Jimi Hendrix' Gear and Mods at West Coast Organ and Amp

[Xplorer]

thanks Tommy

i have a lot of fun with this new tone for me, just with the Dunlop blue fuzz volume way up , fuzz down to zero.
i also installed a 50k input bias, it's great with the wah.
rediscovering Hendrix while jamming along, from the albums to some lives, bog ... need more practice though, like on on EL.
all of them really aren't very far in term of settings. the playing makes a lot of difference. Even if it's through some virtual speakers into cubase. ( headphone .... neighbours ... night ... sleeping )

oh, and using Hendrix amp settings according to what Dave explained is very important. before that, i never used the presence, now it's arround 9 ..

[shakti]

Tazin,
Great observation about the amp bottom. Looking at all the proportionality/spacing of stencils etc. brings one to the conclusion it's the same bottom.
Did you see what I meant on the pic you posted and the one from the archives. They look identical, and the remnants of the West Coast sticker are clearly visible on the chassis, including the oval shape where the paint had been covered.

What about the bottoms to the left in the Woodstock picture, are they new or did we just recover them? The tops don't look as new.

The speaker cab is not the same. Look at "EXP" in the second line. On the Woodstock cab it slants upwards. Not so in the cab from the Marshall book.

The amp is not the same either; look at the Dymo labels on the voltage selector; positioned differently on the two amps. Also, the Marshall book amp has the mains inlet replaced with a modern IEC(?) style inlet, whereas the one shown in the Amp Archives has a hardwired mains cord.

[shakti]

What about the bottoms to the left in the Woodstock picture, are they new or did we just recover them? The tops don't look as new.

I'd say they are new. Would you have transplanted the little badge on the rear as well? WOuld it even have been there anymore if those were roadworn cabs you refurbished? I doubt it. There are photos from Woodstock which show Marshall cardboard boxes - presumably from some sort of delivery. I'd be willing to guess those 50W stacks were delivered new at the time.

[swankmotee]

Yeah Shakti they were new and had all their logos and I'm sure that wasn't the preferred rig that they wanted for Billy since it was under powered! The A cab from the Marshall book sure looks like an exact match for the Woodstock one but the head isn't right due to the extra set of speaker output jacks.

[Tazin]

Tazin,
Great observation about the amp bottom. Looking at all the proportionality/spacing of stencils etc. brings one to the conclusion it's the same bottom.
Did you see what I meant on the pic you posted and the one from the archives. They look identical, and the remnants of the West Coast sticker are clearly visible on the chassis, including the oval shape where the paint had been covered.

What about the bottoms to the left in the Woodstock picture, are they new or did we just recover them? The tops don't look as new.

The speaker cab is not the same. Look at "EXP" in the second line. On the Woodstock cab it slants upwards. Not so in the cab from the Marshall book.

The amp is not the same either; look at the Dymo labels on the voltage selector; positioned differently on the two amps. Also, the Marshall book amp has the mains inlet replaced with a modern IEC(?) style inlet, whereas the one shown in the Amp Archives has a hardwired mains cord.

The amp pictured in The History Of Marshall is not SL/12361. Nor is it the amp sitting on top of the cabinet were discussing regarding the Woodstock picture.

I don't know, the two cabs sure look the same to me. I think the "on an angle" illusion stems from the fact that the stencil wasn't filled in with paint completely or evenly.

[daveweyer]

Tazin,
The pic you posted of 12361 appears to be indentical to the pic in the Marshall archives called 692, same tubes, same visible Marshall logo on the left tube, same torn off sticker, same HV caps, same Dymo tape labels.
Are you saying those are different?

[shakti]

Tazin,
yes, I see it now! Kind of an optical illusion, but I agree, they are one and the same cab. Would love to see which speakers it has inside now, even if that doesn't prove which speakers were in it during Hendrix' lifetime.

[Tazin]

Tazin,
The pic you posted of 12361 appears to be indentical to the pic in the Marshall archives called 692, same tubes, same visible Marshall logo on the left tube, same torn off sticker, same HV caps, same Dymo tape labels.
Are you saying those are different?

Sorry Dave I must have missed your post. This amp is SL/12361.


And the amp pictured here from The History Of Marshall book is SL/A10032.

[daveweyer]

Tazin,
(or anyone else for that matter) Doesn't that PT look like a Drake 1203-80, with the 2.5" lamination stack? That's what I get when I do the proportionality test.
If that is true, then it would have one of our "mini-mods", just a replacement of the PT with a selected "hot" unit, maybe coupling the cathodes of V1, bias changes for 25ma per tube, 6550s, a 12AT7 in V3 spot, and a tone circuit tweak or bypass tweak, and a possible conversion for 220 volt operation.

From the info I have, that amp is not the one called "big boy", or what Jimi originally said was the "governor", but just a mini-mod amp. Did you ever have the chance to measure the B+ voltage?
It should be better than 500 volts if that mod has been kept.
And did you happen to see the values of the primary filter caps?

As I recall it, all the amps which came in the '69 shipment originally had the Dagnall 2562 PT, just the older ones had the Drakes, and a couple of those had the 1204-43, the same transformer I used on the "big boy" mods.
After the amps were loaded with 6550s and sent out, I had a stack of Dagnall 2562 transformers left over which I used for replacement in Marshalls that were always burning up. Some of those had pretty high voltage too, but not the regulation of the Drakes.

