header.nohb.html

Your latest cymbal purchase.....

zenstat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
457
Reaction score
1,196
Location
Auckland New Zealand
Very cool! I remember coming across that one and was curious about the clean center area underneath in contrast to the rest of the patina. Any idea what that's about?

I remember that one too, but I haven't got to it yet in my data entry. I guess it sold. :)

Tama CW suggests lack of patina might be another cymbal which was sitting there so patina didn't happen. To me that implies it sat upside down during those years, otherwise how would the smaller cymbal stay there? I seem to remember the seller thought it might represent somebody doing some sort of modification like re-lathing because of the obvious change in lathing style. I've seen plenty of late 50s and 60s cymbals with quite distinct zones of lathing like that on the underside. But yeah, perhaps somebody was asked to lathe that zone because much of the weight was in the bell and the inner part of the bow and they wanted it lighter. Since no cymbalsmith was named, I'm left unsure. We may not find out why the inner ring is clean. :dontknow: If it were within reach of me I could run my 12" deep throat micrometer over it and see what the thicknesses are in the bell and across the bow. That would tell us what it is now, but not what it was before and why somebody changed it.
 
Last edited:

Tama CW

DFO Master
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
4,409
Reaction score
4,586
Location
SE Connecticut
I remember that one too, but I haven't got to it yet in my data entry. I guess it sold. :)

Tama CW suggests lack of patina might be another cymbal which was sitting there so patina didn't happen. To me that implies it sat upside down during those years, otherwise how would the smaller cymbal stay there? I seem to remember the seller thought it might represent somebody doing some sort of modification like re-lathing because of the obvious change in lathing style. I've seen plenty of late 50s and 60s cymbals with quite distinct zones of lathing like that on the underside. But yeah, perhaps somebody was asked to lathe that zone because much of the weight was in the bell and the inner part of the bow and they wanted it lighter. Since no cymbalsmith was named, I'm left unsure. We may not find out why the inner ring is clean. :dontknow: If it were within reach of me I could run my 12" deep throat micrometer over it and see what the thicknesses are in the bell and across the bow. That would tell us what it is now, but not what it was before and why somebody changed it.

I'll have to disagree with Zenstat's suggestion that this cymbal was possibly relathed on the back side, resulting in that bright area. For one, the seller made no mention of anything to do with patina change on this cymbal. Their description was short: "great patina." Maybe Zenstat is mixing up this cymbal with another? On the other hand I can't say with absolute certainty that this cymbal wasn't relathed. I can only apply my own knowledge and tools to reach a scientific conclusion.

As far as the possibility of a cymbal covering another and leading to bright areas looking factory fresh, I've seen it many times where this shadowing occurs. In fact I had a pair of mint 1930's Zildjian 11" and 13" KCons where this probably happened (see the last 4 of 5 photos in the sequence). The center 10" or so of the 13" is quite brilliant and appears almost new. Obviously something sat on it for decades. And my guess was that it was that 11" KCon that came with it. The pair appeared to have been together since the 30's or 40's....along with the group of NOS 1930's A's they were part of the hoard. Both KCons essentially NOS other than for some patina. The 11" was almost fully brilliant on the bottom side where it sat protected by the 13". And I figure the inch difference in the 10" brilliant centers on the 13" VS. the 11" diameter of the smaller cymbal is because some air can slip around the edge and penetrate a bit.....as their contours are different. And that appears similar to the 22 where 14" hi hats or a 14 crash sat on the 22. The actual brilliant center measures 13.5". And I would say that 1/2" variation is from the slight exposure from the edges of a 14" cymbal bending upwards, leaving access to air around the edges. Most of us know that just the action of cymbals sitting on stands all their lives causes the bottom side to stay brilliant many years longer than the tops. If you look close to the bell on the bottom of the 13 KCon you will see a bright 1" ring there....full brilliance. There's no way that spot was relathed. When I often moved my stack of 16,18,20,22 60's A's around the past 40 yrs, it was always with the smaller cymbals nested inside the larger ones. Easier to carry. I see no reason why 14's couldn't have sat inside that 22 for decades.

