Saxophones Left Hand Pinky Table Opinions?

[JayeNM]

It's the same as the Conn layout except without the plate to slide from C# to Bb. You can just jump over B without too much trouble.

You CAN yes, as I said...anything is workable enough. But even having the low Bb solely below the low B key, as was done on Cleves and Martin Indianas, for example, is IMHO better than 'jumping over' the B touch to reach the Bb, with no other option available.
Better yet is a Chu-type table which actually has both the laterally adjacent Bb and the Bb in at lease SOME proximity to the C# as well.
Or even the much maligned early "King HN Whites" which is even better in the C#-to-Bb path.

Given the Chus and the old Kings predate the Zeph 1's, again it baffles me why KIng would insist on a player having their sole option be to jump over the B touch...
It is to me, literally a de-evolution table design....here are two models (King and Chu) which predate the first Zeph....so much more logical and easier.
.

 

[turf3]

That upper photo is what I think is the best layout for a traditionally hinged table. The Conn 12M is like that. I can't imagine why Conn didn't apply it to the New Wonder altos and tenors. The lower photo is what they did use, it's functional but the other one's better.

 

[skeller047]

If the C# key is actually a little HIGHER than the B or Bb keys, then sliding FROM C# to either of the others is easier. Going the other way is much less problematic. As I mentioned, my tech put a small epoxy ramp on my C# key on my SBA to accomplish this. no issues sliding either way, to or from C#. no tilting Bb needed.

Some horns have a plastic doohickey between B and C# to help with the “push” the pinky has to make going from C# to B. Unnecessary, especially if just raising the C# touch a bit solves the whole problem. 1mm max difference, maybe sloped a bit toward B and Bb. I was very pleasantly surprised to see this exact approach taken on the Eastman tenor I tried at NAMM last week.

 

[Nervous_Fingers]

There seem to be 3 basic configurations of the left hand pinky table on saxophones manufactured in the last 100 years. I am leaving out on purpose those earlier horns that only went to low B.

I'd love to hear peoples' honest opinions about their experience with these. The 3 configurations (of course there are many variations of each):

• "Vintage-Style" - 3 bell keys in a line, C# - B - Bb, with Bb below as well. Think Conn or Buescher instruments, but many others used a similar configuration. Often these horns had bell keys on the "pants side" of the horn, with a resulting stiff action for C#.
• "BA-Style" - C# and B in line, with Bb below. Later Super 20s, Yamaha student models, Beaugnier model 38 and of course BA and SBA Selmers use this style.
• "Mark VI-Style" - This adds the tilting low Bb key, and the linkage between the C# and Bb key, but the overall shape is the same as the BA-Style. Used on virtually every modern instrument, with the notable exception of the older student Yamahas.

Here's my opinion. I dislike the Mark VI style, compared to the BA style. That said, both are superior to the older vintage "3-in-a-line" style, though that style can be made to play well.

I find the additions to the BA style for the Mark VI to be superfluous. I don't need the Bb key to tilt, and the linkage between it and the C# is just silly. I understand the stated purpose is to make moving around more fluid, reducing the jumps or catches between the keys, but my SBA alto is very nimble and I vastly prefer the solid feel of the Bb key.

These additional features of the Mark VI style are made worse by the trend to larger pinky tables. I find myself more sensitive to this since I broke my left pinky (doh!) and it is still not as flexible as it used to be. There are some horns I cannot play low Bb on, easily. My 100K Mark VI tenor is fine, but my Barone tenor made around 2010 is a struggle. The keys are significantly bigger, and thus low Bb is farther away.

My experiences in the last few days at NAMM 2026, playing lots of horns, has made me much more aware of this. Some horns were easier to manage, with regard to the LH pinky table. Others were quite difficult, and one no-name Taiwan stencil was impossible.

One thing I noticed (and mentioned in my discussion of horns at NAMM) was the addition of an angled ramp on the C# key on Eastman horns. This solves the jump or catch problem of sliding between low C# and low B. A tech put such a ramp on my SBA low C#, and it makes a huge difference. He also built up the low Bb, which makes it easier to play, and move between Bb and either B or C#.

So my conclusions are - instead of adding more fiddly mechanisms to the underside or sides of the table keys, make sure they are configured and angled to support the natural movement of our fingers. What say you?

