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
#78 ·
My "King Super 20 USA" (2416K, #871XXX) that I bought new, in March 1983, here in Sweden had drawn toneholes. The neckjoint was too small and I 've seen three other S20 with close serial number here over and thay were also suffering from this. The model name before 2416K was KG 2416 (S) (S= solid sterling silver bell and mouthpipe). The name "Silver Sonic" is not mentioned. These saxes were sold/made when King Musical Instruments, INC also sold "De Ford", "Marigaux" stamped instruments. I'm not saying that my late S20 was a bad horn but the other two S20 I've owned were better. The best one for me was a 66-67 S20. Better for me than the S20 -51 that I had before.
 
#80 ·
Since the 615 Model is mentioned within this thread, I'll offer, that as some of you know, I recently bought an acorn engraved early EastLake King Cleveland, Ser.No. C 232XXX, which would give it a build date somewhere in 1966. It definitely has brazed tone holes, top to bottom. Great darkish tone with edge! Nicey focused, as compared to my Vito/YTS-23. (Date of mfg. interpolated from H.N. White Co. Cleveland Model Ser.No. chart '65-'70.)
 
#90 ·
I can't find a thread about just this topic, so I'll just be adding another few bits of data to this fire... I am the proud new owner of an old King Cleveland (pre-615 "acorn" engraving), purchased for a steal on ebay. Purely coincidence, but according to the serials, it was made in the same year as my S20! Sure enough, the body tubes are identical, even the bow looks the same. Keywork and guards, bell and neck tenon (S20 is much thicker) are the only apparent differences. I bought it as a backup, hoping it would be sort of similar to the S20, and it really is startling how close they are. Even more startling is the fact that these 615s are selling at 1/10th the S20 price!
When the Acorn returns from its obligatory ebay horn tune-up I will post comparison pics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soybean
#91 ·
I am actually looking at a Model 2416 at a local shop here...I test played it today and didn't pick it up because there was some obvious keywork that needed to be done and I wanted to find a local tech in my area here in Atlanta(I haven't been here long).

Its marked Model 2416 and the serial is 858xxx...Curious if anyone has input..After playing it today I was very pleased with it's sound, weight..It seemed like a crazy sax overall other than the keywork having issues in left key paddles being out of wack. I just don't what financially what it would take to get it back to greatness, but they are selling it for $880.00
 
#92 ·
That price seems a bit high, especially considering it needs some work. But basically, that is a super 20 without the name and the engraving. I would try offering them 600 and explain all the work it needs.
 
#95 ·
As in many other parts of this thread I stated that I own a great 460xxx Super 20 with a silver neck. The horn has served me for years. I have always thought I was going to keep it forever but I am looking at the possibility to invest in an overhaul now and maybe buying another , overhauled horn would be a good idea

I was ALWAYS curious about the Super 20 USA TENORS (!!) having had a Super 20 USA alto which was a disappointing and having played a Silversonic USA alto also disappointing.

HOWEVER, I once went to test a Silversonic tenor USA overslung at a shop in the NL. I had my Eastlake 460xxx with me and aside from a little bit firmer action of the USA model, there was no difference to speak of.

Necks could be exchanged but the overslung neck would only operate in the low register (or pushing the first overtone) . Both horns had brazed (soldered on) toneholes. Other small differences (the shape of the left hand table) were minimal.

Now I am about to try (and possibly buy) a SUPER 20 ( looks very nice on the pictures) USA.

The rods and keys of my Super 20 are made of white metal nickel silver , the ones from the USA are brass color (which may be lacquer over nickel silver) and the neck is also brass color.

I don’t suppose the neck is lacquered over solid silver but I am not hang up on that. I have an any type of neck on my Super 20 including a Gloger and found minimal differences between over and underslung solid silver and brass and high density silver copy made by Gloger.

A positive thing MAY be (I can’t remember if the Silversonic had that) the presence of the high F#. I was never entirely happy of the F# sound by combination of keys and even less of the G.

I will report anyway on the findings and if I will end up buying it. I am not sure what to do with the Super 20 Eastlake, which remains one of the best saxophones that I’ve ever played.
 
#96 · (Edited)
As in many other parts of this thread I stated that I own a great 460xxx Super 20 with a silver neck. The horn has served me for years. I have always thought I was going to keep it forever but I am looking at the possibility to invest in an overhaul now and maybe buying another , overhauled horn would be a good idea

I was ALWAYS curious about the Super 20 USA TENORS (!!) having had a Super 20 USA alto which was a disappointing and having played a Silversonic USA alto also disappointing.

HOWEVER, I once went to test a Silversonic tenor USA overslung at a shop in the NL. I had my Eastlake 460xxx with me and aside from a little bit firmer action of the USA model, there was no difference to speak of.

Necks could be exchanged but the overslung neck would only operate in the low register (or pushing the first overtone) . Both horns had brazed (soldered on) toneholes. Other small differences (the shape of the left hand table) were minimal.