The first 5 photos in the string are of my other 22" heavy 60's ride.....and the 22" I just bought on the right. When I first got the heavy 22 in 1983 (used) it was quite brilliant on both sides. In those nearly 40 yrs since, the top has toned quite a bit, now almost dullish, nearly the same shade as the other 22 top. On the bottom, my heavy 22 (left) is quite a bit lighter than the outsides of the light 22. Both bell undersides have the exact same brilliance. I see no difference in those shadowing effects whether cymbals sit with the smaller one ON the top one....or the smaller one INSIDE the top one. It's the same oxidation effect eiither way....avoidance from the surrounding air.

Next step is to asses the lathing grain structure of the cymbals under 5x and 15x magnification. For this I used my Zeuss loupe which has no distortion throughout the entire field of view. I don't think too many people have spent much if any time looking at their cymbals (esp. mint or NOS ones) under higher power magnifiers.....I have. If someone relathed the light 22 cymbal (to make it lighter) they would have totally disrupted the original Zildjian grain structure and the lathing lines, chatter, etc. Yet I see the same rough and crusty original surface that Zildjian applied from the bell to the edge....going right through the deeply toned area.....never changing. It doesn't very going through the zones. You can see both circumferential crustiness as well as longitudinal (perpendicular to the grooves). In some places it's almost like fine cross hatching. These lines run unaffected right through the heavy patina. I don't see how any non-Zildjian cymbal smith could create that same pattern and make it mesh like an original. I also don't see how a current Zildjian smith could match up the 60s' pattern (and 60 yrs of light, variable patina) across that area. I'm always amazed at how Zildjian and other makers can give their cymbals the appearance of die struck metal via casting and lathing. If you've spent any time looking at die struck coinage you'll know what I'm talking about. The unique surfaces that prepared dies can impart to the metal under very high striking pressures (ie "grainy" die flow lines) give a similar appearance to what I see on cymbals. And those fine grains in the metal reflect light...hence the rotational sheen coming from a new cymbal....or newly new....or well preserved one...when you tilt it in your hands. It could be that the impact point of the lathe is under similar high pressure and imparts that reflective and glistening grainy look to the surface. To those cymbal "cleaners" that say cleaning doesn't hurt anything. Well it does. it disturbs and wears those fine, grainy particles that you see under magnification.

To me the cymbal looks authentic to Zildjian all the way across it.....if "somebody changed it".....that somebody is nature imo. And when compared to my other heavy 22, I see the same type of patterns on both cymbals that were originally imparted by Z. The bottom side of my 22 heavy is considerably lighter in patina than the outer areas of the 22 light bottom. It sat protected on a cymbal stand for 35 of the past 40 yrs....which is why it's like that. And for a lot of those years with a sheet tossed over the kit when not in use.

Just because some cymbals show brilliant areas or less toned areas doesn't mean someone "changed it." The last photo in sequence is of a 22 Paiste Ludwig 3 star. It's clear an 18" sat on the one for decades. Just in this case they sat together long after a lot of patina was formed. Had they been placed like that very early in life, we'd have a brilliant 18" center on that 22 inch top. And wouldn't most or all cymbal smiths when relathing a bottom remove all the patina to make it uniform? As a customer you want to get your cymbal back looking 2 toned like that? If you're going to skim down the centers, then at least give a light cut to the rest of it for uniformity and eye appeal. I often see the undersides of formerly heavy K's and A's that were recut....and they usually appear totally unlike the original product. It's hard to mess with that fine grain structure and texture without making the alterations obvious.

This would have been better discussed in cymbal talk rather than cymbal purchases. But the comments were made here.....so I'm addressing them here.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7492.JPG
    IMG_7492.JPG
    48.1 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_4010.JPG
    IMG_4010.JPG
    41.2 KB · Views: 16
  • IMG_3999.JPG
    IMG_3999.JPG
    50.5 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_3996.JPG
    IMG_3996.JPG
    46.4 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_3991.JPG
    IMG_3991.JPG
    43.6 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_7496.JPG
    IMG_7496.JPG
    44.2 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_7495.JPG
    IMG_7495.JPG
    61.6 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_7494.JPG
    IMG_7494.JPG
    55.2 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_7493.JPG
    IMG_7493.JPG
    46.1 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_6514.JPG
    IMG_6514.JPG
    50.4 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

bodinski

the Tingler
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
103
Location
Tennessee
It’s at the practice space. I’ll weigh it next chance I get.
Funny thing - I had another 21”Sweet previously and didn’t bond with it at all. Could have been the cymbal, but it was probably just me.

