Sax on the Web Forum banner

WTH is THIS ????

8K views 41 replies 15 participants last post by  Helen 
#1 ·
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXTREMELY-RARE-Vintage-Martin-Committee-Experimental-Alto-Saxophone-Sax-i648-/170772439330?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27c2d4a122

I'll take a guess:

It's not a Martin at all, just a sax which someone (at some time) tried to fake into a Martin by engraving the name on it.

Anyone else...????
 
#2 ·
I don’t believe in EXPERIMENTAL saxophones or PROTOTYPES finding their way onto the open market without a clear provenance ( a person who had a documented interest in a particular company) besides if a horn is Experimental is not meant for selling and therefore it wouldn’t be stamped with a serial number.

Having said this this horn looks French to me Probably a Pierret
 
#5 ·
Yes, you CAN rest your case ! Nice detective work.

You know....CE Winds...they sort of amaze me sometimes. Now mind you, I have purchased from them before and chris seems like a nice fellow...but, maaaan....considering the professional image they wish their establishment to project....

...a mistake like this should never be made. This wasn't particularly a close, judgment call. It took me all of 5 minutes to cross-reference that horn with a few online resources to disprove any association with Martin.

Not to have done that...and then to have really concocted the cockamamie story to explain the oddness of the horn AND make it MORE MARKETABLE...
... (for chrissake, the engraving was left unfinished :faceinpalm::faceinpalm:).....

......that's just bad.

It's sloppy and it raises questions of intent.
 
#6 ·
man, as I said, every time I have seen the words prototype or in this case experimental.........has NEVER been true!

The thing is that wishful thinking is never a good thing to use while you are attempting to find the roots of something that you are uncertain of but some people are prone to like the sweeter version, for whatever reason. I bet that if we all would investigate our “ family's legends” most of them would turn out to be untrue and the product of the same wishful thinking and window dressing.

Having said that It looks like a nice horn and I probably think is more interesting to own than many Martins of the cheaper variety but it is NOT worth 1500$!
 
#9 ·
Yeah...the other one was conceivably a Beaugnier body (or at least LeBlanc sourced from somewhere) with Yamaha finish and keywork.

If you take a gander at these auction pics, Bruce...this one is a pre-war horn for sure (round G# table touch, for example)....

There's nothing legit about that Martin written on the bell (or should I say Marti).
 
#11 ·
There's nothing legit about that Martin written on the bell (or should I say Marti).
I certainly have no dog in this fight, no vested interest whatsoever, but I can see the horseshoe shaped Martin "n" to complete the name. Granted, it's not crystal clear, but it's there, at least to these 50+ year old eyes. Take another look and see if you can't see it as well.
 
#10 ·
Look a bit like a Pierret to me. Could have been bodged together with a Martin bell and Selmer neck receiver.

There is something above the serial number that appears to be roughed out. That makes me a bit suspicious There seems to be some letters stamped in the middle and some engraving around it. Can't make out what it says.
 
#16 ·
Hi there folks. Well I'll just throw my 2 virtual cents into this discussion as well... FWIW....

I agree with VintageSaxGuy. While there are similarities to the Corps Embouti sax on the page of my site you link to, there are also quite a few differences. (BTW, if you'd like to see the photos in non-slide show view, you can see them here.)

There are literally hundreds of Pierrets you can compare this "Martin" to in the Pierret Gallery of Bassic Sax Pix. I'd have to look through many more (I've only looked through a few so far) before I'd say for sure that it is or isn't a Pierret. One thing is for sure, it does look more like the earlier Pierrets--but the left pinkie cluster looks more like those from the 1920s Selmers. I don't think I have ever seen anything like that on a Pierret before.
 
#17 ·
There is always the possibility that it is for a French maker named Martin (Mar-teen). Often ligs are said to be from US Martins but are the ones from France. The strange part of the horn in question is the serial number would be from a Leblanc era Martin. Maybe Leblanc was trying to come up with some vintage series.
 
