Sax on the Web Forum banner

Two vintage Otto Link Florida Slants - Different Rails, Different Sounds

5K views 39 replies 18 participants last post by  Henblower 
#1 · (Edited)
I got this Link Slant Florida 5* (incl. original box) in an excellent condition today and had to compare it to my Slant Florida 8 (just too curious...). I found that the pieces feature the same measurements and design (milling lines), even the baffles looked quite similar. But then I saw that the rails are worlds apart: the "8" features very thin rails whereas the "5*" has rails at least twice the size of the the "8".
Can you experts out there explain about this? I have included pics. If you want to look at them hires, I'll include the Dropbox-link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1r4awxbhsjduv9u/AABnmCmbn1kP1lrzrP6Arxfta?dl=0

In case you want to guess, I'll just call the clips "Slant 1" and "Slant 2" and will solve the riddle later.

Slant 1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5yd47a6odvvm5a7/Slant 1.mp3?dl=0

Slant 2

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wrw6zppg80awqv/Slant 2.mp3?dl=0

"Greensleeves" is TOTM in the German forum, so I felt like using this idea.
 

Attachments

See less See more
5
#3 ·
I had a go at both Slants with a lot of good light, a magnifiying glass and my set of feeler gauges. They are not precision gauges, so the different gauges might be more or less inaccurate. My guess is that neither the 5* nor the 8 have been worked on. The 5* comes to 0.090 which is a bit more than what standard Link charts offer for a 5* (0.086). The 8 is 0.105 or 0.106 which is less than the 0.110 I found in Theo Wanne's chart. The photograph of the 5* over-emphasizes the front rail. It's in fact thinner. On the 5*, the milling lines are clearer than on the 8. When I looked at the mouthpiece museum at saxophone.org I found that the rails on my 5* look quite similar. I used extra magnification to look at the rails all the way to the table, and there is no visual clue this piece was worked on.
Last: when I hold both pieces in parallel and look over them you will find facing length and curve to be similar
I think experts will be able to explain if Florida Slants no U.S.A. were made very individually and can vary a lot, or if there were different production lines of Slants in this Otto Link period.
 
#4 ·
Just a guess, but since I've found thinner rails to sometimes brighten the sound and Slant 2 sounds a bit brighter/edgier, maybe the Slant 2 is the '8' with thin rails. It sounds a bit edgier to me. OTOH, given the larger tip which should warm the tone, it could be that Slant 1 is the '8.' It depends on which factor is dominant; thickness of the rails or the size of the tip.

There are two separate factors working here; tip opening and thickness of rails.
 
#5 ·
You are absolutely right there: these factors really count.
After a lengthy visit at saxophone.org's mouthpiecemuseum I found an original 5* that is 0.092 and an original 7 that is 0.098. So it seems a fact that a facing number was not really reliable in the 60s concerning exact opening in fractions of an inch. A Slant that BP worked on shows a clear transition point where you can see the end of the original rail and the onset of Brian's work. so now I'm even more convinced my 5* was not worked on in any way.
You're absolutely right
 
#7 ·
Heiner, to me they both look original. The different rails could just be caused by using a different blank or a different amount of finishing time put in the mouthpiece.

Soundwise I didn't really hear much difference. My guess would be that the second clip is the 8 and the first the 5*, because you seemed to have a bit heavier attack in clip 2 (pointing to a bigger tip). Clip 1 also sounded a bit cleaner, which could point to a better control (and thus a smaller tip). You sound good on both :).

In general bigger tips should sound a bit darker compared to smaller tips, when all the other things are equal. But a slight difference in baffle could already destroy that theory, that's why I didn't go that way.
 
#9 ·
Sound wise, I preferred slant 1.
Rails wise, the 8 tip looks more like I would expect as original and the tip rail on the 5 doesn't look original to me. I also see signs where hand finishing on the facing curve of the 5* starts (which doesn't mean its not original) but I don't see that on the 8 and for want of a better description, the rails and tip finish look more 'recent' in comparison to the rest of the piece colour wise.
As always, nice recordings, nice pics, nice pieces!
 
#10 ·
Thanks, saxlicker, for your kind words. This morning I took two more pics in broad daylight and added them in an even higher resolution in the Dropbox folder above. I'll include them here in a smaller, compressed version. Again, there is something that is misleading: with the 5*, the rails show a change in colour which must be the angle of sunlight. I can't detect any change of colour when I hold them in front of my eyes in a diffused light situation.
Anyway: Slant 1 is the 5* with more bottom, Slant 2 the 8 with a slimmer and more defined tone. I like both pieces, but I'm not sure if I will keep them both because I also have a Slant Eburnated Bar NY (was a 4, was opened to 0.108) which has a lot of bottom and sounds huge.
 

