Presto tailpiece
Renoman
with the hole for the third that was round instead of oblong? I have seen
one and I have looked since I started trying to pick in 1950.
Old.....er...Renoman
Renoman
one breaks? and they did.
Renoman
"Renoman" <cepg...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:b21d0e$7108$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Peter Roehling
> Why were the EARLY Prestos made with 8 (count-em) hooks and 7 slots?
For mandolin banjos.
P.
Renoman
ball end type........just wondering........R
.
"Peter Roehling" <peter_r...@eee.org> wrote in message
news:3E4444E4...@eee.org...
Peter Roehling
> But why not 8 slots for ball end strings?
Because loop ends were by far the most commonly available mandolin
strings. Still are.
P.
Brittles
> But why not 8 slots for ball end strings? >>
<< roeh...@eee.org >>
Answered:
<< Because loop ends were by far the most commonly available mandolin strings.
Still are. >>
OK guys... (Flyvest, Renoman, etc.)
I think Gibson Mastertone banjos are wonderful instruments. But contrary to
certain lines of thinking - they are NOT the ONLY banjos in existance. Just as
Bluegrass is NOT the only banjo playing style. (preference is fine - we all
have them...)
Now, if you WANT to discuss the intricacies of the historical details, and the
development of banjos, and their components - you HAVE to get out of the
mind-set that EVERY component part ever made was developed so that Earl Scruggs
would have a banjo to play.
I use the term "vestigial organ" to describe details and features which were
ORIGINALLY designed for another purpose, or function - but which were held-over
or used in later instruments.
Often these features were kept for no more compelling reasons than they were
readily availble, cheaper, new tooling cost too much, manufacturers were lazy,
overstocked, or in many cases - makers weren't even AWARE of the original
function of the feature. ("borrowing" was - and still is - rampant in the
business...)
Yes, the "extra" string hooks, on the later versions of the Presto ARE just
such "vestigial organs". They were *originally* intended to add versatility -
by allowing the tailpiece to be used for MB's, GB's etc.
When ball-end strings became more-available - it was simple enough to leave the
extra hooks (or in the case of Kerschners, string posts) - because they could
ALSO be used that way. A wonderful marketing advantage - at no additional
cost!
Personally - I think the Presto was, and is, one of the worst tailpiece designs
ever made. A really cheap, flimsy, and crappy solution.
However, it wound up as part of an "acoustic system" which delivered a
particular sound - popularized by Earl Scruggs.
As such, the Presto has been elevated to sainthood.
As part of that specific pre-war Mastertone "system" - it DOES have an effect
on tone. And I will admit, I've ALWAYS been baffled as to WHY it works on
Mastertones, the way it does.
The quality of acoustic sound is determined by effectiveness of the
transmission of vibrations throughout the instrument.
Some materials and construction methods improve transmission - while some will
degrade the transmission.
MOST components actually act as "filters", which alter the base-level
vibrations - to one extent or another (or are inert, or neutral to the
transmission).
My take on the Presto: it is so damned flimsy - that it helps by reducing some
sustain (among other tone qualities)- which a heavier, and more solidly
attached tailpiece would supply. (And the crappy pot-metal "zinc" flange
performs a similar role.)
Since the flat-top Mastertone design is CAPABLE of huge amounts of sustain
(especially when used with a substantial tailpiece) - this "filtering" provides
a *somewhat* "drier" sound - allowing better note separation.
As we've discussed numerous times - a banjo is an amazingly complex sound
production system. Other components CAN often be changed - or adjusted - to
MORE than compensate for the specific tonal effect which any single component
supplies. (Like the Presto, or the type and tension of the head, or the type of
bridges, etc.)
Back to Potter over Presto - If the Potter is as substantial as you say - it
WILL have a notable effect on the sound (an increase involume, brightness, and
sustain would be my expectations)
On some banjos, and for some playing styles that's extremely useful - on
others it's going in the wrong direction.
I've seen a number ODE and Baldwin banjos missing their original heavy cast
tailpiece - because owners felt it added TOO much brightness and sustain. It's
THE most substantial tailpiece which I'm aware of. (And I like it, and use it
on my own ODE - though I DON'T run the strings thru the hole in front - to
mellow it a bit. )
Best-
Ed Britt
Please Remove *UNSPAM* from my address, to e-mail me.
