Sax on the Web Forum banner

454,XXX Super 20 Club

19K views 49 replies 24 participants last post by  zootspiker 
#1 ·
Seems the 454,XXX King Super 20 serial number range comes up quite often when you see these horns mentioned on this site. Including my Silversonic tenor, I've seen at least a half dozen horns in this range as a topic of discussion here over the last couple of years. So who else has a horn within this range, or had one at one time? Really dig mine, and it compares quite favorably to the ones I've tried that were made earlier in Cleveland.
 
#2 ·
You know that I love my 460XXX tenor (does that qualify to be in your club Grumps or will you limit it to 454000 to 454999 ? ), although not a Supersonic (!) , it is great horn and I will never part with it, anything else may come and go, but this is one which is definitely going to stay........
 
#4 ·
All this talk of 454's 427's is making me think about 60's muscle cars rather than sax's. all we need now is some 426's 428's 429 cobra jet's, and hey we have a full set, if we start with a 454 the sky's the limmit.....510...540....640...the list goes on. Sorry for rambling on, anyways what would i know about big block Fords and Chevys? i'm merely an ignorant Brit?:bluewink:
 
#6 ·
This is my 427:
 
#9 ·
Cheers Saxtek :),I love them too| I was referring in general to the whole of the Super 20 production and the need to differentiate among them, by means of serial numbers. Of course even simply among the the single socket run there are differences in the LH table and other bits and pieces, but I wasn't going to go into a comparative exercise for which I lack the wealth of information needed (and a bit of time since I am leaving today for a business trip)
 
#10 ·
Unfortunately, no one has the whole story, but these discussion groups help to bring together a lot of info sometimes. Stuff I've noticed during the single socket, silver neck and bell era:

The underslung octave key changed a little - up near the pad cup
The necks got longer
The left little finger G#/B/C#/Bb touchpieces changed at least twice. Not much, just a little bit
At the end, the underslung octave key was changed to a normal octave key. IF the horn still played the same, not a bad idea, IMHO
 
#16 ·
My last two Super 20 tenors were in the 454XXX range, but I have to admit that the brass one plays better than the silversonic one.
 
#17 ·
Guys, I know that's it's part of human nature to want to find answers to questions, and sometimes it's easy to gravitate to an easy and obvious conclusion like a serial number range. However, having owned over 20 King tenor saxophones produced during the years 1935 to 1975, I have come to the conclusion that Selmers cannot claim the distinction of being the only horns that are quirky and that have their dogs and winners. Basically, I have found that ALL vintage horns are like this to one degree or another--and have concluded it's because of the hand-made process. For example, currently I have two Zephyrs, and one of them just sings and purrs like you wouldn't believe. It's a winner and a keeper. And I even appreciate it more now that I sold it last year and had an opportunity to buy it back very recently. It is a bright horn, but she does the bright King thing better than any of the other ones I've ever had--including Super 20's that cost four times more. Now the other one is really nice, too, and I am thinking about keeping both, and when you look at them everything on them looks identical as they were made just a few years apart. But there is something truly extraordinary about the one whereas the other is just good. And no amount of set-up by Randy Jones or Ernie Sola is going to change that. I am 100 percent convinced of that fact. But it's fascinating to think that just tiny little differences in how one horn can come out compared to others of the same make and model--even those made in the same year--can add up to produce a very special Monster.

Cliff's version: Don't buy into serial number range myths for ANY make or model, because all handmade horns are different.

IMHO it just so happens that most people have "gotten" this where vintage Mark VI's are concerned (but haven't with Conn's, Kings and other brands) is because of the laser-like focus of folks and the market on every little damn detail of vintage Selmers ad nauseum. But in my experience, the same thing applies to all other makes, all other models. At least where you're talking vintage hand-made horns.

That's why you do have to truly "play them all" as I did (or at least a boatload of them). And then when you find that one that shines, DO NOT SELL IT as I did with this one and another vintage horn I had. Appreciate it.
 
#32 ·
That's why you do have to truly "play them all" as I did (or at least a boatload of them). And then when you find that one that shines, DO NOT SELL IT as I did with this one and another vintage horn I had. Appreciate it.
i went through a few S20 an got stuck with an early one 292xxx...and to Tenor Man: very good idea- buy some saxes , sell some, but i always kept the ones that i play mostly and enjoy playing them
 
#18 ·
A side note: You may or not be surprised to hear that when I switched the neck from my fav Zephyr to the other one, that horn plays almost as good as the fav. Which also tells you how important the neck is in this whole equation. Maybe it is THE most important element when all other things are closer to being equal (or at least harder to tell the differences with).
 
