Reverb pans...WTF

[g1]

Regarding the MOD tanks, I've got one in a Princeton Reverb clone, and the reverb compares pretty well to the silverface Twin that's the house amp in the rehearsal space my band uses sometimes. It's not a like-for-like comparison though, as the Twin has the original tank and mine is a 9AB2C1B. Mine has a little more reverb in the lows and a little less of that fluttery drip thing when played hard. It's also a little wetter (higher output?), so I tend to run the knob quite low. But this might just be describing the difference between a type 4 and a type 9, rather than between the MOD and the old tanks.

Also some difference may be due to twin tank (4AB3C1B) being long decay where 9AB2C1B is medium decay.
For ChuckH, I think the 3 spring full size is the only option if he wants medium decay with the vintage impedances.

[Leo_Gnardo]

Ken was "difficult" to work with, and very very picky.

From 1991 on I was doing mods & repairs for Woodstock-area guitarists that bought, owned, played & sold some of Ken's amps, and they were of course in touch with him by phone and occasionally in person. I never got to meet him but here's my take on it.
In his last few years I got the impression that Ken was the victim of what I call "Artist's Quandary". His amps were much in demand, like Dumble's, but he couldn't get people to pony up the sort of loot that Dumble demanded. But Ken's amps were turned over in the "secondary market" AKA used, for multiple times what he sold them for. And nobody sent him a thank you note nor a check for helping make them make a big fat profit. That could put a crimp on the personality. Nonetheless he continued to build. That's what artists do. And picky, yes that's what it takes to be a perfectionist.

[Mark Hammer]

Lest my brief description be interpreted as a criticism, it was not intended as anything of the sort; just a basis for nferring something about how the end-products came out the way they did, and why folks have a hard time replicating them.

Sadly, where a master chef can prepare a sumptuous meal and demand top dollar for it, without expecting the customer to turn around and sell it, "artisan" music gear doesn't get stale or cold and CAN be resold for higher prices that the originator sees none of.

[bob p]

... But Ken's amps were turned over in the "secondary market" AKA used, for multiple times what he sold them for. And nobody sent him a thank you note nor a check for helping make them make a big fat profit.

Nobody sent him a thank you note? Isn't that "obligation" covered by the original money that changed hands when he sold them the new amp?

[Leo_Gnardo]

Lest my brief description be interpreted as a criticism, it was not intended as anything of the sort; just a basis for nferring something about how the end-products came out the way they did, and why folks have a hard time replicating them.

Sadly, where a master chef can prepare a sumptuous meal and demand top dollar for it, without expecting the customer to turn around and sell it, "artisan" music gear doesn't get stale or cold and CAN be resold for higher prices that the originator sees none of.

I can only speak for myself but certainly didn't take your post as a (negative) criticism. I had and still have a very high regard for Ken and his Trainwrecks, also for the work he did from the beginning, getting Ampeg's production line sorted out etc etc. I feel very badly that he's not still around to enjoy life and the fruits of his labors. I've also given a lot of thought as to what brought on his tragic demise, and that is part of the basis for what I refer to as the "artist's quandary" or "artist's dilemma."

And from bob p :
<<Nobody sent him a thank you note? Isn't that "obligation" covered by the original money that changed hands when he sold them the new amp?>>

Yes but can you imagine his dismay that he was producing equipment that was as sought-after as Dumble's but could not fetch the price at original sale. Many of the new owners flipped those amps for big profits. Could lead to a poor frame of mind, to say the least.