Now I am about to try (and possibly buy) a SUPER 20 ( looks very nice on the pictures) USA.

The rods and keys of my Super 20 are made of white metal nickel silver , the ones from the USA are brass color (which may be lacquer over nickel silver) and the neck is also brass color.

I don't suppose the neck is lacquered over solid silver but I am not hang up on that. I have an any type of neck on my Super 20 including a Gloger and found minimal differences between over and underslung solid silver and brass and high density silver copy made by Gloger.

A positive thing MAY be (I can't remember if the Silversonic had that) the presence of the high F#. I was never entirely happy of the F# sound by combination of keys and even less of the G.

I will report anyway on the findings and if I will end up buying it. I am not sure what to do with the Super 20 Eastlake, which remains one of the best saxophones that I've ever played.
We have two French sayings for this situation: "laisser la proie pour l'ombre" (leaving the prey for the shadow) and "un tien vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras" (what you have now should be preferred to the promise of twice in the future).
 
#100 ·
By the way much speculation and annedoctes about the late Super 20 USA ( so NOT the Cleveland or Eastlake marked ones) not having brazed or soldereed on toneholes but pulled.

Well, this is, in all examples that I am watching not the case, time and time again

This is a 1980 silversonic
102172
102173
 
#101 · (Edited)
So, I ended up buying this beauty , in great shape, it plays as well as my Eastake. Absolutely no tuning issues.

Same ballsy voice get warm and soft at will. But I have to say the Eastlake has a different " vibe" , which I prefer.

Great case (better than the one of earlier models) perfect fit no play at all.

The bonus high F# is very welcome.

The pearl touches are concave ( whereas the Eastlake were flat), the left hand palm keys are mounted on a rib construction , nowhere else on the the new horn (the old horn didn't have that).
The thumbrest is certainly nickel silver and very likely the rest of the mechanics under a coat of golden lacquer are nickel silver too (as the Eastlake is), but there is no way for me to tell until they will scratch

The necks are interchangeable, at least in terms of fitting but there is a small problem since the Super 20 VI has a " leader" for the octave prong, if I put a Silever neck from the Eastlake on its octave mechanism would be permanently open.

The horn was perfectly repadded ad adjusted with only minor signs of use.

102302
102303
102304
102305
 
#105 · (Edited)
According to the company that sold this they belong to a Batch sold by UMI and made in Nogales with parts left from the Eastlake production.

I don't know how much of this story is based on first hand accounts but the late Super 20 I have here is a very good horn SN 788XXX . I see at least 3 other saxophones for sale (one a Silversonic) in the NL of this late series, they all look identical and may have been for years in someones stockroom since they are all almost pristine .

Mine is a very good horn

I am selling it but if I don't get the right price I won't be sad to keep it.

maybe more information on these horns could be acquired by someone in touch with Skåne-Gripen Bernhard Muskantor


"....
The man who brought all of these names together in 1985 was Bernhard Muskantor, who led the effort that bought the C.G. Conn, King and Armstrong groups and merged them together to form United Musical Instruments.

"All of these companies had special places in history of the instruments they had made," says Muskantor, UMI's chairman. "These brands still have force - musicians still look for them and their basic designs still hold true for instruments today. The legacy of those brand names was the best thing UMI had going for itself in the beginning."

But the new company wasn't content to rest on the laurels of these time-honored brands. "Since 1985," Breske says, "UMI has invested millions of dollars in technology and expansion to meet the demands of top musicians. Today's musicians want to design an instrument to meet their own needs - not just buy one off the shelf. The question for us is: How custom can we be while providing instruments to as many people as possible?"

From Musician to Management
In developing new ways to make traditional instruments, UMI has one distinct advantage: most of the management staff members are musicians.

"Many of us are musicians and former music educators, so we have a natural affinity for our products," says Breske. "We knew these brand names because some of us studied these instruments since we were young. Also, most of our salesmen are musicians; many of them are former band directors, as well."

The musician orientation gives UMI several advantages in developing new instruments. First, it provides the staff with a special understanding of what professional musicians are looking for in an instrument. They can talk of music with ease and do so with such clientele as members of major worldwide symphonies, Hollywood-based recording artists, New York-based studio musicians and Paris-based educators/studio musicians, among others. Second, the research and development portion of the job comes naturally to the research and development staff, because many of these engineers also have performance experience.

UMI has three manufacturing facilities. One is at the corporate headquarters in Elkhart, which turns out flutes, piccolos, double-reeds and stringed instruments, and which is home to the company's accessory warehouse. Another manufacturing center is in Eastlake, Ohio, which produces brass instruments and which, after a couple of expansions, is now the largest single brass instrument manufacturing facility in North America. The third center, in Nogales, Ariz., makes clarinets and saxophones.

....."
 
#107 · (Edited)
… maybe more information on these horns could be acquired by someone in touch with Skåne-Gripen Bernhard Muskantor

SOTW member JayeLID (or anyone who is interested in UMI saxes) needs to read this!