[neikeel]

Both amps have what look like T2652 with copper Q-band to me but

[shakti]

Yes, those are definitely Dagnalls.

Dave, are you saying some of the amps in the March 69 shipment came with Drake power transformers? Were they all *new* amps in that shipment? Furthermore, did you know the manufacturer of those transformers back in the day? AFAIK, there was nothing to denote the transformers as being Drake or Dagnall or whatever, just the parts # (i.e. C1998, T2562, 1203-80, 1202-43 etc)

[Tazin]

Tazin,
(or anyone else for that matter) Doesn't that PT look like a Drake 1203-80, with the 2.5" lamination stack? That's what I get when I do the proportionality test.
If that is true, then it would have one of our "mini-mods", just a replacement of the PT with a selected "hot" unit, maybe coupling the cathodes of V1, bias changes for 25ma per tube, 6550s, a 12AT7 in V3 spot, and a tone circuit tweak or bypass tweak, and a possible conversion for 220 volt operation.

From the info I have, that amp is not the one called "big boy", or what Jimi originally said was the "governor", but just a mini-mod amp. Did you ever have the chance to measure the B+ voltage?
It should be better than 500 volts if that mod has been kept.
And did you happen to see the values of the primary filter caps?

As I recall it, all the amps which came in the '69 shipment originally had the Dagnall 2562 PT, just the older ones had the Drakes, and a couple of those had the 1204-43, the same transformer I used on the "big boy" mods.
After the amps were loaded with 6550s and sent out, I had a stack of Dagnall 2562 transformers left over which I used for replacement in Marshalls that were always burning up. Some of those had pretty high voltage too, but not the regulation of the Drakes.

Nope, no 2.5" stacks on these guys; just the normal 1.8" stuff. The mains and screens filtering on the one amp is four HUNTS 50uF + 50uF/350v cans. The other amp has a LCR 50uF + 50uF/500v and a HUNTS 50uF + 50uF/350v for the mains filtering, and one LCR 50uF + 50uF/500v and a HUNTS 50uF + 50uF/450v for the screens filtering.

Not that it really matters that much, but from what I've been able to make out based on the stuff I have is that the amp with the white circle around it is the amp shown in The History Of Marshall book.

[mathd]

Ok, what am gonna say may sound strange but, anyway.

To me BOG really sound like 2 fuzz... one boosting(with very low fuzz setting) and the latter fuzzing. with the neovibe between the 2 it works wonderfull.
>wah>axis>neovibe>fuzzface>amp set for a little breakup.
Instead to use a cranked amp, i replaced it with the fuzzface and it worked well for bedroom level loll.

I think it does BOG pretty well and amazingly also do woodstock very well if you play with the settings a little.

[daveweyer]

Tazin,
I really thought that PT had a thicker lam stack. I just did a model on it, and rotating it over to flat brought the lam stack up to nearly the top of the tube plate, which would be about 2.5".
Did you actually measure the stack when you saw it or can you just instantly recognize these from memory?

Anyway, the point being, I favored the Drakes for upgrades because I found higher voltages more frequently and better regulation. The Dagnalls still varied all over the map, so you could make a good hot amp out of those too. I just would have expected that I would see more Drakes in these but I may have just used the Dagnalls which rated the best. I just remember having Dagnalls left over when the job was done, and that leads me to believe I replaced some of them with the Drakes.

There were older amps in the shipment, they didn't all get there the same day as the new ones; Jimi's roadies brought them in, along with a couple of smashed up amps. As I said, I would just build up a working amp out of the best parts, so there were some bastardized models in Jimi's arsenal.

As far as I know, all the new amps had the Dagnalls, but I had seen '69 amps shipped with Drakes. Like Fender, the assemblers picked transformers out of bins, anything could end up in the amps, even Radio spares.

Some of these amps showed up again and again as they got dropped or blew up.

But the major upgrades should have the 1204-43 because you could get some really high plate voltage with these, and they produced quite a bit of current.

[Tazin]

Tazin,
I really thought that PT had a thicker lam stack. I just did a model on it, and rotating it over to flat brought the lam stack up to nearly the top of the tube plate, which would be about 2.5".
Did you actually measure the stack when you saw it or can you just instantly recognize these from memory?

Anyway, the point being, I favored the Drakes for upgrades because I found higher voltages more frequently and better regulation. The Dagnalls still varied all over the map, so you could make a good hot amp out of those too. I just would have expected that I would see more Drakes in these but I may have just used the Dagnalls which rated the best. I just remember having Dagnalls left over when the job was done, and that leads me to believe I replaced some of them with the Drakes.

There were older amps in the shipment, they didn't all get there the same day as the new ones; Jimi's roadies brought them in, along with a couple of smashed up amps. As I said, I would just build up a working amp out of the best parts, so there were some bastardized models in Jimi's arsenal.

As far as I know, all the new amps had the Dagnalls, but I had seen '69 amps shipped with Drakes. Like Fender, the assemblers picked transformers out of bins, anything could end up in the amps, even Radio spares.

Some of these amps showed up again and again as they got dropped or blew up.

But the major upgrades should have the 1204-43 because you could get some really high plate voltage with these, and they produced quite a bit of current.

I've seen so many amps that spotting differing PT's tends to be second nature. Besides, PT's like the Drake 1203-80 and 1204-43 have solder lugs on everything except the input ac voltage taps, whereas your Dagnall's are self lead for everything.