Ishimori Wood Stone New Vintage alto saxophone

Origin: Taiwan
Guide price: £4,300
Weight: 2.31kg
Date of manufacture: 2022 (serial range: WSA-u08xx)
Date reviewed: January 2026

Hmmmm...

Well, here we are again - another 'Boutweaqued' horn.

The nuts 'n bolts of this horn is that it's designed by Ishimori Wind Instruments (a music/repair shop in Japan), built in Taiwan and then assembled/tweaked in Japan. It comes with a package of features which are claimed to improve the 'resonance' of the horn. And a premium price tag.
I had a quick skim through the forums (always the most tedious part of doing a review) and noted that much of the debate about these horns centred around the exact definition of 'designed', the worth or otherwise of the 'resonance-improving' gadgets and the cost of the horn, but not a very great deal about how well the horn was put together. And to my mind at least the problem with putting a horn out at a certain price-point is that you immediately have to meet or exceed the build quality of the competition. That's a no-brainer, surely.
It's also the case that if you make grandiose claims, folks are likely to question them. Sure, you can get away with some of it because there'll always be a percentage of players who are happy to buy into the marketing - but there comes a point where opinions are cast aside and someone takes a closer look at exactly how the horn is built.
And at £4000+ it means there's an awful lot to live up to.
So let's pop it up on the bench and see if it makes the grade.

What we have here is a brass body with plain drawn toneholes. There are some nickel silver features, such as the crook clamp and the top E and G key barrels - which is something you'll find on a Selmer MkVI and thus fits in with the manufacturer's blurb about vintage credentials.
There's a two-point bell brace (again, a la Selmer MkVI) and a bottom bow clamp - which would lead you to suppose that the bell is detachable. It isn't, because for 'tonal reasons' they've soldered the joint together. This is fine, it's how horns of yesteryear were built, but it means the clamp is superfluous and thus extra weight - and it also means that if you have anything but the unlacquered version (like this one) you're likely to lose some of the finish should you damage the horn sufficiently to require the bell to be removed.
I'm not in the least bit impressed by the two-point bell brace. Back in the day it was fine - and quite a bit sturdier than the braces on other horns - but things move on, and a triple-point brace gives a horn quite a bit more rigidity against the casual knocks and bumps that are part and parcel of a horn's life.
You'll no doubt be relieved to know that the two-point brace was fitted because it "enhances the resonance and response". What you might be slightly miffed to hear is that another manufacturer says that a tri-point brace achieves "a strong resilience that ensures a firm resonance".

The construction is fully ribbed with a handful of small plates for the smaller key groups and a few standalone pillars dotted here and there. All of these have been neatly soldered to the body. You get an adjustable metal thumb hook, a flat ebonite thumb rest, adjustable bumper felts and the usual trio of adjusters for the Bis Bb/G# and low C#. You also get key height adjusters on the lower stack - but no regulation adjusters on either stack. The key pearls are slightly concave mother of pearl with a slightly domed pearl on the Bis Bb and an oval pearl for the G#. Finishing up the body there's some rather fancy engraving on the bell, which extends down onto the bottom bow. What you don't get with this particular model is a top F#. Because vintage, innit.

The tidiness of the assembly bodes well, but looks aren't everything - so it's time to get out some measuring kit and see what we find.
And what we find is this. From top F down to G the flatness of the toneholes was about what I'd expect to see on a sub-£2500 horn. Acceptable but still worth a tweak.
Thereafter it all goes quite a bit south. By far the worst of the bunch was the low D (top right). This had the typical apex gaps, with the left side being a hefty 0.21mm deep - and the right hand side faring little better. I've seen worse, but not often by very much. The Auxiliary F (bottom right) was particularly nasty, with a gap on the right side of about 0.15mm. Doesn't sound like a lot - but anything over 0.025mm is enough to slide a cigarette paper through and thus qualifies as a potential source of a leak, and what's particularly problematic about this warp is that the aux key is only actuated by other keys on the lower stack. You don't get direct finger pressure down on the key cup and thus have to take into account the flex in the key...plus there is often an opposing force acting upon it via the Bis Bb and/or the G# key. It's a critical key - arguably the most important on the whole horn. It's the gateway to the low notes - and because of the various forces it has to deal with it ought to be absolutely spot on. And it was not. The rest of the lower stack to bell note tone holes were mediocre at best. This is all quite some way below the standard I regularly see on similarly-priced Yamaha and Yanagisawa horns.

Folks will often say "Ah, but surely that's down to damage!" Nope - damage presents itself in a different way; it's either specific to the point of impact or follows a set pattern...such as bell key toneholes being distorted by bell damage or top stack holes distorted by a bend in the body. Widespread random and variable anomalies are what get built into the horn on the production line. In any event the history of this horn is known, right from the day it was purchased.

And speaking of damage this is probably not a horn I would want to sling around too much; the combination of the old-fashioned bell brace and the relatively small plate on the base of the compound bell key pillar doesn't really tick my boxes when it comes to robustness.
A very common problem on horns is that they sometimes cop a whack while they're in the case, and this creates something I call case shock. You open the case and see no immediate signs of damage such as a dent or a bent body - but now the low notes don't work because the bell's been shunted out of alignment or the bell keys fall off because the shock has turned the bell key barrels into slide hammers and they've knocked the compound bell key pillar backwards.
This is why modern horns tend to have things like triple-point bell braces and semicircular compound pillars...because stuff like the above happens.

On to the keywork now and let's kick off with all-time favourite subject - the point screws.
I was really disappointed to see pseudo point screws on this horn. They could have got away with it had the key barrels been drilled only so deep that the tip of the screw made contact with the barrel - but they haven't...they're all drilled rather deeper than the length of the screw's tip. What this means is that the action is effectively mounted on parallel point screws. This is fine for now; the holes have been accurately drilled to size (which is a plus point), so there's no play in the keys. Yet. Once the keys wear - and they will - there's no scope for easily taking up the play. Like you could on, say, ooooh...I dunno...a Selmer Mk VI?
And some of the keys are going to wear a bit faster than you might think. The red arrow points to the lead-in of the thread, and when such a key is fitted to this horn it's this part of the screw that the key barrel comes into contact with. It's not nice and smooth like the tip of the screw, it's a bit rough and gnarly - and it's made of steel. Slowly but inexorably the thread will eat away at the brass, enlarging the hole in the key barrel and leading to play in the key.
You could 'fix' the play by reaming out the pillar and driving the screw deeper - but all that will do is provide fresh brass for the thread to eat. And so it continues.
The proper fix for this would be to have your repairer fit synthetic inserts into the key barrels so that the point on the screw has something to engage on and thus keep the thread away from the barrel - or brass inserts if you fancied throwing quite a bit more money at the job.
I said 'some of the keys' because not all of the pillars had been reamed deep enough to allow the thread to project into the barrel - which is a good thing, of course...but it's also bad in that it means quality control is inconsistent. In other words you're not going to know if there's a problem unless you take the keys off so that you can see what's going on.

The rod screw action was almost all pretty good. Here and there were signs that some post-production key fitting had been done. This always earns brownie points in my books. However, and rather frustratingly, there were a few keys where it looks like they'd been left 'ex-works'.

What we have here are the low C and the Auxiliary B key barrels. See that gap between the adjacent key barrels? That's not wear. Wear would show a more or less equal gap all round but an out-of-flat tube end will show peaks and troughs - exactly like, say, a warped tonehole...
It's bad enough on the Aux. B barrel that you can see the underlying rod screw peeking through the gap. I'm surprised that a sharp card in the marketing department hasn't figured out that they could sell these build quality issues as "Convenient oiling ports".
This is a failing in key fit - which isn't just about not being able to wobble a key or move it axially, it's also about how well the key barrels mate up to their adjacent parts. You really want as much surface contact between the barrels as possible so as to spread the load and minimise wear. Given that it appeared there had been some key fitting done in other areas I'm not sure how or why these keys got overlooked - but at this price they very definitely shouldn't have been.

And while I'm banging on about the subject of fit, whaddya reckon to these key pearls? Could be better, yeah?
Thing is, they've used pretty much the same type of pearl holders as you'd find on a Selmer MkVI - but you won't see any gaps on the Selmer because they crimped the holders around the pearls. I can't say whether any crimping's been done on these pearls (not without taking one out, at least) but if it has been it's not been done very well - and I suspect these pearl might just be glued in.

There's some 'interesting' use of different metals on this horn. As per Selmer-stylee you have nickel silver key barrels on the G and top E keys - but take a look at this little beauty. Isn't that neat? Now, I don't think it's made of nickel silver because it's a bit too white so perhaps it's stainless steel? Either way it looks rather nice - and it has a nifty little trick up its sleeve.

See those two little grub screws? They lock the G# adjuster in place. If you slacken them off you can move the adjuster outward...and you can also adjust the angle at which the cork buffer hits the key cup. Isn't that something?
Well, OK, I'm not really sure why you'd want to move the adjuster out because that would affect the leverage - and that can lead to more complications than you might be aware of. And as for adjusting the angle of the buffer cork - why not simply put a dome on the cork and call it a day? And while you're there, do the same for the Bis Bb buffer. It makes a difference.
So yes, it might all be something of nothing - but I'm definitely not taking away the fact that I think it looks rather snazzy.

And then there's the crook and lyre clamp screws.
Now this is very definitely not nickel silver - and you can clearly see the difference in colour between the clamp itself, which is.
Also, the Ishimori blurb has this to say about it: "ISHIMORI Wind Instruments invented the innovative screw made from alloyed silver. The flow of the phrase gets much better with this screw. The high notes become richer and powerful. You will be surprised to find that such small screw improve drastically your sound and play."

Yep, they said that. And if that causes you to raise an eyebrow - get ready to raise the other one...

The octave mech is the standard swivelling type. Nothing wrong with that at all.
I feel they missed a trick with the thumb key though because although it's sculpted around the rest it's just a flat bit of metal - and many pricey horns these days (and quite a few cheaper ones) are using thumb keys with a bit of dishing on them. Makes things feel much nicer I reckon.

And then there's the thumb rest. Ooooh boy. Deep breath...
It's made from hard rubber - or some form of ebonite, if you will. It's held in place by a little grub screw, which I've arrowed. This is a nice feature. The thumb rest on my TJ RAW has a grub screw to hold it in place - which means there's no mucking about with glue should you need or wish to remove it for any reason.
And why ebonite? Because MkVI. Fair enough, it's a nod to the past that doesn't compromise the robustness or playability of the horn. I can't argue with that.
But wait...that's not it. Oh no. The Ishimori blurb speaketh thus:

"Hard Rubber Thumb Rest is modeled after the hard rubber thumb rests used on early Mark 6 saxophones produced between 1954 and 1960. The thumb rests are said to have been contributed to dark and rich sound of that time. ISHIMORI Wind Instruments tried to restore them and finally succeeded in producing the great thumb rests as The Wood Stone Hard Rubber Thumb Rest “Vintage Style”. It features warmer sound with beautiful resonance. Please try and experience the legendary sound of old Mark 6 saxophones."

Couple of things then.
I've been at this trade for nigh on 50 years. In all that time I've seen countless MkVI horns. Some owned by lucky beginners, plenty owned by weekend warriors and a very good few owned by humble pros and big names alike. I've swapped out many a thumb rest on these horns; some because they broke but mostly because the player either wanted something a bit more grippy, special or needed something to counteract an issue with their hand.
I've made them in Delrin; I've made them in ebonite; I've made them in brass, copper, nickel silver, stainless steel, bronze, various plastics, various woods - and even a combination of materials. I've even made one (just one!) in solid silver. And in all those years, through all those players, no-one - not one - has ever said "Oh man, that's really changed the tone". Not a single one. Yep, plenty of "Oooh that feels sooo much better" and any number of "Oh man, that looks sweet" - but nothing, nada, zip about a tonal change.
I've even swapped thumb rests on my own horns without thinking or feeling that the change was anything other than a comfort/bling thing.
All of which leads me to ask this simple question; Who exactly are 'they' who have said that the old ebonite thumb rests contributed to the 'dark and rich sound of that time'?
And what of this business of 'trying to restore them and finally succeeding'? It's a thumb rest. You measure up the original part, fire up the lathe and knock out a copy in your chosen material. Or am I missing something?
Oh but wait a mo! Did they though?? The original Selmer one was glued in place - this one is held on with a grub screw, and it occurs to me that if the Selmer thumbrest was (apparently) so revered, surely the fact that it was glued in place must be integral to that reverence? Just sayin'...