#22 ·
Just to chime in...

First off, this alto has been a topic on SOTW for over 8 years, which I didn't even know until I started digging even more and changing the way I googled:

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?8570-Is-it-a-Martin-or-is-it-a-Selmer
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showth...el-26-alto-sax-with-complete-Martin-engraving

We did not acquire this sax from this person, just FYI.

No one who has ever seen it in person, or in pictures, has been able to 100% identify it as anything specific.

So, with that being said, rare is used because there is none like it, that we have seen. Experimental, whether done my Selmer, Martin, Pierret, or some person in their garage, this was clearly an experiment.

When we received it a little over a month ago, from another SOTW member, he had done his research and brought it to many people that he knows as well, and everyone was baffled. Us the same thing.

So, there is no evidence in any way that this is a fake, or original, there is proof that for many years, it has been described as a Selmer, a Martin, and now Pierret. Please don't interject anything about us being foolish, deceitful, poor intentions, yada, yada.

For heavens sake, it's just an old, 100% unidentifiable saxophone, and no one will retire from the sale of it, and if no one buys it, it goes back into a closet somewhere and in 10 years someone else will list it and not know what in the world it is, and everyone can come together again at that time to try and figure it out.

We took it at face value after our research, after the research of the person we got it from, and now from one of the past owners, that it somehow has ties to Martin. That's all, folks.

Thank you though to everyone, on eBay and on SOTW, who has helped us along in figuring this out.

As always, if anyone has any questions, you can give me a call. 904-996-9312.

Peace,

Brian S
Christopher Elliott Inc
 
#31 ·
Oomph.....
So, with that being said, rare is used because there is none like it, that we have seen. Experimental, whether done my Selmer, Martin, Pierret, or some person in their garage, this was clearly an experiment.

When we received it a little over a month ago, from another SOTW member, he had done his research and brought it to many people that he knows as well, and everyone was baffled. Us the same thing.

So, there is no evidence in any way that this is a fake, or original, there is proof that for many years, it has been described as a Selmer, a Martin, and now Pierret. Please don't interject anything about us being foolish, deceitful, poor intentions, yada, yada.

For heavens sake, it's just an old, 100% unidentifiable saxophone, and no one will retire from the sale of it, and if no one buys it, it goes back into a closet somewhere and in 10 years someone else will list it and not know what in the world it is, and everyone can come together again at that time to try and figure it out.

We took it at face value after our research, after the research of the person we got it from, and now from one of the past owners, that it somehow has ties to Martin. That's all, folks.

Thank you though to everyone, on eBay and on SOTW, who has helped us along in figuring this out.

As always, if anyone has any questions, you can give me a call. 904-996-9312.

Peace,

Brian S
Christopher Elliott Inc
Gosh, you guys would have been better off NOT replying with THAT.

Where can I even begin ?

1) Rare....none like it ? But again, a bunch of us vintage sax boobs here just showed that it bears a lot of similarities to an old, European made horn...so you are wrong on that count.

Experimental
?
In the lexicon of CE Winds...this CAN describe the likelihood that someone "experimented" by forging a brand-name engraving in their garage.

(But I didn't realize "experimental" was an acceptable synonym for "forged".
Am not finding that in any Thesaurus....)

2) Not a fake ? Again....we know it bears NO RESEMBLANCE TO ANY OTHER MARTIN ever recorded...and the serial number (taking it to be a Martin #) does not coincide with the era of the horn....yet the engraving reads Martin.
:dazed:
.....sssssooooooooo...particularly since you have titled the auction a Martin.... I am curious how this doesn't meet the definition of FAKE, exactly ???????:scratch:

3) Unfair to suggest you are being foolish, deceitful, unprofessional ? Are you crying foul here ???

