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
#117 ·
Yeah, as much as I admire what Saxpics offered back in the day, it’s not perfect. I’m sure the late Super 20 section is one Pete would have revised by now if it was still his.

The Saxpics speculation around serial numbers is off-base, but unfortunately, it’s one of the first things people see when they do a search and unless things have changed in recent years the site isn’t updated.
 
#119 ·
Yeah, as much as I admire what Saxpics offered back in the day, it’s not perfect. I’m sure the late Super 20 section is one Pete would have revised by now if it was still his.

The Saxpics speculation around serial numbers is off-base, but unfortunately, it’s one of the first things people see when they do a search and unless things have changed in recent years the site isn’t updated.
The 'problem' is, Pete Hales has since moved on to another website project, still out there compiling good stuff - and Saxpics is the property of USA horn now. Out of respect for not just its creator, but for the sax playing public at large...USA horn COULD HAVE spend a LITTLE time revising the site or at LEAST omitting the erroneous info or speculation which at the time, as noted by Stocker, wasn't unreasonable to speculate - but since then has been refuted or altered significantly.

Someone should have done that, nobody ever did, and Saxpics remains the most-often referenced vintage sax database....so this stuff keeps getting recirculated. I wish USA Horn would just sell it....
 
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