banjohope - Posted - 08/07/2009:  05:58:06

I prefer silver spun tone rings over whyte lady tone rings, and besides the one that come part of Ome banjos, where can one buys them. How much do they weigh, and the " silver" part, is it a real silver, or just a name. Also are the names silver spun and silver bell tone rings the same. Thanks.

stanger - Posted - 08/07/2009:  06:23:41

Hi, Michael...
The 'sliver' is just a name. It comes from the original Bacon & Day Silver Bell line of banjos, which were distinctively different from the other Bacon banjos.

There is a lot of voodoo that surrounds the name. 40 years ago, a guy I talked to swore Bacon chucked a silver dollar into every batch of brass used for the rings, but it wasn't true.

Ome was the first company to re-create the tone ring, but other makers now offer it. The Sliver Bell ring is found on several open back banjos made by individual makers, Reneé Carnes, a lady who makes B&D style banjos offers them, and I think Bill Rickard, a member here, makes them (I could be wrong on that one).

An good cast flat head tone ring weighs about 3 pounds. A Sliver Bell ring weighs about a pound and a half.

'Silver Spun' was Chuck Ogsbury's name for the ring. The trade marked 'Silver Bell' name was owned by the Gretsch company when Chuck began to make his rings. He recently purchased the trade mark, and now calls his rings Silver Bell.

I like them better than the Whyte Laydie tone ring, too. And better than the Tubaphone, which sounds much closer to the Silver Bell than the Whyte Laydie. The bass response is a little better with the Sliver Bell than the Tubaphone, but they sound similar.

They should- the same guy, David Day, designed both tone rings.

The biggest difference is the tone ring was only a part of the Silver Bell tone system. The unique spun brass bell-shaped resonator flange as the other part, and Bacon and Day both considered the flange as important as the tone ring in creating the unique Silver Bell sound. The Tubaphone was designed to go on open backed banjos originally, while the Silver Bell was designed from the first to be a resonated banjo. I've found the Silver Bell works great as an open back, though, and I'm currently using my B&D Silver Bell #1 as an open back.
regards,
Stanger

The pen is mightier than the pigs.

Edited by - stanger on 08/07/2009 06:26:10

banjohope - Posted - 08/07/2009:  06:50:12

That Mike, that is a good information.

clawhammerjazz - Posted - 08/07/2009:  07:04:54

Mike, I believe it's Jim Stull, not Bill Rickard, who also offers a silver bell style ring. Furthermore, it's been my understanding and experience that while indeed the two tone rings are very similar in balance and breadth, the tubaphone typically is the stronger on the low end and the silver bell on the high. Among many four string players, the old adage was that the perfect banjo would incorporate the top two strings of a silver bell and the bottom two of a tubaphone. Best regards,--Cjazz

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 08/07/2009:  07:24:21

Mike,

A B&D Silver Bell tone ring - inc. the massive round bar inside - weighs appr. 340 g ~ 12 ounces - not 1½ pounds as mentioned by you. This low weight is essential for the fantastic SB sound and power.

You´re correct regarding the original B&D SB resonator flange being somehow equally important for the sound, power and projection.

However OME, Renée Karnes, Norbert Pietsch and other highly skilled luthiers/SB copiers do not know how to get the best out of the flange - in the way, that Mr. Day maybe did - especially in the late 20s, when he introduced the extended flange/resonator.

The absolutely best sounding B&D Silver Bell´s do have a 13½" resonator with a stepped flange - the flange having a somehow flat mid and 28 nos. extra large F-holes - leaving only appr. 1/8" metal between the holes.

The resonator on these examples can somehow "swing" freely - these banjos will very much project backwards in the low midrange/bass field - that´s why you´ll have to sit down when playing these and have the resonator back free of your body - in the same way as for a classic guitar, instruments of the violin family etc..

This is not common knowledge - as mentioned not even among well-known builders/luthiers.

Kindly regards

Polle

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 08/07/2009:  07:37:56

Cjazz,

Your posting crossed mine.

You´re somehow correct in your view - if you compare Silver Bell´s and Whyte Ladie´s in open-back versions - the WL will have a more fullfilling low midrange and bass projection.

But - when comparing the two types with original resonators/flanges mounted - the SB will gain a tremendous benefit from these parts - and in the end beat the WL.

Regards

Polle

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 08/07/2009:  08:17:02

Cjazz,

I´ve noticed, that the Tubaphone was somehow smuggled into the thread.

However my view regarding WL contra SB goes for the TP contra SB as well.

Regards - LOL!

