Phil Barone

[Canadiain]

What golf clubs does Tiger use, I'll get a set of those.

Forged blades. But unless you are close to a scratch player you wont get the benefit of them that he does and would be much better off sticking to something a lot more forgiving.

Furthermore you could stick a set of $100 hardware store clubs in his hands that he had never seen before, and he would still beat the socks off you... its the player, not the clubs.

So lessons to take from this analogy... The vast majority of players are not going to get any benefit from a top of the line sax, and the great players out there sound great on pretty much any playable horn anyway... Not good news for those peddling expensive horns, but thankfully for their sake logic has little to do with most peoples purchasing decision...

[The Trombonist]

Since this thread can't get any more off topic than it already is, my friend is fairly rich because he scored on the stock market before it died and he has 2 PB Mac8's, a tenor and an alto, and one of every color available of the CE winds altos (amongst 20 or so other horns of both vintage a new). When I went to his place to borrow a horn when mine was in the shop, to my amateur skill and ears, the CE horn had a little more character than the PB, which had slightly less character than his Buescher Big B, which had just a little less richness in the tone than his SBA and VI. Maybe that's just me, I have no idea. Though i did notice that the build quality on the older horns are better than newer ones, as when i compared his Big B and SBA, VI, to his new VI and the CE winds and PB horns.

[Tenor Man]

I bet you he isn't using the same make/model/vintage as Jack Nicklaus used. And the sole reason is not because he's 'getting paid' to use what he has. It's ridiculous to think horn design/manufacture has not been improved in 60+ years. Like I say, "Sure a '55 Chevy has plenty of character, but I don't see anyone relying on them for their day to day uses."

...except for pros like Mike Karn, who gets a roasting tone on his '54 King Super 20 tenor. I guess at this level he feels the character is more important than anything else. But then again, I haven't played many horns that were faster than a Super 20...even some modern Selmers.

[rispoli]

There are tons of horn makers who make instruments that are just as fine as a vintage MkVI, and there are dozens of mouthpiece makers that make mpcs that are actually better than most Florida Links. The fact the Coltranes of the 50s and 60s played MkV and Links doesn't really mean anything because god knows what they would be playing today.

This speculation, purely subjective I guess, does not explain why the overwhelming majority of professional players still play vintage Selmers. They have the money, they have the skills needed to differentiate better than most of us and, guess what, most of them do not play modern saxophones. And let's question also the so called endorsing agreements that some of them sign with current makers: Joe Lovano, just to make an example, in the last 2 years has been gigging around with a Selmer BA.

The idea that tons of horn makers who make instruments that are just as fine as a vintage MkVI, Super 20, BA/SBA, just makes sense when heard from those makers. Ask the experts and check what they choose to play....

[marton]

This speculation, purely subjective I guess, does not explain why the overwhelming majority of professional players still play vintage Selmers. They have the money, they have the skills needed to differentiate better than most of us and, guess what, most of them do not play modern saxophones. And let's question also the so called endorsing agreements that some of them sign with current makers: Joe Lovano, just to make an example, in the last 2 years has been gigging around with a Selmer BA.

The idea that tons of horn makers who make instruments that are just as fine as a vintage MkVI, Super 20, BA/SBA, just makes sense when heard from those makers. Ask the experts and check what they choose to play....

I need to know why I, or anyone else who can think for themselves on any reasonable level, should give a toss what the so called "experts" choose to play?

[Hr7star]

I need to know why I, or anyone else who can think for themselves on any reasonable level, should give a toss what the so called "experts" choose to play?

lol. +1.

Also. Guys like Joe Lovano, as great as they are, are also subject to bad thinking and saxophonistic fetishism just like the rest of us human beings.
For example there was a video of Zoot Sims posted on another thread where he states that it is the metal in his Selmer super that makes it sound so good and that they don't use the same stuff for modern horns because it would cost too much. Zoot Sims was a SAX GOD, but he knows sod all about saxophones.

[rispoli]

I need to know why I, or anyone else who can think for themselves on any reasonable level, should give a toss what the so called "experts" choose to play?

You shouldn't.
Experts opinions are just needed to assess quality (actually grade) but you can obviously decide you do not need or want the highest grade available.

[marton]

You shouldn't.
Experts opinions are just needed to assess quality (actually grade) but you can obviously decide you do not need or want the highest grade available.

I see what you did there.

Movin' along though; so I should buy SBA's or MK6's or some other vintage item based on a glorious past resulting in highly bloated prices? Good advice.

[rispoli]

I see what you did there.

Movin' along though; so I should buy SBA's or MK6's or some other vintage item based on a glorious past resulting in highly bloated prices? Good advice.

You do what you want and we could not care less.

All I said refers to the statement that today's production is same or better grade than older one, costing 2, 3, 4 times as much for no reason. There is quite substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

Then if you want to buy a 1.5K sax because it is more than enough for you needs it is more than understandable. Thinking that is as good as a 10K one, much less understandable but certainly easy to do.

[marton]

lol. +1.

Also. Guys like Joe Lovano, as great as they are, are also subject to bad thinking and saxophonistic fetishism just like the rest of us human beings.
For example there was a video of Zoot Sims posted on another thread where he states that it is the metal in his Selmer super that makes it sound so good and that they don't use the same stuff for modern horns because it would cost too much. Zoot Sims was a SAX GOD, but he knows sod all about saxophones.

There are also people willing to pay $80,000 for a Jimmy Page signature Les Paul. Of course it's really going to make these guys stand out as players.

[marton]

You do what you want and we could not care less.

All I said refers to the statement that today's production is same or better grade than older one, costing 2, 3, 4 times as much for no reason. There is quite substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

Then if you want to buy a 1.5K sax because it is more than enough for you needs it is more than understandable. Thinking that is as good as a 10K one, much less understandable but certainly easy to do.

"Quite substantial" evidence? Not good enough really is it?

And for this I should pay what? Twelve grand or more?

But seriously, I agree. They sure don't make 'em like they used to - consarne it.

[tjaart]

Then if you want to buy a 1.5K sax because it is more than enough for you needs it is more than understandable. Thinking that is as good as a 10K one, much less understandable but certainly easy to do.

Expensive does not always mean better quality or playability or sound or .. or

[rispoli]

Expensive does not always mean better quality or playability or sound or .. or

Agreed on this.
When Steve Goodson came up with a 6000$ tenor nobody rushed to buy it and I bet no top tier pro has even tried one out of curiosity.
Yanagiasawa, a manufacturer with excellent reputation, produces a tenor, the 9937, which costs close to 9000$ and, again, I yet have to hear a professional who uses it.

All I pointed out is that nearly all the top-tier pro stick to vintage Selmer, King or Conn. Why that happens?
Cost? Likely no, if they sell their vintage instrument and buy a brand new one very likely they end up with a nice sum in their pockets.
Endorsing agreement? That obviously cannot be: no manufacturer would pay them today to play a vintage sax.
So what are we left with? Too lazy to try new products in the marker? Again, I highly doubt so. Those guys play, teach, work with other saxophonists and I bet more often than not are asked to give a try to make a personal assessment of a different sax than the one they play.

Once more: there is nothing wrong to buy a brand new sax for 1.5 or 2k rather than an used one for 5K. Really nothing wrong. It's a push to think that all the difference in price is due to intangible elements.

[Tenor Man]

I need to know why I, or anyone else who can think for themselves on any reasonable level, should give a toss what the so called "experts" choose to play?

[Saxaholic]

This speculation, purely subjective I guess, does not explain why the overwhelming majority of professional players still play vintage Selmers. They have the money, they have the skills needed to differentiate better than most of us and, guess what, most of them do not play modern saxophones. And let's question also the so called endorsing agreements that some of them sign with current makers: Joe Lovano, just to make an example, in the last 2 years has been gigging around with a Selmer BA.

The idea that tons of horn makers who make instruments that are just as fine as a vintage MkVI, Super 20, BA/SBA, just makes sense when heard from those makers. Ask the experts and check what they choose to play....

Who are these experts? Is James Carter an expert? Is Charles Neville an expert? Is James Moody an expert? Is Gerald Albright an expert? The list can go on.

"So called endorsing agreements" is an insult to every professional player who signs an endorsement. You are not privy to the information pertaining to any of them, and as such, should not make judgments.

You should identify your assumptions as they are: assumptions.

- Saxaholic

[Harvey]

sigh..

The OP has made up his mind. He has a right to. He's asking if there's anyone whose got a PB for sale.

Harv

[rispoli]

Honestly Charles Neville is someone I never heard before.
Regardless, if you read what I wrote I mention an overwhelming majority of professionals which clearly leaves room to the exceptions you are listing.
Probably I should have mentioned "top tier professionals", among which the exception list would be even shorter (i.e. Dave Liebman).

To test any endorising agreement IMHO the test of time is the only one which reveals the real preference of an endorser. If the endorser is playing an instrument for a few years and then switches back to a vintage unit, I can only conclude that the "preference" as end when the sponsorship expires.

It does not have to be insulting. You are paid to use an instrument for a specified amount of time because of your prestige which adds marketing value. When the term ends you are free to continue using it if it is really your preferred choice. If you do not, the conclusion is obvious.

I am leaving out of the discussion the non-paid endorsments, which for non top-tier players may exist.

[marton]

I may have a PB classic UL tenor for sale very soon if the OP is still looking.

[lhoffman]

I may have a PB classic UL tenor for sale very soon if the OP is still looking.

Did you finally get that VI?

[marton]

Did you finally get that VI?

Hah hah...

No

I'm on the look out for a Couf Superba though