Sax on the Web Forum banner

Late King Super 20 and model 2416, new information

43K views 118 replies 25 participants last post by  JayeLID 
#1 · (Edited)
Late Super 20 and model 2416, new information. Summary from previous thread.

This is a summary of some of the information that came up in donjazzsax "horns for sale" thread. Someone suggested it should be archived here. Otherwise this information will eventually disappear from SOTW. The topic is the late King Super 20 (and model 2416). There is some new information and some myth-busting. In short, model 2416 is a virtual S20 without engraving, and S20 body tubes were never made by Yamaha or Yanagisawa, but only by King in the USA. I tried to only include pertinent information. Please feel free to add to this or make corrections if necessary.

donjazzsax 05/18/2011:
KG-2416 was the designated model number for this… late model King Super 20 saxophone. The Orion Blue Book places the date of manufacturing between 1978-1984 and shows it as being a King Super 20. KG-2416 and 2414 was the model number for the Super 20 tenor and alto saxophones during the end of the run. Some super 20s were still being sold with the standard S20 engraving while a few where sold with the product number engraved on it like this one. I've seen a couple over the years and even one this forum site. I have four late model Super 20's, two altos one being a silver sonic and two tenors one like this and one a silver sonic. The saxes are identical besides sterling neck and bell and they play the same except this one is more resonant with less projection than its silver sonic version. This is not a kit horn from Taiwan or anything like that this was made at the East Lake Plant. … Has Hi F# key, Gold lacquered keys and neck. Comes with end plug, original King mouthpiece, cap and ligature along with the near mint condition original King case. Serial #859***. This tenor has that BIG and edgy King sound found in the late model super 20s.

drwhippet:
Do you have any evidence that it was made in Eastlake, Ohio? Everything I've read says late UMI King horns (made in what?--the late 1980s) were produced in Nogales.

Okay, upon consulting one of the charts with extended serials I guess it looks like it's birthday was more like 1981 or so. So that makes an Eastlake origin more likely. I'm just curious how you know the place of its origin for sure.

donjazzsax:
Hi, no saxes were manufactured at the Nogales site besides a Conn prototype. They just imported sax kits, assembled, stamped and sold them. All the King tooling was at the East Lake plant. Thanks!

Oric Muso:
Not sure if you can call it a super 20 if it doesn't say it on the bell. This model is a little different to my s20.

donjazzsax:
A lot depends on the serial number of the S20. The S20 went through a lot of changes over its lifespan. Some better ie. octave key mechanism, ergonomics, articulated g# mech. etc., and some cost effective, ie. brazed tone holes (different sound) vs. stamped (greater consistency in intonation, less labor time). Depending on your model number and date of manufacture, the saxes can have a some differences. The pic of its Orion blue book shows the super 20 designation. Thanks!

milandro:
Interesting, never seen one of these , I was even hoping it would be one of the elusive Super 21's but it isn't. It is definitely a King and definitely a Super 20, at least in appearance although, I am sure that the body tube is of the same strain (it was established by evidence given by a ex-King worker in another thread that these body tubes were made in Japan by Yamaha or Yanagisawa that came with the Super 20 USA (so not Cleveland or Eastlake made) models. This horn that you have is probably one of the very last of what they had left to sell before meeting their demise.

Oric Muso:
2416 looks like a cheaper horn based on the S20. The S20 model number was 1016 (tenor).

William Bua:
Oric, the only reasons that horn looks cheaper is because it isn't engraved and it doesn't say super 20.

donjazzsax:
Hi Oric. That number was designated when Ms. Edna White still ran the King company. It changed hands four times since then ie. Edna White, Nate Dolan 1964-1969, Seeburg 1969-1984, UMI (did not manf. S20's) and Conn/Selmer (did not manf. S20's). This sax was manf. at the end of the Seeburg era of the company which constituted the last saxes manufactured by King. It's not uncommon for companies to change part and model numbers over time. The sax in the pics share all the same mechanisms as mine except for the double socket neck with underslung octave mechanism.

That advertisement in 1963 represented some of the last changes on the sax such as relocated upper palm keys and the one-spring octave key mechanism. I have that ad plus a similar one (down beat 1964) describing more details of the changes made to the S20. Of note, that sax in 1963 had brazed tone holes; mine doesn't. Mine has all stamped tone holes, including the bell. That process was the last major change and it occurred during the mid 1970's. Thanks!

milandro:
The sax on the pictures, aside from the engravings, looks pretty much identical (down to the most typical King feature the conical shape of the keycups) to any single socket Super 20 that I have ever seen, so, regardless of what it says on the bell, in my view, this is a Super 20.

As to the body tube provenance, Donjazzsax seems to be able to shed some more anecdotical evidence on this which seems to contradict the previous witness account of the Japanese production of the King Super 20 USA strain.

donjazzsax 05/20/2011:
Hi guys, I contacted John Wier. I used to run R & D and handle advertisement for a mouthpiece company and met him at a saxophone trade show of sorts a few years back. John worked for UMI/Conn Selmer and now runs his own instrument repair and clarinet company. He is also working on the Silver Eagle saxophone project for Powell. We've communicated about King history over the years. He's friends with the former chief engineer at the King plant who worked there during the Seeburg/UMI days.

He told me that all sax production at the King plant ceased when UMI took over the company. He also said that the King saxophones never used parts or body tubes from Yanagisawa or Yamaha, only US built stuff from the King factory. Also, he didn't work on the King Super 21 it was assembled out of old Conn parts by the VP of the company at that time. John made a Conn prototype at that time and I had a chance to play on it. It was slammin!! I'm sure his new project with Powell will knock our socks off.

drwhippet:
Wow, finally a guy who can clear up all the misinformation about "late model" Super 20s perpetuated on here in one fell swoop! So there goes the age-old theory about imported Japanese body tubes--shot down in flames like a WWII Zero in pithy post. But can you ask your friend one more thing? In what year--or better yet, what approximate serial number--did King switch from using silver-soldered tone holes to drawn ones? If you produce the answer to that question, it would clear up years of speculation on this topic on this board, and I think they should then make this is a sticky and you a Distinguished Member on the spot!

donjazzsax 05/22/2011:
OK. The word is in, but first I have to give kudos to John Weir for answering these questions. Thanks John! He's real busy but has been very kind in contributing this information.

Xax, John believes that my horn might have been stamped 2416 as an alternate to some dealers as not to conflict with Super 20 dealers. When I worked at Runyon we had similar issues with dealers and product stamping and who got what etc. Apart from his confirmation from the chief engineer at King on not using Japanese body tubes he said that it just wouldn't make sense because they were using the same body tubes for their student line (615 model) as well. They shared the same dimensions but were annealed differently. You have a very streamed line and cost effective way of production in that method. Also, a Japanese company would need to retool their equipment (expensive) to make King body tubes as their body tube dimensions and tone hole locations were very different from anything Yamaha or Yanagisawa would make.

Now, on to the tone holes. John is not sure of the exact dates but did say that the reason King continued to braze the tone holes on the bell was because they were mounted with an "angled face" which made it difficult to extrude. I have a nice King saxophone catalog from Seeburg circa 1968 that shows the specs of S20's and in particular they show that the tone holes on the body being extruded on the tube but brazed on the bell. They inferred that it was a new feature on their saxes and that body tubes with stamped tone holes had more accurate intonation. (I can provide an image of that part of the catalog) I have a 534***silver sonic alto circa 1975 with extruded tone holes on the bell. This follows with a date that John gave me a while back (approx. 1974/75) for when King ended their brazing of tone holes completely. We can use the 1968 catalog as an approximate starting place for when they stopped brazing the tone holes on the body tubes.

xax:
Yeah, I agree that it doesn't make a whole lotta' sense as Clevelands had pulled tone holes...from "day 1". When i asked Jack about that, he said that when Seeburg tried pulling the toneholes for the Super 20s they had an awful time and that a high percentage were junked and thrown back into the furnace, as it were. If he didn't say it outright, it was at least implied that after that they went to Japanese tubes. I never did get an explanation as to exactly what he understood the problems were or why they were successful drawing Cleveland tone holes but not the S20s'...

frobig:

… on eBay, this was the second 2416 I'd ever seen. Mine was the first. I bought it on eBay, and when I looked at the auction, there had to be a dozen or more photos, and as I saw more details, I said to myself over and over: "This is a Super 20." For those who are still skeptical, there's really no doubt. The Super 20's keywork was vastly different from that on the Zephyr and Cleveland. On the Super 20, the whole left-hand stack runs on one rod, including the G and Bb bis. On the Zephyr and Cleveland--at least from the 1960's on--the G and Bb bis run separately on pivot screws, like a Selmer. This is actually a better system, from a tech point of view, but oh well. The Super 20 was also the only King to get "balanced action" bell key mechanism, i.e. rods running down the middle of the horn instead of the back, and one-piece key with spatula instead of key and lever. The Super 20 also had articulated C#, and lesser Kings did not. The octave lever mechanism is also unique to the Super 20. And late-model Super 20 tenors, from probably the mid 70s on, had high F# keys. The 2416 has all these features, as well as the double-armed low C key that King used only on Super 20 tenors and baris. I guarantee that, if I were given a Super 20 body (not seriously damaged) from the overslung-octave and high-F# period, I could take the keys off my 2416 and put them directly on the Super 20, and half an hour later it would be honking.
 
See less See more
#36 ·
Last month, I was very close to buy a King Super 20 with USA engraving, but I eventually pass on it. It is even cheaper than a early King Zephyr, so, I am very interested to know how these late King Super 20, both USA engraving or 2416, play, and how do they compared to the early King Zephyr and King Super 20 (Cleveland and Eastlake). Any owner out there interested to post some sound clips?
 
#39 ·
This guy was selling one for dirt cheap:

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?212814-King-2416-usa-tenor-super-20&highlight=king+2416

The thing with these is...indeed, one can probably own a Super 20 Tenor for around $1000...and what a deal that would be !

I mean, you have people around here selling their crappy, tinny, blinged-out new asian knockoffs claiming to be 'modeled after' the S20....for over $1600-1700.

And these here are the real McCoy for way less !!!?

Thing is, though.... it appears that in this imploded economy.....one cannot TURN or SELL one of these late models, be it engraved S20 or 241X, for more than about $1000-1200. eFlay auctions would indicate this as well. I mean, late '60's Eastlake ones in playing shape go for well under $1900 these days. It only seems to be the Cleveland-made models/Silver neck or Silversonics which have managed to retain and appreciate in value anymore.

So as a flip-horn, probably not gonna be any sort of significant gainer.
 
#37 · (Edited)
The sax pictured above has a spectacular sound and can be pushed like mad. It has brazed tone holes throughout, as well as a front F and high F#. The serial number is 858XXX. I've played Super 20s and honestly don't hear any difference. I'm trying to get a set of pics posted but I'm pathetic at such things. My files are too big. If anyone can give a little guidance it would be much appreciated. You HAVE to see this horn.
 
#38 ·
Go to this website:

http://www.shrinkpictures.com/

then shrink them down one at a time there to a 'custom' size (I usually choose 1500px because it is a small enough file for Forums, but large enough to show a good photo).

Then post here.

or you can use a free photo-hosting site like Photobucket and just post a link here, to your album there.

Your news doesn't surprise me much, honestly. I have measured up Cleveland and Eastlake S20's which were 8 years apart and their bodies were identical, it was only the neck specification which changed slightly.

Your reply lends credence to the idea that the soldered holes were only discontinued when Danny Henkin bought the company.....so yours may be one of the very last soldered hole S20's.

Prof G...do you have a set of digital calipers ? or do you have a tech you are friendly with ? I would be really interested in having someone measure up your horn and see how it compares to the numbers I have for the other S20's I have sold.
 
#45 ·
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people who believe their USA Kings have brazed tone holes are mistaken. We have a poster here quoting from a late '60s catalog that brags about drawn tone holes. My 2416 definitely has drawn tone holes--it's an 871XXX by the way, apparently later than any horn we're talking about on this thread. I worked on an alto at Rayburn in Boston in about '03-04, I think it was in the 680XX range or thereabouts, that definitely also had drawn tone holes. A very nicely drawn chimney will meet the body with a sharp enough angle that it's hard to distinguish from a brazed seam--they don't all look like Bundys.
I've mentioned this elsewhere before, but let me go on record that a serial number list that places the 800-900XXX Kings in the late '90s is inaccurate. These lists are based on extrapolations which are further based on assumptions of per-year production. I don't see how you can tell how many instruments King made in a year if you don't know the serial numbers first. Also, the whole numbering system changed under UMI (which was created in 1986) and certainly by 1995, UMI numbers bore no resemblance to previous King sequences. Lastly, I have no reason to believe that production of the older King lines was shut down in Eastlake and resumed in Nogales, and I'm sure that note from the factory in 1985 is a credible depiction of the state of King sax manufacture. In other words, no Super 20, Zephyr or "real" 613/615 was made after 1985. The 613/615 designations were used later on badge-engineered Nogales Conn/Armstrongs. I'd like to put my vote in, by the way, for the body tubes of all three sax lines being the same. I have my 2416 and a very straight Eastlake 615 in the shop right now, if I ever get the chance I hope to take my telescoping gauges to them and find some things out. Even then I might not get accurate info since they come from two different production eras. While at the Selmer repair shop in Paris last year, I was told by a Selmer tech that the body tubes of the Serie II, Reference 36 and Reference 54 are all the same, with the only changes in dimension coming in the neck and bow/bell. I'll bet this is much more common than most of us think. I relate this to what I think JayePDX was saying, which was, first, that it seemed fishy that different models of King would share body dimensions, but in a later post, that he'd measured several models of Conn and Pan Am and found that they did have the same dimensions, so I'm not sure what would be fishy about King doing the same thing. And as soybean pointed out, Yanagisawa does the same thing, and I'm 99% sure that Yamaha uses the same dimensions for their student and intermediate lines and probably for the 62's too.
Last of all, it's my opinion that the Super 21 is the sax equivalent of a Cadillac Cimarron; there's nothing King about it and we're not missing a thing.
 
#47 ·
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people who believe their USA Kings have brazed tone holes are mistaken. We have a poster here quoting from a late '60s catalog that brags about drawn tone holes.
I think I've read before here that this happened in the '60s. This is what you mean by "USA Kings"? Before that, I'd take that bet - they're brazed, as advertised, on my '50s bari and '30s tenor. In the story I read, I think the theory was, the later drawn tone hole bodies weren't made in the King factory.
 
#55 ·
My 500xxx Eastlake S20 all brass tenor has a one piece, non ribbed, bow and all the toneholes on it are brazed.
Single socket underslung neck.
Plays like a champ.

I see no advantage to a ribbed two piece bow.
All my late '40s and '50s Zephyr tenors have such.
 
#57 ·
Yep i agree that it probably has little if any impact.

But...what i do find so interesting is that the 2 piece bow turns up on profG's very late serial numbered horn suggesting that perhaps late Silver-Sonic(Super 20?) tenors were assembled from parts that at times had been in their inventory for "awhile"...if the reports about when King stopped brazing on tone holes and when we start seeing hydro-formed bows are correct (ca.1970?), profG's horn would have been made using parts that were 10(?) years old...

Of course another possibility is that they were un-engraved inventory built in an earlier period.
 