 
#108 · (Edited)
by the way, just to show that it is absolutely false that late Super 20 had pulled toneholes , this is the Super 20 above, all the toneholes are soldered on (brazed if you wish)
I'm not doubting you but we had a Super 20 alto (late model with high F#), the bell tone-holes were brazed and the body & bow holes were pulled. Maybe the altos were different than the tenors in this regard?
 
#110 · (Edited)
just for comparison the King 662 made by UMI ( same or nearly same as Keilwerth type IV Conn 94M or Armstrong ) was probably the horn which started this not founded rumor of toneholes being pulled.

THEY ( theKing 662) do have pulled toneholes and this is a detail for comparison (I've shown another before) clearly VERY different

105223
 
#114 · (Edited)
There is no doubt that the late Super 20 were ( same as mine ) made with the same brazed toneholes the until the very last production, they never had pulled toneholes as the King 662 shown above.

I keep on seeing them everywhere and they are all the same. NEVER ever have I found one picture of a horn with pulled toneholes branded as Super 20 of any serial numbers .

They have an extra high F# ( which makes playing not only F# very easy but also the G which is not as easily produced) without the F# key) and the over slung neck which was also shared by the 615 series.

At some point the rollers were changed from white to black but that is the only difference.

This is one for sale in the US also with the brazed toneholes. This still has no F# key despite being already without the Eastlake engraving.


Musical instrument Saxophone Drum Reed instrument Brass instrument
 
#116 · (Edited)
There is one (2416)in the 858xxx range listed here. Used King Super 20 (2416) Tenor Saxophone (SN: 858340)

There is an inconsistency with the hypothesis around these series VI horns. On Saxpics it says “In about 1981 King was purchased by (excuse me: "amalgamated into") UMI and the Super 20 is gone from all serial number charts that I've seen but you could still get Super 20's up until about s/n 800xxx (s/n 788xxx is the highest I've personally been able to verify, and that'd be a horn made about 1998 -- extrapolating from how many horns King produced per year).”

However, King serial charts published on Conn Selmer website say that 858xxx is a 1981 horn. King Instrument Serial Numbers

Based on this it would appear that the series VI horns were produced sometimes between 1975 and 1982. I think that this time range is easier to explain why these horns were made. The tooling was still likely in the Eastlake factory and knowledge/skills to make them still existed.

There are instances of manufacturers continuing to make horns after official discontinuing the horns. Most famously Martin Committee Trumpets were produced for Miles Davis on special order.

in addition, the Conn Selene chart shoea that serial numbers were reset in 1986 at 100,000 and that Ki g was making around 75,000 horns a year. That potentially explains the mystery of the infamous Super 21. If you extrapolate 75k horns a year until 1993 you are net the 700xxx series which is the range for the Super 21s.
 
#118 ·
There is one (2416)in the 858xxx range listed here. Used King Super 20 (2416) Tenor Saxophone (SN: 858340)

There is an inconsistency with the hypothesis around these series VI horns. On Saxpics it says “In about 1981 King was purchased by (excuse me: "amalgamated into") UMI and the Super 20 is gone from all serial number charts that I've seen but you could still get Super 20's up until about s/n 800xxx (s/n 788xxx is the highest I've personally been able to verify, and that'd be a horn made about 1998 -- extrapolating from how many horns King produced per year).”

However, King serial charts published on Conn Selmer website say that 858xxx is a 1981 horn. King Instrument Serial Numbers

Based on this it would appear that the series VI horns were produced sometimes between 1975 and 1982. I think that this time range is easier to explain why these horns were made. The tooling was still likely in the Eastlake factory and knowledge/skills to make them still existed.

There are instances of manufacturers continuing to make horns after official discontinuing the horns. Most famously Martin Committee Trumpets were produced for Miles Davis on special order.

in addition, the Conn Selene chart shoea that serial numbers were reset in 1986 at 100,000 and that Ki g was making around 75,000 horns a year. That potentially explains the mystery of the infamous Super 21. If you extrapolate 75k horns a year until 1993 you are net the 700xxx series which is the range for the Super 21s.
A few things here. The information on Saxpics was compiled many years ago with much less information than is available today. The serial number conclusions and production run of the Super 20 are wildly inaccurate for a simple reason: After 1983, King saxophones were built by Conn and use a separate serial number chart from other King instruments. The "7 31xxx" serial numbers appearing on the Super 21 prototypes were misinterpreted as being Eastlake, when they are not. (Incidentally, 731000 on the Eastlake chart would land around 1998 or 1999, so it isn't necessarily that far off, but since all sax serials had a "7" prefix from 1995 through 2004, there's no correlation.)

King was purchased by Dan Henkin (owner of Conn and Armstrong) in June 1983. UMI didn't come about until later.

The existing King serial chart (pre-UMI) isn't very accurate. It does appear from my research that King was building 40,000 to 50,000 instruments per year in the '80s, and these late-production Super 20/241x saxes were made through at least 1982.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cymru97
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