Imagine a young Andy Warhol. He comes to the big Apple from western Pennsylvania and scrounges around for a while. One day he paints a canvas of a Campbell's tomato soup can and convinces a gallery to hang it up for sale. Couple weeks or months later, phone call from the gallery owner "hey Andy I sold that soup can. Two hundred bucks. One hundred for you, one hundred for me." Cool - Andy pays his apartment rent, buys more canvas & brushes, paints more soup cans. At some point some art critic says "look at this kooky guy- he paints ordinary objects and nutty art collectors buy 'em." After a while the popular magazines start running articles and photos of the paintings, and the originals start trading at elevated prices. And collectors start paying more and more to the artist (via gallery) so Andy gets his scene going, the Factory, the Exploding Plastic Inevitable, becomes the darling of the NY and international art scene & making a pretty good living for himself. Meanwhile the original soup can is bought by Museum of Modern Art for half a million bucks. None of that goes to Andy, but by now his reputation is established AND he's making a mint on whatever he does. The rest we'll leave for the history books.

Well that turn towards profitability never seemed to come around for Ken, and I sense his frustration. And multiply that frustration knowing the "flippers" are making a fortune on his work. Imagine that was YOU instead. How would you like it? (Some of my customers have sold amps I've modified for them and made a couple hundred bucks, and I'm amused and happy for them. But if they were making tens of thousands $$ profit my attitude would change, I can assure you. "How come I can't get some of that good loot?!?") Some artists are lucky and make enough of a fortune to skate through the rest of their lifetimes in financial comfort, and improve their attitudes because they know they don't have to scratch for a living (Picasso for instance.) Most don't. Regardless of their creativity, vision, and hard work. So folks, that's the basis for my thesis on "artist's quandary."

Lots of folks now make their own copies of the Trainwreck Express for instance, and they can fiddle with it to their heart's content, and even get satisfied with the way it works. Nothing wrong with that. Anybody can copy Warhol's soup can too, or Mona Lisa or whatever other item of art and/or craft. Almost none* of those copies will sell for an astronomical price, but they may bring a lot of satisfaction to their owners nonetheless. *Save those that are successfully sold as counterfeits but that's not the thrust of my train(wreck) of thought here.

It is fascinating to gather some clues though, about the concept & practice of parasitic capacitance. Some of the 'great' amps are made of rather ordinary parts, and it's amusing to watch what people will do in terms of applying exotic & esoteric parts & materials in an effort to copy them.

Now we've kicked around reverb cans, cap cans & soup cans too. It's time for dinner.

[bob p]

Imagine that was YOU instead. How would you like it?

It wouldn't make any difference to me -- the market price for a widget is determined by the amount that a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon for the transfer of ownership. Nothing more, nothing less. If I'm not part of that transaction then it's a waste of my time to worry about it.

I can imagine that an amp that was used by a famous artist on a famous recording would sell for more than the same model of amp from the same manufacturer, just as Lou Gehrig's baseball glove would be worth more than the garden variety Rawlings glove because Lou Gehrig used it to play baseball. Provenance adds value.

[Steve A.]

In his last few years I got the impression that Ken was the victim of what I call "Artist's Quandary". His amps were much in demand, like Dumble's, but he couldn't get people to pony up the sort of loot that Dumble demanded. But Ken's amps were turned over in the "secondary market" AKA used, for multiple times what he sold them for. And nobody sent him a thank you note nor a check for helping make them make a big fat profit.

What I heard from someone who knew Ken was that when an amp was resold for big bucks by the original buyer it had been customary to share some of the profits with him; when he built an amp for you he was like a friend for life. However, as time marched on and prices kept rising more and more many of the artists got greedier and would not want to share the profits with Ken.

This is NOT the stock market, with Ken building amps for customers who would consider them to be just an investment (buy low, sell high!)

Steve

P.S. After an amp had been resold a few times there was not necessarily any connection between the buyer and Ken so at that point it could be considered to be more of an investment than a labor of love.

P.P.S. The few times that I have run into windfall profits on purchases I have felt compelled to share some of the money with the person who sold it to me if he was a friend. "Hey- this was worth more than I thought. Here's your cut." I don't believe in making what I would consider to be an obscene profit in a deal with a friend because it really screws up my karma. I always return extra change given to me in a store because I know that if I keep I will end up paying for it 3 times over. Not two times, not four times- it always seems to be 3 times.