#19 ·
I just wanted to throw this out as an anology and especially since the door was opened by Rob. I used to oversee all the new fleet patrol units that we got at the sheriff's office. We would get in 10-15 brand new squad cars at the same time, all identical. I could drive them and there was always one that just seemed to run and handle better than the rest. Now this defies all logic as these are made on an assembly line and should be as close to identical as possible. Of course, the one that shined above the rest I always kept for myself. :)
 
#21 ·
300xxx S20 vs 433xxx Silversonic tenors. Here's what I have found with these two horns (I also have a 411xxx silversonic in the shop right now)

The 300xxx Is a beautiful horn. Original laq; Gold laq on the neck and the rods. I had it overhauled and put on White roo's (soft) and oversized domed polished nickel Resotech's.
The mouthpieces that play effortlessly on this horn are Barone HR Trad/contmp 9 and 7; Lawton 8 BB; Wanne 8 Kali; and an RPC HR about a 130 I think. Deep fat tone with the Barones quite possibly the best sounding. When I try and play my PNR Super King or Sakshama Super King I get a lot of resistance and the very low end barks and bubbles.

The 433xxx on the other hand, Handles the Guardala clones effortlessly. Top to bottom. Even Altissimo G which is difficult for me comes out pretty clean with these setups. The 411 Cleveland Silversonic was leaking like a sieve so I cannot compare it yet but I will be very curious to hear and feel which horn it most closely resembles.

So here's my question:

I am wondering if to your knowledge it's period related and they changed the bore sometime between the late 40's and the mid 60's; or if it's just luck of the draw with the semi hand made nature of the manufacturing process.
I'm more of a blues and funk fusion guy so the Eastlake is what I'm gigging with; but I'm taking the Cleveland to my jazz lessons. I learn so much from you guys. Looking forward to hearing from you.
 
#22 ·
If you get a set of calipers, you can answer this yourself. Just measure both bodies in the same places and see if they are the same dimensions.

http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/products/tool-m101.html

I typically do:

Neck @ mouthpiece opening, interior diameter.

Neck at Tenon, exterior diameter.

Length of neck (use a string and hold it tight to the underside curve).

Exterior diameter of body tube just below the G hole.

Exterior diam of body tube/bow ferrule.

Radius of bow.

Exterior diameter of bow to bell ferrule.

Diameter of bell.

Then I check out a sampling of tonehole diameters...maybe 4 or 5.....

I for one would be interested in the results of such a comparison.
 
#24 ·
I'm one of those people. I've had a 280xxx and a few post 305xxx. I currently have a 858xxx, but that's another story. I've played a 300xxx and the spatula keys were very tough. Specially the C#.

They were made for a year, and a crazy collector might find that attractive, but of all the Super 20s, I find that version to be the least player friendly, and that's only because of the spatula keys. The rest of the horn plays like the 305-340xxx versions.

On another tangent, I find that the keywork of the 295-340xxx horns feel "smaller" than the later horns. The tenors feel like altos to me.

The pearls on the Eastlake horns seem more scooped and mechanical to me. In a good way.
 
#25 ·
Okay, So I'm a little obsessive compulsive (my wife would say "A little?") I have an Eastlake Silversonic 433xxx that is so easy to play top to bottom. Takes to the Guardala clones like they were made for it. Altissimo pops relatively easy.

I also have a gorgeous Super 20, full pearls. 3009xx. Completely overhauled by Lee Kramka: White Roos; Oversized Resonators and it just won't play on the narrow chambered mpcs. It's fine with Barone HR; RPC; Lawton but I get more resistance and anything above F# is a real bear.

SO here's where the OCD comes in. I bought some decent digital calipers and took some measurements. Here are the measurements to ponder:
S-20 3009xx Silversonic 433xxx
tip to pip: 3.358 3.530
Inside tip .506 .514
Tenon Inside 1.02 1.02
Tenon Out 1.094 1.102

Receiver
Inside 1.088 1.092

Tube
Below Receiver
Outside 1.211 1.164

Above Bow 2.354 2.365

Bow Outside
Below Bell 2.799 2.818

Much darker sound on the Super 20 when I play identical mouthpiece/reeds. The marked differences are still a mystery to me but I though as long as I went to the effort to take some measurements I would share them with all of you. I have a Cleveland Silversonic in the shop now so I think I will bring the other 2 in when I go to pick it up. Maybe it's key Height?
Cheers for now.
 
#33 ·
Thanks for doing that...I live for that sorta sh#t :). I think, actually, assuming very minor allowances one should assume on vintage horns....it is fair to say that based on those measurements....the body and neck dimensions are identical.

I'd take a few more dim's to confirm...maybe the body tube diameter right below the G tonehole, the diameter of the bow (i.e. did they either tighten the curvature or extend it at some point ?), and maybe the bell lip diameter....

For the moment, this is some useful news...horns 120,000 apart still seem to have had the same body design....
 
#27 ·
Just a follow up on the earlier comparions between the late and early models. I've now had about 20 hours on the Super 20 that was recently overhauled and in the last couple days I've really broken through. I am now able to play it top to bottom easily with the Sakshama and PNR Super King Guardala clones. I'm wondering if in your experience the white Roo pads with medium felt need to go through a break in period. Either that or I needed to go through a break in period. It now plays as freely as my 433xxx Eastlake.

When I had my MVI repadded a number of years ago with standard Selmer Pads and plastic resos it immeadiately played top to bottom with no problem. So I was surprised at the intial stuffiness on the S-20 but all's well now. Curious to hear any thoughts about this. Thanks,
 
#28 ·
I dont buy into it needing to go through a break in period in general.
I know sometimes players do use wedges of some kind to make a sealing impression on pads when its not being played and I'm also sure this will add to achieving a successful seal.
However, thats going the extra mile and should not be needed. I have had 3 horns overhauled and they played straight away no issues.
 
#29 ·
I don’t believe in “ breaking in” any part of a saxophone. I’ve have had a recent repadding with white roo pads and large resonators. My super 20 had after the repad some resistance due to a few things which needed a better regulation. It has been revised by another tech and its performance and response has improved overcoming some small problems which were in the way.
 
#30 ·
From personal experience, I think the mystique of the 454,xxx Super 20 is another SOTW myth. I owned a 454,xxx Super 20 a couple years ago and it was kind of a dud (for a Super 20 that is)--the worst out of four I've owned, including Eastlakes and Clevelands. No, my experience with all old handmade King horns is that each horn is different, and there are great examples and not-so-great ones depending on how that particular horn came out. Aside from the fact that generally, the Cleveland horns are darker and richer than the Eastlakes I've played, serial number has nothing to do with it. You have to play each horn to find out how good it is--and a great setup will only go so far on a horn that wasn't born great. It always amazes me why folks would think that what I just wrote would hold for the Mark VI (some are great but serial number has nothing to do with it), but not for the old American handmade horns. It's no different.

No, but I think it's just a coincidence that a few SOTW members own examples with this number. Or possibly since the number corresponds to ca. 1969, it could very well be that this was when the Seeburg Co. ramped up production of the model following its acquisition of H.N. White and the building of a new plant in Eastlake, Ohio. You don't just build new factories overnight. It would have feasibly taken about this long for this to happen after that firm bought out White in around 1967. Remember, the Super 20 experienced kind of a revival of sorts in the late '60s due to the advent of the electric sax and its use in rock music (ever notice how many Eastlakes have pickup holes in the necks?). so even though I don't have access to the firm's records, I would imagine that output increased around this time. You certainly seem to see many more Eastlakes on ebay than Clevelands--especially tenors.
 
#31 ·
I think it's just a coincidence that a few SOTW members own examples with this number.
I tend to agree, a few of us own(ed) 281xxx Zephyr tenors that have been reported.

Interesting that they are 281xxx and not 279xxx, 280xxx, 282xxx, etc.
 
#35 ·
Ok came across this old thread while googling "454 king super 20" Ha! well i recently bought one simply coz it was much cheaper than any other i have ever seen and after waiting about ten days for it to land from accros the pond i carefully unpacked it and gave it a tentative blow...........Jesus H Christ!!! nearly blew me out of the kitchen! i was absolutely taken aback, best tenor i've ever played bar none! so so much different and easier to play than my current Selmer ref 54 and giving a richer more vibrant sound right accross the range, well ok maybe not quite the middle range of the Selmer but much more bottom and the top end just takes off by itself great intonation as well, at the moment it's with the tech being set up as theres a bit of double action on the left hand table, octave moves more than i would like as does E flat so hopefully good to go in a few days, first gig next Saturday headlining at the Hinckley music festival!

But is'nt it a bit of a thing when a 48 year old second hand sax bought over the internet from an unknown buyer just because it was cheap blows the doors off a modern 5 grand Selmer? just doese'nt add up does it?
 
#36 ·
yep, sounds like a SUPER 20 to me!!! :bluewink:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top