virwill7 - Posted - 11/29/2016:  11:39:03

Hi folks. I'm a 66-year-old rookie, so please forgive what is probably a most elementary question. I inherited my Dad's B&D Silver Bell No. 1 5-string - made, depending on whose online chart I refer to, sometime between 1928 (banjohangout.org/archive/284013) and 1936 (whitetreeaz.com/vintage/banjomfg.htm). The number stamped inside the pot rim is 25835. I'm trying to learn how to play and I have a ton to learn about the instrument itself. 

For starters, I'm pretty sure it needs new strings - not much life in these. Dad played classic banjo (he recorded and played with Frank Bradbury), so it has nylon strings, although the low D is wrapped. I guess steel strings might be an option - I still haven't decided on a style to pursue! - but can anyone tell me if this instrument was designed specifically for nylon strings? Don't want to overstress the neck. 

Thanks, Bill

csacwp - Posted - 11/29/2016:  11:55:11

Yes, the B&D 5-strings from the '20s were built specifically for gut strings, so nylon would be appropriate. The neck should hold up OK to steel strings, but you'll wear down the original frets which are irreplaceable. Even the smallest modern frets are larger than these, and for classic style it is important to use the tiny frets as they help to eliminate buzzing and fret slap and they provide better intonation. Given this particular banjo's history, I would personally not let it within a mile of steel strings.  You'll likely get differing opinions here from banjoists who do not play classic style banjo.  Unfortunately the number of antique banjos that are still in good enough condition to be used for classic style are dwindling as more and more are "wired up" with steel strings, leading to the fret wear, fingerboard rutting, and other issues.  A properly set up Silver Bell is a killer classic style banjo.  Some would say you couldn't do better.

Edited by - csacwp on 11/29/2016 11:58:38

virwill7 - Posted - 11/29/2016:  12:22:17

Thanks for the quick and in-depth reply, John. I want to preserve the instrument. So I'll order a new set of lightweight nylons today. Cheers!

csacwp - Posted - 11/29/2016:  12:34:19

I recommend the LaBella 17 set. It's what I use on my Silver Bells and it's the thinnest packaged set on the market. Ideally I wish they were thinner still!

rmcdow - Posted - 11/29/2016:  18:49:29

I'm relatively new to the banjo, and have only been playing for a couple of years, but I have come to like gut strings very much.  I tried nylon, and just didn't like them, not sure why, but once I tried gut strings, I like them better than steel or nylon.  Clifford Essex has them for a relatively inexpensive price of £15 including shipping.  Boston Catlines has thinner strings, actually they are thinner than the La Bella 17 set, they are pricey, but Olav makes very nice strings.  I've bought a set except for the wound 4th, but after breaking the first string twice, I went to the heaver strings made by Clifford Essex.  I found out later that the breakage was because of the way I tied that string to the tailpiece, so it wasn't his strings.  There are other, even cheaper, gut strings available from Bob Flesher, but not complete sets for the 5 string.  I order singles from several sources and make up my own sets, using Clifford Essex or Boston Catlines as starting points, then fill in what I can from other sources.  Once you try gut strings, I doubt that you would go back to nylon.  They are a pleasure to play on.  

csacwp - Posted - 11/29/2016:  19:43:02

Rives, I've looked for really thin gut strings like the ones you are describing but never found what I was looking for. I'll have to give the Boston Catlines a try. What gauges do you use?

By the way, LaBella keeps increasing their string gauges while keeping the name of their set the same.  A few years ago they increased from the true .017 set to a .019, and now from what I can tell they have gotten even thicker.  They also keep switching to harder rectified nylons, so the tension is higher.  I've had trouble finding a suitable replacement.  

Edited by - csacwp on 11/29/2016 19:52:30

rmcdow - Posted - 11/30/2016:  00:28:35

Hi John,  here is the set I got with the tension of each string

d'  varnished gut .46 mm gauge  3.2 kg  DL 2046 @ $11.00

b  varnished gut 52 mm gauge  3.2 kg  DL 2052 @ $11.40

g  varnished gut 66 mm gauge  3.2 kg  DL 2066 @ $12.80

d  varnished gut  88 mm gauge 3.2 kg   or   copperwound  82 gauge  3.2 kg  NF 82   $7.75, but need to get a quote from Olav on gut for this one, as this is copperwound on nylon

g'  varnished gut  46 gauge  3.2 kg  DL 1046  @ $9.95

total 16 kg  35.2 lbs

Postage was $6.75, Olav asked me to send him a check for the full amount, which I did, and he sent me the strings.  This was my first set of gut strings, and I was really sold on it until the first string popped one day while the banjo was hanging on the wall.  Later I discovered it was the tailpiece, which was an old Lyon & Healy.  The no knot cam tailpiece from Smakula solved the problem.  If you give Olav some guidelines as to what you want, he will quote strings that follow those guidelines.  Originally before I did this, he sent me a quote on a heavier set of strings, totaling 20.3 kg, or 44.66 lbs, which I thought was a bit heavy for the 130 year old banjo I was putting them on, plus I wanted lighter strings.

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 11/30/2016:  01:26:11

Bill - your banjo is manufactured mid 1928 - do have a look acoustudio.dk/BD_and_Bacon_database.html

Polle

dculgan - Posted - 11/30/2016:  04:36:49

Another plug for Boston Catlines. I've been playing his strings exclusively on my early banjos for over 20 years and my key to great tone. Dave

 

virwill7 - Posted - 11/30/2016:  06:32:29

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polle Flaunoe

 

Bill - your banjo is manufactured mid 1928 - do have a look acoustudio.dk/BD_and_Bacon_database.html

Polle

---

Polle: Holy cow - that is an incredible reference you've created! Don't know the abbreviations. What is RB? Thanks, Bill

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 11/30/2016:  12:16:46

RB ~ Regular Banjo (standard/regular 5-string banjo)

TB ~ Tenor Banjo

PB ~ Plectrum Banjo

MB ~ Mandolin Banjo

UB ~ Ukulele Banjo

CB ~ Cello Banjo

BB ~ Bass Banjo

BJR ~ Banjeaurine (short scale 5-string banjo)

​Polle

Edited by - Polle Flaunoe on 11/30/2016 12:17:49

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 11/30/2016:  12:31:09

quote:

---

Originally posted by csacwp

Yes, the B&D 5-strings from the '20s were built specifically for gut strings, so nylon would be appropriate. The neck should hold up OK to steel strings, but you'll wear down the original frets which are irreplaceable. Even the smallest modern frets are larger than these, and for classic style it is important to use the tiny frets as they help to eliminate buzzing and fret slap and they provide better intonation. ----

---

John - Bacon sold both steel and gut strings for these banjos.

Regarding the original fret wire - StewMacs 0764 wire is a replica of this - I use it for all vintage banjos.

Polle

Edited by - Polle Flaunoe on 11/30/2016 12:31:37

csacwp - Posted - 11/30/2016:  13:36:42

Polle, StewMac 0764 is still larger than the original fret wire, and while Bacon sold both wire and gut strings, the B&D 5-strings left the factory with a neck angle for high action and a low bridge, the standard gut string setup. Furthermore B&D 5-strings had nut slots that were widened to accommodate gut strings, and of course Fred Bacon himself would have scoffed at anyone who would have strung a 5-string with wire.

mikehalloran - Posted - 11/30/2016:  14:07:18

quote:

---

Originally posted by csacwp

 

Polle, StewMac 0764 is still larger than the original fret wire, and while Bacon sold both wire and gut strings, the B&D 5-strings left the factory with a neck angle for high action and a low bridge, the standard gut string setup. Furthermore B&D 5-strings had nut slots that were widened to accommodate gut strings, and of course Fred Bacon himself would have scoffed at anyone who would have strung a 5-string with wire.

---

1928? Possibly. By the early 1930s, the world was moving to metal and once they heard the hillbillies on the radio, that was it for most players. Classical and vaudeville players still preferred gut for 5 string and plectrum because they made the banjo louder.

In the late '60s/early '70s, you could still by gut 5 string sets everywhere.

Back to the OP, David Day built necks that stood up to steel quite well. If that's what you like, go, be, do. If frets wear out, they can be replaced.

Regarding fret wear, if your touch is heavy like mine, they'll last nearly forever. A light touch with steel strings wears frets and that can't really be helped.

Don't get me wrong. I really like the sound of old gut strung banjos.

csacwp - Posted - 11/30/2016:  15:23:43

Mike, it's classic style, not classical.  We rarely play anything classical.

Having owned three pristine 1928-29 Silver Bell 5-strings, I can assure you they were set up from the factory for gut.  I've also owned a '26, '25, and a '24 and have even played some mint early '30s examples, and all were set up at the factory for gut with the correct action and wider nut slots than those found on the tenors and plectrums.  

Edited by - csacwp on 11/30/2016 15:25:57

Polle Flaunoe - Posted - 11/30/2016:  23:32:47

John - thanks - this is exactly the info wanted by me - regarding the factory set-up - hence my "provocation".

Polle

mikehalloran - Posted - 12/01/2016:  17:11:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by csacwp

 

Mike, it's classic style, not classical.  We rarely play anything classical.

 

Having owned three pristine 1928-29 Silver Bell 5-strings, I can assure you they were set up from the factory for gut.  I've also owned a '26, '25, and a '24 and have even played some mint early '30s examples, and all were set up at the factory for gut with the correct action and wider nut slots than those found on the tenors and plectrums.  

---

I know very well that they were set up for gut as were plectrums. My response was aimed at the OP who was wondering what he could use. 

"Classic Banjo" is a modern affectation. It wasn't called that back in the day. I started off playing that way over 50 years ago and will call it what I want.

Edited by - mikehalloran on 12/01/2016 17:14:38

csacwp - Posted - 12/01/2016:  17:25:55

Mike, the earliest reference to the term Classic Style that I have personally found is from the early 1890s. It was also called guitar style and finger style. It was not called classical banjo then and isn't now. There is little to nothing classical about the style and the repertoire and calling it "classical" is misleading at best.  It's also affected sounding and has helped to create a negative attitude towards the style.  "Classical" banjoists would include the likes of Alfred Farland and John Bullard.  Not to bring up an older argument, but you are incorrect about your plectrum banjo claim and have yet to bring any evidence forward to support your opinion. I've cited multiple tutors and catalogs in this ongoing debate that indicate otherwise.

Edited by - csacwp on 12/01/2016 17:32:46

mikehalloran - Posted - 12/01/2016:  19:07:16

Doubling down does not make you more knowledgeable. Many times you could have asked questions and I would have been glad to share links, sources and ways for you to learn some of what I know and why I know it.

Instead, you always insist that I prove things I demonstrated years ago. 

I consider your approach incredibly annoying and have no intention of doing the work for you.

You are a source of amusement when you make some of your claims, however. I'll grant you that. Yes, I mentioned plectrums to see if you had learned anything since the last time. Apparently not.

csacwp - Posted - 12/01/2016:  19:16:36

I have asked what your sources are many times but you merely double down and start name calling. Anybody here can see that.

Edited by - csacwp on 12/01/2016 19:18:10

Dan Drabek - Posted - 12/01/2016:  20:44:45

Here's some pretty fine classical banjo playing ( and fine guitar, bass, mandolin and fiddle), for anyone who hasn't seen it.

youtube.com/watch?v=rcZDI63yO1...ZDI63yO1c

DD

pstanley - Posted - 12/01/2016:  23:27:27

I have only been playing clawhammer for about 5 months now and I have a 1887 Buckbee Columbia banjo. It had steel strings when I bought it and there is wear on the neck, but not horrible. I just recently found the Aquila Super Nylgut lights and put them on. I love the sound and playability, especially on double thumbing and drop thumbing. I don't think that I'll ever put steel back on. It took me awhile to get the stretch out of them, but I got some good feedback on another post on this site on how to cut down the stretching. By the way, I sort of made up a knot system for the tail piece on this banjo. I made loops, but ended up using the knot portion of the loop in the 5 slots to lock in the strings.

