• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Eric's Bluesbreaker Marshall Combo: new pictures.

Emiel

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
71
Here's one from the Beano LP. Looks like the same amp. Wouldn't a 4x10 cab be more square-sized?

clapton-00beano.jpg
 

Tim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
1,860
The model 1961's on this page show the 10" speakers staggered in a horizontal fashion.
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
The model 1961's on this page show the 10" speakers staggered in a horizontal fashion.

That general configuration was introduced post pinstripe era, so around H2 1968. The earlier (pinstripe era) 4x10's were not staggered, so much like a Bassman. The amps with a staggered speaker arrangement tended to be 50w JMP's too.

That's not to say that Clapton's amp isn't actually a "staggered speaker", pinstripe, 4x10, with a JTM45 non-trem chassis.......although that spec wouldn't be the top of my list of guesses.

As said, I doubt we'll ever know for sure what it is.
 

Tim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
1,860
Thanks John. Since he was putting it in a trunk, too much depth may have prevented him from closing the lid. Seems a style 2 cabinet with 10" speakers would have allowed for a much thinner build.
 
Last edited:

E-Rock

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
273
At the risk of looking like a moron (cuz I'm not a visual guy and don't own Photoshop)...I'm going to stick my neck out and say the amp behind Hugie's foot is, in fact, a sandwich/coffin-logo JTM45. Here's my crude "proof" mockup:

45%20bottomside_zps1gma09np.png
 

E-Rock

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
273
And as a candidate for The Most Ridiculous Post of the Year, here's how that JTM45 compares to EC's amp:

BB%20%20JTM45s_zpsc9v8zto9.png


:laugh2:
 

ourmaninthenorth

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
7,119
At the risk of looking like a moron (cuz I'm not a visual guy and don't own Photoshop)...I'm going to stick my neck out and say the amp behind Hugie's foot is, in fact, a sandwich/coffin-logo JTM45. Here's my crude "proof" mockup:

45%20bottomside_zps1gma09np.png

Looks pretty close to me... what else could it be if it isn't a coffin logo jtm45?

That's pretty clever work E-Rock. :salude

We can therefore estimate Eric's cab at 2 & 7/10ths (ish) times the height of the jtm45...anyone know what those buggers measure..?? :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
3,535
IF that amp...the one behind Clapton in the original picture, is a 4 x 10, then he is as tall or taller than I am.....and I am 6'5". Ya'll say he is 5.9"....IF so, I don't see that tall of an amp in proportion there. The bass drum there is probably a 22" drum. AS F-hole notes....this question will probably never be answered.
The 1965 Series II 2 x 12 shown on page 23 of the Doyle book has the same proportions as does the amp in the OP's pic.....5:1 for the height of the grille to the panel.
RE: the comment about Freddie King playing a tweed Bassman.....tweed Bassman amps from the 5D6 through the 5F6A, the 5F6A being the amp that was the template for the early Marshalls, were 4 x 10 amps. The 5E7 Bandmaster was a 3 x 10 amp...and a bit different from the Bassman amp.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,854
There is no way that amp is the 4x10. Thos were HUGE!

71BB17.jpg


It's very likely what became the series II 2x12 model. Almost all previous evidence/discussion/speculation is in that camp.
 

MK.II

Active member
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Messages
1,106
The JMP50 Series II 2 X 12 combos were 32" wide (wider than a 4 x 12 cab!).
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
.......here's how that JTM45 compares to EC's amp:

I was looking at the wrong amp, and thought the reference was to the thick lip whatever sitting under the two Burns amps, which look like they're sitting on top of something on the floor rather than on the riser. You're right, the amp to EC's left looks like a JTM45 head. Good spot.
 

shakti

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
494
A typical JTM45 amp is about 66 cm wide, don't know if the sandwich ones were any different in that measurement. That would put Clapton's combo at *around* 70 cm, give or take at least 5% I'd say. 2x12 18w combos were about 70 cm IIRC, but this one looks taller than an 18w. Perhaps he saw the 18w, said "that one looks neat and compact, but I like the sound of the JTM45 I used to have", and Marshall made a custom combo cab slightly taller, to accomodate a JTM45 chassis? I know, speculation and more speculation...
 

Tim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
1,860
Using my mm scale ruler and assuming the head is 66cm wide, I came up with the cab being 29.4" across and 23.9" high, which is almost exactly the size of the 1962 vintage reissue combo shown on Marshall's site (29.1,24.0).
 
Last edited:

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
Using my mm scale ruler and assuming the head is 66cm wide, I came up with the cab being 29.4" across and 23.9" high, which is almost exactly the size of the 1962 combo shown on Marshall's site (29.1,24.0).

Much the same size as a 2x12 18 watt too.........
 

Tim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
1,860
When looking at the Hand Wired series, Marshall is showing the 1973x, 2x12 18w being 27.9" across and 21.3" high, and the 1962 @ 32.1" and 24.6". If the hand wired series is true to spec, it seems Eric's amp falls between the two models in width, but closer to the 1962 in height.
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
When looking at the Hand Wired series, Marshall is showing the 1973x, 2x12 18w being 27.9" across and 21.3" high, and the 1962 @ 32.1" and 24.6". If the hand wired series is true to spec, it seems Eric's amp falls between the two models in width, but closer to the 1962 in height.

I measured against an original 1965/66 amp.
 

API

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
241
Here are some amps for size comparisons between different models.
The 18w in the middle in the inside pic is a 2x12" (master reverb) and it seems like its very close in width to a JTM45 head and the 4x10" style 1 1961.

The later style 2 amps are much larger (dont have my pinstripe here anymore so can not compare it to the others).
But if you compare the style 1 and style 2 4x10" amps the style 1 is much smaller but still houses four 10" speakers.
So i say its possible that Erics amp was 4x10", but as F-hole says, we will most likely never know....

Also, dont forget that perspective and depth make a huge difference in size, i think you can only compare height of something if you know that the two things you compare stand exactly side by side.
Even 20cm/4 inches difference in depth would make quite the difference in a photo


bluesbreakers.jpg
bluesbreakers_2.jpg
 

E-Rock

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
273
Using my mm scale ruler and assuming the head is 66cm wide, I came up with the cab being 29.4" across and 23.9" high, which is almost exactly the size of the 1962 combo shown on Marshall's site (29.1,24.0).

Yes...that's about what I figured as well. Based on my silly-looking photo mockup, my best guess is EC's cab was 30" wide x 24" tall.

According to the 1966 Marshall catalog reprinted in the Doyle book, a Style I 1962 combo was also 30" x 24". So it would make sense Marshall would choose those dimensions for EC's "custom" Style II combo. But this then begs the question - why didn't EC simply buy a "regular" Style I combo? My guess would be depth - a Style I 1962 was 12" deep, whereas a Style II 1962 (from the '67 catalog) is listed as 10.5" deep. This probably lessened the overall weight as well - EC's amp likely weighed a bit less than a Style I 1962.
 

E-Rock

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
273
Also, dont forget that perspective and depth make a huge difference in size, i think you can only compare height of something if you know that the two things you compare stand exactly side by side.
Even 20cm/4 inches difference in depth would make quite the difference in a photo

Absolutely. This is all just conjecture based on this single fuzzy original photo and my best attempt at a "poor man's" Photoshop-style mockup! We can't be certain of anything here - but it's great fun trying! :biggrin:
 
Top