Sax on the Web Forum banner

Borgani Jubilee MK1 vs MK2 low C# mechanism

5K views 38 replies 8 participants last post by  Ken 
#1 ·
Quote from another thread:
Hi
Mr Berger is right ! :) I look at them like this ...

MK 1 J stamp. Big bell. Double arm on low B, with old type mech on low C#. The first of the Jubilee's had four numbers that started with a 0 ie (0100).

MK 2 J stamp. Big bell, but with no double arm on low B ... more modern type mech on low C#. (there may be a few late MK 2's with an O.B. stamp)

MK 3 Same as Mk2 but with the small bell, later ones now called O.B ...there are some that have a J stamp.

Kind Regards to you and Mr Berger.
I recently lucked into a Jubilee tenor and alto. The previous owner said he bought them new, the tenor in 2002 and the alto in 2004.

The tenor has a serial of 189XXJ. It has a double arm on the low C and low B. But it looks like it might have the more modern type mechanism on the low C#. Can anyone tell from the photo below whether it does? I highlighted what I think is the low C# mechanism in the photo here

The alto, 01XXJ, has single arms but it looks like it might have the older type mechanism on the low C#. Photo is here.
 
#5 ·
It's hard to tell from that angle but it looks to me like the arm extends out from one of the rods, which is what the alto has.
Hello.

The Tenor is a very typical Mk1 tenor including the low C# mechanism.
The alto needs a better looking at all round to come up with a conclusion ...few more pics on that one please.
Sure. Do you mean photos of the whole horn or just around the low C# mechanism?
 
#4 ·
Quote from another thread:

I recently lucked into a Jubilee tenor and alto. The previous owner said he bought them new, the tenor in 2002 and the alto in 2004.

The tenor has a serial of 189XXJ. It has a double arm on the low C and low B. But it looks like it might have the more modern type mechanism on the low C#. Can anyone tell from the photo below whether it does? I highlighted what I think is the low C# mechanism in the photo here

The alto, 01XXJ, has single arms but it looks like it might have the older type mechanism on the low C#. Photo is here.
Hello.

The Tenor is a very typical Mk1 tenor including the low C# mechanism.
The alto needs a better looking at all round to come up with a conclusion ...few more pics on that one please.
 
#6 ·
On reflection, I think we can safely say that your alto is a early Mk1, purely from its serial number. I had an early Mk1 tenor with the number 0101J.
Also it would seem that the alto doesn't follow the same set of pattern characteristics, as I laid out for the tenor. Re C# and double arms.

This has been said a100 times before, but make sure you get the tone-holes checked for level...factory set up is generally poor.

Nice find:)
 
#14 ·
On reflection, I think we can safely say that your alto is a early Mk1, purely from its serial number. I had an early Mk1 tenor with the number 0101J.
Also it would seem that the alto doesn't follow the same set of pattern characteristics, as I laid out for the tenor. Re C# and double arms.

This has been said a100 times before, but make sure you get the tone-holes checked for level...factory set up is generally poor.

Nice find:)
Ok, thanks.

Actually, the previous owner had an issue with intonation with the tenor and had Tenor Madness level some of the tone holes. So I assume that has been fixed. Anyway it seems to play fine.

BTW, I saw Matt Storhrer's review of a Borgani Jubilee tenor where he said some of them have cork receivers in the rods for the pivot screws. I had my tech look at mine and he showed me that it has the standard metal insert for the pivot screw.:cheers:

Witch are your feelings with the Borgani tenor? From witch model did you come from?
I was playing a Couf Superba I, Martin Committee III, and a Conn 10M, and still do. It's hard for me to pick a favorite out of these so I play them all. I also still have my first tenor, a Selmer SA80 which was my only tenor until a couple of years ago. It's a good horn but it's at another location so I only play it when I visit there.

I only got the Borgani back from the tech last week but my first impressions are that it's a great horn. At first I thought it was a little bright but after a while it started getting darker which is what I prefer. Then when I played it at a jam session and a couple of big band rehearsals it sounded even better. So I am happy with it. It might even become my favorite horn.
 
#8 ·
My Borgani (sn 187xxJ) is my #1 tenor. Previous tenors include Selmer Balanced Action, Serie III, and Ref 36 - all of which were great examples of their model.
.
 
#10 ·
Thanks for clarifying that. It wasn't clear from your post. It is useful to either quote the post or address the person by name, else we cannot guess your intention.
 
#16 ·
Not really. Mine's a '37 10M. It has a big dark sound. Also the tone is different from the Borgani. I'm not sure how to describe it but it may be just the Conn 10M sound as I can hear a similar sound from a friend who plays one.

As I said it's only first impressions but I don't think the Borg has a big a sound as the Conn or the Superba. I've heard some say the Borg sounds like a Conn New Wonder and other's a Mark VI. My tech reckoned it was like a Mark VI with it's bright focused sound, but to me it's not bright or focused like my SA80 is. But if an early Mark VI is darker and more spread than an SA80 then I would go with the folks who call it the "Italian Mark VI".

BTW, I also happened to find a blog about the horns from the previous owner. He talks about scratches on the tenor but they must be pretty minor because I can't see them.
 
#23 ·
...I've heard some say the Borg sounds like a Conn New Wonder and other's a Mark VI. My tech reckoned it was like a Mark VI with it's bright focused sound, but to me it's not bright or focused like my SA80 is. But if an early Mark VI is darker and more spread than an SA80 then I would go with the folks who call it the "Italian Mark VI".
I have both (MVI and Borgani Silver Pearl) and I can say that they are completely different. The sound of the Borgani is darker, rounded, and absolutely not as focused as the MVI one. I found that the Borg. tone is fantastic in the bottom, very easy and free blowing. In the middel range it looses lots of its character and the tone become a little poorer and different from the lower octave: you feel it. At the end it requires a little work to dominate the higher part from B3 to F#3. The tone has lot of volume but you have to understand well how much air you have to blow to keep the same tone tension.

The Mark VI (my one is a 103### sn) is completely different. The tone is warm but not as dark. The lower part has more resistance and is more difficult to play than in the Borg. The first octave is great if you don't push too much because if you do it the sound cry as a "duck in front of a gun" (Selmer typical sound). The second octave is absolutely great and also the higher part is very easy to control. With the Mark VI is easier to keep the same pressure and tone from the botton to the higher notes. Sound is very clear and delicate but is also thinner and focused.

The action is different. The Selmer one is better, fastest, lighter. The weight is totally different.

I thought that the sound could be as a CONN 10M one. If It's not like that I absolutely need to try and maybe buy one.
 
#20 ·
+1 regarding mouthpieces. My experience - and others - is that they love, love, love the Lamberson J models. On the other hand, it sounded pretty great with a Klum FocusTone, but I prefer the more spread character of the Lamberson.

No baffles, no bull.... :twisted:
 
#28 ·
I just saw a Jubilee alto for auction which appears to have an old style low C# mechanism as shown in the photo below. It's a 0106J. The alto I have is just a few digits higher 01XXJ and has the newer style mechanism.

So I guess the change to the new mechanism happened very early for the altos. Does that make it a MK2?

Light Musical instrument Motor vehicle Brass instrument Wind instrument
 
#30 ·
Quote from another thread:

I recently lucked into a Jubilee tenor and alto. The previous owner said he bought them new, the tenor in 2002 and the alto in 2004.

The tenor has a serial of 189XXJ. It has a double arm on the low C and low B. But it looks like it might have the more modern type mechanism on the low C#. Can anyone tell from the photo below whether it does? I highlighted what I think is the low C# mechanism in the photo here

The alto, 01XXJ, has single arms but it looks like it might have the older type mechanism on the low C#. Photo is here.
My pearl silver tenor 184xx has got the same system as yours in principle, but the placement is a little different
 
#32 ·
Attempting to narrow the numbers game, I compare the UL tenor recently sold by Enthusiast65, and a UL tenor that I acquired:

19529J - double arm low B - Mk I
19801J - single arm low B - Mk II

I have a gold pearl tenor on the way to add to the comparo of bell key mechanism and pivots. I am told that it may play even better than its stablemates!
 
#35 ·
Excellent! Please give us a lil' notice so we can stock the Cube with refreshments for your Welcome Home party.
 
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