Saxophones The Conn 24M, review

[JayeNM]

Just wanted to share this for posterity sake, this is another model which will be somewhat obscure to most folks as it was a Conn produced in USA between '85-'03 or thereabouts, under UMI ownership. So, post-Mexico. And post Mexico Conn models, complete redesigns from their Elkhart predecessors, rarely get any "air time", although in their day they apparently sold pretty well and competed in the US market with the Yamahas and Selmer USA's.

This is the 24M, which was the model which came after the 18M/20M produced under Danny Henkin's reign as head of Conn/King/Armstrong/Artley from '80-'84...those models having replaced the Shooting Star 50M's of the 60's and 70's. No particular pedigree relationship to the earlier models, UMI went with a redesign on most of their horns, some based off of a Keilweth model which Armstrong had knocked off in the 80's. So it was the student/second shelf Conn model of the time.

It was also marketed as the King Empire.

The 25M was it's top-shelf cousin, and I have yet to have a 25M on my bench although it appears to be a 24M with a few more bells and whistles.

This is a 'modern' horn in all common design respects related to the term....offset lower stack, right hinged pinky table, redesigned palmkeys, etc. Key engineering is good, pivot screws nicely crafted, posts robust, spring sizes appropriate and I only had to swedge one key. The bell has a slight tilt to the right in orientation.

Very well-made instrument, quite sturdy and a bit on the heavier side for a modern alto when compared to, say, a YAS 23 which feels lighter and less substantial under the fingers. Keywork placement is very good, ergos are comfy. Although the spats are flat and sorta 'blocky looking', under the fingers they are nicely placed and feel OK.
One thing of note is that the pinky table is based off of more the Keilwerth shape/model as far as orientation and placement goes, so it feels different than your typical asian student horn table a'la the Yama 21/23. Not worse, just a bit different. So for those players who tend towards a rigidity of acceptance in the pinky table, this might not be the best choice for them.

On the other hand, like the other JK-inspired King and Conn horns made under UMI, the tonality is its greatest asset. This is a much richer-toned, darker, wider spread horn than its asian contemporaries. I ain't gonna say it sounds like a JK New King or Couf, but it definitely leans towards that sonic character as opposed to the brighter, reedier, narrow focused tone of its contemporary asian competition of the time.

These generally show up on US eFlay as project horns for around $150-200-ish, and sell in serviced condition for around $450-550ish. A price point which the horn is certainly worth. They may never be a model which someone is going to go searching for, but if one happens to cross your path or someone inquires as to its worthiness, you can use this entry as some sorta yardstick.

I am always interested in discovering sax models which fall into the category of "good suggestions as alternatives to the ubiquitous 'just get a 23' advice".....and there are a decent # of models out there, some of which I have mentioned before (Buffet, JK ST90, etc).

 

[thomsax]

Thanks JayeNM. Intersting and good information. I've never seen or played a UMI made sax. It was possible to make a saxophone in USA in the late 90's with using old tools. Lots of bad writings and attitudes against UMI over the years. They killed the great American brands and saxophone makers. To be frank, they were already destroyed many years before UMI was formed.

Now I'm picky! The UMI Conn American Model 24M share the same model number as Conn F Mezzo Soprano 24M. I don't know why UMI had old model number on thier new saxes?

Conn American Model 24M was the same as Conn Conntinental Model 25M but range to high F, centered octave key, nickel plated keys, fixed thumb hook.

 

[thomsax]

"without using old tools"

 

[JayeNM]

Thanks JayeNM. Intersting and good information. I've never seen or played a UMI made sax. It was possible to make a saxophone in USA in the late 90's with using old tools. Lots of bad writings and attitudes against UMI over the years. They killed the great American brands and saxophone makers. To be frank, they were already destroyed many years before UMI was formed.

Now I'm picky! The UMI Conn American Model 24M share the same model number as Conn F Mezzo Soprano 24M. I don't know why UMI had old model number on thier new saxes?

Conn American Model 24M was the same as Conn Conntinental Model 25M but range to high F, centered octave key, nickel plated keys, fixed thumb hook.

Right all around.

