Now for something a little different. A few weeks ago, I got a few e-mails from Chris Holtz, a grandson of Fred Holtz, head of Martin Band thru the 30’s and 40’s. Unfortunately, when I got his e-mails, I was sick and heavily medicated.
I then proceeded to forget about his e-mails until he sent me another one. Sorry ’bout that, Chris.
I don’t generally write anything about instrument companies’ history — I’m more interested in horns — nor do I write much about copmanies’ second lines, but I think Mr. Holz’s e-mails are interesting. Plus, I didn’t have to research it:). I’m including the full text of each e-mail. This is a lot of interesting info about the Martin company and I hope you enjoy reading it: My grandfather worked at Martin from 1921 to 1948, my Uncle Fritz worked there from 1935 to the RMC days, and my Mom and three other uncles worked at MBI Martin Band Instruments at one time or another. I enjoy history and am trying to straighten what I can of Martin’s. One of the most confusing areas has been the often errant information often given on Martin’s “purchase” of The Indiana Band Instrument Company.
The 1929 article on the right is some boilerplate I’ve used. I’ve done a good bit of background on this one because much of it didn’t jive with what I knew to be true when I was growing up in the fifties and sixties. After checking with my Mom (the receptionist 1945-47) and two of my aunts (Fred Sr’s daughters) and three of Fritz’ sons, I can affirm that once Martin (Orville Bassett – majority owner & Gen Mgr and Fred Holtz Sr – Sales Mgr and my grandfather) created the Indiana Band Instrument Company in 1928, all production of both Martin and IBICO horns was done at the Baldwin St.
Plant by the same talented group of metalworkers and machinists. This was much like Conn with their Pan American line and Buescher with Elkhart Band Instruments, both accomplished several years earlier. Martin did purchase the small Pedlar clarinet operation across the street, but other than making a small number of clarinets (with little success), it was used for storage. Until 1942, IBICO existed primarily on paper as a means of broadening their market to those who could not afford the Martin product line. With WWII war production ahead, they dropped the IBICO entity. As many have noted, the Indiana product line made use of older designs and tooling, perhaps also removing a feature or two. Actual quality did not change until the fifties became the sixties, when some of the most experienced workers retired.
With the change in ownership in 1961, my Uncle Fritz became disenchanted with the RMC plan of latching on to the expected “Music Man” student horn boom. Quantity became the most important consideration.
Though he had been there from 1935 as floor manager and from 1948 as VP, he decided it was time to leave and devote full time to his instrument case company, Elkhart Wood Products (Elwopco). MBI had never been an assembly line operation. Each craftsman had a work table and did what he did best whether forming, engraving, or polishing. Sadly, it took only two years to pull the plug.
I believe I’ve uploaded another album into the url listed below. This album includes a number of press clippings that gives some insight into Martin Band History, as well as both professional and personal history of both my grandfather Fred Holtz and that of O.P. Bassett (majority owner and G.M. Of MBI from 1920 til his death in 1931). Note: reqires a Google account to view. Click on each article to see a bigger version.
I noticed many “authorities” (allexperts, ask.com, etc) have given faulty answers pertaining to IBICO and Martin products and dates based on an initial error (that Martin bought IBICO in 1938) and the rarity of the serial number list for “Indiana” line. Edwin on his has a good understanding of what he has labeled “range2.” Martin kept the IBICO horns off their “Martin list.” I would suggest including that portion of his list in any Martin ledger. Pete here again.
I asked if Chris Holtz had any information on Martin’s association with Wurlitzer. I got the following e-mail and article: The below article will explain much of it. I know Martin did a good number of stencils for wurlitzer, and after seeing this clipping, that would be very understandable. I don’t know of anything after that, or what relationship Paul Richards had with Wurlitzer before his collapse. I do know that my Uncle Fritz (Fred Jr and MBI VP from 48-62?) has little good to say about RMC in general. Many years ago I came across. It was described as a “curved F baritone.” I’ve only seen one other curved saxophone, outside Bb/C/Eb sopranos, in one place:.
I had also heard the rumor that all of A. Sax’s prototypes were C basses in this shape, so I wasn’t completely floored. The “curved” shape isn’t that big a deal, if you think about it: A. Sax’s father, Charles-Joseph Sax, was also an instrument builder and he built: a keyed brasswind with a cup mouthpiece and they had the same basic shape.
It has been theorized that A. Sax said, “Hey.
Let me slap a single reed mouthpiece on that and see how it sounds.” As a matter of fact, some modern musicians have slapped a cup (brasswind) mouthpiece on a saxophone and found out that it works (see YouTube for billions of examples). How well it works is a matter of opinion. Anyhow, the biggest problem I had with the designation of “F baritone” was the scarcity of F saxophones, in general, and the fact that an overwhelming percentage of 19th century instruments I’ve heard described as pitched in F were really Eb instruments. I did, however, get an e-mail from one of the folks that often contributed to my articles on, Randy Emerick. He not only had seen one of these “F baritones,” he could tell me where he saw them: That baritone picture was originally published in Saxophone, Erfindung und Entwicklung einer Musikinstrumenten-Familie und ihre bedeutenden Hersteller (whew!) by Gunter Dullat. The book is not entirely accurate, but since Dullat actually owns the horn, I’m sure he has at least correctly identified the key in which it is pitched. It is the only baritone in F that I know of that still exists, made by “PELISSON FRERES & Cie., SYSTEME GEORGE BREVETE S.G.D.G.” It was made around 1900, and even though it’s not that old, I sure wish I could find one.
After I posted these comments on saxpics.com, there were a number of threads that were started on, where I was an administrator/moderator. There was a lot of back-and-forth on the topic, trying to determine whether this horn was an F instrument or a high pitch Eb instrument and/or the who actual manufacturer was (see, for instance).
As I mentioned on SOTW, I did try to contact the owner of the website this “curved F baritone” was on, Michel Smiga. Last I tried, I was told that M. Smiga was very ill and couldn’t answer my questions (he had his father respond to my e-mail). His website was finally taken offline in 2005 (see for an archive.org backup). I posted all this and essentially had to leave my research be. However, that didn’t stop other folks from researching. The folks over at did.
It’s little wonder that I couldn’t find more about these horns: they’re not called “saxophones,” they’re called “Georgeophones.” There’s also a Bb bass out there! Allow me to try to translate and transliterate the article from French to English (I’ve preserved the capitalizations): The PELISSON Brothers and GEORGE System Saxophone., bought on eBay, shows us the manufacture of instruments by PELISSON Brothers in Lyon, France in the 1880s. Couturier was formed in 1812, in Lyon, France by Jacques Couturier. He took on a partner in 1836, Dubois, to found Maison Dubois and COUTURIER. In 1852, Jacques Couturier’s son took over the company.
In 1875, the company was purchased by PELISSON Brothers. In 1901, the company became Pelisson, Guinot, Blanchon. The most interesting things I found in this catalog were the “George System” saxophone keywork system and an instrument that I had never heard of, the “Georgeophone.” PELISSON Brothers had exclusive use of the patent that Toulon resident Claude George filed in 1867, “A mounting system for saxophone keywork,” which mostly consisted of a system to align the keys for one hand on the same rod, which considerably simplified the assembly and disassembly of the instrument. It says in the brochure that it was, “Only 8 screws instead of 34 on a conventional model.” This keywork idea is still used for modern saxophones.
There were additions to this patent in June 24, 1869 and June 13, 1870, but have no practical application on modern saxophones. For more information about the “George System” saxophones, please take a look at the in the May 2006 issue (issue #37) of Largiot (pgs.
Note: The Kampmann article is incredibly detailed and has great pics, but I’m not going to translate 6 pages of text. If you translate it into English, please send me a copy! The Georgeophone, itself, was “a new family of instruments:” an “easier to hold” baritone and bass. Note The article refers to the ad description I’ve translated, below. This Georgophone was displayed at the Universal Exhibition in Paris in 1878 and won award(s), but it had no commercial success. If you have any photos of this instrument, I’m very interested! There’s a from Pelisson on the Archives Musique website that I’ll attempt to translate: GEORGE SYSTEM SAXOPHONES We call our customers’ attention to the detail in the simplified and patented George System saxophones and the numerous awards that attest to their merit.
The George System Saxophones offer the advantage of being much less complicated — in fact the George System has reduced the number of screws from 34 to 8. This allows you to disassemble and reassemble the instrument without the aid of any custom tools. The keywork mechanism is so simple that, in less than two minutes, any musician can easily disassemble the saxophone without having any special knowledge. It is stronger and requires fewer repairs than any similar instruments. The springs are hidden and steel. The advantages of the George System Saxophones are so compelling that more than 100 music directors in the navy and army, not to mention professors, certify this system as the best available. GEORGEOPHONES Mr.
George, seeing the difficulties that people have marching with a baritone saxophone has created a family of instruments which he named Georgeophones. A baritone example was admitted to the Universal Exhibition of 1878 and won several awards. The shape of Georgeophone allows the baritone saxophone player to march in military bands and add their own texture to support them. The timbre of the Georgeophone is remarkable on low notes, offering impeccable sound and intonation. Despite the gravity of their tone, these instruments produce a clear tone. This tone allows the Georgeophone to be equally at home in a marching band or in a dance hall.
I can mention one more thing: how old these horns are. If you assume that 1878 is the introduction of these horns, based on the Universal Exhibition date, I’d have to compare “normal” Pelissons of about the same age to something we have a somewhat accurate serial number record of: A. Sax instruments. Looking very specifically at the catalog drawing of the Pelisson baritone, I have no problems at all saying that they are 1878-1880s horns, based on how A. Sax instruments of the same era looked, thus the Georgeophone is from the same era. If you have one of the Georgeophones (please send me pics, too), all you’d have to do is check out the engraving: provided it doesn’t say “Pelisson, Guinot, Blanchon,” you’ve got a horn made between 1878 and 1900.
Personally, I doubt that the Georgeophone survived that far into the 1880s. If you’re wondering why I say that the Georgeophones are Eb baritone and Bb bass, that’s because. No F instruments. Hey, the Georgeophones are rare enough, as it is!
Just think: they were 350 Francs in 1878. According to, a good meal cost 8 Francs in 1871 (a pheasant, a chicken and two bottles of wine). Let’s say that that’s about $150 in today’s money, so 1 Franc = $18.75.
That’d mean that the Eb baritone was a shade over $6500! You thought Selmers had high prices!
Posted inTagged:,. In 2003, after I posted my first version of my Keilwerth pages on, I was contacted by Peter Ponzol. He said he wanted to “clear up” a few things about the Modell Peter Ponzol and his tenure at Keilwerth.
Below, I’ve consolidated my questions into three parts:. Questions about Peter Ponzol himself, his involvement with Keilwerth and the development of the Modell Peter Ponzol saxophone. Questions about the Peter Ponzol sax necks. Brand new stuff (2011) regarding the Antigua Winds Pro-One saxophones. This makes things a little easier to read – after all, these were three separate e-mails.
My additions are in brackets ( ) or in deep purple. Available Finishes Lacquer, Colored Lacquer, Plating Upon Request PH: How did you get involved with Keilwerth? What was your position and 'mission' there? PP: I will try and answer your questions without going into my life story. A lot of this information is in a from late 1992 or 1993. I was a consultant for the Lyricon in the late 70’s, while living as a jazz and studio player in NYC.
I believe that it was 1980 that I demonstrated the Lyricon at the Frankfurt Music Fair. There I met the people from Buffet (which had just been purchased by ). They invited me to come to the factory after the show and try some of their saxophones which I did. After returning to NYC, I became involved with the US part of the company in an effort to make a Buffet for the jazz market.
During an extended 1981 stay in Europe, on a grant from the German government, I began to work on prototypes at the factory in Mantes. There was a problem in that B&H wanted a saxophone for the jazz market and Buffet saw the saxophone world as classical. My prototypes were never realized and B&H sent me to Keilwerth, which was in the same German village as B&H Germany, to see what I thought of the Keilwerth horns. I saw a lot of potential in these horns and B&H had Keilwerth make 100 horns with the Buffet logo and engraving.
After realizing that Buffet was never going to change and being frustrated that my ideas were not being utilized, I left in 1985. I then approached Keilwerth, which was still a small family company to see if they would be interested in my ideas. We redesigned the saxophone they had been making for Conn /Armstrong by moving tone holes and designing a new neck.
The saxophones they had been making were all flat in the palm keys so I suggested making the tone holes larger to raise the pitch. 1986 saw the introduction of the Modell Peter Ponzol for the European market and the making of saxophones with only the Keilwerth name. (By the way, I moved to Germany in 1981 and was very busy as a jazz player playing all over Europe and with the Jazz Ensemble on the Frankfurt Radio Station HR.) We built an excellent European market for Keilwerth and in 1989, Boosey & Hawkes took over Keilwerth.
