It does look bent, doesn't it? In fact, the image certainly is. Whether that's due to the sax being bent or a distorted image due to a cheap crappy lens I don't know. What I do know is that I wouldn't risk it. £600 is cheap for a 10M but a lot to lose on a banana-d sax.
You will notice that the one for sale is a late model and looks and plays completely different and hence is lower priced simply as a result of the Vintage not being as desired as early ones. You can see this also in 6m review on stephens site.
They were making the transitional model, then the 10m from 1930 through to 1960 I believe. So some are going to be more expensive or " Collectable ". Just look at the Variations in the "Famous Fender Stratocaster electric guitar".
I paid over £700 for my 1935 model in the early 80`s when you needed to spend almost 2 grand to get a Selmer Paris Mark 7 new. but I would say that even in spite of the recession My Horn would be valued about £1000 up.
Never the less there are always bargains to be had. Especially in the States. the only thing is that the Dollar is strong against the pound just now and you might also have to pay hefty import Duty.
I too think it looks bent forward.
At first I wasn't sure whether it was an illusion caused by the stripey back ground, but in the l/h rear three-quarter view I think the light reflection gives it away.
Up by the l/h thumbrest it looks distorted.
The late models, i.e. '50s, are not as desirable as the earlier ones. 10Ms lost the rolled tone-holes in the 30s I think, and by the 50s they were churning them out somewhat, alongside cheaper student models. I sold my '58 last year for about £500 but she was a battered old thing and a cosmetic disaster area, but I have seen similar age 10Ms in good condition go for not much more on Ebay.
Still a good sax though - loads of volume, good action and built like a tractor, and a good bet if you fancy dabbling with a "vintage" horn. I would be amazed if the one shown was bent - it would have to be a serious impact to damage one of those things.
A damage on the bell can result in a "bent/banana" sax. Otherwise lots of saxes use "go bananas" over the years. Players that push hard, while they are playing, are somtimes bending their saxes. Maybe the upper part on the old American saxes were the weakest part?
Just a reflection. Stephen Horward wrote in his rewiev of Conn 10M tenor: "Like a lot of vintage horns, the brace that runs between the bell and the body is not that stout, comprising just a single bar with a woefully inadequate base plate on the body. If the horn takes a knock to the bell the implications for damage to the body are very great. With this in mind you should never even consider using a soft case for one of these instruments (or any other, in my opinion! )."
How about the design of the low B and Bb keyguards? Didn't they help to make the saxes sturdy? Beside an ordinary brace between the body and bell that all saxes have, the American (not King) saxes from the 30's to the 60's had keygaurds that was conneted between the body and bell. Conn 10 M and Beuscher Aristocrate (Beuscher 400 had no keygaurd at all) had keyguards that were conneted/soldered on four points. Martin had a three point solution with screws. King had a triangle clothes protection between the bell on body on the early Super 20's (they dropped this in the early 50's). Can the keyguard design be an explanation why American saxes are so sturdy, at least on the comes to lower part of the sax?
A late Conn 10M like this one can be a good player but it should be cheaper than a Conn 10M from the 30's. There are other European saxes to look for if you want a sax that are built and also playing in the same style as a Conn. Keilwert built saxes from the 50' and 60's, Hohner, Hammerschmidt stencils, Dörfler und Jörka stencils, Kohlert ....