I would say UMI actually tried to SAVE US sax manufacturing rather than tank it, the way Selmer USA/Selmer Inc. eventually did. Danny Henkin's intention was to re-establish US manufacturing (going completely against the grain of Reaganism at the time) and he got that done but according to sources was so unhappy with being the head of the Conn/King/Armstrong ship he wanted out - but insisted on a buyer who would not just offshore everything and reverse what he had begin to re-establish.
The Conn Elkhart plant was gone by that time (not the building but the tooling and equipment, most of which ...but not all...went to MX)...but Henkin/UMI still had a fully functioning King Eastlake and Armstrong, Elkhart plant for saxes. They may or may not have also had a Conn Nogales, US plant still...it's a bit fuzzy.
I read a quote online somewhere from the head of UMI referencing their sellout to Selmer Inc, he stated they didn't do it because UMI was failing, matter of fact they were competing pretty well in the market according to him - they did it because Selmer made 'an offer which we couldn't refuse' as far as dollar amount.

Now the interesting thing here is...some of these UMI Conns and Kings...they aren't Armstrongs just rebranded. There's a significant difference between a Conn 24/25M, Conn 22M, Conn 34M, King 662, King Empire, etc... when compared to the typical Armstrong in all respects...precision of build quality, specifications, tone, etc....
So they were definitely not just rolling one design off the line and simply selling it under three different brand names.

(yes, it IS funny tho...they did re-use some vintage Conn model numbers (they also made a Baritone called a 14M, lol - pretty good Bighorn, too)...not sure why they did that....plenty of numerals available even by the 90's )

 

[PigSquealer]

Thanks @JayeNM for posting. interesting timing.
In the last couple weeks I have picked up two of these. Never had one in my hands before. First thing I noticed is how well the key work feels compared to a Yamaha. Actually I think it’s better. The second I was considering as Parts horn. Now I’m having second thoughts. It only needs a couple bits to make it complete again.
Should be interesting to have one of these on the bench. You’re spot on about the beefy build. They are a little bit heavy.
Guess I need to get at least one neck with a cork on it. Now you have my curiosity.

 

[thomsax]

Now the interesting thing here is...some of these UMI Conns and Kings...they aren't Armstrongs just rebranded. There's a significant difference between a Conn 24/25M, Conn 22M, Conn 34M, King 662, King Empire, etc... when compared to the typical Armstrong in all respects...precision of build quality, specifications, tone, etc....
So they were definitely not just rolling one design off the line and simply selling it under three different brand names.

UMI invested millions of dollars in new technology, tools, machines, computers... to built better instrument. Maybe they earned more money making new technology than building saxes? In the 90's many other brands manufators came out on the market. Small workshops that suddenly made lots of saxes. And not only Selmers copies. The guys behind UMI were working in countriesas well, and not just buying parts or saxes.

Sten K Johnson was an interesting person. Played horns and saxophone.

Sten K Johnson – Sten K Johnsons Stiftelse

The foundation – Sten K Johnsons Stiftelse

 

[peterpick]

thanks jaye, i'm always interested in the lesser-known horns. i didn't even know there were post-shooting-stars conns.

 

[JayeNM]

Yeah there were, the first iteration, under Danny Henkin, 18M, 20M, 21M...were not anything to write home about, really.

But the 24M and 25M, after Henkin sold to UMI...they were pretty respectable. Won't call them pro calibre, but very respectable players certainly...

 

[Barney P.]

Hi. I found-and bought for US $899-a pristine 24m. It has all its original lacquer and even the original paperwork! The only problem with it is the cork on the neck is kind of crumbly. I played it of course and couldn’t get low Bb to speak. Otherwise it had a nice warm sound. I haven’t played alto in many years but couldn’t pass up this unusual find. I know I paid a bit of a premium for it. What do you guys think of this?

 

[turf3]

...And post Mexico Conn models, complete redesigns from their Elkhart predecessors, rarely get any "air time", although in their day they apparently sold pretty well and competed in the US market with the Yamahas and Selmer USA's.
tend towards a rigidity of acceptance in the pinky table, this might not be the best choice for them.

