Old thread, new reply. There is an interview with Marcel Mule in which he discusses playing the premier of Bolero, which he later played with Ravel present a number of times. (I don't remember if Ravel conducted the premier, but I don't think so) He said that they (the saxes) were mystified by the sopranino in F inscription on the part. None of them had ever heard of one. The previous professor of saxophone at the conservatoire had been Adolph Sax, and he apparently had left no clues to any such existence of said instrument. So, Mule played it on soprano, transposing the part as most of us do today. Ravel never said anything, nor did they tell Ravel about it. Apparently Ravel was not one to take suggestions from musicians unless he asked for them, and Mule said he never really talked to the saxophonists.
Any such instruments have been made since then by aficionados who wanted to impress their conductors by having the right instrument for the part.
That said, a number of conductors have insisted on using a sopranino/soprano combo as written, thinking that maybe there was a coloration difference. I'd say that in that range, the coloration was hardly noticeable, except for the fact that mouthpieces for Sopranino are in short supply, there being very few models and facings available. Therefore, most sopranino players do not have access to the kind of sound they probably would like to produce.
I have performed it with Dallas and Mexico City symphonies as written, in addition to other orchestras on soprano and/or tenor, but I never played the sopranino part. I played the soprano in the hand-off, after having played the tenor solo. In the Mexico City winter, at that altitude, reeds were a tremendous problem for someone who had just flown in to play the part. The poor chap who played sopranino once found himself faced with recalcitrant reeds, causing much trouble on what is really a very simple part. The glisses ended in squeaks, and I felt very sorry for him, for he was an extremely fine player. But Bolero is a mystical piece to perform. If someone has a bad solo, it tends to go like dominos, culminating in the extreme catastrophe of the trombone entrance. That was the case in one of the Mexico City performances, on which the sopranino player squeaked so badly. I think about half the soloists flubbed something. I played fine, but the tenor solo presents little challenge, and the soprano handoff leaves hardly anything to flub.
I wish someone would explain to the publishers that Ravel was simply mistaken about the "Sopranino in F," and put an end to all attempts at so-called authenticity with an instrument that did not exist. It is unnecessary, problematic, and adds nothing to the piece even when done flawlessly. Nobody cares! Soprano plays the range perfectly, and has enough of that juvenile voice in that register to pass for a sopranino. Nobody specializes in sopranino, so they're never going to be at their orchestral best when playing that double. Ravel made a mistake. Let's admit that the composer was not above a simple error in the availability and keys of an instrument hardly ever heard in the orchestra up to that point. Publish the parts for Soprano and Tenor, and put that absurdity behind us! It's a popular piece of music that will be played into eternity, so do the future a favor and get rid of the mistake!
Shooshie