A Zildjian weights

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
THANKS in advance for your time!!!

Is there anywhere that I can find a list of approximate weights of these molten metal discs?, lol

I have what I assume is a 70's era cymbal with no ink what-so-ever on either the top or bottom. It weighs 1.25 kg. Seller listed it as a Thin.

Curious as a list that would show a range for other cymbals I might encounter in the future, as well. THANKS again...
 

TPC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
276
Reaction score
306
Location
San Pablo, CA
My 2 cents (note these are not based on any actual designations, like "Thin Crash", just on how the cymbals perform. Not scientific.)

I'll use 20" as a baseline. You can extrapolate using W1 = W2 * (D1/D2)^2.5

Paperthin sub 1600 g
Thin 1600-1950 g
Medium 1950-2300 g
Heavy above 2300 g
 

GeeDeeEmm

Very well Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
1,103
Location
Arkansas
Where is Zenstat's page where he keeps all this information? I thought I had it but can't locate it now.

GeeDeeEmm
 

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
My 2 cents (note these are not based on any actual designations, like "Thin Crash", just on how the cymbals perform. Not scientific.)

I'll use 20" as a baseline. You can extrapolate using W1 = W2 * (D1/D2)^2.5

Paperthin sub 1600 g
Thin 1600-1950 g
Medium 1950-2300 g
Heavy above 2300 g
I assume the D means diameter? But whats the W mean and what's the 1 and 2??

THANKS!!!!!!
 
Z

zenstat

Guest
THANKS in advance for your time!!!

Is there anywhere that I can find a list of approximate weights of these molten metal discs?, lol

I have what I assume is a 70's era cymbal with no ink what-so-ever on either the top or bottom. It weighs 1.25 kg. Seller listed it as a Thin.

Curious as a list that would show a range for other cymbals I might encounter in the future, as well. THANKS again...
Yes one of my sites is black.net.nz and I'm still in the process of moving things over to cymbal.wiki and developing the next generation of reporting. This includes the info from those cymbals which still have model ink on them covering the 1930s to present.

I assume you are talking about an 18" cymbal? Diameter matters when you go to interpret the weight. For example, if that cymbal is a 14" then it's a lighter New Beat bottom or a Band cymbal. :icon_e_wink: If you are right about it being a 70s cymbal (remembering around 20% of such identifications are incorrect in a study of 1,300 seller identifications) and it is an 18" diameter then it probably has the Special Cup rather than the Medium Cup. The cup change came into use in the very late 1950s to early 1960s and is useful to figure out what model you have with 18" through 20" cymbals. The link below takes you do the evidnece for the 20% misidentification rate. Scroll down from there and you can get to price and weight distributions.


That analysis doesn't break down the data by specific models. You show me the cymbal (photo from top and bottom, photo of trademark) and I can give you a lot more detail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
Yes one of my sites is black.net.nz and I'm still in the process of moving things over to cymbal.wiki and developing the next generation of reporting. This includes the info from those cymbals which still have model ink on them covering the 1930s to present.

I assume you are talking about an 18" cymbal? Diameter matters when you go to interpret the weight. For example, if that cymbal is a 14" then it's a lighter New Beat bottom or a Band cymbal. :icon_e_wink: If you are right about it being a 70s cymbal (remembering around 20% of such identifications are incorrect in a study of 1000 seller identifications) and it is an 18" diameter then it probably has the Special Cup rather than the Medium Cup. The cup change came into use in the very late 1950s to early 1960s and is useful to figure out what model you have with 18" through 20" cymbals. The link below takes you do the evidnece for the 20% misidentification rate. Scroll down from there and you can get to price and weight distributions.


That analysis doesn't break down the data by specific models. You show me the cymbal (photo from top and bottom, photo of trademark) and I can give you a lot more detail.
It's actually a 17" and THANK YOU for the reply!!! I'll check out that website when I get home.
 
Z

zenstat

Guest
These are the weight classes using the constant area method (also called ratio of areas). I've added the weight class names Zildjian use although they do change a bit over the decades. These names are from the Slingerland 1978 catalog.



The weight classes TPC gave are from a rival model called allometric. This table below uses an exponent of 2.5 although it looks like TPC as made the weights more rounded to "nice numbers" so that 1655g has become 1600g and the like. I approve of that as the original numbers aren't cast in stone.

