BanjoLink - Posted - 06/02/2011:  08:38:16

Mike  - dittos' to the above posts!

stanger - Posted - 06/02/2011:  09:54:13

Thanks, folks!

I'm on a tear this morning. This is only one of a couple of too-long posts made today. heck- why use only 4 words when you can burn up 400?

That early Gibson history is very interesting to me, and the ball bearing is a big part of it. I like to tell the full story if I can. My ball bearing is the only Gibson banjo I've ever hung on to, mostly because it sounds so different than all other Gibsons and all my other banjos.

One thing I forgot to mention... ever wonder why the archtop Mastertone ring came before the flathead? Because they looked right. The Paramount, Epiphone, Weymann, and Ludwigs all had archtop tone rings. Even Bacon eventually made their version of an archtop ring. To the players of the day, the archtop was the proper look that indicated a loud banjo. And Gibson's cast archtop ring really delivered the goods.

I believe that if Gibson had introduces their flathead ring first, it may not have been as widely accepted. From the first introduction, the flathead worked better on 5-strings and plectrums than tenors, and neither of those banjos were ever big sellers in the 20's and 30's.

regards,

stanger

Edited by - stanger on 06/02/2011 10:09:57

Emiel - Posted - 06/02/2011:  10:40:36

Like Mike says. I also love the sound of my ball-bearing, and it is still pretty loud... The first cast tonering was of course an archtop ring: the banjo looked the same as the ball-bearing, that was the standard of those days high-end banjos (except for Vega!), and most of the banjos produced were tenor banjos. The Gibson archtop tenor banjo sounds better in a Dixieland band than a flathead Mastertone tenor banjo.

mikehalloran - Posted - 06/02/2011:  10:42:13

One thing to add: Though Oroville Gibson and Lloyd Loar were advocates of steel strings on fretted instruments, they were in the minority except for tenor players. The 1925 Mastertone sounded good with gut, too, and now Gibson had a banjo that could compete with the others. Gut was still considered the preferred choice for serious 5 string and plectrum players. By the '30s, this changed for everybody.

On a properly set up banjo with a full tone ring, gut can be very loud.

>Like Mike says. I also love the sound of my ball-bearing<

Yea, wish I had kept mine. 

Edited by - mikehalloran on 06/02/2011 10:43:40

Emiel - Posted - 06/02/2011:  10:58:01

Oh yes, gut strings sound good and loud on a flathead Mastertone... Even if that banjo was never meant to have gut strings (unlike a Vega Tubaphone, e.g.).

El Dobro - Posted - 06/03/2011:  18:15:45

There are also two versions of the B-B Mastertones, the early ones has the perforated skirt with the scalloped ring, while later ones had the solid skirt with the non-scalloped ring. Maybe the first time Gibson started cutting labor for their rings.

El Dobro - Posted - 06/03/2011:  18:17:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by TB-4 Guy

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Old Timer

And just for the record, what university granted a degree in "acoustical (or acoustic) engineering" pre-1920?  Hmmmmm?  Could you be licensed back then as an acoustical/acoustic engineer?  Just wondering...

---

 Old Timer  -  that's an interesting point.  I am not sure Lloyd Loar was actually an "acoustic engineer" and pretty certain neither was anyone else who ever signed Gibson's mandolins (and maybe other instruments).  In many states it is illegal to refer to yourself as an engineer without a degree and state certification.  I know it to be the case in Tennessee and it is enforced  -  however, that has never stopped Gibson from having someone sign their mandolin labels as an acoustic engineer.

---

 That's really interesting. So your theory is that Lloyd Loar may have broken the law when he referred to himself as an acoustical engineer. That's really something new that I had honestly never thought of.

The internet is such a wonderful invention. It permits us to explore these thoughts.....

---

 Good thing he had a chance to sign my mandolin before the law caught up with him.

TB-4 Guy - Posted - 06/03/2011:  18:36:07

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Dobro

quote:

---

Originally posted by TB-4 Guy

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Old Timer

And just for the record, what university granted a degree in "acoustical (or acoustic) engineering" pre-1920?  Hmmmmm?  Could you be licensed back then as an acoustical/acoustic engineer?  Just wondering...

---

 Old Timer  -  that's an interesting point.  I am not sure Lloyd Loar was actually an "acoustic engineer" and pretty certain neither was anyone else who ever signed Gibson's mandolins (and maybe other instruments).  In many states it is illegal to refer to yourself as an engineer without a degree and state certification.  I know it to be the case in Tennessee and it is enforced  -  however, that has never stopped Gibson from having someone sign their mandolin labels as an acoustic engineer.

---

 That's really interesting. So your theory is that Lloyd Loar may have broken the law when he referred to himself as an acoustical engineer. That's really something new that I had honestly never thought of.

The internet is such a wonderful invention. It permits us to explore these thoughts.....

---

 Good thing he had a chance to sign my mandolin before the law caught up with him.

---

 Yes, that's good. He forgot to sign my '23 TB-4.......

mikehalloran - Posted - 06/04/2011:  08:37:17

Did Lloyd Loar sign any of the '23-'24 Style 5 banjos?

daren - Posted - 06/04/2011:  10:11:18

I have owned four of them and not one was signed by Lloyd Loar.........I wish that they were

El Dobro - Posted - 06/04/2011:  12:16:26

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikehalloran

Did Lloyd Loar sign any of the '23-'24 Style 5 banjos?

---

 Nope, he didn't sign the banjos, he only signed real instruments.

stanger - Posted - 06/04/2011:  12:42:52

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Dobro

There are also two versions of the B-B Mastertones, the early ones has the perforated skirt with the scalloped ring, while later ones had the solid skirt with the non-scalloped ring. Maybe the first time Gibson started cutting labor for their rings.

---

I agree. The Lange skirt had scalloped holes early on, and were dropped. Drilling all those holes in the ball bearing skirt only added a lot of labor.

Mine has them, and all the holes were smoothed out and buffed after drilling.

For those who don't know about the the tube-on-pins tone ring designs I mentioned, they all worked like this, with variations from brand to brand:

A brass tube (and rarely, a solid brass round bead) rested on metal pin supports.

On the Orpheum/Paramount tone ring, the pins look like large staples. One end of each staple fitted into a small hole that was drilled into the top of the 3/4" thick rim, and the other end fit over the outer flat surface of the rim. The staples were rounded, not flat like the staples in an office stapler, and were about 1/16" in diameter, which allowed a small air space between the tube and the staples. A spun brass skirt fit over the tube, and covered the outside ends of the staples. The skirt created air space between the staples and the outside rim surface, so a tiny amount of air existed all around the tone ring.

Lange was a modest man, and called the skirt an apron... this was back when the young flappers all wore short skirts and were considered to be very racy.

Epiphone's version replaced all the staples with a 1-piece bronze casting that had right-angle wedges cast above a flat bottom. Each wedge was milled at the top with a semi-circular spot to hold the tube, and a skirt was also used to hold it together. This tone ring is much heavier than either the Paramount or the Gibson ball bearing.

The Vega Whyte Laydie tone ring evolved from the Fairbanks Electric tone ring, which consisted of a scalloped brass ring with the point of the scallops facing upward and a solid brass bead resting on top. Again, a skirt held it all together. The Whyte Laydie added a heavy brass bracket band on the outside surface of the rim, which produced a smooth rim on the inside surface.

Fairbanks made a version of his Electric tone ring called the Curtis Special, named after his son, who was a virtuoso banjoist. This version replaced the scalloped band with individual posts that fit into holes drilled on the top of the rim.

Bacon's early Montana models had a very similar tone ring to the Curtis Special. Montana himself liked this ring better than the later spun brass Silver Bell tone ring, and always used it on his own banjos, but the Montana line eventually were all blonde Silver Bell banjos.

The idea of letting the air out spurred the development of all these rings. The British zither banjos designs took the idea to a complicated extreme, as did the very last Lange design for the Paramounts. The Paramount 'double boiler' tone ring system was very complicated.

Ironically, while Gibson copped the 3/4" rim, the tube on balls and springs, and the skirt from Paramount, when Gibson's cast archtop ring came out, Paramount tried to catch up with the double boiler tone ring. The double boiler system changed the tone, but didn't appreciably up the volume. Even so, Paramount was the tenor banjo most preferred by the professionals until Lange went bankrupt in the Great Depression.

