|
Post by hh1978 on Feb 2, 2021 16:11:43 GMT
My bad, I made two mistakes while checking the tables : I missed the zero prefix, and I missed the whole 1927/34 table and went directly through the S series table, which explains while I didn't see any acanthus roundneck, nor the 0261 style 1.
Sorry if I added confusion to an already confusing matter.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Feb 1, 2021 22:03:28 GMT
On Mark Makin's book, #0261 is a squareneck, so it can't be the same guitar. Not sure if there's any other known Acanthus roundneck?
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Jan 18, 2021 15:43:24 GMT
Thanks for the replies!
Yes, I expect 1000 - 1500, which would be ok for me. More than that, and it would probably be cheaper to import one from the US.
But currently, they seem hard to find even in the US.
The seller in France want 3k, which sounds ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Jan 17, 2021 10:45:16 GMT
Hello,
If anyone knows if a 1133 for sale, I'm interested. Original cone is a must.
There's one in France, but it's way overpriced.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Jan 6, 2021 12:43:26 GMT
Yes, I noticed that, but there were square neck Trojan.
Not interested in buying, it just popped in my feed and since the description is obviously wrong, I wonder what it actually is.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Jan 6, 2021 11:45:17 GMT
Looks like a refinished Trojan, but not sure...
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 20, 2020 19:45:15 GMT
Hi kjm,
An IP2 is not suitable for a resonator, is it?
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 18, 2020 13:10:20 GMT
On a side note, about the Barcus Berry, I didn't have the chance to see John Campbell on stage, but I saw Chris Withley twice. I agree that the first time, around 1997, the sound was overly saturated and harsh; probably because it was first sent to a tube DI boosting the signal, then in a tube amp with the gain set fairly high. The second time, around 2003, the sound was much cleaner and pleasing. These pickups are reputedly inconsistent, and the ones I have are all on the low output side, so they stay clean on the Fender Champ at about any volume setting. They need a bit of EQ so I use a Boss GE-7 to tame some frequencies, and they have a "pickup sound" (as opposed to a mic or a Higlander), but not a bad one in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 18, 2020 12:54:51 GMT
Thanks for all the replies!
I was aware of the Higlander closure. I was thinking about setting a permanent search on Reverb and Ebay until one pops up. With the lockdown, I'm not even allowed to meet my band for rehearsals so I have plenty of time before I need a pickup at all anyway, I'm afraid. And even then, I can use a SM57.
Yet I'm very tempted to give the Sixtus a try in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 17, 2020 22:54:44 GMT
Ok, title may sound funny, since I ask for comparison between a 450€ transducer system and a 65€ magnetic pickup, but the background will make sense, I think.
I've always used Barcus Berry 2522 pickups on all my resonators (except the vintage Triolians because I don't want to damage the paint), and been really satisfied with the sound.
I just acquired a wonderful 1934/35 Style O, and I was planning to use a Barcus Berry as well (I have one that is currently unused). But that guitar sounds so beautiful with phosphor bronze strings that I don't want to compromise the acoustic sound by switching to nickel strings. The Barcus Berry sound terrible with Phosphor strings, so I'm looking for an alternative. I usually plug in a tube amp (SF Fender champ with a 10"speaker is my favourite for that application), but I could plug in my band's PA if I go for the transducer.
My question is, since I have nothing against a magnetic pickup, what can I expect with the MM/Sixtus with PB strings? If I understand correctly how it works, the pole shade magnets will attenuate the plain strings output, like lowering the poles of a Sunrise pickup, is that correct? Then the whole sound level has to be boosted until the wound strings have the desired volume. Does the process add much noise? Also, since the pickup will only sense the core of the wound strings, does it still sound "alive", or is it just an acceptable compromise?
On the other hand, I'm sure a Highlander will sound fantastic, but it's much more expensive.
Thanks for your inputs,
Hugues
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 17, 2020 22:25:39 GMT
Thank goodness, a few year back, when I was looking to buy a National for the first time and he was still active, I received good advices on this forum, so I could run away and avoid getting scammed by this guy!
I had this luck twice, and that's how it joins with what I wrote above : when I bought my first Triolian, I seeked advice here, and I received great help from Michael and Mark, which led me to buy the 3 pces body you see in my avatar (with my son). It didn't show any evidence of it having been opened in the past. It has since, but only by Mike Lewis. It's a wonderful guitar, that I plan to keep for my lifetime.