The 2.5 was estimated from fitting a model to modern Bosphorus cymbals so the comparisons were done on cymbals which had the same model ink but were different diameters. I don't know much the 2.5 might vary across the decades and across manufacturers. It could be that 2.4 or 2.6 is better. Could be it varies a bit across different decades, manufacturers and lines. The research hasn't been done yet. It's rather like figuring out the transmission of coronavirus. We can model using an estimate of each person infects 2.5 others on average, but as we get more data we can hopefully do better with our estimates. Modelling coronavirus seems a bit more salient now than identifying models of cymbals once the ink has gone. But it's all statistics at work.

Here is the corresponding table under the constant area formula one so you can see the difference.



There is also a third model I'm assessing. What I can say at this point is that none of these three models is 100% perfect when assessed against cymbals which still have their weight class ink. But to quote a famous statistician

"All models are wrong but some are useful" -- George Box, 1978

I'm working to improve the modelling so that we have a more useful model. As far as your 17" goes it will have a Small Cup (about 4" in diameter) and that didn't change in the 60s like the 18" did for particular models. The 17" cup changed in 2013 to one which is slightly bigger - based on K Con High Bell Ride. The two weight models suggest a 1250g 17" cymbal would be a Thin in Zildjian parlance so we would call it a Thin Crash these days. The two models differ slightly in the end points for the weight classes and those differences get bigger the further you go from the 22" diameter. That is just an artifact of the original weight class boundaries being for 22" cymbals.

Models and weight classes for 22" cymbals actually vary over different production eras, manufacturers, series, etc. As far as I can tell the question "can a single table be used for both Paiste and A Zildjian and K Zildjian Istanbul and give useful answers" has yet to be examined closely. That's why I'm a fan of always giving the exact weight. The named classes are nice additional info, but the exact weight removes the uncertainty about one drummers "Thin" versus another drummers "Thin". There are also model and sonic differences in cymbals of the same diameter which arise from the bell (mentioned previously), the profile (rise in the bow), the hammering style, the lathing, the taper (extra thinning of the metal at the edge), and any particular edge treatment (think Sabian Sound Control flanges or other upwards or downwards curving edge flanges). Weight isn't everything, but knowing weight is a good first step. This is especially true if you haven't got the cymbal to play it, or a good quality sound file.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TPC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
276
Reaction score
306
Location
San Pablo, CA
I assume the D means diameter? But whats the W mean and what's the 1 and 2??

THANKS!!!!!!
D = diameter
W = weight
1 and 2 are the individual cymbals

The 2.5 exponent attempts to account for cube/square factors, metal properties, etc.
 
Last edited:

GeeDeeEmm

Very well Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
1,103
Location
Arkansas
I wonder if Zildjian even keeps this much info on their product?

GeeDeeEmm
 

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
D = diameter
W = weight
1 and 2 are the individual cymbals

The 2.5 exponent attempts to account for cube/square factors, metal properties, etc.
So, I would need 2 cymbals for this formula?
 

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
It's actually a 17" and THANK YOU for the reply!!! I'll check out that website when I get home.
What is the best way to measure the diameter? With a string and follow the curve of the bow and bell, or with a straight edge like a yard stick?
 
Z

zenstat

Guest
That formula TPC gave is for estimating the weight class limits for cymbals other than 22". As I said before that is because the original set of words and weight classes was just for 22". You just need your cymbal diameter and weight. I might be able to send you my spreadsheet which does it, but the tables I gave before do it.

You measure the diameter of a cymbal on the bottom. If you measure the top that will get a bit higher value because you are including the bow curvature and the bell. You can use a ruler or a flexible tape. If you use a flexible tape you much stretch it firmly. You don't want it to be slack as that will again give a higher value.

right:

20-1920-meas.jpg


wrong:

bogus-measure.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
These are the weight classes using the constant area method (also called ratio of areas). I've added the weight class names Zildjian use although they do change a bit over the decades. These names are from the Slingerland 1978 catalog.



The weight classes TPC gave are from a rival model called allometric. This table below uses an exponent of 2.5 although it looks like TPC as made the weights more rounded to "nice numbers" so that 1655g has become 1600g and the like. I approve of that as the original numbers aren't cast in stone.

The 2.5 was estimated from fitting a model to modern Bosphorus cymbals so the comparisons were done on cymbals which had the same model ink but were different diameters. I don't know much the 2.5 might vary across the decades and across manufacturers. It could be that 2.4 or 2.6 is better. Could be it varies a bit across different decades, manufacturers and lines. The research hasn't been done yet. It's rather like figuring out the transmission of coronavirus. We can model using an estimate of each person infects 2.5 others on average, but as we get more data we can hopefully do better with our estimates. Modelling coronavirus seems a bit more salient now than identifying models of cymbals once the ink has gone. But it's all statistics at work.

