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 ....
Thomas