support Tutorials CDs PPT mouthpieces

Saxophones Cost of UL v's L?????

SaxinNZ

Senior Member
Messages
76
Location
North Canterbury, New Zealand
Why does an un-lacquered sax (a P Mauriat Influence for example) cost around £200 more than a lacquered one? The prep required to lacquer, plus the “superb” faux patina that they put on prior to (or during) lacquering must be far more work than just a buff and leave job!

If anything, I would expect a UL to be a whole lot less money. Is it because they “can” charge more, or am I missing something? I would welcome an answer from someone who knows. This isn’t a rant, or even a complaint, but I am curious to say the least.
 
Why does an un-lacquered sax (a P Mauriat Influence for example) cost around £200 more than a lacquered one? The prep required to lacquer, plus the “superb” faux patina that they put on prior to (or during) lacquering must be far more work than just a buff and leave job!

If anything, I would expect a UL to be a whole lot less money. Is it because they “can” charge more, or am I missing something? I would welcome an answer from someone who knows. This isn’t a rant, or even a complaint, but I am curious to say the least.

The UL's are treated differently by manufacturers. For example, Trevor James fettle the appearance of a waxy dip that is used primarily for cleaning the sax at a point during the process.
I think Yamaha do simply buff them so probably many variations to be had.

All in all, it's a popular choice and they know it and I suspect that there within lies the real answer.

plus the “superb” faux patina that they put on prior to (or during) lacquering must be far more work than just a buff and leave job!

Superb.....?
Horses for corses I suppose ;}
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom