I don't think the facings on Links are in the same league as the top quality work done by Ed Pillinger or Kay Siebold.
If you look on his website, a Kay Siebold 8 is .106 -
http://www.tittmann.de/SaxophonShop...ONSE-Tenor-Saxophon-Mundstueck-Metall::4.html
at least on the mouthpieces he makes himself
Pillinger's website only lists his own mouthpieces up to a 9* at .130, so a 10 must've been enormous -
http://www.pillingermouthpieces.co.uk/page11.html
the numbering systems used by different manufacturers are not in the least bit standardised, which is rather confusing and exasperating when trying to compare mouthpieces
My 'Early Babbitt' Link Tone Edge 9 (~ .120) is not an easy blow and I use soft Fibracells
I agree that the tip opening is only one of many parameters that should be taken into consideration when determining the suitability of a mouthpiece, but how many mouthpiece makers ever say what the facing length is?
Tip opening and some vagueness about the chamber size and baffle and a few photos are all you can go on and I still think that a stock, unmodified Link in a .128 tip is a bit big compared to a .110 Rousseau 7.
Of course sending it to Morgan Fry or Ed Pillinger for a reface would sort it out, bu that'd add about £100 to the cost and it wouldn't be a bargain any more...
oh, I see it's not even a bargain in the first place now
😉