And all of this is fine - I have my own opinions and observations about such things, as will you - and the bumf is no better or worse than any I've seen before, even from manufacturers who really ought to know better. But it's only fine when the build quality is up to snuff. Spending (your) money on blinging up a horn when there are build quality issues left standing doesn't exactly fill me with cheer or confidence.

It's all about the details. When you hit a certain price-point there's surely an expectation that all the little things have been taken care of - and I tend to feel that if you're going to allude to some sort of connection to a legendary horn of yesteryear and charge a price to match then it ought to follow that you put in a commensurate amount of effort to make sure everything's 'just so'.
Here's a classic example. On the left of the two shots are the low C/Eb rollers on the Woodstone. On the right the same rollers from a Selmer MkVI (1959).
Look at the way the Selmer rollers fill the slot in the key. That's detail - they profiled the rollers to leave as little space as possible between the roller and the touchpiece. Contrast that with the substantially larger gap on the Woodstone's keys.
Does it matter? Not a very great deal. The transition as you slide your finger back and forth over the keys is going to be a bit smoother on the Selmer - but at the asking price I would expect things like this to be done, and done well.

The horn is fitted out with a set of Pisoni Pro pads. Very nice, top quality - and with a pretty decent amount of shellac holding them in.
However, it's not quite perfect because you really want to see full coverage over the base of the pad. Such things matter, especially when the toneholes aren't flat because a repairer will be relying on there being sufficient shellac/glue behind the pad to support it when sections are lifted to match the profile of the tonehole.
I'm giving it a pass (just about) because there's at least plenty of shellac in the centre to support the pad, and because it's fair to say that I've seen worse on other horns in a similar price range.

The corkwork was nice and tidy with a good use of felt and composite cork.
Here are the height adjusters on the lower stack. You've got composite cork for the regulation buffers along the Aux.F bar and plain cork buffers on the adjuster feet with a felt disc to help keep key noise down.
I always like to see adjusters but my preference is for regulation adjusters rather than ones for key height (though both would be ideal). I guess folks will say that it's easier for players to fiddle with key heights than it is with regulation - and they'd be right - but it's often the case (as on this horn) that there are no corresponding height adjusters on the top stack. So if you fiddle the the lower adjusters you're going to have to get busy with the cork or sandpaper to bring the top stack into line. But hey, I'll take 'em if you've got 'em.

Finishing up the action you get simple but effective fork and pin connectors for the side keys and a set of blued steel springs to power the action.
Fortunately someone figured out that part of what made the MkVI feel the way it did was down to the spring geometry - specifically the length of them - and what this horn has is long springs. Very nice.

It comes in a rather nice shaped case - with, I'm pleased to say, a proper catches. Good call.
There's are slots in the case for the crook and the mouthpiece - but that's yer lot. However, there's an accessory bag attached to the lid of the case for all your gubbins - and it's big enough to take a standard flute case. That's a handy feature to have.

The action feels very good under the fingers. The combination of long springs and the almost flat key pearls give it a very responsive feel. The springs also give you more scope for tweaking - they'll take a light setup as easily as a stiff one without any loss of zip and zing. Being loosely based on a Selmer there are no issues with ergonomics (at least not for me) - aside from the use of a round pearl on the front top F key. Do people actually prefer this style of touchpiece? I only ask because it's nowhere near as slick, comfortable and tweakable as a teardrop-shaped touch - and I'm often asked to remove the round touchpieces and replace with with a more modern design.
It's also quite a light horn around your neck, weighing in at practically the same as a MkVI - give or take a few grams.

