Spot Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If you don't like the look of them, that's a matter of taste and you're entitled to that opinion, no matter how wrong it is. But don't call them "pretty cheap tuners" because they're not. When you have guys like Frank Ford singing your praises, you know you're on to something. ***Mental Note:- From today on I'm going to include IMO on in every post I make*** DHanners,......for a top of the range guitar such as Buc's TV (RRP $3,874) as an upgrade tuner I'm calling them "cheap tuners" compared to a a set of Waverlys (IMO) The ones I've played looked and felt cheap compared to the build quality, tightness and accuracy of a Waverly (IMO). Buc even agrees with me that they do indeed look cheap "...as the are a reproduction of a very cheap machine head." where as the Waverely is clearly not so... I'm very happy that both you and Buc like these Golden Age tuners, I however am entitled to an opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 ***Mental Note:- From today on I'm going to include IMO on in every post I make*** I'm very happy that both you and Buc like these Golden Age tuners, I however am entitled to an opinion.... And we all have a ton of them! (opinions, that is...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spot Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 And we all have a ton of them! (opinions, that is...) Got dat right Nick!!! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 ***Mental Note:- From today on I'm going to include IMO on in every post I make*** DHanners,......for a top of the range guitar such as Buc's TV (RRP $3,874) as an upgrade tuner I'm calling them "cheap tuners" compared to a a set of Waverlys (IMO) The ones I've played looked and felt cheap compared to the build quality, tightness and accuracy of a Waverly (IMO). Buc even agrees with me that they do indeed look cheap "...as the are a reproduction of a very cheap machine head." where as the Waverely is clearly not so... I'm very happy that both you and Buc like these Golden Age tuners, I however am entitled to an opinion.... So just to be clear in my own mind, have you actually owned a guitar with Golden Age Restoration tuners on them, and used them? Or just seen them? And yes, you're entitled to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby b Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 They look good Buc, nice job. btw....dont know about you, but I'd be sweatin' big time if I had to drill holes in the back of my headstock :o . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spot Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 So just to be clear in my own mind, have you actually owned a guitar with Golden Age Restoration tuners on them, and used them? Or just seen them? And yes, you're entitled to your opinion. No I have never owned them and I would never buy them after playing these tuners on a vintage SJ. But again, this is just my opinion..... Thanks for letting me have an opinion (IMO)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 ...dont know about you, but I'd be sweatin' big time if I had to drill holes in the back of my headstock :o . Well there was a time when I wouldn't think of doing such a thing, but little things like machine head mounting holes ain't so bad. Get the right size bit and tape it off for depth......away ya go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Buc, These are the repro tuners on my L-OO Legend. Except for the end shape on the base plate, these look a lot like the old 1942 tuners shown earlier in this thread. These appear to be nickel-plated. Testing for base metal is tricky with nickel plate, as nickel is slightly magnetic, but much less so than iron. String posts, spur gear, and base plate appear to be nickel over brass. Worm gear, tuning peg, and all fastenings appear to be nickel over steel. I also note that these have a 15:1 gear ratio, which may not be "period correct". I read somewhere that these were custom-made for Gibson in Italy, but I can't find that reference. You can argue they look a bit cheap, but I doubt if they were. And these are on a guitar with a $7K list price! PS: FINALLY got my Red Bear picks. Interesting, very interesting. Sound is much closer to the Blue Chip than I thought it would be, but not as "soft" in sound as the Blue Chip. Certainly much softer than my old Fender mediums, which sound pretty harsh by comparison now. These are growing on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sure you already knew this Nick, but you can sand and buff those Red Bears to a sharper bevel or thinner more flexible thickness. I bought mine unbeveled which they'll sell you for the 'seconds' price, $14 a pop with no wait time. They got pissy when I told 'em I got mine down to around .70mm. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 PS: FINALLY got my Red Bear picks. Interesting, very interesting. Sound is much closer to the Blue Chip than I thought it would be, but not as "soft" in sound as the Blue Chip. Certainly much softer than my old Fender mediums, which sound pretty harsh by comparison know. These are growing on me. Glad to hear the picks finally showed up! The Bears are different.....the material seems to be harder than the Blue Chips, hence the difference you hear. In a loose grip the Red Bear can sound a bit "glassy" to my ear. You are right: Fender 351-style picks do sound quite harsh by comparison to either the Bear or the Blue. Give 'em a fair trial.....I'm bettin' you'll be a convert in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Buc, those look great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sure you already knew this Nick, but you can sand and buff those Red Bears to a sharper bevel or thinner more flexible thickness. I bought mine unbeveled which they'll sell you for the 'seconds' price, $14 a pop with no wait time. They got pissy when I told 'em I got mine down to around .70mm. Oh well... Thanks for the tip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Buc, These are the repro tuners on my L-OO Legend. Except for the end shape on the base plate, these look a lot like the old 1942 tuners shown earlier in this thread. These appear to be nickel-plated. Testing for base metal is tricky with nickel plate, as nickel is slightly magnetic, but much less so than iron. String posts, spur gear, and base plate appear to be nickel over brass. Worm gear, tuning peg, and all fastenings appear to be nickel over steel. I also note that these have a 15:1 gear ratio, which may not be "period correct". I read somewhere that these were custom-made for Gibson in Italy, but I can't find that reference. You can argue they look a bit cheap, but I doubt if they were. And these are on a guitar with