#59 ·
I just got my very late 788k non-Silver Sonic tenor back from an overhaul and I'm near positive it has drawn toneholes throughout. Comparing it to my 50s Zephyr alto, the chimneys are much thinner and I cannot see the very thin seam at the base of the tenor's toneholes. Is there any other way to confirm drawn toneholes? It does have the brace on the top (or inner) bend of the bow similar to ProfG's photos above.

I picked up an older underslung neck to go along with the original overslung and it seems to add a bit more warmth to the bottom end (only a few minutes of playing time thus far). I can say that the intonation is superb throughout the range with either neck! Given I have less invested in this S20 than most asking prices for 50s Zephyrs, I am quite pleased!!! I can't wait to put it through the paces!
 
#60 ·
I just got my very late 788k non-Silver Sonic tenor back from an overhaul and I'm near positive it has drawn toneholes throughout. Comparing it to my 50s Zephyr alto, the chimneys are much thinner and I cannot see the very thin seam at the base of the tenor's toneholes. Is there any other way to confirm drawn toneholes? It does have the brace on the top (or inner) bend of the bow similar to ProfG's photos above.…
Sounds like you got a great price on your horn. Check out post #53 above. If your late tenor is like my late alto, the bell tone-holes will be brazed and the body & bow holes will be pulled. It is very difficult to tell the difference but if you scrape your fingernail on the 45 degree angle where the tone-hole meets the body, you should be able to feel a subtle difference (especially if you can get your finger inside the tone-hole). Photos below: first two show a King brazed tonehole. Photo 3 and 4 show King non-brazed.

brazed:





non-brazed:



 
#61 ·
Here is some pictures of my King 2416 tenor.

First off, let me say I LOVE this horn. I paid $500 for it. The original neck sucked. Intonation was horrible, sound was thin and cheap.

I found a Gloger neck made for a MK VI, and everything about the horn changed. Now it has a big robust sound, but still rocks like a King should, and the intonation is spot on, even in the middle C, C# and D notes.

The first picture is the lower stack body hole. The second one is the bell key.
 

Attachments

#62 ·
I'll try to add some pictures of mine, the exterior of the toneholes look very similar to Turnaround's, but they lack the distinct thickness and obvious seam of the first two photos in Soybean's post. The interior angle where the chimney meets the body tube looks pretty crisp, but I just don't see the seam...

Like Turnaround, I'm loving this horn. Of course, I'm still in the honeymoon period with it, but I am a big fan of King's in general. I have no doubt earlier series horns are even better, but for my humble needs, I'm really impressed. Oh, mine also has a high F#, I'm not sure when they added that feature. Perhaps a last ditch effort to keep up with the imports that had taken over the pro market?
 
#63 ·
I have no doubt earlier series horns are even better, but for my humble needs, I'm really impressed. Oh, mine also has a high F#, I'm not sure when they added that feature. Perhaps a last ditch effort to keep up with the imports that had taken over the pro market?
I'm not sure the earlier horns were better. But in my limited experience (only played three S20s) it's the necks that were better on the earlier horns. High F# it is on my S20 too. King were trying to compete with Selmer, not the Asian imports. The mechanics of the high F# are not as elegant as Selmer's high F# but it works. My friend calls it a "bolt-on", meaning King didn't change anything else in the design.
 
#69 ·
yes, but part of their less desirable range made not so long before they shut down the company.

The price of this King S20 generation is generally very low. The market doesn't like them much. The earlier series, engraved with "made in Eastlake", does considerably better on the market. I own a S20 tenor Eastlake and would never part with it.

Not quite so the USA series.

I bought a S20 alto USA and I wasn't very happy with it on account of its intonation while the manufacture quality appeared similar to my Eastlake . There are many altos ( also Silversonic) of this generation floating in the market, most look pristine and for a good reason, people keep on selling them.

If I ever find a cheap S20 USA I will give it a try because one of my heroes, James Senese, an Italian player, played on one of those throughout the '80 and he sounded great.
 
#68 ·
Based on my research, King did away with model names around 790000 and switched to model numbers only.

That said, there's no shortage of possibilities to explain your sax. Could've been engraved by special order, could've been a stash of pre-engraved bells in the factory that got slipped into later production, could've been replaced by a shop later. If it looks like a Super 20, it's probably a Super 20.
 
#71 ·
well, as you know I have been buying and selling saxophones for 10 years so , you will forgive me if I say that I know the market... at the very least on my neck of the woods.

I also see those USA models going cheap elsewhere not only the NL, but if you like them, more fun for you! You can buy them at a pittance sometimes.

Here, they are almost impossible to sell because their potential market is only made of people who prefer other Super 20’s ( Cleveland and a minority of Eastlake connoisseurs , I am one)

Super 20’s are not hard to sell, ...at the right price that is... and here is the root of the problem as I see it...

Some folks bought them at the very top of their price few years ago, they are too expensive now in this day and age and the market is very low for many saxophones aside the “ stars” known by everyone.

I sold several Eastlake at the right price and with not too many problems of course I bought them for even less.

When it comes to the USA models I am never going to burn myself again with one of those. I’ve learned my lesson... the hard way.
 
#72 ·
I recently completed a 2416 King USA horn, full Overhaul. It actually is an excellent sax. I did not find any poor construction elements, myself. I prefer the pinky table to some earlier S20 tables.
No underslung neck, no double-socket. Honestly, I looked and looked and tried to ascertain soldered vs. drawn holes, then gave up. But the body tube dimensions are the same as the S20 Eastlakes, which are the same as the S20 Cleves. Neck specifications are slightly different (bore/taper) than the Eastlakes (which themselves were slightly different than the Cleves).

But it still has a lotta classic attributes folks love the S20 for: blowing response is excellent, intonation with original neck is right there in the pocket; balance of focus and overtone spread is still absolutely killer- lotsa dark plus lotsa cut; sometimes almost felt like the horn is playing itself.

I did not have benefit of playtesting the 2416 USA side by side with an S20 Eastlake...but IMHO once she was brought up to speed, this 2416 still was pretty slayin'....
 

Attachments

#115 ·
I recently completed a 2416 King USA horn, full Overhaul. It actually is an excellent sax. I did not find any poor construction elements, myself. I prefer the pinky table to some earlier S20 tables. No underslung neck, no double-socket. Honestly, I looked and looked and tried to ascertain soldered vs. drawn holes, then gave up. But the body tube dimensions are the same as the S20 Eastlakes, which are the same as the S20 Cleves. Neck specifications are slightly different (bore/taper) than the Eastlakes (which themselves were slightly different than the Cleves). But it still has a lotta classic attributes folks love the S20 for: blowing response is excellent, intonation with original neck is right there in the pocket; balance of focus and overtone spread is still absolutely killer- lotsa dark plus lotsa cut; sometimes almost felt like the horn is playing itself. I did not have benefit of playtesting the 2416 USA side by side with an S20 Eastlake...but IMHO once she was brought up to speed, this 2416 still was pretty slayin'....
i have the same sax. mat. #858xxx
 
#73 ·
Interesting, If I ever come across one of thee (never seen one over here) I’ll be very interested to see how it compares to my Eastlake.

The Super 20 USA 800,000 series that I’ve bought was disappointing but who knows... maybe this tenor ( should be pretty much the same) wouldn't be.
 
#98 ·
I have noticed a difference on the pictures of the late model that I am going to test and that is the left hand palm keys seem to be mounted on a piece of metal (ribbed).

I wonder if there is a way to tell if the metal of the keywork ( rods and levers not the keycups) is nickel silver as the one in my earlier version.

I will test thoroughly

101938


Interesting, If I ever come across one of thee (never seen one over here) I'll be very interested to see how it compares to my Eastlake.

The Super 20 USA 800,000 series that I've bought was disappointing but who knows... maybe this tenor ( should be pretty much the same) wouldn't be.
 
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