Tonewise it's what I'd call a straight ahead alto. It's sits in that middle bracket between not too dark and not too bright, with a sense that the upper harmonics are just tempered slightly to give the horn a hint of softness around the edges. There's some resistance too. Not much, for sure, but the horn feels like it needs to be pushed a little. Great if you like that sort of thing - and plenty of players do - but I found it just a little bit restrictive at the top end of the horn when compared with a Yamaha, which feels much more open at the top end. Up against my TJ RAW alto the restrictiveness showed even more, making the Woodstone sound somewhat veiled in general.
However, this is more down to whether the horn is a more resistant blow - and how used you are to that sort of pushback. In terms of the complexity of tone it's very fair to say that the Woodstone has it. So coming back to the Yamaha 62 I'd say that it's a freer, clearer blow but the Woodstone has more going on tonally. My perfect horn would be one that had that free-blowing approach along with the tonal complexity. That's why I play a TJ RAW. In terms of tuning and evenness of tone across the range I noted no particular problems.
You may be quietly delighted to hear that I removed the crook and lyre screws to see whether it made a difference to the tone - and it did not.

So in the playability stakes the Woodstone does just fine - but now we need to throw in some perspective.
It's an expensive bit of kit. At this price I'm looking for build integrity, attention to detail and keeping an eye on what the competition has to offer. The bog-standard Yamaha 62 is built to a very good standard - and it's a two and a bit grand horn. The TJ RAW is around the same price as the 62, and also brings with it a very good build quality and, for me, a much more rounded tonal soundscape. And we're still around two grand short of the asking price of this horn. The Yani WO2 and the Yamaha 82Z are formidable horns in the £3.5k - £4.5k bracket, both very well put together and very capable - which leaves the Woodstone standing solely on its tonal qualities. At this point it's up to you to decide whether that alone is worth the money.
If the manufacturer ups their game they might be able to level the playing field. And they really need to because there's a lot of other competition at this price-point.

It's always disappointing to see an otherwise decent horn that's pitched at pro-level prices but that fails to match the build quality of similarly-priced (or even cheaper) mainstream horns. It doesn't matter which way you cut it, there's an engineering standard to match or beat. Maybe enough folks will be swayed by the marketing - but there are plenty more out there who want to see built-in long-term reliability.
Never mind fancy clamp screws all that sort of thing - having a horn's toneholes well and truly flat will make a huge, huge difference across the board. Always start with the basics, and build on that solid foundation. Go on, tell me that doesn't make sense.
There's always room for more horns in the marketplace - we all have our own tonal preferences, and just because a horn doesn't suit you it doesn't means it's rubbish...it just means it 'ain't your thang'. But that assumes a level playing field when it comes to how well a horn is put together. It's a mad idea, I know, but think I might have come up with a way of ensuring we really do get what we pay for...

This horn came in for a service. As per usual I quoted a price for a full strip-down service and got on with it. But when I hit the problems with the toneholes I just couldn't leave them be. So I fixed them, and did the very rare thing of telling my client that the job came in more expensive than quoted. My clients know I really hate doing this, and would sooner take a hit on my rate than break a quote. But I had to in this instance - it took at least half an hour alone to sort that low D out. The client was fine about it - and mentioned that the low notes had been poor. Now we know why.

But there's a bit of a kicker...
To say that the client's no slouch on a horn would be an understatement. He's a working pro. He's owned and played a good number of horns down the years - and yeah, he's got the usual brace of Selmers kicking around.
When he decided he wanted to try something new he did what any experienced player does and tried a whole bunch of them. And he bought this one based on its tonal response.
He always liked how it played but as time went on it became more and more unreliable and stuffy. That would be down to the pads losing their ability to compensate for the tonehole warps.
He's just picked it up and is delighted with how it plays now - but rather less impressed that a premium priced horn required such tweaking.
Looking around the web I spotted a few comments with regard to variable quality control. Not having seen any other examples of this horn I can't confirm that this is the case, but this example certainly fits the mould - and that, my friends, is the bottom line. At least until I see a better example. I hope I do - and when I do I'll let you know.