A Few General Remarks on "No-Buff" Stripping, and Hand Refinishing

More and more players are getting curious about chemical stripping and tarnish removal techniques, as the vintage horn market grows.  Even fairly recently, there were relatively very few techs that were familiar with refinishing techniques aside from the machine-buff and spray techniques that so many have come to fear and dread, because of the damage this process tends to, or can, visit upon a saxophone.  More recently, though, most vintage saxophone repair techs have begun to offer (or at least know how to do) chemical stripping, and hand refinishing.  While many of these technicians are using harsh chemicals -- as I did as well, until I discovered both a more bio-friendly and non-toxic method of removing lacquer without machine buffing -- the stripping process itself does not remove any, or removes merely a trace, of metal from the horn.  As I mention, there is also at least one method, the one I myself use, of removing lacquer without the use of harsh chemicals, and this also removes either no metal or only a microscopic trace of metal.

Some of the downsides to the traditional relacquering techniques -- caking rouge onto the buffing wheel and grinding both lacquer and a large amount of metal off the horn -- are obvious.  Some are less so -- the dentwork, soldering, poor brasswork, and damage in a horn's past that can be hidden by a thick coat of gold lacquer and what amounts to a filing down of wayward metal; the potential for damaging toneholes and other hardware.  Chemical and no-buff stripping techniques skip this hazardous machine-buffing step in the refinishing process altogether, so they also avoid the dangers attendant to that process.  Since the stripping process does not remove metal, other dangers are additionally avoided, such as the possibility that, due to metal loss and the dampening effect that metal mass has, vibration in a horn (normally a positive) will become so great that keys will fail to seal properly, and certain springs will have to be tensioned to the point of immobility; similarly some of the deleterious effects on intonation that metal loss and damage to toneholes can engender, associated with conventional machine-buff relacuering techniques, are non-factors when refinishing with no-buff stripping techniques.  It's worth noting, however, that in rare cases -- in the case of a horn that has been heavily buffed in the past, for example -- it may indeed be a bad idea to strip away a seemingly too-thick coating of lacquer, because that coating may be all that's keeping the horn from vibrating too violently for proper performance.  

In most cases, though, horns that are properly chemically stripped do seem to gain some resonance and vibration  without any ill effects (but opinion and theory are divided on this subject).  How much difference stripping away a thick coating of old, or damaged, lacquer actually makes is impossible to really know; pads do not survive chemstrips, so invariably a chem-strip is accompanied by an overhaul, and any properly executed overhaul will usually result in at least some gain in resonance and vibration (since a tight horn resonates and vibrates with more vitality than a nearly-tight one).  As far as generally circulating schools of thought on the subject of acoustical effects and finishes for woodwind and brass instruments are concerned, however, there are more or less two schools of thought that seem either influenced by findings of some flute makers on the effects of plated vs. lacquered finishes, and the findings of some brass and trumpet makers on the effects of different finishes on timbre and tone.  

In general, the opinion and findings of flute makers or theorists such as John Coltman  that finish does not make a difference in the timbral or tonal quality produced by an instrument is disputed by those of some brass men, such as Renold Schilke that finish can or does exercise meaningful effects.  In my own experience, lacquer does seem to exercise some effects in terms of dampening vibration in the metal of a saxophone.  Whether this translates to a difference in actual sound, per se, is a different question from whether it translates to a difference in how the player experiences the sound, an integral part of which is often what how the feeling of playing the instrument interacts with what one hears in one's inner ear, while playing.  It is entirely possible that removing lacquer from the exterior or a horn, and replacing it either with a plated finish or a thinner, lighter lacquer surface exercises no acoustical effects whatsoever.  It is also entirely possible - my own experience would say it in fact is true that - the presence or thickness of lacquer on the horn does exercise real effects on how the metal of the horn behaves, and on the player's experience of the sound.  A change in, literally, what the player hears in her/his subjective experience  translates, of course, to an effect on the music produced, and in that sense what the audience hears.   A less subjectively experienced change that definitely does exercise acoustical effects on the timbre/tone of an instrument is the interior surface of the bore.  In the same manner that it cleans or lifts away degradable material from the surface of the saxophone, the stripping process also lifts away degradable material -- yeast cultures, calcification, other kinds of dirt and biomass -- returning the brass inside the horn to something closer to original condition; this no doubt exercises some changes in the timbral qualities and response of the instrument.

As for dangers, there are expert voices that claim chemical or "no-buff" stripping removes no metal, and a few who would strongly discourage any change from original equipment.  I would have to say that, in the abstract, it's inevitable that a trace amount of metal is removed from the saxophone's surface, during even the mildest possible refinishing process, because even the gentlest polishing materials - even a cotton ball rubbed against the surface of the horn - will exercise some friction, and most of the compounds used to remove lacquer, and to clean away any lingering traces of lacquer, are at least mildly acidic/alkaline or contain mild abrasives (e.g. "Brasso").  While it's not possible that there is absolutely no metal removed during a properly executed chemical or "no buff" strip, the amount of metal removed is a mere dusting -- less metal, certainly, than would be accounted for by variation in the brass used, and its working, during the original construction of the instrument.  Properly executed vintage refinishing techniques almost surely exercise less change, or difference, in a saxophone than would have been expected to be found between that same horn, or its sibling completed at the factory hours apart. 

