|
Post by Bill Stig on Aug 4, 2007 15:25:48 GMT
Do Nationals sound different depending on the year of manufacture like a fine bottle of Chateau Le Ponce? I know there were various modifications made during their production so certain years must be better than others.
I've tried 2 other square neck tricones against mine - one was the same year, 1928, and it sounded very similar, the other was a 1930 model and that had a slightly fuller sound than mine. It can't be just the cones that make the difference - the owner had had to replace the original cones with new NRP ones which, he said, hadn't effected the tone. Bob Brozman said in another thread, "With vintage tricones, when all the varied physical elements comprising the tricone sound are hitting on 10 out of 10, then you get a great one." So can a great sounding National come from any period of the golden age? It would be interesting to know if anyone here with a collection of old Nationals has noticed any similarities due to the manufacturing date.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by tark on Aug 4, 2007 16:04:51 GMT
It's an interesting question isn't it. One of the biggest differences seems to be the number of mushroom supports fitted. I don't suppose you know that detail from the instruments you tried?
I have just posted the folowing on the IGS forum -
I only have 5 resos 8-(( What amazes me is how different they sound compared to each other. You might expect that guitars made of metal (all 5 are) and of very similar construction would sound much the same. What gets me is that some mod or tweak that was so effective on one of them has little to no effect on another. It does seem that relatively small differences in construction can have a huge perceived effect on sound.
For example I have two single cone biscuit guitars; one a steel body Korean copy and one I built from the Stewart Macdonald kit with a (Korean or maybe Chinese) brass body. They both have 'mahogany' 14 fret necks and the same cones. Now I would expect the brass body to sound a little mellower than the steel, but in practice it absolutely kicks its arse. The brass body guitar has a much more powerful sound with far more bass. I've tried every mod I can think of on the steel body but it still sounds wimpy, I have just removed one of the mushrooms to loosen up the back but with little effect. Yes the back rings a lot more when tapped but the guitar still has little bottom end. I have just looked at the two guitars again and the steel body is just a little bit smaller all around than the brass. Obviously by enough I guess to explain the difference in bass.
I wonder how consistent the instruments coming out of the NRP factory are. Is it like conventional acoustics where every now and again an exceptional instrument pops off the end of the production line (assuming that does happen) or do all NRP Delphis (for example) sound the same.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Aug 4, 2007 16:51:26 GMT
Hi guys,
this is just a quick reply as I am in the middle of a busy time. I have always favoured 1929, 1930 and 1931. Apart from one or two models that appeared in the mid thirties, those years for me are the classic years of National production-line guitars. I have obviously seen some incredible guitars from earlier & later than that four year period, but to answer your question I will go with those four!
Shine On Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stig on Aug 4, 2007 17:15:10 GMT
That ties in with the 1930 tricone I tried Michael. I've started saving again to get another one so any info and advice is much apreciated - if I could give up smoking I'd probably have one in a couple of weeks.
I didn't do a mushroom count Tark. I thought that they all only had one??
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Mark Makin on Aug 4, 2007 18:03:28 GMT
Hello Bill I used to own no 133 (about 80 years old this month!) which I traded with Bob Brozman. That had the seven extra diamond holes AND IT HAD SEVEN, YES SEVEN MUSHROOMS. That was the sweetest sounding tricone squareneck - ask Michael M. It had a wood well, and was consequently not a loud instrument but would produce harmonics everywhere at the drop of a bullet! Incidentally it was also a flat, not dished back
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stig on Aug 4, 2007 18:51:31 GMT
Hi Mark You wouldn't think they could fit seven mushrooms in ( see how I've avoided the obvious joke). There has been some talk of multiple mushrooms on IGS but I'd assumed they were talking about far Eastern copies - still so much to learn. In the Bob Brozman National book he states that the tricones improved after #360 - just goes to show that you can't generalize. in fact is that a picture of it in the book - a style 2?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Aug 4, 2007 18:56:33 GMT
133 is a superb square neck Tricone. It is certainly among the finest I have played. In my four years of favourite Nationals, I did make the point of saying 'production' stuff. 133 was hand-built in John & Rudy's workshop in 1927 and is one of the instruments that defines the word...'Tricone'. Those early hand-built Nationals are all special.
Regarding mushroom pit-props - I have seen everything from two to eight. I agree with Bob that when all the ingredients are perfectly matched, out pops a monster Tricone. John & Rudy were not joking!