I have to say that I was alive and somewhat aware in the 1980s/90s time frame, and I suspect "sold pretty well" is optimistic. I've never seen any of these in the wild. I suspect that they DIDN'T sell well at all, given that the knock on Conns as "crummy student horns" was pretty well established by the mid-70s and it takes decades to get past that kind of reputation - plus let's keep in mind there was no internet, no real way for UMI to counteract the statements of thousands of techs and band directors other than by advertising.

The product that's selling every one you can make, doesn't go through multiple redesigns in a decade. Not in saxophones. Basically my read on the Conn name is that after some time in the 1950s, they were on the road to extinction and there was little they could have done about it, and most of the various entities that owned the Conn name did the wrong things about it. From what I understand UMI was a reasonably well-run outfit, but Conn saxophones were beyond reclamation reputationally (it didn't matter what the actual horns were like) by the time they came into the picture.

 

[thomsax]

Modern saxophone manufacturing is no longer a family business. Companies/groups that are owning crosswise and worldwide. Maybe a low financially result gives a withdraw. Are any saxophone manufacturers making money on just making saxes? I went to a meeting to listen to impossible business. I think wind instrument manufacturing is on of these businesses? Football-, hockey-clubs, airlines companies are also impossible ....... King Musical Instruments went bankrupt when their parent company Seeburg (Sjöberg) business idea, jukeboxes, went out of fashion.

 

[JayeNM]

I have to say that I was alive and somewhat aware in the 1980s/90s time frame, and I suspect "sold pretty well" is optimistic. I've never seen any of these in the wild.

Mmmm....you weren't a school kid or school music director in the 90's, though, were you ? In the 90's would you have been looking at 'band instrument' models ?

I have read a few articles quoting UMI execs at the time, the business was not sold to Selmer early 2000's because they were failing. They claim that their competition with Yama and Selmer USA was quite real.
Their decision to finally sell to Selmer USA was based on an 'offer too good to refuse', one which they had not expected.

To that I add the following: from '84 to early 2000's UMI developed a number of models...Conn 22M replaced the 16M, a couple of Baritone models which replaced the 11M and 12M, the King 662, the very pro-grade Conn 5M and 9M, the later upper-intermediate level King 662, the Armstrong 3050 and 3055 intermediate Tenors, and for a bit some sort of King Super or Special or something which was supposed to be a pro model. I have worked on ALL of these except the last, of which I have only seen a few eBay auctions for in the past. They were...plainly speaking...respectable to downright good.
So they had the factories and the R&D to put out good products. and did so in USA for 20 years. Two decades of keeping in the game with Selmer USA and Yamaha isn't a terrible track record.

*Dunno where you got 'several redesigns in a decade' from, either ?
The 22M, 24M and the King Empire as three examples....were stock available for over a decade, according to their serial numbers.


So to counter all that with "well...I never saw 'em back in my day"....and use that draw a conclusion...is a bit...a bit, well, y'know ?

 

[turf3]

Mmmm....you weren't a school kid or school music director in the 90's, though, were you ? In the 90's would you have been looking at 'band instrument' models ?

I have read a few articles quoting UMI execs at the time, the business was not sold to Selmer early 2000's because they were failing. They claim that their competition with Yama and Selmer USA was quite real.
Their decision to finally sell to Selmer USA was based on an 'offer too good to refuse', one which they had not expected.

To that I add the following: from '84 to early 2000's UMI developed a number of models...Conn 22M replaced the 16M, a couple of Baritone models which replaced the 11M and 12M, the King 662, the very pro-grade Conn 5M and 9M, the later upper-intermediate level King 662, the Armstrong 3050 and 3055 intermediate Tenors, and for a bit some sort of King Super or Special or something which was supposed to be a pro model. I have worked on ALL of these except the last, of which I have only seen a few eBay auctions for in the past. They were...plainly speaking...respectable to downright good.
So they had the factories and the R&D to put out good products. and did so in USA for 20 years. Two decades of keeping in the game with Selmer USA and Yamaha isn't a terrible track record.

*Dunno where you got 'several redesigns in a decade' from, either ?
The 22M, 24M and the King Empire as three examples....were stock available for over a decade, according to their serial numbers.


So to counter all that with "well...I never saw 'em back in my day"....and use that draw a conclusion...is a bit...a bit, well, y'know ?

Well, it may be that there's a lot more of these out there than I realize. You're right, I'm not a band instrument repairman who would see the full range of student horns coming through. I will say that I spent a lot of time looking at used horns in music stores and pawn shops in the 90s and 00s and I really don't recall seeing many if any UMI Conns. Maybe they were still too new to end up on the bottom-feeder used market by that time.

As to how many designs were developed, let's consider your list - I get about 10 different horns in 15ish years. Yes, some of these are alto-tenor. So let's say 4 different horns in 15 years - now compare to the heyday of the saxophone business - Conn has the New Wonder from something like 1920 to 1933, then the Artist from 33 to 1970 or so; and the Pan Am and Director. 4 horn models in 50 years. Selmer has the Balanced Action from 36 to 54 and the Mark 6 from 54 to 75ish, two models in 40 years. Sure, Martin changed models like you and I change socks, but they never sold well, either. The Martin experience tends to reinforce my thesis of "if you can't sell 'em, redesign 'em."

When the things are flying off the shelf as fast as you can make 'em, redesigns aren't high on the list.

Keep in mind none of this has anything to do with the ACTUAL quality of the products. I'm more than willing to believe these UMI horns were as good as their competition, even a bit better. But by the time they got there, Conn meant "crappy student horn" to a generation of techs and band directors. In the 70s and 80s, when "professional saxophone" meant "Selmer Mark 6" and ONLY "Selmer Mark 6" and the very fine Yamaha products were just beginning to get a little traction, Conn King Martin and Buescher were done, done, done, except for eking out the student horn business.

At least, that's the way it looked to me at the time. In the late 70s/early 80s I could buy a Conn 6M for $130, a King Super 20 tenor with all the pearls for $400, a Conn 12M in silver plate, rolled holes AND front F for $750. Why? Because these were universally regarded as "crappy student horns and not Selmers". Buescher 400s were going for even less.

 

[thomsax]

At least, that's the way it looked to me at the time. In the late 70s/early 80s I could buy a Conn 6M for $130, a King Super 20 tenor with all the pearls for $400, a Conn 12M in silver plate, rolled holes AND front F for $750. Why? Because these were universally regarded as "crappy student horns and not Selmers". Buescher 400s were going for even less.

The list price in Sweden for a new Conn Director tenor back in the early 80's was c 5000.00 s e k. A new YTS 61(the new YTS 62 was already on the market, so new means no earlier owner) was c 4400.00 s e k! We didn't sell any new USA made saxes. Too much money for a beginner sax !!!

 

[turf3]

Modern saxophone manufacturing is no longer a family business. Companies/groups that are owning crosswise and worldwide. Maybe a low financially result gives a withdraw. Are any saxophone manufacturers making money on just making saxes? I went to a meeting to listen to impossible business. I think wind instrument manufacturing is on of these businesses? Football-, hockey-clubs, airlines companies are also impossible ....... King Musical Instruments went bankrupt when their parent company Seeburg (Sjöberg) business idea, jukeboxes, went out of fashion.

I believe Yanagisawa is a family business that makes only saxophones. Maybe one of the little Italian companies (R&C. Borgani, etc.)

Conn, Buescher, Martin were not family businesses since the 1920s if even then. The White family sold HN White in the 60s. Selmer France were acquired by a private equity firm maybe 10 years ago. Yamaha hasn't been a "family business" in an awful long time even if some Yamaha family members are still involved in the management. Buffet Crampon hasn't been a "family business" in an awful long time.

So really, you're not pointing out anything new. From the early 1920s, the "saxophone craze" dictated real mass production in the making of saxophones, which meant all the corporate structure needed to support factories, machine tools, R&D departments, etc. Having a member of a founding family as CEO of a public company that employs thousands and uses the most modern methods in manufacture, development, sales and marketing, and finance, is hardly a "family business" in the sense of a little workshop where the master and his two sons and three nephews "hand craft" each instrument with loving care.

Thing is, that "real mass production" has huge benefits. Look at the reported QC coming out of Borgani, compared to that coming out of Yamaha. Musicians, generally being non-technical if not actually anti-technical, tend to idealize those highly variable products coming out of small poorly controlled shops, but the reality is rather different.

 

[Stephen Howard]

Thing is, that "real mass production" has huge benefits. Look at the reported QC coming out of Borgani, compared to that coming out of Yamaha. Musicians, generally being non-technical if not actually anti-technical, tend to idealize those highly variable products coming out of small poorly controlled shops, but the reality is rather different.

There's a new kid on the block, too.
It was quite a few years ago now that we saw the rise of boutique horns. These were mass-produced horns from, typically, Taiwan that were merely rebadged and sold on. More recently there's been some growth in the practice of buying such horns and physically reworking them to add 'extra value'. I'm calling these horns 'boutweaqued'.
Unfortunately it seems that quality control still isn't on a par with 'the big boys' in a number of cases - and some of the examples I've seen have been downright disappointing.
Folks are still buying 'em though...

 

[thomsax]

So really, you're not pointing out anything new.

C.G. Conn sold his company to a group of investors with Carl Greenleaf as front man. Some years later Buescher sold his company to the same group. Carl Greenleaf was president for both Conn and Buescher during the roaring decade. Greenleaf Sr retired in the 1949 and some years later Leland Greenleaf became Conn's president and Charles Greenleaf became president for Buescher in 1959. Also a kind of family business? Conn's and Buescher's decay began already in the early 50's. But this is nothing new at all.

Buescher and Conn saxes was on the market here in Sweden. They were "hyllvärmare" (slow mover?). They were not selling so well. When a Conn student sax was more money compared to YTS 61. The new B&S Blue Label was 1800. 00 s e k. But we sold some Conn's. It was often sold to older person (grandpa) that had an illusion that Conn saxes were #1. As seller, I really had to brace myself to stay silent. Later on Muskantor sold both updated/new Armstrong, Conn and King. But they were still overpriced due to the weak Swedish krona.

Thing is, that "real mass production" has huge benefits.

Yes. But to be successful saxophone manufacturer you need a big cash flow as well so the mass production are running over time.

 

[JayeNM]

The product that's selling every one you can make, doesn't go through multiple redesigns in a decade.

As to how many designs were developed, let's consider your list - I get about 10 different horns in 15ish years. Yes, some of these are alto-tenor.

Once again seems you are extrapolating in order to draw conclusions. The models I mentioned, for example....most were attempts at re-establishing intermediate and professional model horns which had been nixed in the Conn MacMillan/Mexico AND Henkin eras of 1970-1983.

So what you grab onto as an indication of a company perhaps on a bit of shaky ground and trying to hit a market target ...was more, I'd say, a company aggressive enough to actually have R&D (and the factories) to start producing horns which would be considered better than student fare. I will attest to the fact that the Conn 5M and 9M were pro-caliber horns, and the King 662 and the Conn 14M (baritone) were good, solid intermediate fare.

So it all depends on how you care to interpret these things.

Your conclusion that 'things weren't flying off the shelf, etc' again remains quite debatable as we dunno how well or badly these sold. And your basis for claiming they might have sold badly really isn't based on much other than an interpretation that these are unfamiliar to you, therefore they must not have been popular.

By virtue of the fact that I have read quotes from UMI uppers stating they were solidly in the game; and the fact these were made for a decent stretch, and the fact that these (Conn 22M, 24M, 25M, Armstrong 3050/55, King Empire particularly) DO appear fairly often, with some regularity, on eBay and the like...combined with the fact that Selmer USA was prone to wanting to destroy their competition by buying 'em then shutting 'em down...my characterization is based on something and more than fair, I'd say. Were they school contract purchases, individual purchases, etc which made them a viable product ? We dunno, much we just dunno. But the info I have stumbled across over the years suggests what I stated.

It's a bit of a digression, this disagreement really. The intent of this review was simply to point out a pretty good quality, late-model Conn (equivalent King Empire model) which people might overlook and which certainly can be acquired for significantly less than a run-of-the-mill Yama 23.