Because, as Click notes....you say you already know what it is:

"For heavens sake, it's just an old, 100% unidentifiable saxophone" ~ Brian at CE Winds

So...:| I dunno ....:| maybe my question is just rhetorical...but...how does a:

Old, 100% unidentifiable saxophone = EXTREMELY RARE Vintage Martin Committee Experimental Alto


...exactly ????

Also, am wondering WHY...since a rep of CE has just admitted they don't know what it is....the auction is still UP ?

I dunno....fooolish, deceitful, poor intentions....I don't see those semantics as being inappropriate given the situation. But I am open to other adjectives, if anyone else would like to share some ?

Like I said, Brian...probably would have done your company better not to have replied in the fashion you just did.

Wacky.....
 
#23 ·
"No one who has ever seen it in person, or in pictures, has been able to 100% identify it as anything specific."

Oh, I am sure you are wrong there.

It has been 100% positively identified, thus:

"EXTREMELY RARE Vintage Martin Committee Experimental Alto Saxophone Sax"

See ebay listing.
 
#26 ·
That would have been a nice way to describe it in the ad........:twisted:
but it surely wouldn't have been conducive to reach the price of 1500$.

Good luck with it , buyers need making up their own mind! AS they said in good old ROME......Caveat Emptor.

I like the horn........for what it is, but not THAT much that I would make you an offer that would be in line with your expectations !
 
#34 ·
Why not throw it up there for $500 BIN and just note that while there are theories, nobody definitively can identify the make ?
I believe that the above is a well meaning, and not reasonable, suggestion to make. If Christopher Elliot Inc. leaves this "Martin" listing unamended we can only draw one conclusion. Why besmirch a hard won reputation over this nondescript horn ?
 
#35 ·
...I doubt that horn could even fetch $500.....

The problem here (need not be said, really) is that someone may come along who believes the description, and being sorta new to, but interested in, vintage horns, might really think they have found themselves a treasure.

Then, seeing CE Winds as the seller, they might proceed to make the assumption that they are buying from a company which is very familiar with vintage; and also feel secure in the fact that they appear to be a reputable brasswinds dealer.

So, while I agree with Milandro on the notion of Caveat Emptor to a degree...indications to one uninitiated might be that this isn't much of a risky purchase.

Or another way to put it...to someone naive, it is kind of a sexy trap.

(the problem right now is...it isn't even an inadvertent trap by someone who is unfamiliar...it is downright misleading, by someone who claims to be a professional in the field).

If the auction remains as initially written, it certainly tells us something about CE. Even worse, if it did sell under the current description, then....I would agree with you: only one conclusion to be drawn, really.....
 
#36 ·
in my opinion this ad is misleading like many other ones I come across daily, which, in an attempt of window dressing their product for sale , say all sorts of wrong things about the item for sale.

The only real difference with these ads is that this one comes form a well known source, people whom should know better than that.

I wasn’t and I am not trying to justify anybody.

I normally write emails to the people who advertise incorrectly their stuff , some are grateful and change the ads accordingly or remove it ( not so long ago there was a nice girl who had advertised a flute as being an Irish folk flute while it was just a cheap Indian made thing for tourists not even remotely looking like an Irish flute , she told me that a friend of hers who studies flute at the conservatory had told her so, I told her that students are normally taught to play instruments not so much to identify them, she was satisfied by my explanation and pulled the ad).

Other sellers don’t care about what I tell them and carry on. In case of criminal fraud ( like the sale of a counterfeit ) I have alerted the authorities ( who don’t really care too much about it unless is a fashionable item!) but in general it is, like in this case, a misrepresented item.

Their answer here has been showing that they knew nothing about this horn and they pretended it was more that it appeared, this casts the shadow of doubt not only on this sale but , I am afraid, on themselves .

Doing the right thing about this ad would show their nature as seller, but they are sticking to their guns with a phoney motivation ( nobody here could Identify this........therefore this is a rare and expensive experimental saxophone!). In pursuing the sale this way they have managed to disqualify themselves.
 
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