I worked closely with Gerhard Keilwerth who is an excellent technician. I would give Gerhard an idea and on my next visit to the factory he would have some possibilities for me to try. My position was that of consultant and tester: I would go in the factory once a week to test my models and in general check on the production. We also did many workshops throughout Europe.
I began making mouthpieces in 1985 and we tied both products into our workshops. My model came with a, a different neck which was personally chosen by me for each instrument and I did all the final testing on all Ponzol saxophones and the guarantee card bore my signature. As I mentioned, the G# mechanism, adjustable palm keys and F arm with adjusting screw were all developed on my model.
Being a jazz player, of course my goal was to make first a good saxophone and second to make one that was aimed at the largest market. During marketing studies we found that classical saxophone represented 3% of the world market in 1985. I was never able to get Keilwerth to change the size of the bow which I feel causes the sound to spread too much. We made a prototype with a smaller bow that I thought was fantastic, but it was never put into production. B&H did not like using my name on the saxophone and had no desire to make further major changes to the saxophones, so I became too expensive and my involvement with the company ended in March, 1993. I then returned to the US after a wonderful 12 years in Europe. The Modell Ponzol became the SX90, but without real rolled tone holes the SX90R “uses tonehole rings which are soldered on to the standard drawn toneholes” (link to this quote is no longer available) and with a different neck , however I would not like to make a comparison between my model and the new Keilwerth saxophones.
PH: I’ve heard a bit about your. How did you get started doing this? What do you think about using wood as a material for a sax, particularly for a neck? PP: I learned with Keilwerth and Buffet how important the neck was and made many notes about various experiments. Remember that I had a factory at my disposal so every time I had an idea I received a prototype for testing.
Seeing that the current method of making necks is good for production, but not always the best for the instrument, I decided that there was a good market for necks that would play better than the factory necks. I am a strong believer in the neck being the same material as the body of the saxophone. In principal, the ideal saxophone would be one piece, but it is totally impractical.
I have experimented with necks of different materials and find a mismatch in the overtones. As to wooden necks, I think that it is asking for problems. I made about 100 wooden mouthpieces and know very well the problems of wood and moisture. In theory the material should have no influence on the sound and I strongly believe that.
However, different materials have different resistance and this causes you to play differently in order to compensate for more or less resistance. In 2011, Peter Ponzol partnered with Antigua Winds to produce a new alto and tenor model that has the following, according to: The heart and soul of the new Antigua Pro-One is the Peter Ponzol neck design. This new neck is free-blowing, has lightning quick response, precise intonation and great tone quality. Antigua Pro-One necks are designed and built to meet the strict standards set forth by Peter Ponzol. Antigua Pro-One saxophones are crafted from a special vintage brass alloy material. It’s generally regarded that the metallurgy of post-war French saxophones gives them a certain tone character that sounds “right.” We analyzed this alloy and found that its properties were a combination of the chemical makeup, as well as the annealing and working processes during the making of the saxophone. We found a source for this alloy from a mill that uses only the highest quality refined ores to create the purest alloys available.
Our engineering team then created an annealing process that emulates the acoustical properties of a fine vintage instrument. Vintage Reserve alloy promotes quick and accurate response, wide dynamic range, and centered, well-focused tone. As a result, the new Antigua Pro-One saxophones are at home in any genre or musical setting. I’ve heard many amusing things over the years regarding the kind of brass that’s used in making a saxophone, with the majority of comments having to do with the Selmer Mark VI. My personal favorite is that the metal used in the Mark VI was from old WWII artillery shell casings. While I do know, from watching things like, that how you 'treat' the metal can make a significant difference in the strength of the metal, there have been no conclusive studies that show that the metal used in a saxophone’s construction affects the tone. See and of a couple articles I’ve written for more on the subject.
In my opinion — and that of several other players — the best thing to do is not say that horn X is superior because of what it’s made with, but that horn X is just a really good horn. You might also note that a 'taste-test' Paul Cohen did on baritone saxophones for the March/April 1997 edition of his 'Vintage Saxophones Revisited' column in The Saxophone Journal magazine (page 8) concluded that the Super (Balanced) Action had better tone color.
