Saxophones Cons of unlacquered sax

[Taz]

In my opinion there's still a lot of snobbery where saxes are concerned, lacquered or stripped. Griff serviced mine about 10 years ago and had nothing but good things to say about it. I believe he sees a sax for what it is and does and not what its called. I recently had it serviced with a Selmer fan. He said that there were only so many sequins that he could stick to my.... well, I'm sure you know the expression! I love my Amati, she sound gorgeous!

 

[Dr G]

In my opinion there's still a lot of snobbery where saxes are concerned, lacquered or stripped. Griff serviced mine about 10 years ago and had nothing but good things to say about it. I believe he sees a sax for what it is and does and not what its called. I recently had it serviced with a Selmer fan. He said that there were only so many sequins that he could stick to my.... well, I'm sure you know the expression! I love my Amati, she sound gorgeous!

What’s the alleged snobbery? You either like the look or you don’t. It has no effect on the sound.

What do you have to share regarding the question of cons to having a UL finish?

 

[Taz]

I don't believe the snobbery is alleged, plenty of players of certain horns wouldn't touch a lesser make, unlacquered or not. Again, it's my opinion, but a horn with scruffy worn or flaky lacquer looks scruffy whereas an unlacquered horn looks its age, it looks like it's earned its tarnished look.

 

[Tuppertn]

I don't think these vintage-look horns are really bare brass. Brand new, unlacquered brass is bright and shiny. For them to look old when they're actually new they must have some kind of forced patina. It's possible that the forced patina is more stable than truly bare brass.

 

[jazzdoh]

I don't think these vintage-look horns are really bare brass. Brand new, unlacquered brass is bright and shiny. For them to look old when they're actually new they must have some kind of forced patina. It's possible that the forced patina is more stable than truly bare brass.

You could argue that it's shiny bare brass that has it's look forced because it's been actively polished.

The standard SC RAW is bare brass with just a wax applied at new.

 

[Stephen Howard]

You could argue that it's shiny bare brass that has it's look forced because it's been actively polished.

The standard SC RAW is bare brass with just a wax applied at new.

There's actually no such thing as bare brass - at least in terms of it being untouched from the state it was in when delivered to the horn manufacturers as plain sheet. It's gotta be rolled and brazed, toneholes drawn, fittings soldered on - and by the time all that's done it looks like a complete mess..
Keilwerth once produced a model that was left vaguely unfinished - with solder wipe marks all over the place - and then there's the Inderbinen, left with the finish resulting from annealing.
These esoteric finishes aside the standard practice is to polish and clean the brass prior to applying a finish - be it lacquer, plating or a chemical tarnish...or just a simple wax finish.
The TJ RAW XS starts off with a chemical tarnish - which is then rubbed off.

I'm unconvinced that chemical tarnishes add that much resistance to corrosion given the state that many such horns end up in - but what seems to work pretty well is the sort of tarnish that results from handling, where the crystalline structure of the brass can be see. That seems to be quite stable by comparison, to the point where I would be cautious about polishing it off.

 

[Dr G]

I don't believe the snobbery is alleged, plenty of players of certain horns wouldn't touch a lesser make, unlacquered or not. Again, it's my opinion, but a horn with scruffy worn or flaky lacquer looks scruffy whereas an unlacquered horn looks its age, it looks like it's earned its tarnished look.

That sounds completely bass ackwards to me. A scruffy worn finish indicates wear from use. An unlacquered horn left to tarnish so it can look worn is a poser.

“Wow, is that a vintage saxophone?”

“Oh, yeah. Look, it is stamped ‘Vintage’ right on the bell.”

 

[jazzdoh]

There's actually no such thing as bare brass - at least in terms of it being untouched from the state it was in when delivered to the horn manufacturers as plain sheet. It's gotta be rolled and brazed, toneholes drawn, fittings soldered on - and by the time all that's done it looks like a complete mess..
Keilwerth once produced a model that was left vaguely unfinished - with solder wipe marks all over the place - and then there's the Inderbinen, left with the finish resulting from annealing.
These esoteric finishes aside the standard practice is to polish and clean the brass prior to applying a finish - be it lacquer, plating or a chemical tarnish...or just a simple wax finish.
The TJ RAW XS starts off with a chemical tarnish - which is then rubbed off.

