search the forum on www.saxontheweb.net a couple of people did those comparisons when the ref series horns first came out, so you'll have to dig to find them, but they are there

I did a srch and found this: www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-7814.html" target="other">www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-7814.html "I recently did a side-by-side between my 1962 99XXX VI tenor and a Reference 54....the 54 was a very playable horn with good intonation...but the VI has a bigger, more complex tone. I decided to keep the VI and let someone else play the 54." & "But (and no disrespect to you Ref 54 fans...) if that 5 digit plays like a 5 digit should, it will have a larger, darker, and ballsier sound than any Ref 54 you can get your hands on. And if it's a good MK VI, then the intonation will be no worse, and certainly the mechanics will be just as fast if not faster." "Here the wrench on Tenor Gentlemen. A Selmer Paris Series III with the Gold Brass Neck! It created the harmonic depth, warmth, resonance & complexity of a Reference or a good Mark VI. Yet, the power & intonation is absolutely unbelievable & adds to the mix, either with my vintage metal Otto Link or my SR Tech. Fusion Mouthpiece. I've owned two Mark VI's & played the Reference 54 for a week. The Series III w/the Gold Brass Neck is it." www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34470" target="other">www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34470 "stuffy" is good description of REF 54." "I tried a Selmer Super action 80 series II Tenor and a Selmer REf 54 Tenor. I liked the s-80 II better" ""Some say the Ref 54 tenor is stuffy... try a Ref 36. I have the latter and it's got a big, quite unique sound, not unfocused but just broader and more expressive than most others tenors..... I heard just the opposite...but like cake everybody has different taste and on different days...Sonny Rollins is said to play a ref 36..." "Same technician, same materials, same mouthpiece same reeds and four different players (two professional players and two students) trying and listening all of them: SA80II, REF54, MARKVI The SA80II played well (in particular with the ref neck), the Ref54 played very well, the VI played much much better. I sold my SA80II and bougth a VI." ----------------------- ----------------------- Plus a bunch of other comments. That Gold Brass Neck sounds like it's worth trying. I think all things considered, bang for the buck, a good vintage MkVI seems to be the way to go. Keeps its value as well. Now, I just have to get my hands on one to see if it's really true. Problem is, it's difficult at best to find one locally so I'll have to play the ebay game till i get a good one. Worked for flamenco guitar, but i had to go through a lot of 'good' ones to get a 'great' one. My guitar teacher flew to Ramirez in spain to hand pick his guitars. Only found one he really liked in the whole shop! And that had to be dragged from the back 'special' room. Guitars are much more finicky due to their wood variations and bracing. I'm surprised there are such differences in one model of sax, say the mark VI, as it's basically the same metal in a batch series and same specs. Should be identical, n'est pa? :) Stefan

I came across this post poking around and I think the guy hit the nail on the head. Craftsmanship.! When the hippies of the late 60's starting laying around and smoking pot instead of working, things got wierd. The 70's were wierd. Not much useful stuff seems to have come from that period. Looks like the late 50s early 60s were just turning out QUALITY items. The exact same era applies to Ramirez guitars from Spain. People seek the vintage guitars from the early 60s. I think to build the same horn now with the same craftsmanship and metal quality would cost double the $5,000 they sell for. You get what you pay for! Plus, if selmer admitted that they made the best horn in the 60s, their sales would plummet. Companies go out of business doing that. What they should do is what they're doing now with the ref series, make the same thing that they made well in the first place. Numbers game or quality product (or both)? ---------------- From www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=33283" target="other">www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=33283 : "Selmer can't match the VI of yesterday because they haven't been humble enough to admit that the direction they took their saxophone design in 1974 was the wrong direction" "how many have you played....Mark VI's? just curious the first one I ever saw or heard was in 1959....an alto in the 85XXX ser. number range. it was the most beautiful, elegant saxophone I had ever seen...there was nothing, absolutely nothing that came close to comparing to it. it's lacquer was dark, dark honey gold...a gold that's hard to describe, you just had to see it; the bell looked as if a master jeweler had engraved it....American flower, the fuller more extensive version. mother of pearl keys, brown resonators on the pads. think original Faberge egg made for Czars & you have the general idea....they were mostly hand made by Selmer's long time experienced craftsmen...and they were "to die for". that horn had a tone so buttery smooth & rich...thick & spread..drippng in emotion & feeling. out on the field if you really cut loose it could be heard above the enire band. it was Selmer's golden age. the brass content was different, the craftsmen were masters with years of experience....the years went by, the old gave way to the new both in personnel & material; new things were tried, long bow, medium bow....different shades of lacquer, different people built them, but they were still even later one of the best if not the best depending on the individual horn. no two were exactly alike...they weren't all great; but the ones that were/are still are today if they've been maintained.....it's when you play one of those that you realize & know the magic of the fabled Mark VI.....those are the ones searched for and sought after by players....many of the others end up with non playin collectors who haven't got a clue. they too are good horns, but not like the really good ones are. there is a difference. the tooling finally wore out and was sold to Yamaha...they used it to model their first pro horns on. the great Mark VI's of yesteryear cannot be remade, the craftsmen who made them are gone....everything changes, but in my opinion the new Reference 54 alto comes close, much closer than any of the other later models. hope this was of some little enlightenment." ------------------ I'm starting my shopping for a good MkVI I think. If it's no better than the S80 I have, I'll stick with it. Stefan

That is the silliest thing i've read in a while. I have three Mk VI's, two of which I bought new. I certainly don't prance around blowing bubbles and throwing flowers at them. If you want one buy one. Don't buy a MK VI with high F# !!!! Calm down :) Terry

So you don't agree with the quality of years gone by? :) Have you tried the Ref series or the S80 ser I I have? Curious if you have any input based on experience with those horns against the VI. Are yours alto/tenor? Oh ... and since we're on the topic, one more article I found which seems to cover it. Nice discussion of different types as well, not speaking of the VI soprano very favourably and gives the serie III and Ref the thumbs up. Yamaha 82Z as well, but I find that hard to believe until I try one.

Well some things i've noticed... A good Mark VI cost like $6000? A reference is $4000, and the reference was made similar to the Mark VI, except better intonation. But its not as good as the mark VI, but tuning is better. I've also read profesionals tried it and the only one who said it wasn't as good as the mark VI was David Sanborn (And i look up to him=)) Also Mark VI's are so hard to find...and a lot have been relaqured... But back on subject, I think different horns are meant for different people. You might try out a ref or mark vi and still think the horn you have now is better.

"Different horns are for different people." Well said, Count. "Power is nothing without control." Also well said. I might add King Super 20 to your power list, and the reminder that control is a major function of the player. All said, though, a good Mk. VI is a sweet horn!