Polle

clawhammerjazz - Posted - 08/07/2009:  08:40:48

Hi, Polle. Actually, I was comparing the tubaphone tone ring, not the whyte laydie, with the silver bell. The low end on a whyte laydie and a tubaphone seem to be very similar to me. A lot of us open back players tend to prefer the whyte laydie because it does sound so good in that range where most of us who clawhammer typically play. On the other hand, the tubaphone is the more resonant the higher one goes, while the whyte laydie tends to thin out. Because I play the full fingerboard, I personally prefer the tubaphone for that reason. All that being said, you're absolutely right regarding the gain the silver bell gets in combination with the stepped flange and resonator. It makes for one powerful and deep banjo, but one with a piercing and cutting high end as well. I personally also like the sound and balance the silver bell ring offers in an open back, but to me that is truly where the tubaphone shines. It also, to my ear, has a wonderful, full, and sweet sound in the vox style configurations, giving you four string guys a great choice to make between the Vegas and the B&Ds. Best regards, --Cjazz

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 08/07/2009:  09:41:27

Cjazz,

I´m glad, that we do share views - mostly. LOL!

Like you I love the Tubaphone (esp. the Big Pot 11 13/16" version) for open-backs etc. - why put a resonator on these banjos - they are fantastic and were at first hand sold in the 20s without.

Regarding the Whyte Ladie - Í like this very much both as open-back and with a resonator - I do for now not have some firm opinions pro/contra - I´ve experienced to few of these.

Regarding Vox style banjos - we all know, that these are prefered by plectrum soloist (mostly) - among amateur and semi-pro plectrum players you´ll meet many other brands/models.

But now we are moving towards the most "difficult" and demanding banjo type at all - the tenor banjo. Forget about Chicago tuning - here only the original and also very "difficult" and demanding CGDA tuning will be a topic. LOL!

Sorry - dear Vega, Paramount, Gibson, Epiphone etc. etc. etc. owners - one banjo brand/design beats all your dear Ladies - the B&D Silver Bell!

And among the different SB models and grades - first of all the all-ebony #6 Ne Plus Ultra´s.

And among the all-ebony #6 Ne Plus Ultra´s - first of all the late 20s version with a Type III SB tone ring and a XL 13½" resonator/flange.

BTW - did I forget to mention, that I´m the extremely happy owner of an example of this model/version - the best tenor banjo ever built? Many experts and pro-palyers do aggree - LOL!

BTW - I do also own #2 in the row of the best tenor banjos ever built - He-He! Lucky me!

Kindly regards

Polle

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 08/07/2009:  09:55:23

PS!

Are some of you curious?

Here´re some links to my #6 NPU - the best tenor banjo brand/model/version/example ever built:

http://www.acoustudio.dk/BD%20Silve...U%201929.htm

www.banjohangout.org/myhango...787&albumid=0" target="_blank">http://2fwww.banjohangout.org/myhan...87&albumid=0

And #2 in this row - my one-of-a-kind #3 NPU (before refinishing to pristine condition)

http://www.banjoworld.de/High174.htm

Regards

Lucky Polle

howseth - Posted - 08/07/2009:  11:18:34

I owned a 1925 Vega Tubaphone big pot (11 13/16") 5-string conversion banjo for a few years - It came with the Vega resonator; I played it daily - both with and without the resonator. I put a Renaissance head on it - Moon bridge, with a Kershner style tailpiece

I, then, almost bought a 1920's big pot Whyte Laydie conversion (also with a Renaissance head) - but I did not like the neck shape - I also did not like the sound as much as my Tubaphone - less throaty, I would say. At least the way it was set-up.

I sold my Tubaphone last summer - and, really, based mostly on a strong hunch, ordered a 12" Ome open back 5-string - with their Silver Bell tone ring (Renaissance head). I received it last October ... Voila! the Ome combines both the throaty lower growl - and also a higher note clarity and sweetness (less harsh) which was superior, to my ear, than either the Tubaphone, or the Whyte Laydie. This is the banjo for me, and my style of playing. I also like that the Ome is lighter than the Vega bracket band banjos, while also being plenty loud.

However, I don't know how much the superiority of the Ome rests in the Silver Bell tone ring - and how much it rests in the overall quality of the craftsmanship and set-up of the Ome, or the density of the Maple - or the tailpiece, etc ... or the radiused fingerboard and radiused bridge etc .... I have never had the opportunity to play another Ome Silver Bell, or their other tone ring models, to confirm this opinion.

(Note: My playing style combines a mixed clawhammer/up-picking stroke - I do not wear finger picks)

Howard

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 08/07/2009:  11:28:14

Howard,

Thanks for sharing your banjo "story" with us.

I love your straight-forward and honest way telling this story - congratulations regarding your new purchase - an indeed rare banjo. I do admire/respect you going somehow blindly for this Lady - LOL!

Kindly regards

Polle