I've been uniformly happy with the results on the horns I've refinished for myself, as have customers.  Indeed, for myself, when I buy a vintage horn for myself and it reallys seems to hold promise, often a gentle refinishing is part of giving the horn every chance possible to remain with me, in my own private horn stash.  Still, I wouldn't recommend stripping, or accept a job to do it, on a horn that was not interesting in its current state despite that, even in the abstract, I like the idea of reducing the amount of lacquer on a horn; this means that the effects of chem stripping on horns that are not as promising are never really tested on my bench, even casually.

Most of the horns I have treated were originally finished with a relatively thick coating of lacquer -- modern factories usually apply 5 or more relatively liberal coatings -- and most careful vintage horn specialists of which I'm aware usually apply no more than 3 or 4 light coatings; just enough to "seal the metal" against the elements (or, if you like, oxygen, other airborne compounds, and spit).  While it is true that this is not as durable as a thicker coating, the result does seem to be a horn that sounds more colorful to the ear, and feels more alive under the fingers.
 
 

What It Is, and Is Not

Since no gargantuan buffing wheel is involved, and all work is done by hand and elbow grease, it's possible to exercise the utmost care in avoiding damage to the saxophone itself during a no-buff strip.  Also, when clear lacquer is used for the final finish, it's unlikely that flaws remain hidden by a thick coating of colored lacquer (one of the purposes of the old-school buff and spray "relacquering").  For these reasons, no-buff stripping is fundamentally different from traditional relacquering, especially as regards how the processes affect the well-being of the instrument.

On the one hand, it's much safer for the saxophone, and possibly even beneficial in many cases (in most cases, the before/after difference in playability is probably negligible, or beyond the range of human hearing -- again, changes will occur, but the most drastic ones will surely be results of the concomitant overhaul).  On the other hand, a no-buff strip that involves only a light application of lacquer is not a refinishing technique that results in a horn that looks "like new."  Scratches and pitting that are hidden under thick veils of lacquer -- and often the zipper of the bell, hidden under the same opaque blanket -- usually are visible following a refinishing.  The procedure is much better considered as a "cleaning" rather than "refurbishing."
 
 

Just Saxes Customizing

Personally, I find the bare brass, sealed with a top-quality clear lacquer, to be the most lovely finish for a hand refinished horn.  Yellow and gold lacquer can be mixed, but, at least to me, the brass itself used in saxophones not only differs from make to make, but from era to era within any given model's history; this means that different horns all have their own aesthetic character when the personality of the brass itself determines the final result.  Add to this that the length of time the brass is left bare during the process influences the finish's color and visual tone as well, and you have a procedure that is very organic -- perhaps as close as one gets to a genuinely artistic aspect, in vintage saxophone work.

Depending on the material used for the final step of the lacquer removal process -- a polishing stage -- one also has the choice of a polished (shiny) or lightly brushed (matte) finish.  The Mark VI pictured below, in the "before/after" photo examples, was finished using extremely fine grade steel wool, in order to produce a light, matte finish that reflects light more softly and diffusely.

Colored finishes are available, but with a warning:  since the etching of the engravings are not as pronounced through the opacity of a colored finish, and the lacquer is applied when the horn has already been engraved (the opposite of the procedure originally used on the most dramatic engravings), engravings are likely to look more "washed-out" when using colored finishing lacquers.

The price for a no buff strip and refinish, such as the one shown below, is $375-425, depending on the original finish of the horn (black lacquered horns can be very resistant, and extra work, to strip, while older lacquers are relatively cooperative, in most cases).  On overhauls, this is a separate charge from that of the mechanical overhaul itself.  The price of the refinishing itself includes complete replacement of all needle springs on the horn, as the blueing of needle springs does not survive the stripping process, and the use of water during stripping causes them to rust and become brittle.
 

* Quick note on the pics:  the photos are intended as an index of quality change only, and for the purposes of illustration.  The "Before" photos were taken outdoors, in daylight, and the "After" ones indoors, without a flash; this of course makes the lighting in them quite different.  Also:  that incongruous little white addendum on the RH palm E key is a custom epoxy riser, treated to look like mother-of-pearl; it is not related to the refinishing.  The VI pictured was, at the time of its photographing, a horn from my personal collection; it has since gone to a happy home in Boston.  (Clothes guard is off the bottom stack as I was still fine-tuning keyheights at the time the photos were taken.)
 

 

(Before pics)	(After pics)