Attachments

#12 ·
Definitely not, pontius. It would take a professional photographer's job to do both pieces justice, but I can clearly jugde the rails by now when I look at them in vita. The structure of the rails is so even all the way to the end of the window, and when I slide along with my finger, it feels absolutely like the rails on the 8: smooth and even.
What I found when I took the pics an hour ago: the 5* is slightly longer than the 8 and shows a slighly larger window as well. So I guess my friend mrpeebee is right: the pieces are different blanks from the same era.
 
#16 ·
I still do not believe the 5* was worked on, but of course I'm very interested to know what you find out and think. I bought it as an original Slant and don't believe the seller is putting me on. On the other hand, he might have been cheated before, who knows.
Anyway, I found this 5* at saxophone.org and claim if my piece was worked on, this "original 5* Slant" was worked on as well, because the front rail is as prominent as on my 5*.

http://saxophone.org/museum/mouthpieces/specimen/1084

Maybe some Slant did have a rather prominent front rails and others didn't. I took two more pics of the Slants' baffles to compare. Thanks for all your interest and comments.
 

Attachments

#23 ·
It's not just the width of the tip, although it is that. It's also the transition into the baffle. You can tell clearly that the last operation on the 8 was work on the baffle. You can tell clearly that the last operation on the 5* was sanding the tip open. Sebastian is exactly right IMO, this is exactly what a piece looks like midway through the work. After you alter the facing, before you cut the tip and baffle back in.

Mind you, this could have been done intentionally for a player that has a preference for a wide tip rail. And I have seen Slants with varying width of tip rail. But I've never seen an original condition Slant that had the tip rail sanded after the baffle work was done.
 
#19 ·
I asked a friend of mine, a renowned manfacturer and refacer of mouthpieces in the U.S.A., for help and sent him the pics. Like Sebastian Knox he pointed out this piece is definitely not original. The guy in Germany who sold it to me agreed on a partial refund, so I will not give it back, but will keep it and will maybe have someone finish a job that was not done properly. On the other hand, the piece sounds surprisingly good. I tried it with a backing track last night ("Maiden Voyage"), and it worked nicely in the mix and offered a lot of colour.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66272036/slant 5* gloger maiden.mp3

I don't know what a further refacing will bring. Maybe the baffle will have more of a clam-shell profile and the rails will be thinner. Both results will definitely take this Slant to where a lot of the refacings go: more treble, less mids, more bit, less body. I will have to think this over.
The seller sent me the link to the auction :

http://www.ebay.de/itm/122315147467?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

I must say that the offer does not claim this piece is original. On the other hand the shop does not state it's not original.... So they would definitely not take it back, so the loss is with the guy in the German forum who bought it and sold it to me in good faith. He even had to add about 28% for shipping, taxes and customs.
 
#31 ·
Yes, if it sounds good, don't touch it, you may be disappointed with the results. I know this from experience.
 
#22 ·
I was surprised myself that in fact Slant 1 is the 5*, but given the fact the rails are so much broader on this piece there was a clue from the beginning....

I'm still looking for a clue myself if the 5* with similar rails shown at saxophone.org (link in post #16) is original or not. I trust my friend's and Sebastian's expertise, but there is still some doubt left to whether the Link factory sometimes did these "irregular" facings on request.
 
#24 ·
Thanks mfry, this is what I thought but did not know for sure: on a rightly finished mouthpiece, the front rail will not be a "step", but will "flow" into the baffle, right? Is there any prognosis about which change the "correct" refacing will bring about sonically? I had a Florida Slant years ago that had been refaced by Brian Powell. I found pics of that old Slant in my archive somewhere, and, yes, the front rails definitely looks different on this one (I'll include two pics).
 

Attachments

#30 ·
IMHO the 5* will only benefit from finishing the work. Clearly the window at the tip rail has not been opened to match the rails. Not to mention the rails are probably making more contact with the reeds than necessary. The edges are also more blunt than the rest of the rails.

Perhaps someone with a gauge found that the 5* was even more closed than a chart would show for a piece of this era, and gave it a shave and a haircut. Is the facing even? Mojo probably has a schedule for a piece of this vintage and size you can compare it to.

OTOH the window is probably still the right size, and can be finished properly.
 
#32 ·
#33 ·
I think the whole 'worked on' thing is a bit impossible to describe since someone 'worked on' the mouthpiece at Otto Link before it was sold and if it came out of the factory process not playing they 'worked on' it more than the last one they 'worked on' the minute before. I have heard tell that they averaged about 5-10 minutes of work per piece back in the day and it's 2-3 minutes now. My understanding is that someone could work on the tim and upper rails without working the piece down toward the facing. Looks like the one on the right had that done at some point. The pieces I have had in hard rubber that I assume had after factory work are mostly either ruined or way better looking than the original pieces that I have had. I think Sakshama is correct about the 5* but some of the thinness of rails and tip can actually come from playing too. these things can wear from constant use and handling for 70 years.
 
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