Here is the corresponding table under the constant area formula one so you can see the difference.



There is also a third model I'm assessing. What I can say at this point is that none of these three models is 100% perfect when assessed against cymbals which still have their weight class ink. But to quote a famous statistician

"All models are wrong but some are useful" -- George Box, 1978

I'm working to improve the modelling so that we have a more useful model. As far as your 17" goes it will have a Small Cup (about 4" in diameter) and that didn't change in the 60s like the 18" did for particular models. The 17" cup changed in 2013 to one which is slightly bigger - based on K Con High Bell Ride. The two weight models suggest a 1250g 17" cymbal would be a Thin in Zildjian parlance so we would call it a Thin Crash these days. The two models differ slightly in the end points for the weight classes and those differences get bigger the further you go from the 22" diameter. That is just an artifact of the original weight class boundaries being for 22" cymbals.

Models and weight classes for 22" cymbals actually vary over different production eras, manufacturers, series, etc. As far as I can tell the question "can a single table be used for both Paiste and A Zildjian and K Zildjian Istanbul and give useful answers" has yet to be examined closely. That's why I'm a fan of always giving the exact weight. The named classes are nice additional info, but the exact weight removes the uncertainty about one drummers "Thin" versus another drummers "Thin". There are also model and sonic differences in cymbals of the same diameter which arise from the bell (mentioned previously), the profile (rise in the bow), the hammering style, the lathing, the taper (extra thinning of the metal at the edge), and any particular edge treatment (think Sabian Sound Control flanges or other upwards or downwards curving edge flanges). Weight isn't everything, but knowing weight is a good first step. This is especially true if you haven't got the cymbal to play it, or a good quality sound file.
This is AWESOME!! THANK YOU. Here is a close-up of the stamp...
1586386184851.png
 
Z

zenstat

Guest
Yes that looks like what we nickname the 70s stamp. Current best dates for first year of use and last year of use in the factory are a little different from what the name suggests. We know that the 60s stamp was still in use up until the mid 1970s. The 70s stamp seemed to co-exist with the CO. stamp (which came in at 1982 and was in use for an unknown number of years) but then the 70s stamp is still found right up until the laser stamps came in at 1994. But we're stuck with the nickname 70s stamp because it is so well established.
 

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
That formula TPC gave is for estimating the weight class limits for cymbals other than 22". As I said before that is because the original set of words and weight classes was just for 22". You just need your cymbal diameter and weight. I might be able to send you my spreadsheet which does it, but the tables I gave before do it.

You measure the diameter of a cymbal on the bottom. If you measure the top that will get a bit higher value because you are including the bow curvature and the bell. You can use a ruler or a flexible tape. If you use a flexible tape you much stretch it firmly. You don't want it to be slack as that will again give a higher value.

right:

View attachment 434770

wrong:

View attachment 434768
What my biggest dilema right now is not being able to hear or see the cymbal in person. Never mind the fact that even if I COULD go to a shop, I couldn't carry the 2 cymbals I have with me, lol. Anyway, I have that 17" Thin I mentioned earlier and a 16" Medium-Thin on it's way to me. I am looking for something that has a great sound and that also compliments them. I don't want them to relatively close sounding. Want some contrast that says, Oh, here's one sound and there's a different one then BAM...another different sound! I have always been a cymbal whore, lol. Just the last kit I had I would acquire a cymbal and hang it on a stand. Never paid that much attention if I liked it or not. It was a different noise maker for the kit!!!! Had 5 different models/brands/sizes/weight of crashes, a ride, set of hats, 1 10" splash and a 12" china and still wanted MORE!!!!!
 
Z

zenstat

Guest
There are two weights listed for each diameter. Those are the upper and lower weights for that diameter and class. So for your 17" at 1250g the allometric model would classify it as a Medium Light (aka Medium Thin) because the weight is from 1207g - 1312g. If you use the ratio of areas method then your 17" would be classified as a Light (aka Thin) because the weight is from 1254g to 1378g. I'm simplifying the results a bit and calling 1250g about 1254g.