Here's my thoughts on Selmer and their saxes:- It's going to be long but if you don't own a selmer then you should read this: I've played and owned these horns of the last 20 years: Super Balanced Alto and Tenor Mark VI Alto and Tenor Mark VII Alto and Tenor Super Action 80 Serie II Alto and Tenor Super Action 80 Serie III Alto and Tenor Out of those I still own and play only the Mark VI's. Here's why: The Mark VII's had issues with sloppy big action and tuning problems in different registers. Great big sound though. The Serie II's were great horns but not excellent. They were heavy and bright and but solidy constructed. The Serie III's were terrible. They had sloppy action and even after I had my repair guy look at them I still wasn't satified. The tenor also had a major problem with the altisimo just over the break from high F# up. If you play rock or jazz look out for this if you're thinking of buying one of these. The altisimo will bottom out on you. My repair guy said Selmer had really over looked when they messed with the bore shape. Here's another problem with them - ever since the Mark VI in the 70's the brass they use has been getting softer and so the keys feel spongey. Also, I managed to accidentally bend both the Alto and Tenor neck without much pressure just from playing. The metal is just too soft. Plus Selmer had gotten cheap on the engraving and and added bracing on the neck. I'm sure they'd just say it was to enhance resonance or something but I just think they were trying to cut some corners. Another stupid thing Selmer did was add more keywork to the serie III. They tried to compensate for some minor tuning issue between different registers on the C key. It was stupid. It was just another place for the horn to a leak . plus it made the horn heavier and made the octave key feel more sluggish. Next I owned the Super Balanced horns - The tenor was amazing and I loved it. the action was a little old-school but it was solid and it was refreshing after playing the serie III. The whole horn felt solid and the notes popped out easily. The only problem here was that I had a horn that had already done many miles... and was looking a bit sad. My repair guy was concerned about a few rods and wear to some of the body. I also was having issues with the reverse thumb octave mechanism as it was a bit uncomfortable for me. The alto was much like the tenor only there were some obvious tuning issues in the high register. Now the Mark VI was next and was definitely the best. Both the horn were early VI's one being 1956 and the other 1961. Only reason I say this is because this makes a difference. I also had a later 1974 mark VI but it didn't messure up to the earlier ones. The Super Balanced and the VI both had equally great sounds to them. The exception being that the VI had fixed the intonation problems I had and had the more modern keywork. - but not too modern. The modern you go the sloppier the action got after the Mark VI and also the more spongey (probably due to the brass they used) Also the keywork seemed to be in the just the right place to develop great technique. The keys seemed close and solid and the tone cups seemed to be cast rather than pressed. This to me seems to make a difference. Even the new Reference 54s still don't have this. AND it does make a difference to the action and feel to the horn. THe later Mark VIs started to be produced with pressed tone hole key cups and I could really feel the difference. Also the early VI's had some steel rods to reinforce the horn in vulnerable areas (like the join to the neck and the side F key etc..) So there it is: The early Mark VI wins for me. That's why everyone loves them who own them. I've recently played the new Reference 54 Kookaburra and I was reasonably happy. THey don't have the response, tone or feel of the original Mark VI. they kind of look like they should but they don't they are a great horn but they are still not a mark VI. I was mostly disappointed with the action but they were certainly brighter and harsher than any early mark VI I've played. I will say that Selmer have definitely crawled back a few places in my books as far as the horns they make these days with these reference horns though. I hope this helps someone.

One of the big reasons why the mkVII was a dud was because the horn was designed for people with big hands. it was difficult for students and some women (im not being sexist, just women typically have smaller hands then men) it was difficult to reach some of the keys. I know several people who have played both for a while, and they think the early VIIs sound better than the later VIs. about the tuning issue, if you sit down and do a couple long tone excersises it should fix that (with your tuner at that)

Everybody needs to learn to play what they have and quit looking for that Super Horn that plays itself. I have both a Mark Vl tenor and alto and am well satisfied with both horns. They were both made in the early 70s. I wouldn't know what year if I hadn't been reading this blog. I agree with the guy who wrote that everyone has a concept in their head of what a saxophone should sound like, and if they work at it long enough thats the sound that will come out the horn. Talent plus lots of work equals a good sax player. I heard guys play old Conns, new Yamahas and whatever and still sound good. But thats just me..........Kelsey

There is no doubt that being a good player overshadows using a good horn. That said, a great player will sound that much better on a great horn. Same goes for pretty much any instrument except the voice. That one you're stuck with :) I'm no superstar, but I know my tone is worse on a student yamaha than on my selmer S80. I even hear a difference between the US selmers and the Paris ones. I assume it's metal composition. Even my friends comment on the awesome Selmer tone, and they don't play sax.

I agree. I test drove a MkVII back in late 80s. I ended up with a super action 80 series I, because the VII just felt awkward for fingering. I guess you need REALLY big hands, because I'm a man and my hands are not 'small'. I found the S80 suited me just fine. Have yet to get my paws on a MkVI to compare.

Gary, super response and what I've been waiting for over a year. It's another case of a product not improving over the years. Now what about re-laquered MKVI's? Does the laquering process have any impact?

I have a MKVI alto from '72..I love it.