(as a point that may be of interest - I recorded some National Gallery demo tracks with 133 in 1987. When I get some time I will put a couple up on the mp3 page on my website. National Gallery was Mike Cooper, Michael Messer, Mark Makin & Ed Genis. See the page on my website in the ARCHIVES section. There's a press pic of us with 133 in Forbury Gardens, Reading).
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Mark Makin on Aug 4, 2007 19:09:09 GMT
Hello Bill Yes, thats the one. There are a few of my instruments in there. It also occurs in the colour section hanging on a white wall with no strings (my conservatory in Nottingham!) There is a close up of the grills on page 106 The yellow wood triolian against the brick wall is mine as well . Style O S3412 on page 86 is mine too.
Hi Mike Do you know I'd forgotten we'd used that instrument to record? You're quite right!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Aug 4, 2007 19:20:40 GMT
Mark, we also filmed those demo sessions on VHS tape. I'll have to dig those out sometime too. It was done in Mike Cooper's flat in Reading and features the four of us playing a selection of vintage National guitars. Phew....that was 20 years ago.
Shine On, Michael
|
|
|
Post by rickS on Aug 4, 2007 23:19:15 GMT
Hey, if that's the flat in Eldon Road, I know it, too (from about 20 years earlier)! Small world..
|
|
|
Post by tark on Aug 5, 2007 13:24:53 GMT
Hi Bill,
Yeah the whole 'mushroom question' boggles my mind too.
Unfortunately my experience of resonator guitars is limited only to modern instruments and my only early source of information was Bob Brozmans excellent book. However he doesn't really mention the mushroom props very much. From this and the IGS forum it's become apparent the the number of mushrooms found in Nationals varies a lot. The numbers of 7 and 8 mushrooms mentioned by Mark and Michael in their posts extends what I had previously thought was the maximum!
It's fascinating to try and work out what the Dopyeras aims were in selecting the various design details and modifications. The mushroom props seem to have two functions; stabilising the back of the body while at the same time stabilising and supporting the neck and soundwell.
From the fact that the early hand made prototypes had both the extra diamond soundholes and as this thread shows, a large number of mushrooms, with a flat back, you might think that the Dopyeras regarded the metal body as simply a support system for the neck, cones and strings and having little importance as far as the sound was concerned. They probably added the large number of mushrooms to provide as much rigidity as possible. Given these structural details you would expect this guitar to have little bass, not a lot of volume and to sustain well.
The later removal of the diamond holes and the adoption of a convex back would have improved the bass response and stiffened up the back, reducing the need for lots of mushroom supports. Although the precise degree of stiffness in the back seems to have a critical effect on the overall sound.
Todays resonator guitars from any manufacturer usually have at least two mushrooms, sometimes three.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stig on Aug 5, 2007 16:35:36 GMT
There's only one mushroom in my tricone, Talk, that seems to be supporting the sound well. Someone posted a picture of it on IGS: www.guitarseminars.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/018502.htmlI posted some pictures on this forum when I got the guitar, but picksplace that hosted them has gone under so they no longer appear. So what is it about the design that makes the 1929 - 31 Nationals sound better? Did the quality control go down after 1931? I'd love to see that video Michael, but would settle for the sound clips. Bill
|
|
|
Post by tark on Aug 6, 2007 4:00:04 GMT
Hi Bill,
How interesting, I didn't know about the insides of the square metal neck tricones. If I have found the right picture then it looks like yours and maybe all of them, have a large square wooden neck that fills up most of the space inside the metal neck, but they don't have neck poles, since structuraly they wouldn't need them. Yours seems to have a square wooden beam that presumably is seated into an end block on the end you cant see in the picture. The other end of the beam seems to run up as far as the centre of the top edge of the sound well and that's where your single mushroom support is located. There is also a wooden plate (normally this would sit on top of the neck pole in a round neck tricone and there would be at least one mushroom under the pole by the end of the fretboard and one under the pole near the end block) that is holding down the end of the fretboard. Rather than wood screws this is attached with nuts and bolts.
Have I understood ths correctly? Is that an accurate description of the insides of your guitar.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stig on Aug 6, 2007 16:23:12 GMT
Hi Tark, that seems a pretty accurate description. I only know what it looks like inside from this picture that Vintage Nationals sent me when I was buying the tricone. I don't intend, or feel confident to open it up to have a proper look until it's really necessary.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stig on Aug 6, 2007 21:16:22 GMT
|
|