Renoman
summary and I'll try your method of string-tailpiece modification on my
DS-627 Baldwin....and I like your contributions to the Baldwin-Ode site too.
See if you can get Myron K. to help too.
Renoman...also been called other things....
"Brittles" <brit...@aol.comUNSPAM> wrote in message
news:20030208084730...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Mark Stockton
out of the mind-set that EVERY component part ever made was developed so that
Earl
HERETIC...HERETIC...HERETIC...<g>
Mark Stockton
OhBeeg1BanjoV
fly...@shaw.ca
" I've seen a number ODE and Baldwin banjos missing their original heavy
cast
tailpiece - because owners felt it added TOO much brightness and sustain.
It's
THE most substantial tailpiece which I'm aware of. (And I like it, and use
it
on my own ODE - though I DON'T run the strings thru the hole in front - to
mellow it a bit. ) "
The Ode tailpiece is "light duty" compared to a Potter - you cant bend a
Potter by hand.
Renoman
<fly...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pxe1a.216646$Yo4.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
You can't bend the Ode on my baldwin with PLIERS.......Renoman
fly...@shaw.ca
"Renoman" <cepg...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:b2496u$8v4u$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Peter Roehling
> I've seen the Ode tailpiece - like I said, its "light duty".
Uh, no, it isn't. Matter of fact, as was noted, many people think that
they're *too* rigid, and don't care for the tone that comes along with
them. That's why a lot of them have been removed from their original
banjos over the years.
In any case, the tonal effects of *any* given tailpiece (or bridge, or
tone ring, Etc.) cannot be said to be "better" than any other: it's all
a matter of taste, and banjo players have widely varying opinions on
that subject.
P.
DEDCENTER
<<it's all
a matter of taste, and banjo players have widely varying opinions on
that subject.>>
You mean now we gotta have taste too?
Ded
Mark Stockton
shit...I'm screwed....<g>
Mark Stockton
OhBeeg1BanjoV
Mike Stanger
Hallelujah! I completely agree with your assesment of the Presto
tailpiece. Especially with the old ones, like you said, they are most
often cheaply made of poor grade materials, lack adjustability, are a
hassle to change strings on, and often feature a string cover that
freely buzzes. I've always hated 'em, always will.
How the Presto achieved the "gotta have it" status it enjoys today is a
mystery to me. It seems that the current crop of banjo players are much
less interested in seeking their own tone than looking for an exact copy
of someone else's setup. While some of the new Presto clones being made
today are made of much better quality materials and tolerances than most
of the old ones, my question remains- howcome the Presto?
Even most of the makers who have developed their own superior designs-
Ome, Deering, Stelling, Prucha, and a batch of others- have bowed in
recent years to the demand for the crappy Presto design and feature them
on their Gibson clone models.
The reasons for the initial use of the Presto are pretty obvious;
manufacturers were looking for a cheap tailpiece that would work well
enough to use on their midline and lower end products. The Presto fit
the bill. And during the Great Depression, the Presto saved the
companies a few bucks on each banjo, which was very important to them
(as was the use of pot metal for hoops, flanges, tone rings, and all).
Other competitors of the time- Vega, Bacon, Ludwig, and many others,
stayed away from the Presto because of its inferiority.
Gibson particularly is so associated with the Presto that there is
little incentive for them to use another tailpiece, but even Gibson, in
their pre-war offerings, considered the Presto as a lesser alternative
to the Kershner Unique, which is stable, solid, adjustable, allows the
use of loop, ball end, or no end strings, and is virtually
non-breakable. The Kershner was used on the Grenada and all higher grade
Gibsons until the 30's, when cost conciousness became a high priority to
the company.
Earl, and all the other first generation of bluegrass players,
essentially played stock instruments for a very long time. They used
their banjos the way they came, and finding a 5-string in good playable
condition was fairly uncommon. Earl's own Granada was very beat up when
he first got it in trade from Don Reno- the flange was broken, for an
example, and there were other problems with it. Reno felt so badly about
getting the best of Earl in the swap that he threw in a Martin D18 into
the bargain. And Earl himself owned other banjos later on that he liked
better than the Granada.