I'm unconvinced that chemical tarnishes add that much resistance to corrosion given the state that many such horns end up in - but what seems to work pretty well is the sort of tarnish that results from handling, where the crystalline structure of the brass can be see. That seems to be quite stable by comparison, to the point where I would be cautious about polishing it off.

Thanks Steve
I knew the SC RAW XS was buffed but i did think the standard RAW was left as is but with a wax coating for protection.

 

[Dr G]

There's actually no such thing as bare brass - at least in terms of it being untouched from the state it was in when delivered to the horn manufacturers as plain sheet. It's gotta be rolled and brazed, toneholes drawn, fittings soldered on - and by the time all that's done it looks like a complete mess..

Bare brass is just brass without a finish. If I take a chunk of brass, process it, machine it, then grind and polish it, it is still bare brass.

Keilwerth once produced a model that was left vaguely unfinished - with solder wipe marks all over the place - and then there's the Inderbinen, left with the finish resulting from annealing.
These esoteric finishes aside the standard practice is to polish and clean the brass prior to applying a finish - be it lacquer, plating or a chemical tarnish...or just a simple wax finish.
The TJ RAW XS starts off with a chemical tarnish - which is then rubbed off.

I'm unconvinced that chemical tarnishes add that much resistance to corrosion given the state that many such horns end up in - but what seems to work pretty well is the sort of tarnish that results from handling, where the crystalline structure of the brass can be see. That seems to be quite stable by comparison, to the point where I would be cautious about polishing it off.

Yes. That is a challenge with the faux finishes. If a person uses even a mild polish, the bare brass will be revealed and any stabilizing effect of the faux patina is removed.

 

[Jimmymack]

I have a King Super20 from the late 50s, King lacquer was never up to much I hear and my horn hasn’t seen any in a long time, except a few tiny scraps on a couple of keys. Somebody asked me recently, with slightly scornful tone, if I’d bought one of those new bare brass horns. He was a guitarist. Then again somebody else asked me, again with a sceptical tone, if I found the silver neck better than the original. He at least played tenor.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Somebody asked me recently, with slightly scornful tone, if I’d bought one of those new bare brass horns.

Bare brass saxophones have been available for the last century and a half.

 

[Jimmymack]

He meant the new ones.

 

[skeller047]

What I find particularly egregious is when an unlacquered model actually costs more than the lacquered one. P. Mauriat for example.

 

[Woodpad]

What I find particularly egregious is when an unlacquered model actually costs more than the lacquered one. P. Mauriat for example.

less is more........ expensive

 

[Pete Thomas]

What I find particularly egregious is when an unlacquered model actually costs more than the lacquered one. P. Mauriat for example.

less is more........ expensive

This is what I found when researching manufacturers for the proposed Cafesaxophone saxophone. Unlacquered cost more to produce due the finishing process. More hand finishing is required after the assembly process. Lacquering in a production line process is surprisingly cheap and protects the instrument from handling marks during assembly. Yes I was also surprised

 

[Ivan]

That sounds completely bass ackwards to me

To you alone?

 

[Dr G]

To you alone?

I stated my opinion, but it is one shared by others. It has been a recurring comment from many ever since the concept came out.

“Here. If you need some cred but your playing sucks, use one of these horns with no finish. People will believe you are a seasoned player right up to the time you start playing.”

 

[JSL]

Again, it's my opinion, but a horn with scruffy worn or flaky lacquer looks scruffy whereas an unlacquered horn looks its age, it looks like it's earned its tarnished look.

I also agree this is bass ackwards. I'd say the opposite is true, to an extent. And really, if it's a seasoned player who can play well, that has nothing to do with the finish on the horn; if they suck then an unlacquered horn will not help in any way.

To you alone?

So, no. Dr G is not alone in his opinion.

 

[Dr G]

@Ivan @Taz Does a real musician lose all their cred if they decide to buy a new horn?

<gasp!>

Imagine the horror of enjoying your favorite blues/jazz/whatever band in a dark smoky club, only to discover when the lights are turned up that they are playing shiny new instruments. Oh, no!

 

[JSL]

@Ivan @Taz Does a real musician lose all their cred if they decide to buy a new horn?

<gasp!>

One thing to realize is that the audience doesn't know one brand of horn from another. Nor do they care. What they do care about is whether or not they like what they hear. Sure, other horn players might recognize the horn you are playing, but again, they aren't likely to judge you or give you 'cred' on what that horn is, or whether or not it is lacquered. How you play is what's going to matter in terms of cred.