a $7K list price! little...'hard-edged' to the taper of the neck......Jes Sayin'.. ...You did say that they were 'replacents', right PS: FINALLY got my Red Bear picks. Interesting, very interesting. Sound is much closer to the Blue Chip than I thought it would be, but not as "soft" in sound as the Blue Chip. Certainly much softer than my old Fender mediums, which sound pretty harsh by comparison now. These are growing on me. little...'hard-edged' to the taper of the neck......Jes Sayin'.. ...You did say that they were 'replacents', right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sorry Nick....I screwed up that reply ....totally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sorry Nick....I screwed up that reply ....totally... I have to admit I was a little taken aback when I saw them, but those are supposed to be reproductions of the original 1937 tuners. The hard edges of the baseplates are certainly not fancy. Remember, these were cheap, Depression-era guitars costing $30. Not an awful lot was fancy during the Depression. Five years later, the J-45 came out at---$45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Gotcha! That would be right. Would like to see some more pics of your L-00. Sounda like a nice one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I really like the Golden Age tuners. They look perfect and work well. Nick, I believe that the tuners on your Legend are those that my pal Willi Henkes has made in Germany. They sell under the name of the guitar shop of Willi and his partner, Rudie blazer: Antique Acoustics. Beautiful stuff: As for Waverleys being the finest that money can buy, they're not. I'm a big fan of Waverleys. But, if you want the best, and are willing to pay 3 times the cost of Waverleys, you'l be wanting Rodgers tuners: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 those rogers are nice , if not on the flamboyant side , but , 3 times the price of waverlys!?? i'd want a roadie that appeared n took it away and brought it back tuned for me everytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Spot: those look very much like the Golden Age set. Stein: It's always recommended to tune up to pitch rather than down. Tuning down can introduce slack in several places: string wrap on the post, backlash between the worm and gear not to mention frictional tension changes at the nut/string contact. Always tune up to pitch for best results regardless of the quality of the machine head. Thanks. AND L7NICK. (or J45nICK). I am a little embarrased. Not putting thoughts together well today it seems. I totally forgot to write the premise of my question. I always tune up. To me, it seems once a certain level of quality is got out of a tuner, then the rest is overkill and doesn't seem to matter. Then perhaps it is about looks, ornamentation, or tone, etc. I guess I don't understand why it is needed to have such high precision tuners. Perhaps, there is a need I don't get, or was wondering if some folks actually tune down sometimes, and get some use out of them in an attempt at being able to tune down as well as up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I guess I don't understand why it is needed to have such high precision tuners. Perhaps, there is a need I don't get, or was wondering if some folks actually tune down sometimes, and get some use out of them in an attempt at being able to tune down as well as up. That's an intersting point. The higher the gear ratio, the more precision the machining can be, and the less lash there is in the system. So, theoretically, such a tuner might help hold pitch better. Like you say, however, there must be a point of diminishing returns. I don't really know why you would need to be able to tune down to pitch as well as up to pitch. It's not much of an inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I really like the Golden Age tuners. They look perfect and work well. Nick, I believe that the tuners on your Legend are those that my pal Willi Henkes has made in Germany. They sell under the name of the guitar shop of Willi and his partner, Rudie blazer: Antique Acoustics. Beautiful stuff: JT, those sure look like Willi Henkes tuners. Mine are quite stiff, so I'm going to remove them and give them a bit the the TriFlow treatement when I change strings. That's going to have to wait for a few weeks, as I'll be away on business until mid-April. By the way, I haven't bought a Cargo yet, but am on the lookout for one. There seems to be some disagreement about Peavey vs. non-Peavey models as to which is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 JT, those sure look like Willi Henkes tuners. Mine are quite stiff, so I'm going to remove them and give them a bit the the TriFlow treatement when I change strings. That's going to have to wait for a few weeks, as I'll be away on business until mid-April. By the way, I haven't bought a Cargo yet, but am on the lookout for one. There seems to be some disagreement about Peavey vs. non-Peavey models as to which is better. Nick, I've got Willi's tuners on my Dyer harp guitar. I found them stiff, too. But, a bit of tri-flow fixed that. My Cargo is pre-Peavey. I've not played a Peavey CA guitar, so I can't speak to the differences. I really like my Cargo. I've read some criticism about intonation issues on the Pre-Peavy Cargos. The guitar came with a poorly compensated saddle and its intonation was way off. But, it's annice, wide saddle and a bit of filing made it perfect. I just checked out eBay. The Cargos seem to have disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataylor Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Remember, these were cheap, Depression-era guitars costing $30. Not an awful lot was fancy during the Depression. Five years later, the J-45 came out at---$45. $30 wasn't cheap back in the 30s. Paying $30 for a guitar back then would be similar to putting down two or three grand for one today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 $30 wasn't cheap back in the 30s. Paying $30 for a guitar back then would be similar to putting down two or three grand for one today. It was a lot of money for most people, and they had lowered the price from $37.50 just to keep selling guitars. But it was still one of the cheapest guitars Gibson built at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataylor Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It was a lot of money for most people, and they had lowered the price from $37.50 just to keep selling guitars. But it was still one of the cheapest guitars Gibson built at the time. Right. I was just trying to point out the way you were using the word was a bit misleading. I like the way you've phrased it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.