The Antigua Pro-One is revolutionary and unique as it is the first hybrid rolled tone hole saxophone. The Pro-One has rolled tone holes for the bell keys and straight drawn tone holes in all other areas to balance response and tone. The rolled tone holes provide a larger contact area for the pads to seal and add needed strength where it matters most. This provides faster, more nimble response from the low notes and a deep rich tone. I’ve heard that some Conn New Wonder sopranos and sopraninos had the higher tone holes straight and the rest rolled. This was not done because they wanted to accentuate a design feature, but probably because you’re talking about itty-bitty tone holes.
Unfortunately, while I colleced a lot of soprano and sopranino pics on, I don’t have any really good close-ups of the altissimo stacks on these horns. It is possible, of course, that the rolled tone holes were filed down on some horns at some point. In any event, the main reason why Conn used and the Pro-One uses rolled tone holes is for extended pad life. From a 1922 Conn catalog. If you want me to venture an opinion on the Antigua Pro-One’s design, without me even touching the horn, I think that the rolled tone holes on the bell keys combined with the 'Trident™ Key Arms' (see below) might help with the problem of leaky bell keys and the fact that you’ve got an awful lot of mechanism you have to mash down to close the bell keys. Double key arms add strength to the low B, Bb and C keys.
Antigua Winds Tenor Saxophone
The Pro-One design carries this feature 2 steps further with the revolutionary Ponzol Trident adjustable arms. This new design, exclusive to the Antigua Pro-One, improves radial rigidity and features 2 adjustment arms to set and balance these critical keys. The difference this new design makes is truly amazing. There is a lot of mystique and marketing speak surrounding the bell diameter of the saxophone.
This lead our design team, headed by Peter Ponzol to seek to quantify the role of the saxophone bell, remove the mystique and answer the question “what is the best bell size for saxophones?” Our research led us to the optimum bell diameter and shape to obtain the best balance, response and tone. I was unaware that there was a 'mystique' surrounding bell diameters. Definitely a lot of marketing speak, as I know there have been big bell Cannonball horns, P. Mauriat horns and even Antigua, themselves, had a big bell model. SML was possibly the first company to offer an oversized bell, with their Gold Medal saxophone, back in the mid-1950s, but it really wasn’t a case of, 'The Gold Medal is extra great because it has a big bell,' it was more, 'The Gold Medal is a great horn and it has a big bell.'
My opinion is that a lot of manufacturers are trying to get back to a bell that is, uhm, more bell-like. I’ve heard from a couple repairmen that they can remove the bell from (say) a Conn Artist/Standard horn and tap it — and get a bell-like tone.
Newer horns just return a dull thud. Anyhow, there are an awful lot of things you can tweak on a saxophone and the bell is a big and logical target. However, it’d be extremely interesting if Antigua allowed Mr. Ponzol to do what he suggested in the above interview: make a one-piece (straight) horn. I know some folks that’d buy a straight alto or tenor! An extensive ergonomic study of the saxophone keyboard was conducted by the Antigua Pro-One design team. The purpose of the study was to refine the positions and placement of the keys, making the Pro-One work with the player, making it easier to play fast and difficult passages and promote better feel.
Antigua Winds Saxophone Serial Numbers Chart Free
We added a bridge arm to the F key of the Antigua Pro-One to facilitate faster action and response in the right hand key section. The Pro-One is designed to have the best feel and response. Oddly, it doesn’t appear that you get a Peter Ponzol with the new Antigua Pro-One. The Pro-One horns are not cheap: $2500 and $2800, respectively, at (tell Dave that I said 'hi'!). The again, a Ponzol neck is and his higher-end mouthpieces are in the range.
If both were included with the Pro-One, that’d be extremely attractive: $900 in Ponzol products and get a sax with some Ponzol custom work for $1600 more? The Pro-One alto is than the Antigua 4240. I do think this is a good price for Antigua dipping their toes in the 'real' professional market with a horn that’s not just a copy of a Selmer Super 80 Serie II or a Yanagisawa 991, even if a Ponzol mouthpiece is not included. I’d rather like to see some reviewers test the Pro-One against the Keilwerth Modell Peter Ponzol, the Antigua 4240 and the Yanagisawa 991. However, I do start to wonder if the Pro-One is approaching two other rolled-tone hole French-made saxophones: the Couesnon Monopole and the SML Gold Medal. As a personal comment, I want to thank Mr.
Peter Ponzol profusely for 'sitting down' for an interview. I also hope he sells a bazillion Pro-Ones. Posted inTagged:,.