For him, and many of the originals, the reason they tended to stick with
one instrument for stage work is the same as it is today. They used a
banjo they became accustomed to, and in time, they got their banjo
dialed in to where they wanted it. And over time, they gradually
replaced the defective old parts with better new ones. While their
regular performing banjo may or may not have been their favorite, that
banjo became the one they were associated with.
It has only been in the last 10 years or so that the Presto has become
the object of desire that it is now. I honestly think that if many of
the players who post here asking how they can improve their banjo's tone
would try another tailpiece, they would be astonished at the
differences. Some of the tailpieces available now cost no more than a
Presto, and work better. And most of the others provide the same sort of
tone the Presto gives either through their design or with careful
adjustment.
My own short list of good tailpieces includes: the old style Waverly,
Kershner Unique (either the short or long one- both work exceptionally
well, the massive Ode (which, despite it's shortcomings, is still better
than the Presto), the Oettinger and it's variants like the Bearclaw, the
Price, Stelling, Prucha, Deering, and Ome harp. All of 'em are better
than the Presto and will last as long as your banjo does. The Waverly,
especially, offers everything the Presto does with the extra advantages
of adjustability and easy string change.
Regards,
Stanger
who has a bunch of Prestos, old and new, that came off his banjos as the
first thing he did after buying them.
Brittles
wrote:
<< allows the use of ... no end strings, >>
Those must be the ones used on those infinite-scale long-neck banjos... ;-)
Best
Jim Pankey
Mugwumps?), but there is a version that is every bit as heavy, if not
heavier and certainly longer than the Potter. A bit of overkill on
both of those tailpieces if you ask me...
Sure, I can't deny what you may have "seen" - I can, however, speak
about what I've actually owned.
Jim Pankey
www.lonemountainband.net
Brittles
Wrote:
<< How the Presto achieved the "gotta have it" status it enjoys today is a
mystery to me.... >>
<< ...my question remains- howcome the Presto? >>
<< ...It has only been in the last 10 years or so that the Presto has become
the object of desire that it is now. I honestly think that if many of the
players who post here asking how they can improve their banjo's tone would try
another tailpiece, they would be astonished at the differences... >>
Hi Mike-
Back to my point about "WHY Presto" - (or WHY zinc flange).
They are part of a "system" which *easily* provides access to the type of tone
that Earl's banjo provided.
(The elusive *other* part of the system requires cloning Earl's fingers, brain,
and ears. Several bio-tech companies have been feverishly working in secret,
on that project, for years...)
Other banjos, with other set-ups, CAN be made to provide in the same range of
tone - but it requires more "work" (tinkering) and more knowledge to do it.
ANY tailpiece will change the sound somewhat. There IS a noticeable difference
in tone between the various tailpieces (assuming all other components remain
the same.)
If the Presto will get players into the desired tonal ballpark more easily -
they'll use it. Because THAT tonal quality provides MORE positive "value"
impact - than the impact of negative features. (So the existing "system" tends
to become self-defining.)
What I try to do, is analyze: WHY does THAT component affect tone in that way?
If you can understand the *principles* at work - you can create an alternative
design which KEEPS the good qualities, and eliminates or corrects the bad ones.
So far, I've come to the "filtering" conclusion about Prestos.
IF there was another choice of a high-quality tailpiece, which *easily*
provided the SAME tonal quality as the Presto (even at twice the cost) - more
people would take a chance on it. (But there are ALWAYS the "hero worshippers"
who just HAVE to have the "same-as" - regardless of other possible options.)
So the "design problem" becomes how to create a tailpiece with better intrinsic
and production quality - while maintaining the tonal qualities (filtering)
produced by the Presto design. (My fee is only $100K, up-front, to create the
design solution... ;-)
Then we can move-on to the zinc flange...
I will say that Chuck Ogsbury, at OME (and founder of ODE), is one of the FEW
banjo makers, I've met - who inherently understands and uses this type of
design process.
He prefers to create ORIGINAL designs - which provide the required functions -
without slavish copying. (Which is why we've collaborated on a few projects.)
Geoff Stelling has also used this approach to provide some innovative solutions
(the wedge-fit, and compensated nut) but not as consistently.
I also really admire Tom Nechville's more radical problem-solving approach. But
it's difficult up-hill battle, in such a tradition-bound market. (Believe me -
I've been trying to push innovation at the instrument companies, for almost 20
years...)
Best-
Jim Pankey
referring too. Unfortunately there is no other tailpiece to compare it
to in the photo. But for an idea of the actual size of that
Ode/Ome/Baldwin tailpiece you can look at the following:
http://www.techcomm.net/~ronnie/banjos.html
http://www.valleygrass.ca/banjo.html
http://www.rfcharle.com/HTML/PhotosInstruments/Ode.html
http://www.tomrutledge.com/Gear_Photos_11.html
None of these give any perspective of the thickness of the tailpiece,
but the thickness is in direct proportion to the size.
Sean Barry
: I've seen the Ode tailpiece - like I said, its "light duty".
I can't imagine what "ODE" tailpiece you saw, because the ODE tailpiece is
by far the most massive ever made. At the risk of name-dropping, I pulled
an original 1965 Colorado ODE engraved tailpiece out of my parts stash and
made the following measurements and observations:
Length: 3 1/8"
Width at bridge end: 1 3/4"
Width at tension hoop end:
1 1/4"
Thickness: 1/8" throughout except at tension hoop end where it
steps to 1/4"
Weight: 5 1/2 ounces
Materials: Nickel-plated brass
Manufacturing: two pinned castings with subsequent machine-facing and
polishing, hand engraving
General structure: a flat tapered plate that continues at right angles
from the face of the instrument 1 1/4" down the side, held in place by a
massive lug pinned and hinged to the main tailpiece, held in turn to the
flange by a modified standard bracket
Adjustability: three hex screws which allow infinite vertical and lateral
angle adjustments
String attachments: (loop end only), five integral lugs at the bottom of
the outside--the strings continue over the top of the tailpiece, guided by
small ground cutouts, then through a long race-track shaped opening at the
far end of the tailpiece
Strength (don't try this yourself at home): I closed up the tailpiece 1
inch from the wide end in my vise, then tried to bend it (unsuccessfully)
by hand. The vise is a pretty good subsititute for pliers, I think.
It's huge, it's massive, and my impression of the Potter (from the FQMS
photo) is that the Potter is not as huge and not as massive. That doesn't
make the ODE a better tailpiece, especially because any direct comparison
is apples and oranges due to the different materials from which each is
made. But tailpieces are interchangeable, so you shouldn't assume that
the tailpiece and banjo are necessarily the same provenance. Clearly you
hadn't seen an authentic ODE tailpiece.
Sean Barry
Brittles
Wrote:
<< I pulled an original 1965 Colorado ODE engraved tailpiece out of my parts
stash... >>
<< ...(don't try this yourself at home): I closed up the tailpiece 1 inch from
the wide end in my vise, then tried to bend it (unsuccessfully) by hand...>>
Now there's a true *BELIEVER" - with the confidence to demonstrate his point!
(But please don't do that again, Sean - just send it to me, instead... ;-)
fly...@shaw.ca
"Sean Barry" <sjb...@veni.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:b2672t$b3a$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
dave d
<brit...@aol.comUNSPAM> wrote:
hello,
if the group will suffer a comment not as scientific nor academic as
what has preceeded:
had an original presto, as supplied on supposedly redesigned Earl
Scruggs signature style Gibson (circa early 90s), break in half along
its short axis...after a protracted bout with the factory over a
defective resonator, never gave a thought to having them 'warrant' the
broken tailpiece...replaced with presto from First Quality which seems
to have been manufactured from sterner stuff
from one with 40 years + experience with banjo: Price tailpiece the
best according to me,
thanks,
dave dickerson, austin, tx
ps: have enjoyed this particular thread with its excellent
contributions
fly...@shaw.ca
Mitutoyo vernier )
2.65" long along the top from the back towards the bridge
1.56" wide flaring out to 2.05" wide towards the bridge
1.75 " down the back - stamped with arch for extra bracing
.130" thick
One piece construction out of stainless steel - chrome plated
(Do not have a scale capable of measuring weight)
<fly...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:r5y1a.226873$H7.78...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Bill Rogers
Bill
<fly...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<r5y1a.226873$H7.78...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
Brittles
wrote:
<< One piece construction out of stainless steel... >>
Hi Fv-
If you had posted THAT 2 days ago - we wouldn't all be chewing on your comment.
(I was going to ask if it was steel...)
