats another tale).

[Al Stevens]

So your option is to Sell your 54 to get your backup horn in better condition?

No. The 54 is the backup horn. It's the primary horn of which we conjecture. Since the rest of your post is based on the wrong assumption, I won't reply further.

[Al Stevens]

I still dont see the point in giving up a nice looking horn to have...another nice looking horn, and only one lesser horn while all the work is done.
I'm not sure why a new 54 is "lesser" than a beatup old vi. Certainly not in the playing. Closer to equal, I'd say. The 54 has stiffer (aka newer) action, which makes it not as quick to get around on. Its tone is ever so slightly darker, all other things (mpc, reed, time of day, tilt of moon, etc.) being equal. I'd be hard pressed to say which is the better blowing horn. I do know that in the recording studio, I always reach for the vi. And when I practice I tend to use the 54. It's kind of like kissing your wife's sister. :D

[Al Stevens]

I'm not sure why a new 54 is "lesser" than a beatup old vi.
Oh, wait, now I get it. You're figuring I'd sell the 54 first. No, my thoughts were to do that after the vi got finished, then use the change to get maybe a Buescher or something else as a backup.

The only way the numbers don't add up is if the psychiatrist costs too much.

[Chu-Jerry]

.. It's kind of like kissing your wife's sister.
At least horns don't get jealous. You can have as many as you can afford.

[Canadiain]

I'm not sure why a new 54 is "lesser" than a beatup old vi. Certainly not in the playing. Closer to equal, I'd say. The 54 has stiffer (aka newer) action, which makes it not as quick to get around on. Its tone is ever so slightly darker, all other things (mpc, reed, time of day, tilt of moon, etc.) being equal. I'd be hard pressed to say which is the better blowing horn. I do know that in the recording studio, I always reach for the vi. And when I practice I tend to use the 54. It's kind of like kissing your wife's sister. :D
I wasnt refering to the 54 as the lesser horn...EDIT: Never mind...you figured it out.


If the vi sounds great, and noone seems to know whether it will sound better / worse / the same after a refinish...then why take the chance at all. As i see it you end up with ditching the ref 54 to pay for it, getting an as yet unknown backup horn (which probably wont play as easy or nice as the 54) and a pretier (but probably not as pretty as the 54) mk vi with unknown sonic characteristics.



I can see you doing a worse version of what I did...I justified a newer horn on the grounds Id sell my existing tenor...and never quite got round to converting it to cash in the end:)

[JL]

Id rather have two good players even if one is a little ugly, than just one good player, and a backup of unknown, but probably lower quality.....

My point is he doesn't have to end up with a backup of lower quality. That's why I mentioned the Buescher. In fact, in that case he may end up with a backup of higher quality!

I tend to go with the "if it ain't broke" philosophy also, but since Al is planning on a complete overhaul, he is also thinking about making the horn look nice. Why not? A silver or gold plate will look fantastic and probably last longer than a relacquer.

[HUTMO]

Al,

I like the idea of redoing the VI.

Sell the 54 and get a very different American vintage horn to blanance out your musical needs while having a Gorgeous Mark VI. The darn thing is ugly :D

HUTMO

[Swingtone]

Being that it has be relacquered once, it has already been cursed with the stigma. It really looks to be too etched to get a decent finish on it now. I would either leave it alone OR have it blasted with a satin finish, silver plate the body satin and polish silver the keys or lacquer the keys. Another stange option would be to bead blast the body and then lacquer the whole thing. Again, I doubt a gloss lacquer will come out well, too wavy.

I talked to an actual employee at Anderson's who does a lot of the replating work, and he winces when given the job of blast-finishing an old horn. Says it's really hard on them. He much prefers just going au natural with an all shiny silver finish.

[heath]

Yeah that's an ugly horn, but I wouldn't touch it.

Once a horn is broken in like that it makes it so much more of a joy to play then a new horn.

And I definintly wouldn't sell your 54LE the market vaule of these horns goes up at least $100 every year. Everytime you sell a great horn like a selmer you end up buying something even more expensive down the road that doesn't play any better. The 54 is a great horn and the LE is a beautiful finish, you just need to play it more so you can get the thing to loosen up.

I have the same problem. I reach for my VI or VII every day and the Ref 36 stays in the case. The feel of the older horns is so much nicer than the new.