The second one is my 1928 screen windows wood Triolian, that I bought from Thunder Road guitars in Seattle, one of the very few shops I trust 100%. Again no evidence that the screws have ever been removed, and since it plays wonderfully, there's no reason to open it.
I'll gladly post the stories and pictures in french when I get some time. I didn't mean to be offensive, I actually like the way you write!
I'm not sure what was the history of these specifical cones, but I suspect a common scheme is having a National that doesn't sound right because the cone is damaged, but wanting to sell it for a good price and so fiiting a new cone (which IS an immediate and easy improvement, relatively speaking), then figuring that because these cones are vintage, there is money to make out of them, even in poor condition. Not nearly as desirable as thinking long term and having the cone repaired before selling the guitar, but better than trashing the old cone as it has probably been done so many times.
I recently spoke with Charles Damga, who has been a reputed vintage guitars dealer apparently. In my opinion, he may have been good with old Gibsons, but when it comes to National, he's in line with Lenny. Discussing a Style O that he has for sale (in terrible condition and overpriced), he said that it has a hot rod cone, but if wish, he could throw the original cone in the sale, because "there are plenty of these old cones and they are worth nothing anyway". Of course, I didn't buy the guitar. But the way he put that sentence made me realise that we are probably a small minority, wanting to preserve the originality of these instruments, when it's so easy to "improve" them, and marketing tells us to do so.
Remember also, vintage National are often perceived as "cheap" instruments of their time, while 1928triolian made a good point it was not really true. Most people do not realise that the original company put great attention to make their designs as perfect as could be, and so there's little room for modern improvements, or at least, so I feel. In that regard, I had a real good laugh watching the only video available on Youtube about the Revolution bridge.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 14, 2020 21:11:03 GMT
Speaking of old cones, I don't think there's much hope for those 2, that popped up yesterday on Reverb (the first one looks especially bad) :
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 14, 2020 21:04:59 GMT
We never actually met, though I would be pleased to, when the world go back to normality. I'm in Brussels indeed, and french speaking too. I dont think your english is worst than mine But you have a way of getting emotional when you talk about guitars, that partly translates in english, even though it's more pronouced in french. That's why I like your posts on the french forum, they are vibrant with passion, and since I feel the same passion for old guitars, and especially National's and Weissenborn's, it resonates in me.
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 12, 2020 9:46:21 GMT
My 1928 has its original cone, hand cut perimeter. The cone I bought is in my 1930 style O, but it's also the correct type of cone for that year. I think the rolled perimeter started somewhere in 1932.
From where I am, I use to drive to Mike Lewis's workshop when one of my guitars needs work. But as far as I know, Mike doesn't like to reshape cones, because he knows he can't guarante the work will hold well in time. So if a cone should need reshaping, I'd send it to Gottfried, then have the guitar setup by Mike, I think.
You are french, aren't you? I'm pretty sure we talked on another forum in the past, your writing style sounds familiar to me
|
|
|
Post by hh1978 on Dec 8, 2020 19:16:22 GMT
I still don't get it...
In a week, 6 original cones went back into old National guitars : one is period correct for the guitar (mine), and the 5 others (Richard's) went back into their original guitar.
Mine did not need any work, so the only harm that could have been done is related to installation. Maybe not as perfect as sitting in its original never opened Triolian, but certainly much better than being kept in a storage and mistaken for a Dobro's cone, which was the situation when I bought it.
Richard's cones were damaged and unplayable as is. Maybe more experienced luthiers could have done a better job at restoring them. But these luthiers will be the first to honestly tell that there's never any certainty that the process will be successful, or that the cone will hold well with time, and, most importantly, no certainty that the cone will ever sound like they used to, which anyway we'll never know. I know because I asked two of them.
The real problem is that, if you want to be sure the cone will work with the guitar, you'll need to send the guitar along, which will be at the same time expensive and risky, unless you're close enough to drive the guitar yourself to the luthier.
Don't get me wrong, I share your opinion about being careful with old guitars, and not making any unneccessary move that could harm them. But dismantling perfectly original and working guitars and temper with them has never been the topic here.
|
|