Thanks for the info.
Do you think the seller is purposefully trying to scam potential buyers? If so, I can report the item to eBay for fraud.
It would be good if others could as well to add fuel to the case.

Well... that's a bit of an issue. The seller is a music store and repair shop that is notorious for building "parts-bin" instruments and then being evasive about their true nature. The likelihood of this being intentionally misrepresented is quite high. But without any legally defensible way to prove it (and even posting their name is fraught with risk) all you can really do is send out the warning for the most flagrant instances, like this one. Besides, I've heard that eBay doesn't pay much heed to reported items.

Scam alert!

I stumbled across this little hack job this evening. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Silver-King-Clarinet-Sterling-Silver-Bell/273035801999

This is a 1950s American Standard student-model clarinet with an earlier Silver King bell grafted on, being passed off as a genuine Silver King.

Is it possible that the "N" serial is somehow aberrant? With such a high number it seems unlikely that there's 25,000 clarinets out there so prefixed and only one would surface compared with other Pedlers.

Your conclusions on the others mirror my own.

and we know for a fact that the last Pedler clarinet was made in 1956

This is a piece of information I've been searching for for some time. What's the source?

If it helps, here's the starting and ending serials for every Pedler model I've recorded.

Metal
"Made by Harry Pedler & Co." professional model: 2847, 10075
"Made by Harry Pedler & Co." bass: 11490
Premiere : 3888, 15704
American, "Harry Pedler & Co.": 10728, 15711
American, art-deco "bundle of wheat" engraving (model 167): 22924, 23603
400: 13734
Precision Hand Made: 13935
Paramount: 15437, 15966
Hoosier: 19316, 44267
Student: 22741, 30699
Custombuilt metal clarinet: 31065, 48431
Custombuilt metal bass: 31964
Custombuilt metal alto: 45119
No model, plain block script: 48356, 51897

"A" serials
American: A1110, A3677

Ebonite
No model marking: E4891, E36606
Hoosier: E1430, E12418
Custombuilt bass: E3305, E13982
American: E17014, E17185

Grenolite
G1077, G1873

Premier
Premier: P2437, P8760
Special: P4338
No model marked: P12885, P19356

Wood
No model marked: W105, W11130
Custombuilt bass: W2549, W19506
Custombuilt alto: W6637
Pennant: W3290

I separate the metal American models because the art-deco engraving lacks "Harry Pedler & Co." However, the guarantee card for 23603 still has that name. It's plausible that after the rights to the name transferred from Martin to Harry Pedler, Martin was still using up the old stationery. The wood American model has a similar change but I've seen too few examples.

Straight bore, measuring at .585".

(Did BMIC originally manufacture the Boston "Wonder" clarinet? The silver one I own says "Pat. Pending" below the mouthpiece -  ser. no. 4-83  under the lower register keyword and  "Boston Wonder" identified on the bell as TRADE MARK reg'd U.S. Pat. Off.)

Bettoney trademarked the "Boston Wonder" name in 1927, with a claim of first use at the beginning of that year. The Music Trades Review also indicates that the metal Boston Wonder was introduced in 1927, so no, BMIC didn't build the clarinets originally.

There's something I've long wondered about Conn clarinets. I have three Conn student models (1958 composite 14N or 50N, 1961 wood 18N, and a 1964 16N) and all three have a bore diameter of .605" at the top of the upper joint and .590" at the bottom. However, while the barrels are .590" at the top they're no more than .585" at the bottom. When assembled there is a visible "step" in the bore where the barrel meets the upper joint. The 16N's barrel is definitely original, the other two can't be positively confirmed but the socket rings match.

What is this considered? Reverse taper? Polycylindrical? What's the reason for an immediate .020" or so difference where the barrel and upper joint meet?

I appreciate your perspective, and perhaps you are right.  I know nothing of patent law, or the legalities of securing a patent post-production and implementation.  My take on it was that things were heating up, so to speak, and he felt that if he did not secure a patent, he would lose the rights to the invention.

I don't either, but this Bettoney ad might shed light on something: