The
major reason why I wanted to undertake this project was to come up with a
standardized classification system for determining a saxophone’s condition.
All
classification systems, be they for saxophones, baseball cards, coins, or
whatever, are somewhat subjective. The
very difficult part is to come up with a system that’s only somewhat subjective, as opposed to completely subjective.
The
following system is definitely not as strict or exact as the classification
systems for coins or stamps, which tend to have “quality breakdowns” for every
kind of coin or stamp ever minted or printed (e.g. “VG-18 is defined on the
Lincoln Cent by slight wear on the President’s right nostril …”). I believe that system is a tad unwieldy and
essentially requires you to go to an expert to have him tell you what the
condition of your coins/stamps are in.
My classification system is closer to the Kelly Blue Book classification
system for used cars (see www.kbb.com), which
bases value on mileage and condition (e.g. “A 1984 Pontiac Phoenix with 150,000
miles with some mechanical problems is worth …”).
Here’s
what this system is based on:
* FINISH:
While the horn’s finish generally does not impact a horn’s playability that
much, it does affect the horn’s value significantly, and this is borne out by
the data I’ve collected.
*
DAMAGE/MISSING PARTS: Face it: most
damage to a horn can be corrected, if you have a sufficiently skilled
technician. The real problems are when
you have missing keys or, more commonly, a missing neck or keyguard. While the keyguard generally does not affect
the playability of the horn – that much – it seriously affects the
collectability of horns like the
A missing part automatically
takes the horn down to the “1” classification, due to the price of replacement
parts (e.g. finding a Martin Committee neck is virtually impossible without
having one fabricated).
*
PAD LIFE: If the horn doesn’t have
good pads, you’re out a MINIMUM of $350 US on an alto. That’s a significant percentage of the maximum
value of most horns. Additionally, some horns
that have the incorrect pads (e.g. Bueschers that have had snap-in pads
removed) are valued less than originals, sometimes two classification levels.
Here
are my classifications, with on representative picture for each:
1. Poor:
a. Instrument
in unplayable condition because of significant damage (e.g. major dents, body
bent) or is missing parts OR
b. Instrument
completely intact, but has 60% or more finish wear and is unplayable because of
bad pads/corks/springs.
2.
Fair:
a. Instrument
in playable condition, but is missing 40 to 50% of its finish or the finish is
in bad condition; i.e. discolored, cracked or crazed
OR
b. Instrument
in unplayable condition because of bad pads/corks/felts/springs, but has only
20 to 30% finish wear.
3.
Average:
a. Instrument
in playable condition and has normal finish wear for its age (20 to 30%). Pads are in good condition and are all from
the same set (i.e. no “mix and match” pads/resonators)
OR
b. Instrument
has recently overhauled, but has 40 to 50% finish wear.
4.
Very
good:
a. Instrument
in good playing condition with newer pads (replaced less than 5 years ago) and has
very little finish wear (under 15%)
OR
b. Instrument
recently overhauled, but has 10 to 20% finish wear.
5.
Mint:
Instrument in perfect playing condition (may have had
a recent overhaul) AND has almost no finish wear (less than 5%).
NOTE:
“Overhauled” means that the instrument has had all new pads, felts and corks
added, in addition to minor dents beaten out and springs being replaced, if
necessary. The horn is then swedged and
is in PERFECT playing shape, but nothing is really done for the finish, except
for, perhaps, being dunked in a chemical cleaning solution (“dip”).
MODIFIERS
and NOTES:
* I
rather like the “plus” and “minus” system.
For example, a “4+” could be a horn with 5% wear, but it’s had a key
relacquered. A “4-” could be a horn
that’s been extensively overhauled, but has 25% finish wear.
* Relacquering
negatively affects value. This is the
point where playability should come in: if the horn was subjected to an
all-chemical delacquer and then relacquered without buffing, AND this was done
by a good woodwind repair tech, AND the horn plays in tune, isn’t stuffy, etc.,
you should just move the horn down a classification level, otherwise if the
intonation’s shot, you can’t see the engraving and there are other problems,
the horn could be valueless.
* Replating
positively affects value. I’ve seen a
number of horns that have non-original plating and were restored into
better-than-new-looking, museum-quality horns.
Playability is not affected by replating, according to an informal
survey I’ve done of over a half-dozen owners of replated horns.
* There
ain’t no such thing as a mint vintage horn, in the sense of a “mint” quarter, unless
you jump in a time machine and get one from the factory on the day it was
produced. I have seen several “new old
stock” horns in the past few years, i.e. horns that were in some music store’s
basement and still in plastic or newspaper.
These horns almost ALWAYS require new pads, felts, corks and swedging. There are some horns that are restored into
better than new condition and may, logically, command more value than my “5”
classification, but research has not borne this out.
* Additional
engraving or re-engraving generally doesn’t do that much to the value of a
horn, except if you’re adding engraving to an original “Artist model” horn from
the early part of the 20th century: these horns are sometimes
one-of-a-kind works of art from
* Horns
that have serial numbers on both the neck and the body are a little
unusual. If the horn is supposed to have
matching serial numbers, but doesn’t, I have not seen these horns take a significant hit in value, provided the
neck is from the same model. There is a
decrease in value, but sometimes by not more than a 1 or 2% of the overall
asking price.