Thanks, I need to practice more, though. I'm really a tenor player. . . .

@@paulracemusic Me too, actually! I sound good on tenor, but all my favorite classical pieces kinda need my alto to work right, so I'm trying to get used to it again

I'm definitely not an expert but here's my take. The way I understand it is the Aristocrat and the Bundy you have there are indeed the same horn. Just with two different labels. Selmer did similar with their clarinets. For instance you can get a Signet, Bundy or Aristocrat clarinet that are each the same instrument. There was some differentiation though for example signet's in wood seem to be more common and Bundy's had a few different bore options. But the Bundy 1401/577, Signet, and aristocrat all in resonite are indeed the same clarinet with three different names. Back to saxes. I agree after Selmer took over and the 400 parts were all used up it did in fact disappear. No more true 400s after that. The last professional aristocrats were the model 141/157. These were like the 400s with behind the bell keys but all the other 400 features were gone. During Selmer's time the Pro aristocrats became the 400s of that era. The only real 400 feature they retained is the underslung neck. This line defiantly got cheapened as time went on. Engraving got less ornate and then turned into a stamp for instance. But they can surely be thought of as professional instruments still. They kept the norton springs, and snap in pad/resonator system of Buescher's pro aristocrat, and more importantly are still phenomenal horns to play. It's this 400 that eventually got rebranded as the signet at least as far as the common understanding goes. Which is why you see the claim that the 400's turned into the signet. I guess you can think of the signet as the most diluted and paired down version of the old pro Aristocrat that Selmer could make. Though some of them ended up getting some engraving back instead of just a brand stamp. Not all though. It's here where the waters muddy though. It doesn't retain the underslung neck from the late 400s, no norton springs or snap in system. So the signet could just as easily be a late bundy/aristocrat with slightly different key work. And they lacquered the keys instead of nickel plate since at this point nickel plated keys was associated with student horns. Funny since the original 400 touted that as a pro feature. While the Aristocrat was rebranded as the 400 Buescher's second line "The Elkhart Built by Buescher" rebranded as the Aristocrat and Bundy. These are descendants of what we call True Tone. Like the Elkharts these saxes lack norton springs, snap in pads and have the older key work. No raised side keys, tear drop octave key for instance. Though selmer did do a few interesting things during this line. Like the Adjustapads, the odd but heavyduty paint/enamel finish, and you can find a few with a different more rounded out left hand pinky table. Surely this can be debated. We draw some of these lines based on what we see and old tales. We do have Ralph Morgan who worked for Selmer make the claim that while updating the Bundy to the Bundy ii that it was already based on the true tone so his main concern was making the keywork more modern. So that's at least why we draw the line from True tone to Elkhart to Aristocrat/Bundy to Bundy II. And the 400's maintaining pro Aristocrat features and keywork essentially till the end of their run is why we go from Pro Aristocrat to 400. And the removal of all the 400 features/keywork is why we don't go from pro 400 to late 400. And then the Ralph Morgan redesign has 4 iterations that are all essentially the same sax. The Bundy II, the Aristocrat 200, the Buescher 400 again, and the Selmer Signet also again. The Bundy II and the Aristocrat 200 are identical except for stamp both have nickel plated keys. The Buescher 400 and the signet both have laquered keys and a different neck brace. The Buescher 400 retained for whatever reason the neck strap ring of the 400s before it but is otherwise identical to the signet other than stamping.

⁠@@SephirothTNH It’s my understanding that the early Selmer Signet (differentiated by the “S” brace like shown in the video) was based on the early Buescher Aristocrat. Is that not the case?

A friend had a Signet clarinet that was made with granadilla wood. SIGINFICANTLY better tone than the old "resonite" (bakelite) clarinets. Nearly as loud as a student sax. Never had an Aristocrat clarinet in my hands, but if they went back to bakelite, it was probably after the Selmer takeover.

Yes, you are correct. I think I say that in the video. But maybe I don't explain it very well.

To me "professional means "state-of-the-art" engineering, top-quality materials, and precision assembly. A horn whose components won't sag out of shape with normal handling, whose pads fit tightly, whose response is very fast, and whose tone brings you to tears of joy. For many people, the Selmer Mark VI was the epitome of that, but top-of-the-line Yamahas, Yanagisawas, and possibly Keilwerth are more available and likely more affordable. Most student horns come out of China today, and even the best of them are far more likely to have quality control issues or use cheaper materials. May I ask what you're playing today? Though I have one Selmer, I love playing "vintage" horns that were professional in their day, though I have them adjusted as necessary. To me, a major issue is durability. My 40-t0-60-year-old Buescher Aristocrats are all more solid and - with the right mouthpiece - will offer better tone and long-term playability than 90% of the horns coming out of China today.

@@paulracemusic Hi, I have two tenor saxophones, one Selmer Mark VI from 1962 and one Conn-Selmer Prelude TS 711 from 2018. My Mark VI I found in 2018 on a loft of a friend of mine, where it had been stored almost unused for 55 years. I bought it and had it totally overhauled. It’s a fantastic instrument. But I’m so afraid of getting a dent, so I’m using my Conn Selmer on gigs. By playing, I can’t tell what is what except that the Conn Selmer is a little heavier. The sound is the same, the key layout is the same. When comparing side by side, the Conn Selmer seems more sturdy. I wonder what you get when buying the Selmer Supreme at 14,000 USD? A Conn Selmer with engravings?

@@hansmathiasthjomoe4817 I wouldn't worry about upgrading either of those horns unless I was making obscene money from my sax playing. At best the difference would be a few percentage points IMHO. I have a Selmer Mark VII alto that I never play "out," and it has a substantially better tone than my Aristocrats, BUT I could get better tone out of my Aristocrats if I just practiced more, so I don't blame the horns. 🙂 Plus, most of the places I play sax don't justify dragging a horn worth more than my car to.

Can you send me the serial #, just replacing the last two digits with 99? I don't know that model but the serial number will help me track it down.'

@@paulracemusic Hello and sorry for the delay . Its is a Buscher 400 Bari serial 464759. I found between 1965 and 1970 after buscher purchased by selmer USA. Thanks!

@@cavitia1 Does it look like this one? www.saxophone.org/museum/saxophones/specimen/706 If so, it's the best baritone Buescher ever made, and that's saying something. Buescher 400 tenors are still in demand among vintage sax lovers, going for $600-1500 depending on condition. Buescher 400 baris are amost unknown. Your horn was made before Yamaha/Vito saxophones forced everyone else to start using more ergonomic fingering (imitating Selmer's Balanced Action horns). But if your fingers can reach the keys, and it's set up properly, you'd have trouble matching the tone and volume with any under-$4000 bari today.

@@paulracemusic Thanks Paul, It is great to know, means mine is even older than the one on the museum. 😃