My limited experience with weights and associated sounds for A Zildjian is mostly with 18" where I've got a number of them in different weights. If I want a good crash sound which opens up quickly and gets out of the way, then I would tend to look for Extra Thin, Paper Thin, or Thin weight class. I find Medium Thin are not able to open up as well, although they aren't as washy if you try and keep a steady beat on them. So I'd look for 1400g and under in an 18". My lightest 18" is a 60s A Zildjian at 1240g which seems like a Paper Thin although it has no ink left. I've got one of the new A Avedis cymbals which is 1337g but it doesn't open up as well as my late 1950s A which weighs 1400g. I've got a second late 1950s which weighs 1496g and still has weight class ink saying MEDIUM THIN. I much prefer the 1400g one to the 1496g one, and to two other 1950s cymbals I've got also at around 1500g - 1560g. As one has MEDIUM THIN ink we can start to see which model does better on real cymbals. 18" Medium Thin for the ratio of areas method predicts 1540g - 1674g so a bit too heavy for a 1496g cymbal. The allometric class limits are 1393g - 1514g so that's a correct classification. I think I've got hundreds of weights for cymbals with model ink intact, but I'm still working through getting the data ready to do a statistical analysis.

There are some other brands which have a different relationship between weight and how they play. I've got a late 1950s K Zildjian Istanbul which weighs 1290g but it holds its own as a ride cymbal because it is very stiff. I've got a Paiste Traditionals 18" Extra Thin also at 1290g and it is also very different from what you might expect an A Zildjian at 1290g to sound like. That is down to all the other factors in the mix beyond just weight.

If you are wanting to find a nice pairing of a 16" and a 17" which sound nice together and are also distinct then I don't know any way to do it except try them out. :dontknow: All this fancy arithmetic and weight class stuff isn't a good substitute for playing them together. I've been able to get some way with judging how two cymbals will pair up given I own one and I have a good quality sound file of the other one. But that's the best I've been able to do so far. On the other hand, once you get some experience with a given brand and diameter then you have a head start on what cymbals might be right for you.

Enjoy the search.
 

CC Marshall

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
There are two weights listed for each diameter. Those are the upper and lower weights for that diameter and class. So for your 17" at 1250g the allometric model would classify it as a Medium Light (aka Medium Thin) because the weight is from 1207g - 1312g. If you use the ratio of areas method then your 17" would be classified as a Light (aka Thin) because the weight is from 1254g to 1378g. I'm simplifying the results a bit and calling 1250g about 1254g.

My limited experience with weights and associated sounds for A Zildjian is mostly with 18" where I've got a number of them in different weights. If I want a good crash sound which opens up quickly and gets out of the way, then I would tend to look for Extra Thin, Paper Thin, or Thin weight class. I find Medium Thin are not able to open up as well, although they aren't as washy if you try and keep a steady beat on them. So I'd look for 1400g and under in an 18". My lightest 18" is a 60s A Zildjian at 1240g which seems like a Paper Thin although it has no ink left. I've got one of the new A Avedis cymbals which is 1337g but it doesn't open up as well as my late 1950s A which weighs 1400g. I've got a second late 1950s which weighs 1496g and still has weight class ink saying MEDIUM THIN. I much prefer the 1400g one to the 1496g one, and to two other 1950s cymbals I've got also at around 1500g - 1560g. As one has MEDIUM THIN ink we can start to see which model does better on real cymbals. 18" Medium Thin for the ratio of areas method predicts 1540g - 1674g so a bit too heavy for a 1496g cymbal. The allometric class limits are 1393g - 1514g so that's a correct classification. I think I've got hundreds of weights for cymbals with model ink intact, but I'm still working through getting the data ready to do a statistical analysis.

There are some other brands which have a different relationship between weight and how they play. I've got a late 1950s K Zildjian Istanbul which weighs 1290g but it holds its own as a ride cymbal because it is very stiff. I've got a Paiste Traditionals 18" Extra Thin also at 1290g and it is also very different from what you might expect an A Zildjian at 1290g to sound like. That is down to all the other factors in the mix beyond just weight.

If you are wanting to find a nice pairing of a 16" and a 17" which sound nice together and are also distinct then I don't know any way to do it except try them out. :dontknow: All this fancy arithmetic and weight class stuff isn't a good substitute for playing them together. I've been able to get some way with judging how two cymbals will pair up given I own one and I have a good quality sound file of the other one. But that's the best I've been able to do so far. On the other hand, once you get some experience with a given brand and diameter then you have a head start on what cymbals might be right for you.

Enjoy the search.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!! You've given me a LOT to digest. This is the kind of info I want. Wanting to find that 'perfect' configuration...Now all I need is a job over there at Zildjian doing research with access to all their cymbals!!! lol
 

Latest posts



Top