Cool. Paiste crashes with a sweet ride. How much does yours weigh?
Mine clocks in at a about 2,495g, post edge crack removal.
 
Last edited:

Lionocerous

New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
4
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
That style of ink is the earliest style. These came into production in 1989 looking like yours.

View attachment 587534

Back then the CUSTOM cymbals were still part of the K line. They were separated out in 1995 as the K Custom series. Later ones have script ink like this

View attachment 587535

and that one has a laser trademark stamp at 3 o'clock. Your older one should have the pre 1994 engraved trademark stamp like this one.


View attachment 587536

I'm not yet sure what year saw the ink changes from block lettering to script come in. So the best I can do for you is 1989 to 1993 production year.

Somebody else may have one of these which will help pin down the year the ink style changed, the ® was added to the K and at the end of the Zildjian (on the bottom side). I established 1992 as the year when the ® was added to the end of Zildjian for the A series, but I don't like to assume the same year for K or K Custom lines.
Thank you for this info. Much appreciated!
 

zenstat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
457
Reaction score
1,196
Location
Auckland New Zealand
18" Zildjian 60s sizzle ride 1517 grams

Adjusted URL for those who want to see it, but you have to copy and paste this into your browser. If you try it within the context of DFO somebody (DFO software or Reverb software) manipulates it to show you a "similar" item which hasn't sold!

Code:
https://reverb.com/item/58418629?show_sold=true

Looks nice and a nice price. When it arrives would you tell me if that is a 1.5" tall stamp or the 1.25" short 60s? I'm back to trying to improve my algorithm for discriminating between tall and short from images along. Since the stamp image is out of focus I would like to add it to my training set once I know for sure. I went through a few years of not worrying too much about tall vs short, but now that the years of factory use have changed I'm back on to testing the accuracy of certain observations from 2003 and pinning down the changeover year but careful study of characteristics of cymbals with short vs tall stamp. These old Vill Hartrick observations have become "stamp identifiers cannon" which are hard to dislodge:

tall-stamp-yr.png


as seen in context here


Now that we know both 60s stamps were in overlapping use until 1975 the "later 60s" vs "early 60s" distinction is looking increasingly out of step with the data, as is the year when bottom hammering stopped.

bot-hammer-yr.png


Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:

Tarkus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
355
Reaction score
442
... edit

because I saw something that wasn't there ... sorry.

(different reverb advertisments using the exact same image showing the stamp)
 
Last edited:

zenstat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
457
Reaction score
1,196
Location
Auckland New Zealand
Thanks for the warning Tarkus. I'll have to have a closer look. So much for thinking I was catching up on data entry. Sometimes two or three days work come in each day and I get further and further behind. This might be one of those days.

*edit* Further problems to investigate. I'm now getting redirects from Reverb which are taking me to a current ad not the original one. My rewrite technique may not work due to some interaction between DFO software and Reverb software. I'll investigate that too. For anybody following my "rewritten" links check that the item number is what it should be. I don't do this sort of thing within DFO which cuts out several layers of problems. I am using a text editor and copy/paste on the item number.

My experience with Drugan over the years is that they are pretty good about details like which stamp comes from which cymbal. But there isn't anything other than computer ability stopping anybody from reusing stamp images in different ads. In some cases this might be benign in that the person doing it believes the stamp image they "borrow" is the same as the one on their cymbal. That's not always true at the level of detail I consider. :dontknow: I just have to hope that with large enough samples, the small number of mismatches in the data doesn't overpower the patterns. It's the same with errors in weights. Once I have enough I can start to identify mistakes in weights.
 
Last edited:

mtarrani

DFO Star
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Deltona, FL
Adjusted URL for those who want to see it

https://reverb.com/item/58418629?show_sold=true

Looks nice and a nice price. When it arrives would you tell me if that is a 1.5" tall stamp or the 1.25" short 60s? I'm back to trying to improve my algorithm for discriminating between tall and short from images along. Since the stamp image is out of focus I would like to add it to my training set once I know for sure. I went through a few years of not worrying too much about tall vs short, but now that the years of factory use have changed I'm back on to testing the accuracy of certain observations from 2003 and pinning down the changeover year but careful study of characteristics of cymbals with short vs tall stamp. These old Vill Hartrick observations have become "stamp identifiers cannon" which are hard to dislodge:

View attachment 590345

as seen in context here


Now that we know both 60s stamps were in overlapping use until 1975 the "later 60s" vs "early 60s" distinction is looking increasingly out of step with the data, as is the year when bottom hammering stopped.