Then, as now, novices bought what their favorite professional played, and pros tended to buy what other pros played.

regards,

stanger

Wes Lassiter - Posted - 06/06/2011:  20:04:47

Since all this started, and Mikes beyond amazing knowledge and insight into these old banjos, I obtained an original five string neck from the period of my 26 bb TB 3. I have just installed this neck and I have to tell you it is unlike any banjo I have ever played for the tone is just beyond good. On top of that this old neck plays like a dream and it seems to be well suited for this banjo. I would not dare change the pot to a conversion ring for why should I when it sounds so amazingly good. I feel blessed to have such a fine instrument and equally as blessed to have you all explain things so well that I did not understand at that time. Thanks Mike and everyone else who participated in this amazing thread. I have learned mountains of information. I am playing this banjo over my 1933 flathead style 2 conversion now. The tone just keeps on giving me goose bumps.

gdoc - Posted - 06/06/2011:  21:27:41

Well,

Welcome to the BB Banjos....  once hooked on that sound, nothing else comes close.  Just something about it no other banjo has.  I have no intentions of ever parting with mine.  The more you play it, the more you hear the qualities of the banjo.  Afterwards, other banjos just sound harsh in comparision.  Of course, that is my opinion.  I know other people feel the same way about other banjos.  We are not all the same.

stanger - Posted - 06/07/2011:  00:23:09

Congrats for scoring an original neck, Wes! Very cool!

regards,

stanger

BanjoLink - Posted - 06/07/2011:  08:17:24

Curious how an original 5-string neck would become separated from it's pot  -  maybe one of those scoundrelous 4-string players, like Nathan, ruined the original banjo and had a custom tenor neck made!

Wes Lassiter - Posted - 06/07/2011:  09:59:21

The neck  was on a parts banjo my friend had. I think it was a second for the fifth string peg was drilled a little to far away from the fifth fret. otherwise it is all original with the L bolt in the heel and everything. We had to modify (we being Richie Dotson mainly him) the heel bolts to a smaller size to acommodate the coordinator rods. The other tip off was as verified by Jim Mills was the laquer was exactly the same as the resonator and the wood grain on the tenor neck was the same exactly. The heel cut was exact to the tenor neck. All we can figure is that the neck must have been built on a Friday about 4:58 when the boys were going out for a cold beer after work and he drilled the hole in the wrong spot. It has been drifting around for the last 85 years. That part is purely speculation. The banjo really likes this old neck and the action is at the perfect setting with a standard 5/8 Huber bridge. The are some photos of the banjo on my homepage if you are interested.

Edited by - Wes Lassiter on 06/07/2011 10:00:56

NYCJazz - Posted - 06/07/2011:  10:28:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

Curious how an original 5-string neck would become separated from it's pot  -  maybe one of those scoundrelous 4-string players, like Nathan, ruined the original banjo and had a custom tenor neck made!I'd keep the neck

I'd keep the neck with the pot, but I'd install some rhinestones!

BTW I play plectrum, so I can play any 5-string banjo as well!  It's fun to borrow a BG banjo and play something complex like "Prelude to a Kiss" with a flatpick and watch the owner's jaw drop!

John Steele - Posted - 06/07/2011:  10:32:11

>>It's fun to borrow a BG banjo and play something complex like "Prelude to a Kiss" with a flatpick and watch the owner's jaw drop!

Yeah, everyone knows those hicks who play five-string can't wrap their heads around jazz.

Do you play this one ?

bopjo.com/music/donnaLee.mp3

- John

Edited by - John Steele on 06/07/2011 10:34:40

Wes Lassiter - Posted - 06/07/2011:  11:22:09

I knew it would be only a matter of time before you jokers would crash this little party. I took the tenor neck off because it was to simple and there was not enough scale length for my taste :)

BanjoLink - Posted - 06/07/2011:  12:19:08

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wes Lassiter

I knew it would be only a matter of time before you jokers would crash this little party. I took the tenor neck off because it was to simple and there was not enough scale length for my taste :)

---

 There you go  -   ruining another perfectly good banjo!

NYCJazz - Posted - 06/07/2011:  12:21:37

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Steele

>>It's fun to borrow a BG banjo and play something complex like "Prelude to a Kiss" with a flatpick and watch the owner's jaw drop!

Yeah, everyone knows those hicks who play five-string can't wrap their heads around jazz.

Do you play this one ?

bopjo.com/music/donnaLee.mp3

- John

---

That's Tom Slavicek? Great tune, done really well. That is complex melodically, but it's very straighforward rhythmically and chordal progression is very simple.

I'm gonna try that when I get home.

Thanks!