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.