I can't speak much to tenor since I don't own a BA, SBA or Mark VI (looking for a BA though), but I can chime in about altos. I had my first pro horn when I was a teen and it was a SA 80, so that was the only pinky table I got used to. Now having a BA and Mark VI and the BA as my main horn, I favor that table more. I just like the feel of it. My only complaint is as you mentioned, the slide from C# to Bb is difficult as my pinky sometimes gets stuck at the roller. But, I'm not making that jump very often so it's ok.

I do like the inline table on the Conns, specifically the transitional I own ('32-'33) using the older 6M style. I have a '46-'47 6M with the newer table that's slightly different. I don't understand why they moved the wider end of the G# key from the left to the right. That's my only complaint about that specific table -- and that you need a little more oomph to open C#.

On tenor I must say the Martin Comm III table is terrible -- absolutely no sliding from C# to Bb. But I love that horn...

 

[skeller047]

Thanks for sharing your experience everybody! As I said above, this has been helpful to me.

Last night I visited an old friend, who is staying with her son who is a physical therapist. I had a long talk with him, and showed him my poor mangled left pinky. He agreed with my treatment program, massage with CBD and Arnica cream, and stretching. My pinky is becoming more flexible, but I expect it will never recover fully. But low Bb on my Barone tenor is now (sometimes) possible. A couple months ago that was not true.

In our discussion, I learned something new. That is that grip strength comes mainly from the pinky. So when pushing it’s weak, but pulling is strong. C# to B or Bb is weak, B or Bb to C# is strong. This is why the little ramp on the low C# key is helpful.

 

[PigSquealer]

I can't speak much to tenor since I don't own a BA, SBA or Mark VI (looking for a BA though), but I can chime in about altos. I had my first pro horn when I was a teen and it was a SA 80, so that was the only pinky table I got used to. Now having a BA and Mark VI and the BA as my main horn, I favor that table more. I just like the feel of it. My only complaint is as you mentioned, the slide from C# to Bb is difficult as my pinky sometimes gets stuck at the roller. But, I'm not making that jump very often so it's ok.

I do like the inline table on the Conns, specifically the transitional I own ('32-'33) using the older 6M style. I have a '46-'47 6M with the newer table that's slightly different. I don't understand why they moved the wider end of the G# key from the left to the right. That's my only complaint about that specific table -- and that you need a little more oomph to open C#.

On tenor I must say the Martin Comm III table is terrible -- absolutely no sliding from C# to Bb. But I love that horn...View attachment 33049View attachment 33050

Martin Comm III table ? Your pictures are of a Conn 6M or 10m table.

 

[PigSquealer]

The LH pinky table ease of use is the most common complaint I hear about. LH palm keys and RH pinky is not far behind.
The concern is either angle/ reach, spring tension or both. Complains of preference on pivoting or non-pivoting LH table are seldom mentioned. Size of touches and roller(s) layout, nope, don’t hear about this trait with the exception of G# touch. Some pre 1930’s G# touches were small or round. “Can’t find it or sense of being a un-natural feel” is very common. Especially if the player learned on modern horn.
LH-P tables IMHO on Yamaha horns are the most adjustable to a players hand anatomy. I have no doubt many makers have studied hand anatomy as part of building. This being both modern and old produced horns.
Examples of an YAS23 & MK VI tenor and alto to follow on my next post.

 

[PigSquealer]

Example of 58xxx MK VI tenor LH-P table

Look at the distance from G to G#

YAS-23 mid 1990’s VIN. For comparison. (Please note I didn’t take pictures for this particular subject reason. These are just from my records).

S

 

[Nervous_Fingers]

Martin Comm III table ? Your pictures are of a Conn 6M or 10m table.

Yeah I just threw that out there because the Comm III table on tenor is hard to deal with for those notes.

And you are correct - the pictures are of a 6M and transitional (alto). Sorry for the confusion. My personal opinion favors the transitional layout.

 

[PigSquealer]

69xxx MK VI alto..1958 ?

G to G# distance is relatively close distance to a modern Yamaha. Selmer below.

I don’t make a habit of taking Yamaha pictures. I took these because my customer asked “how’s it going?” He was out of country while I was doing a repad.
The pictures vaguely show the G touch G# touch area of a YAS-23(1995?).

 

[PigSquealer]

The MK VI alto LH table as finished.

 

[PigSquealer]

The difference between the two.
The MK VI is solid. Both T&A. View from the hinge tube/ barrel fulcrum to touch….
Solid but virtually not adjustable much. Adjustable enough for your tech to refine lost motion or regulation adjustments. Not make ergonomic changes.

Yamaha, from the pivot point to touch is long armed. The fulcrum to touch can be adjusted.

Selmer MK VI no. But this is pre 1960 tech

 

[Pete Effamy]

I can honestly say that I've never been bowled over with any left pinky sax key arrangement. Never played the older prestige American horns, but have played SBA, Mk6, Yam 25 / 62, Yana A800 / 991, Lupifaro, Mauriat... probably because I started as a clarinet player. Luckily, I've never had to play anything that moved swiftly between those low notes, so we get away with it.

 

[JayeNM]

I can honestly say that I've never been bowled over with any left pinky sax key arrangement. Never played the older prestige American horns, but have played SBA, Mk6, Yam 25 / 62, Yana A800 / 991, Lupifaro, Mauriat... probably because I started as a clarinet player. Luckily, I've never had to play anything that moved swiftly between those low notes, so we get away with it.

Honestly, yeah, taking a wider-scope view of the whole thing....it can be argued (and some folks who have actually experimented w/ alternate-keywork horns HAVE argued, with some merit IMHO)....that the issue is more matter of...

....if the insistence is on those fingerings being the ones which operate C#, G#, and low B and Bb....then there is only so much variance you can offer on how best to make THOSE pinky fingerings work. IOW if those are the 'written in stone' fingerings....then all you can do is tweak and retweak aspects of the design and mechanics which sit below the pinky.

At SOME point, you are gonna simply run out of options within that particular paradigm, one can only re-invent the touches and mechanics to those 4 pinky-engaged fingerings so much.

So unless one actually changes the fingerings of those notes (literally - and this is doable, quite) companies are basically limited on the tweaks they can make to a 4-touch pinky operated apparatus.

 

[JayeNM]

@skeller047 ...glad to hear you are making some physical progress 😎

 

[skeller047]

@skeller047 ...glad to hear you are making some physical progress 😎

I have plans for some epoxy putty additions to my Barone when I return home.

 

[Woodpad]

So unless one actually changes the fingerings of those notes (literally - and this is doable, quite) companies are basically limited on the tweaks they can make to a 4-touch pinky operated apparatus.

I like a solution where you throw the low C# to the right pinkie. As on the flute.

 

[turf3]

I like a solution where you throw the low C# to the right pinkie. As on the flute.

I believe, without any real evidence, that the perfect solution would be to move all that squirreling around to the index fingers, they being stronger and more dextrous.

The next best would be to have duplicate keys on both hands where all those notes could be fingered with either RH or LH pinky, like the full Boehm clarinet. The tricky thing there would be, however, getting all those keys clapped down with just one pinky - whereas with the current Sax design the low C force and low C#/B/Bb force are shared between RH and LH.

 

[JayeNM]

I like a solution where you throw the low C# to the right pinkie. As on the flute.

I believe, without any real evidence, that the perfect solution would be to move all that squirreling around to the index fingers, they being stronger and more dextrous.

The next best would be to have duplicate keys on both hands where all those notes could be fingered with either RH or LH pinky, like the full Boehm clarinet. The tricky thing there would be, however, getting all those keys clapped down with just one pinky - whereas with the current Sax design the low C force and low C#/B/Bb force are shared between RH and LH.

I LIKE these sorta replies.
YES.
Stuff like that is conceivable.

Here is one that I think about, occasionally:

Resuscitate the Fork Eb Key, but do not make it the Alt key, make it the Eb fingering.
Then free up a RH spat key for another note.....

 

[turf3]

I LIKE these sorta replies.
YES.
Stuff like that is conceivable.

Here is one that I think about, occasionally:

Resuscitate the Fork Eb Key, but do not make it the Alt key, make it the Eb fingering.
Then free up a RH spat key for another note.....

It's kind of interesting how the closed G# and D# have just held on despite everything. Boehm went on a crusade for the open G# on flute, with the result that today something like 99.999999999% of new flutes are fitted with the CLOSED G#. Even Boehm didn't crusade for an open D#, wonder why?

F vs. F#, C vs. B vs. Bb have changed and evolved and now they're different on sax vs. flute vs. clarinet (and probably oboe is different from those three), but D# and G# just stay stubbornly the same as they ever were.

I have also cogitated on the possibility of a fork low C#, which would be fingered by fingering E and then putting down the RH little finger on the C touch.