View attachment 590346

Thanks in advance.
No problem. I'll measure and shoot a good photo too. Actually, good "photos" so I can capture the top and bottom lathing, bell and profile.
 

Tarkus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
355
Reaction score
442
I'll have to disagree with Zenstat's suggestion that this cymbal was possibly relathed on the back side, resulting in that bright area. For one, the seller made no mention of anything to do with patina change on this cymbal. Their description was short: "great patina." Maybe Zenstat is mixing up this cymbal with another? On the other hand I can't say with absolute certainty that this cymbal wasn't relathed. I can only apply my own knowledge and tools to reach a scientific conclusion.

....

About a year ago, there was this great threat about Ringo's cymbals. It included this picture, which reminded me on one of my cymbals, where I had a similar suspect:

64-09-04-KB26.jpg


This brand new 60s Zildjian seems also to have two different textures on its underside. 'Looks like' re-lathed, but is almost certainly not.
 

mtarrani

DFO Star
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Deltona, FL
Adjusted URL for those who want to see it, but you have to copy and paste this into your browser. If you try it within the context of DFO somebody (DFO software or Reverb software) manipulates it to show you a "similar" item which hasn't sold!

Code:
https://reverb.com/item/58418629?show_sold=true

Looks nice and a nice price. When it arrives would you tell me if that is a 1.5" tall stamp or the 1.25" short 60s? I'm back to trying to improve my algorithm for discriminating between tall and short from images along. Since the stamp image is out of focus I would like to add it to my training set once I know for sure. I went through a few years of not worrying too much about tall vs short, but now that the years of factory use have changed I'm back on to testing the accuracy of certain observations from 2003 and pinning down the changeover year but careful study of characteristics of cymbals with short vs tall stamp. These old Vill Hartrick observations have become "stamp identifiers cannon" which are hard to dislodge:

View attachment 590345

as seen in context here


Now that we know both 60s stamps were in overlapping use until 1975 the "later 60s" vs "early 60s" distinction is looking increasingly out of step with the data, as is the year when bottom hammering stopped.

View attachment 590346

Thanks in advance.
Here is the stamp. I have to leave for a bit, but if you are interested in bell measurement, photos of lathing, etc. I will provide those when I return.
60ssizzle.jpg
 

Tdipaul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Messages
267
Reaction score
522
Location
NJ
'Tis a nice Bosphorus day

2100g Glassy Ride 21. Got two now (a 2250). Love the "tah" stick of this model. I think it is because of the umbrella profile.





1906g ->1900g Masters 21. An older version. Very smooth. I'm not a tape residue and super heavy patina guy because of the deadness that comes with it so some cleaning was in order. Once cleaned those nice Bos highs came back (lost 6g's too)





 
Last edited:

ChicagoDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
314
Reaction score
869
Location
Chicago
20" Tosco china / swish 1327 grams.

This sounds a lot like the 20" trans stamp swish that I sold to make the mortgage payment many years ago. I think this one scratches the itch. Bought from a local guy. Really nice. Not sure if he's on this forum or not. Seems to know his stuff.

20 tosco china 1327 t.jpg


20 tosco china 1327 b.jpg


20 tosco china 1327 s.jpg
 

RayB

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
182
Reaction score
317
Location
Harrisonburg VA
great stuff guys. thanks for helping to get this going!

mike
I have a wide variety of cymbals and play different combinations. Never care about mixing brands, I go with the sound. Probably my all time favorite is a 19" Istanbul Mel Lewis Crash/Ride. There are 3 effects cymbals I love: Sabian 10" Chopper, Zildjian 11" K Custom Hybrid Splash, and a Wuhwn 16" Linear Crash. HIhats include 13" Zildjian Dark K, old Paiste dark 14", Paiste 15" and Sabian 18" Sick Ugly (gotta be a little crazy sometimes). Much to my surprise, I have a beautiful sounding Wuhan 20" heavy ride.

All that said, I PURCHASED MY FIRST CYMBAL PACK six months ago: Zildjian K Custom Hybrid. Love the 21" ride and the 14-1/4" hi hats, The included 17" crash blends nicely, but decays a little too fast for my taste. Lately I'm using this pack plus the Chopper and 16" Linear crash. But I'll probably use a different line up in the future.
 


Top