Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Sovereign 967 & 968

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    460

    Sovereign 967 & 968

    Barry,

    Thanks for your response. Cosmetically, it's "o.k." with minor dings that I can live with. The bell is in excellent almost "pristine" shape. The valves are nice too. For my ears, it sounds great, given the fact, that I have spent all of high school and college on the same Yam YEP321 (I still own it).

    I briefly owned an older Besson 3+1 Euph in the mid-90's before someone decided to steal it. I just loved the way that horn sounded and played. I'm ashamed to say, I didn't pay attention to the serial or model numbers at the time. It definitely wasn't a Sovereign, but it looked very similar to this horn.

    Thanks for everyones advice. I can see I'm in the presence of far more knowledgable euphonium players. Gee, the Internet is a wonderful thing!

    Dan



    Euphs:
    Miraphone 5050 Ambassador
    Wessex Travel (Tornister) Euphonium 'Maly' ER154
    Yamaha 201 Baritone
    Mp: Wick SM4 Ultra X
    Groups:
    The San Diego Concert Band

  2. #12

    Sovereign 967 & 968

    Originally posted by: bbocaner

    1988 is generally just about as bad as Bessons get but they did let some good ones through...
    While pre-lottery Bessons, which would include '87-'88 vintage horns, are generally not held in the same esteem as the late '70s-early '80s Round Stamp Sovereigns (which are generally considered to be the "gold standard"), the precipitous decline in Besson quality is usually dated to the late '90s-early 2000s, as a result of the rush to fill the demand for instruments created by the massive influx of cash from the National Lottery Distribution Fund, which was inaugurated in 1994. While there were certainly dogs to be found among the pre-lottery era horns (just as there were among the Round Stamps), pre-lottery era horns are generally considered to be of markedly better quality than their lottery-era successors.

    Assuming the horn is in good mechanical and cosmetic condition (some dings and minor dents, plating > 90% intact, no obvious repairs or mechanical issues, etc.), $4000 is not an unreasonable asking price for a horn being sold on consignment by a reputable dealer, especially if the dealer provides a return period and some sort of warranty.

    As a point of comparison, a silverplated 967 that appeared to be in good cosmetic condition sold for $3000 on ebay last Fri. It originally listed with a starting bid of $3500 and a Buy-It-Now of $3850 (ended Dec 11 with no bids), and was relisted with a starting bid of $3200 and a B-I-N of $3600 (ended Dec 14 with no bids).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    460

    Sovereign 967 & 968

    I guess, like most vintage instruments, its all subjective to your wallet and ears.

    Euphs:
    Miraphone 5050 Ambassador
    Wessex Travel (Tornister) Euphonium 'Maly' ER154
    Yamaha 201 Baritone
    Mp: Wick SM4 Ultra X
    Groups:
    The San Diego Concert Band

  4. #14

    Sovereign 967 & 968

    While I'm sure the lottery rush caused a droop in quality, the late '80s and early '90s instruments had pretty disasterous quality, too. My high school got four 967s in 1990 and they were all dogs -- I remember braces on crooked, weird gaps and misalignments between tubings, valves that NEVER worked properly, etc. I brought what I felt were the best two to Dr. Bowman one lesson and he was exasperated because he thought they were both terrible!

    Remember also that in 1993 the euphoniums were redesigned. New valves, new leadpipe tapers, free-floating leadpipe, new second branch taper, and new manufacturing processes. It is my opinion that even a bad so-called "GS" series from this time period is a better instrument than a good one from just before this time.



    --
    Barry

  5. #15

    Sovereign 967 & 968

    Originally posted by: bbocaner While I'm sure the lottery rush caused a droop in quality, the late '80s and early '90s instruments had pretty disasterous quality, too. My high school got four 967s in 1990 and they were all dogs -- I remember braces on crooked, weird gaps and misalignments between tubings, valves that NEVER worked properly, etc. I brought what I felt were the best two to Dr. Bowman one lesson and he was exasperated because he thought they were both terrible!

    Remember also that in 1993 the euphoniums were redesigned. New valves, new leadpipe tapers, free-floating leadpipe, new second branch taper, and new manufacturing processes. It is my opinion that even a bad so-called "GS" series from this time period is a better instrument than a good one from just before this time.
    I had a 967 that I bought in 1995 that was built in the late 80's. I must've been lucky - it was a good horn, though I did have a lot of trouble seating the valves. It took several technician-level lappings to calm those boys down and get 'em dancin'.

    I sold that horn last year when I bought my Virtuoso.

    U.S. Army, Retired (built mid-1950s)
    Adams E2 Euph (built 2017)
    Boosey & Co. Imperial Euph (built 1941)
    Edwards B454 Bass Trombone (built 2012)
    Boosey & Hawkes Imperial Eb tuba (built 1958)
    Kanstul 33-T lBBb tuba (built 2010)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    460

    Sovereign 967 & 968

    Originally posted by: bbocaner While I'm sure the lottery rush caused a droop in quality, the late '80s and early '90s instruments had pretty disasterous quality, too. My high school got four 967s in 1990 and they were all dogs -- I remember braces on crooked, weird gaps and misalignments between tubings, valves that NEVER worked properly, etc. I brought what I felt were the best two to Dr. Bowman one lesson and he was exasperated because he thought they were both terrible!



    Remember also that in 1993 the euphoniums were redesigned. New valves, new leadpipe tapers, free-floating leadpipe, new second branch taper, and new manufacturing processes. It is my opinion that even a bad so-called "GS" series from this time period is a better instrument than a good one from just before this time.




    I can see I'm at the beginning stages of learning the Besson line. Thanks again!

    Euphs:
    Miraphone 5050 Ambassador
    Wessex Travel (Tornister) Euphonium 'Maly' ER154
    Yamaha 201 Baritone
    Mp: Wick SM4 Ultra X
    Groups:
    The San Diego Concert Band

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •