Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/386656
okbluegrassbanjopicker - Posted - 01/27/2023: 18:07:07
Jim, why are you choosing not to add the word "conversion" to the ad title?
As the current title stands, only until someone reads in the text of the ad itself, that the banjo had a five-string neck built later on (thus falling into the category of a TB-75 conversion), the title does not suggest in any way that the banjo is NOT an original five string. Based on how the title is currently worded, someone less knowledgeable might be misled into thinking an original RB-75 is being sold at a ridiculously low price.
I would like to think that you would be the last person on earth to write an ad title putting forth that the whole banjo is prewar.
Sorry, but I can't live with that.
I don't subscribe to the opinion that a mostly prewar banjo with one major postwar part (a five-string neck) still counts as a prewar banjo.
Have you decided to throw caution to the wind and go out on a limb in this matter?
I doubt Jim Mills himself would do such a thing. It would be below him. So why did you do it?
okbluegrassbanjopicker - Posted - 01/27/2023: 18:19:32
"1940 Gibson Style 75."
No mention of conversion in the ad title or video title.
And then this:
Edited by - okbluegrassbanjopicker on 01/27/2023 18:28:48
Bill Rogers - Posted - 01/27/2023: 18:48:22
So, Earl’s banjo, ca. 1962-65, would not count as a pre-war? That said, I do agree that not putting “conversion” in the title is misleading, though the ad text is not. Incidentally, I have never seen a Stradivari or Guarneri violin noted as a conversion, though almost every one has a new neck set at a different angle than the original, as well as a new bass bar. See:
violinist.com/discussion/archive/25930/
Edited by - Bill Rogers on 01/27/2023 19:05:18
okbluegrassbanjopicker - Posted - 01/27/2023: 19:04:50
Jim, I apologize for making a mountain out of a molehill.
I was being overzealous about how accurate the title was.
Bill Rogers - Posted - 01/27/2023: 19:09:39
FYI, This sort of thing happens a lot in the ads. We tend to let it slide as long as the seller’s detailed description is accurate, as Jim’s, of course, is.
okbluegrassbanjopicker - Posted - 01/27/2023: 19:20:19
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Rogers
So, Earl’s banjo, ca. 1962-65, would not count as a pre-war? That said, I do agree that not putting “conversion” in the title is misleading, though the ad text is not.
Incidentally, I have never seen a Stradivari or Guarneri violin noted as a conversion, though almost every one has a new neck set at a different angle than the original.
Yes, I can see your angle. There's a point at which one has to decide whether or not to classify an instrument as such. Jim has chosen to identify this conversion as prewar.
Since the new neck is a VERY excellent replacement, it's just like it always belonged to that banjo anyway.
For instance, Greg Earnest's site lists prewar Gibson TB's PBs, MBs, and GBs - and he represents them as belonging to the "prewar" section of his site, regardless of whether the present owners may or may not have already converted them.
One has to reach a compromise of sorts, when it comes to exactly what is prewar or not.
Truth be told, I would not describe a prewar Gibson conversion banjo as a "prewar pot assembly with a postwar neck."
I would call it "a prewar banjo with a replacement neck."
And I should have been more careful about attacking/criticising Jim.
He didn't title the ad, "Factory Original RB-75," because it didn't originally come that way.
A new owner COULD put the tenor neck back on, reverting it to a "1940 Gibson Style 75" if they wanted, just as the ad states.
Edited by - okbluegrassbanjopicker on 01/27/2023 19:25:17
Ceres Banjo Works - Posted - 01/27/2023: 20:07:05
Hey guys, I’m gonna leave it as it is. This is actually the third time I have renewed this ad and forum… It’s been up for two months and I’ve had no grief.
NotABanjoYoda - Posted - 01/27/2023: 20:37:22
"flathead tone ring which is period correct and would have come with a Style 75."
Im not sure what this means? Can you elaborate?
Is it a authentic prewar ring that did not come with the banjo?
Or just a flathead ring made like a prewar?
Ceres Banjo Works - Posted - 01/27/2023: 20:43:54
So in the ad you can see that I described the Banjo in its original configuration would have been a TB-75 with a 40 hole arch top tone ring.
The banjo was converted to a five string flat head using a five string neck and the rim was cut to accommodate a flat head 20 hole tone ring. This tone ring happens to be from the same time. As Gibson made flat head 75s as well. The tone ring has been authenticated by Steve Huber and Curtis McPeake… Signatures inside the ring.
Originally posted by NotABanjoYoda
"flathead tone ring which is period correct and would have come with a Style 75."
Im not sure what this means? Can you elaborate?
Is it a authentic prewar ring that did not come with the banjo?
Or just a flathead ring made like a prewar?
Edited by - Ceres Banjo Works on 01/27/2023 20:44:56
wrench13 - Posted - 01/27/2023: 21:48:24
One would think a buyer who is OK with putting down 40 Large on a banjo would be astute enough to know the details and fine points of the instrument they are considering.
Bill Rogers - Posted - 01/27/2023: 23:35:22
My first real bluegrass banjo was a 1926 PB-1 shell with a 1962 Gibson flathead tone ring and an RB-100 neck. All Gibson, but not remotely from the factory. A frankenGibson, I guess.
lightgauge - Posted - 01/28/2023: 04:53:08
Original post dated Nov 3 and on Jan 27, someone having a bad moment is offended.
Wow, just Wow. What drama.
Earl-Picker - Posted - 01/28/2023: 05:23:48
As soon as I sell a kidney Im gonna buy it. the trouble is the guy wont hold still
long enough