<< ...chrome plated... >>
Gilding the lily? ;-)
Sean Barry
: If you want to get some idea of dimensions, the Potter is ( measured with my
: Mitutoyo vernier )
: 2.65" long along the top from the back towards the bridge
: 1.56" wide flaring out to 2.05" wide towards the bridge
: 1.75 " down the back - stamped with arch for extra bracing
: .130" thick
: One piece construction out of stainless steel - chrome plated
So clearly it's a large, heavily-constructed tailpiece. My point was only
that the ODE tailpiece is not "light duty"--the dimensions you report
above indicate that the ODE is at least as large as the Potter in total
dimension and considerably larger in the critical dimension of length.
I've already satisfied myself and I hope everyone here that it's very
strong. The ODE (first produced in 1960) proves that big, strong
tailpieces are not a new idea, and players who have been around for awhile
have seen some interesting designs come and go. I haven't seen the Potter
but given your review I'm sure it's a fine tailpiece, just like the ODE.
I do wonder what manufacturing procedure allows him to make the things
from heavy stainless steel for only about $10-$12 each including chrome
plating, which is never cheap (the tailpieces sell for $50, so his cost is
probably about that). I do agree with everyone who has said negative
things about the Presto, and I'm not a huge fan of the old "Eagle Claw"
design either. My current favorites are the Kerschner and the Stelling,
and I like the design idea and materials but not the appearance of the
Price (I do like the mandolin version better, for some reason). I'll
always appreciate the ODE for its in-your-face massiveness, absolute
rigidity despite its length, and its simplicity.
Sean Barry
Mark Stockton
Oh, sweet Jesus...now you wanna play "mine's bigger than yours" with Sean
Barry? What, Ed Britt wasn't enough for you? Son, I'm gonna give you some
free advice...and it's worth every dime you're payin' for it. There's some
folks on this NG (Peter, Ed, Sean, Michael, Marc, and a HOST of others) who
have literally forgotten more about banjos than you're likely to know in a
lifetime. A goodly number of them make a full-time livin' from the banjo, and
a bunch of others make a pretty decent payin' second job out of it (your humble
correcspondent included). You'll do a lot better in such company by realizing
that the good Lord gave you TWO ears and only ONE mouth, and it'd behoove you
to spend at LEAST twice as much time listenin' that blabbin'...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
Mark Stockton
OhBeeg1BanjoV
Marc Horowitz
someone (other than me) would pipe up and tell the newbie to chill...
All the best,
Marc H ( The Ol' Curmudgeon)
"Mark Stockton" <ohb...@aol.comDAMNSPAM> wrote in message
news:20030209224707...@mb-mn.aol.com...
Mark Stockton
someone (other than me) would pipe up and tell the newbie to chill..."
I'm starting to think we need to brew and bottle our own beer, Marc - we'll
call it "Old Curmudgeon"...<g>
I guess the older I get the less tolerant I get of people who ASK your opinion,
and then proceed to tell you YOU'RE wrong. It boggles the mind...
Mark Stockton
OhBeeg1BanjoV
Mike Stanger
banjos and their players.
Just checked out the Potter on the FQMS site, and I am intrigued by it's
rather singular feature- it looks like the string posts, which secure
the loop ends of the strings, are just behind the cutouts which exert
pressure on the strings. The string posts are much closer to the front
of the tailpiece than the back end, which is the usual place the posts
or other securing devices are located. This tailpiece would have to be
very stiff to make the idea work, and the design does away with the bend
needed to secure the strings to the tailpiece.
It looks like the design may possibly soften the tone of a very bright
or harsh sounding banjo, but still provide adjustable downward tension
on the strings.
How i have to decide if I want to pop fifty bucks to see how much
difference in tone it makes... I might try one out on Ol' Reliable, my
working tune unit.
Regards,
Stanger
Brittles
<< Just checked out the Potter on the FQMS site, and I am intrigued by it's
rather singular feature- it looks like the string posts, which secure the loop
ends of the strings, are just behind the cutouts which exert pressure on the
strings >>
Hi Mike-
The feature I liked is the "full" width spacing of the - which prevents typical
side-to-side pressure - cause by most older tailpices. (Not ALL older
tailpieces have this problem - the Oettinger solved it fairly well.)
One concern is about the posts so close to the end. If the twisted part of the
loop extends beyound the front - there can be some random rattles and buzzes
created. (Though easily solved by using strings with chenille "caterpillars".)