Given that there is so much overlap among the great vintage saxophones, there are also areas at either extreme of musical performance & sound generation spectra where individual instrument designs exceed the norms. So if we say a Martin is sweet & soft, what we mean is that in the extreme, it will play more sweetly (or perhaps more softly in an easier fashion) than say, a King Super 20 or a Conn ‘M’ series equipped and played in exactly the same manner. That’s not to say that in most musical applications that the Martin, Conn or King could not be made to sound more or less the same. Each of these classic vintage sax makers have their followings, of course, and all are quite worthy of their fan loyalty. That’s the long way of saying that you really can’t go wrong with any great vintage sax of good pedigree that you buy from a reliable source.

I would say that if you have the ear-to-motor skill coordination to play the cello that you’ll have little trouble with saxual intonation. IMO, much too much emphasis is placed on the ‘I’ word in the stuff you read on the web about vintage saxophones. While it’s true that modern metal forming techniques and computer design calculations are far more precise than the sax building processes employed during the USA’s vintage sax era, any good pedigree vintage sax can be set up to play acceptably in tune with itself by an experienced sax tech – at least by one that loves these instruments and takes the due care needed in the setup process. That’s my job here at CS, and I can assure you I am a stickler over what goes out of here under our shipping label … :-)

With some experience & practice, your ear & embrochure will quickly master the same saxual coordination that allowed your ear & fingers to play a cello in tune – not that a sax you get from CS will require any Herculean efforts on your part. If you got it, you got. If you don’t, you never will – and new Yanagisawa or pre war Comm II won’t matter a bit in the end analysis. 

I’m not sure where your comment about ‘relearning the pinky keys’ is coming from. I can’t make any comparisons since I didn’t spot what you are playing now in your message, but the Comm II pinky spatula is as well designed (did you know that the ‘Committee’ models were the result of deliberations by the then saxual experts of the day?) and as smooth working as any you will find on a modern saxophone. Much is made of the Selmer ‘balanced action’ pinky cluster that permeates the modern saxophone design world, but us old techs that have studied & worked on all the designs know that the leverage & mechanical efficiency of the left hand low B/Bb saxophones is NOT either mechanically or musically inferior. And I’ll share another secret, my friend: I will charge you a lot more for the privilege of working on your slick looking ‘balanced action’ saxophone than on an old Martin, Conn or Buescher with two left bell tone holes. All those rods that have to run down the front of your ‘modern’ saxophone are a mechanical mess when you have to get into a horn’s guts. Adjustments that would be simple on a Martin can be nightmarish on the so called ‘modern’ instrument designs that feature the balanced action style pinky linkage. The guy who coined that phrase, “Keep it simple, stupid,” sure knew the skinny on saxophone design.

Anyway, if you appreciate your instruments and the music they make equally as art (like moi), these pre war art deco classics like the Martin Committee II alto we’ve been discussing have it all over all but a few of the modern saxual marvels – and at a fraction of the cost. IMO, some of the finest saxophones in the world were made between the onset of our Great Depression and the start of WWII. The real shame is that so few were made due to the circumstances of the era – and even fewer survive in their original glory.