[Leo_Gnardo]

It wouldn't make any difference to me -- the market price for a widget is determined by the amount that a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon for the transfer of ownership. Nothing more, nothing less. If I'm not part of that transaction then it's a waste of my time to worry about it.

From your end of the telescope that's how it looks. And generally I'm with you. Trying to understand "what's eating Ken" and some other techs, musicians & artists I came to the observations I wrote above. Maybe I am wasting my time thinking about it. But it illustrates to me why to not follow a similar path.

I can imagine that an amp that was used by a famous artist on a famous recording would sell for more than the same model of amp from the same manufacturer, just as Lou Gehrig's baseball glove would be worth more than the garden variety Rawlings glove because Lou Gehrig used it to play baseball. Provenance adds value.

Imagine all you want. I have a garage full of it, and an attic too. If it wasn't played by Eric Ray Hendrix nobody cares. I've done plenty of time-wasting cartage for rock stars who imagine their leftover toys are worth somewhere beyond market value by 10 to 1000 per cent because "they" played it. Then I had the job of dragging gear from one sorry ass music store to another and no bids, not even street price. For example, late 80's-early 90's couldn't even get rid of a working-perfect but somewhat worn '59 5F6A Bassman including road case for a cheesy $800. Everybody wanted to play it, and everybody thought it sounded outstanding. But nobody would reach for their wallet. Previous owner: Peter Frampton. He finally asked me to ship it to him in California. Terrific amp. It's better off with him.

Maybe it's a bit easier these days with Ebay & G-base. But anybody can claim anything so most of the time the buyer is getting a pig in a poke. If there's any buyer at all.

[Leo_Gnardo]

What I heard from someone who knew Ken was that when an amp was resold for big bucks by the original buyer it had been customary to share some of the profits with him; when he built an amp for you he was like a friend for life. However, as time marched on and prices kept rising more and more many of the artists got greedier and would not want to share the profits with Ken.

This is NOT the stock market, with Ken building amps for customers who would consider them to be just an investment (buy low, sell high!)

Perhaps he had some sort of informal "residuals" agreements with his customers. This is the first I've heard of it. Good - all to the better if it helped some bucks roll in. Nonetheless he wasn't getting any younger, expenses were mounting, and from what I heard health problems besides. Sound familiar? And helping his aging mom too, who knows what pressures he really had. I gather it was no picnic. And if that's not enough, living in NJ can be very depressing. Ask me how I know...

The few times that I have run into windfall profits on purchases I have felt compelled to share some of the money with the person who sold it to me if he was a friend. "Hey- this was worth more than I thought. Here's your cut." I don't believe in making what I would consider to be an obscene profit in a deal with a friend because it really screws up my karma.

By golly Steve your halo's shining so brightly I can see it from here. Or is that the northern lights? Once I found an envelope with 8 hundred dollar bills in the back of a Bassman head a customer had dropped off for maintenance. Of course I rang him up (after trying on the devil horns for a couple minutes - didn't fit). Not long after that he bought an amp from me so there's your karmacycle at work. Nice when it comes through.

[bob p]

From your end of the telescope that's how it looks.

If I sold an amp to someone and he flipped it for extra money then I'd be happy for both of us. Now he'd have a good reason to buy another amp from me and try to do it again. It doesn't make sense to begrudge other people because of their success. Doing that is just petty and envious and in the end it makes you a victim of self-imposed suffering.

[Steve A.]

By golly Steve your halo's shining so brightly I can see it from here. Or is that the northern lights?

No halo for me- I am strictly concerned with my own best interests. What I called karma could be an overactive conscience screwing me up subconsciously. If I keep an extra dollar change I will usually screw up and lose 3 dollars due to my own negligence. Its not like someone bops me over the head and takes 3 dollars for me- it's usually me screwing myself out of the 3 dollars.

From what I heard it was more of an understanding than an agreement or contract between Ken and his original customers. When they bought their amp in the late 80's whodathunk that they would be worth $10k+ after 10 or 15 years?

Steve

[bob p]

Previous owner: Peter Frampton. He finally asked me to ship it to him in California. Terrific amp. It's better off with him.

you couldn't sell his amp after the career-ending "I'm in You", right?

[Leo_Gnardo]

If I sold an amp to someone and he flipped it for extra money then I'd be happy for both of us. Now he'd have a good reason to buy another amp from me and try to do it again.

I think I wrote somewheres above that in some cases customers have told me they sold amps I repaired for them and brought home a couple hundred bucks profit. I'm perfectly OK with that, in fact even amused and delighted. If the profit margin went to thousands or tens of thousands, I'd have to think about finding a way to adjust my business model.

It doesn't make sense to begrudge other people because of their success. Doing that is just petty and envious and in the end it makes you a victim of self-imposed suffering.

In one case @ 1988 I sold a friend a beautiful tiger-stripe Les Paul for @ 900. He told me he later sold it for 6000. In fact he was avoiding me for a couple years because he was worried I'd have an attitude about it. Not so. I compared it to a stock transaction. If I had stock in some company & sold it one day for 900 and some anonymous person bought it (and this happens how many millions if times a day) and later sold for a whopping profit, then whoopee for him! In this case I just happened to know the buyer, plus I had no work in the LP, didn't build it nor repair it. However I know other people may not think along those lines hence - as you say - makes them victims of self-imposed suffering. This is part of what I THINK did Ken in. So I think we're on the same page bob, so to retain our mental bearings, maintain a good attitude, adjust the business model when appropriate, and appreciate when other people also appreciate our work in a financial as well as aesthetic sense.

There are also those "canny" types who have proposed that they'll buy allsorts of junko amps, have me fix them up, then they'll sell them (eventually) and we'll split the profits. Not a good business model. I've turned all those types down. Need a faster $ return on the work. Musicians who actually use their gear are motivated to pay for it when it's fixed, and stores that take in trades that need fixin' up are motivated to get them back on their sales floor so they can make their profit. So it's these last two that comprise the excellent collection of clients I have.

[Leo_Gnardo]

you couldn't sell his amp after the career-ending "I'm in You", right?

No he only sold about 4 million copies of "I'm Immune." How many records have you sold mister wise guy? Big success YOU are. But please don't take it wrong, who knows what the future may bring any of us? The way the music business has gone not likely too many "talents" are going to be selling multimillions of what now, downloads? Maybe you'll be the one that beats the odds.

Lots of "stars" have their detractors too including Eric Ray Hendrix and all the rest. Including anybody you like and anybody you're "lucky enough" to work for or be friends with. So go ahead and throw your shaving cream pies, it don't mean shit to me.

If you want to read a scary biography, a short one in more than one way, check out Pete's old bandmate Steve Marriott's Wiki page. Brrrrr...... rags to riches to rags. Just read it the other day and geeze, what a sad story.

And it was folly to try to sell that amp anyway. I mean, unless you're down to your last buck who would sell a tone meister amp like a '59 Bassman. Just as well it turned out as it did.

[Mark Hammer]

One of the problems with artisan gear is that they are the product of thoughtful attention to detail...and that takes time. That time taken restricts production output, which, in turn, keeps availability low. That, in turn, drives up both the resale market, and the resale value.

It also drives consumer expectations in an unrealistic direction. The difference between artisan product X and consumer production product Y may be like the difference between a 7 and an 8.5 on a 10pt scale. That's not insignficant. But as unavailability of X becomes more generally known, and resale prices increase, X is perceived to be a 9.5, relative to a 6.0 of the next best consumer-grade product. That perceived gap inevitably results in purchasers of resold items at inflated prices more than a little disappointed, given that the price differential does not seem to correspond to the quality differential. And THAT, in turn, can translate into purchaser resentment. And in the era of online memes and twitter, that turns intoundeserved criticism that the original maker has no control over.