G Edward Porgie - Posted - 12/02/2016:  08:06:59

Maybe I shouldn't put my foot into the "classic" or "classical" argument, but what the H***, why not add more enemies?

Both terms, to me, smack of a certain elitism, which should probably be avoided. Either that, or they both seem to be phony terms, like "Classic Coke" or "Classical Music," which has grown to include some pretty strange things that would never have been approved by Mozart and Haydn (heir musical period is actually termed "Classical" by musicologists, and differs from "Baroque," " Romantic,"  or "Post-modern").

A name is generally applied well after a style has been adopted, perfected, and popularized, and too many times become ridiculous debate points concerning what genre a particular tune fits into. I'm certain that Mozart probably just composed music, not classical music and is known to have studied J.S.Bach without worrying it was "Baroque."  In the long run, I doubt most of the general public even cares, just so long as the music is good. It's the nitpicking over categories that becomes annoying and can lead to dismissal of entire fields of music by those who become too annoyed. Personally, I don't give a gosh darn what someone identifies as his style, or what others call it, provided he plays it well.

Dan Drabek - Posted - 12/02/2016:  17:25:14

Classic guitarists VS classical guitarists. 19th century. 

Joel Hooks - Posted - 12/02/2016:  19:26:07

quote:

---

Originally posted by G Edward Porgie

 

Maybe I shouldn't put my foot into the "classic" or "classical" argument, but what the H***, why not add more enemies?

Both terms, to me, smack of a certain elitism, which should probably be avoided. Either that, or they both seem to be phony terms, like "Classic Coke" or "Classical Music," which has grown to include some pretty strange things that would never have been approved by Mozart and Haydn (heir musical period is actually termed "Classical" by musicologists, and differs from "Baroque," " Romantic,"  or "Post-modern").

A name is generally applied well after a style has been adopted, perfected, and popularized, and too many times become ridiculous debate points concerning what genre a particular tune fits into. I'm certain that Mozart probably just composed music, not classical music and is known to have studied J.S.Bach without worrying it was "Baroque."  In the long run, I doubt most of the general public even cares, just so long as the music is good. It's the nitpicking over categories that becomes annoying and can lead to dismissal of entire fields of music by those who become too annoyed. Personally, I don't give a gosh darn what someone identifies as his style, or what others call it, provided he plays it well.

 

---

Good point, and I agree with you.  I've brought this up many times in the past and I stand on ground zero with the "classic banjo" community.

The problem is, we don't know what else to call it.

The term "classic banjo" started to really be used in the late 1940s.  "Classical Banjo" was also used but not because it referred to Classical Music, but because it was sort of similar to Classical Guitar in mechanics (fingerpicked, nylon strings, many players read music).

A couple of things happened in the late 1940s-50s.  One was that lots of people who played in the late 19th early 20 century retired and had time to start playing again.  The other was that "folk" styles and bluegrass became popular and commercial.

When these guys wanted to go buy strings and sheet music they were handed tab and wire.  They had to come up with a name for what they did as when they did it before it was just called "banjo playing."

"Parlor Banjo" is incorrect as this was really a concert style of music (many of these people had been top pros when they were younger).  "Ragtime Banjo" was to specific.  "Popular Banjo" would not work as... well, it was not popular anymore. 

So, for lack of a better term "classic" was used.  It is more like "classic car" or "classic rock" then Coke classic.

And that is what we have today.

At some point, people saw the evening dress, (not understanding that it was the cool thing to do at the time-- dressing nice was in), ornate banjos, and sheet music.  Not knowing any better, it does look like a college orchestra recital-- must be classical music!

But (and a big one), a few people who have played this music in fairly recent time have tried to play up the classical music gag (as they came from classical guitar-- hey, it must be the same right?) and that has added to the confusion.

So the classic/classical thing remains confusing.  Fact still remains, very little of the repertoire is "classical," but I guess if one tries hard enough they might be able to squeeze water from a rock.