• 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.

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
I thought the general consensus over the years was that EC's amp likely had Drake transformers. No? Still very much up for debate?

I'd be surprised if the transformers were all Drake. March '66 recording date, likely very late '65 amp.....Series I BB's from that period tend to have RS OT.
 

Jeff West

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
877
Nominal 4K a-a reflected load on the primary was stock for the inspirational 5F6-A.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
I very much doubt it, these early RS Deluxe transformers are extremely robust, and are wound like no other.

There's another thread on this amp forum that talks to the minutiae, and very much worth reading.


That's good to know.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
Well, I was talking to one of the UK's best repair guys last week, shooting the breeze as you do. He was a player back in the day, lots of cool memories. Anyway, we started talking about an old Marshall he sold me some time ago, and we get onto Clapton's infamous amp.

This is where is gets interesting. I told him that we'd probably never find out what it was, and he pipes up with......."it's a JTM45 chassis in a 2x12 cabinet, we chatted about it at a gig with maybe 20 people there, Lewisham, 1966".


On the basis of this disclosure, why on earth did Marshall present the 1962 combo as EC's amp?
The reissues started in 1989............
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
On the basis of this disclosure, why on earth did Marshall present the 1962 combo as EC's amp?
The reissues started in 1989............

Strictly, I don't think they did. From memory, they presented it as the "Beano" amp. Like all their reissues, they have little in common with the original amps, much in the same was as Gibson spend years reissuing Les Paul guitars that bore no relation to the originals. It's all about sales, not accuracy.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,854
There's no magical disclosure that renders Marshall's amp wrong. There are enough people who seem to think that it was jtm45 tremolo amp stuffed into a 2x12. Marshall was already making a 2 x 12 combo at the time. Was Clapton's some custom job?
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
There's no magical disclosure that renders Marshall's amp wrong. There are enough people who seem to think that it was jtm45 tremolo amp stuffed into a 2x12. Marshall was already making a 2 x 12 combo at the time. Was Clapton's some custom job?

Marshall's amp, variously, have all been different to the originals....from transformers to capacitor and resistor values, through construction and into cosmetics.

You won't find an earlier thin lip combo than Clapton's.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
Strictly, I don't think they did. From memory, they presented it as the "Beano" amp. Like all their reissues, they have little in common with the original amps, much in the same was as Gibson spend years reissuing Les Paul guitars that bore no relation to the originals. It's all about sales, not accuracy.

Yes John you're quite right about that , it was produced as the Bluesbreaker combo and still is.
 

shakti

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
494
I'd be surprised if the transformers were all Drake. March '66 recording date, likely very late '65 amp.....Series I BB's from that period tend to have RS OT.

But regular JTM45s had all transitioned to Drakes by then, hadn't they? If this was indeed a JTM45 chassis in a custom cab, then I would expect it to be like same era JTM45 non-trem heads. Whether it was the selector-on-transformer 784-60somethin(?) or the 784-103 is another question.
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
But regular JTM45s had all transitioned to Drakes by then, hadn't they? If this was indeed a JTM45 chassis in a custom cab, then I would expect it to be like same era JTM45 non-trem heads. Whether it was the selector-on-transformer 784-60somethin(?) or the 784-103 is another question.

There were still a few RS around, but mostly 784-74 by that point.

It's all idle speculation, he may have had a head that he liked and already owned and had Marshall put it into a cab.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,854
A JTM45 control panel cutout is just over 16" wide. This picture shows overlays of both the 16 3/8" wide cutout, and the JTM45 tremolo cutout width.

Clapton_beano_amp_type.jpg
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
Parallax error will render 3/4 of an inch meaningless in such comparisons.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,854
but there is a pretty clear image of what is more likely. A difference of nearly 4 inches.
 

ourmaninthenorth

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
7,119
but there is a pretty clear image of what is more likely. A difference of nearly 4 inches.

Let me see if I've got this right Wilko? The overlayed tremelo amp cutout is some 4 inches wider than Eric's amp in the background, even allowing for perspective issues; does that mean I can safely draw the conclusion that Eric's amp is not a tremelo chassis...and adding some weight to the theory that it's a jtm45 chassis in a "non-stock" sized cab.

It's not a challenge, but the obvious conclusions I'm jumping to, seem just too obvious...even for me.

:biggrin:
 

TM1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
8,349
Here's the article on Bluesbreakers from G & B:

 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
It's a curious article, based on pics alone because the text is very hard to read.

Why would anybody write an article about an amp, and illustrate it with pictures of an entirely different amp? It's like an article about ES175's illustrated with pictures of an SG.....both Gibson, both with PAF's....so let's use that.

The amp shown is odd.....replaced mains transformer, no tube seat/cushion, and drivers likely from a column given the orientation of the stickers......:hmm

It has the same validity as Phil Harris' article in G&B bemoaning fake 'bursts. A master-class in irony.
 

xray

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
214
John,

Did you ever have that follow up conversation with your friend regarding Eric's amp ?
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
John,

Did you ever have that follow up conversation with your friend regarding Eric's amp ?

No, and I saw him on Wednesday too. I'll drop him a line next week for a chat and report.
 

TM1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
8,349
The article is from G & B March 2013 issue. I know they have it online as I got this from the app on my iPad. The good thing about that is you can make it bigger on their app.. makes reading it much easier.
Cheers!
 
Top