Vintage archtop tuners

[submorstua]

Hi Everyone,

As my first post on the forum, I am hoping to get some opinions on a guitar of mine. I have a 1935 Epiphone Triumph that is definitely in the players grade category. It's clearly been played a lot and it's definitely been dinged a lot. I don't know anything about its history, but from internet searching and brochures it seems to be a very late 16" model since it has the script logo and the wider f-holes that appeared on the next year's 17" model but still has the 5 marker fretboard and the older tailpiece. I've owned it for about a year and couldn't be happier with how it sounds and plays. This is my first vintage archtop and I am blown away by it every time I pick it up.

That said, when I bought it, it had some very old strip tuners that aren't original, and I don't like much at all. They do okay but have been very hard to tune. I took them off to clean and lubricate them, but after seeing the original tuner holes I did a bit of internet searching to see what a vintage pair would cost me. Needless to say, I was surprised by the figures given to me by those I found.

My question is, for a guitar that sounds and plays great, is obviously a players grade, and isn't something I plan to ever sell, is there any reason for me to be seeking out "original style" tuners? I feel a bit stuck because the original size is odd - 22mm between the screw holes on the original tuners isn't something I'll ever find in modern tuners, or even in ones that just aren't those original Waverly tuners from the 30s. So I basically have the choice between hoping the current ones are better after cleaning, spending what seems like a small fortune for very old tuners, or finding a newer style to put on. Unfortunately the last option would require new holes, which I just feel bad about even though the guitar is obviously already far far from collectors grade.

What do people here think? Also, I've added some pictures because I know people always love some to be included!

[ThatRhythmMan]

Unless you feel seriously compelled to buy matching vintage tuners for it, say if that's all it lacks to be in all original condition, or if the ones you took off still don't work well, I would say just buy some nice looking modern vintage replica tuners. I like the Grover Sta-tite for this kind of application.

Amazon.com: Grover V97-18N Sta-Tite Tuners, 18:1 Gear Ratio, 3-Per-Side, Vertical, Nickel: Musical Instruments

[furtom]

Now, that is a great first post! You'll fit in well here.

If you can't fix the originals, it should be possible to find tuners that fit without breaking the bank. Of course, that's the best option.

Just a while ago, someone I know had a 100 year old classical that needed new tuners. The guitar was not collectable at all, but a nice instrument in fantastic condition. I sent him to a luthier who I trust to fix anything.

At first my friend was like, "ream the crap out of it, I dont' care," but the guy said to give him a few days and he thinks he can find something. Sure enough he did.

The point being, you should try not to modify a guitar like that, regardless of condition.

we don't really own a guitars like that, we are just their stewards...

[nopedals]

Here is the problem re pre-war tuners. The folks (Waverly/Kluson/Grover) who made them made them for all of the guitar makers. And if the correct tuner for the guitar also appeared on a Martin, you are probably out of luck. Generally speaking, pre-war Martins are way more expensive than Gibsons, and the prices for tuners are sky high. Also, pre-war tuners are generally low quality. So ... you will be paying hundreds of dollars for a set of tuners that are a 6:1 ratio. Here is a real good site to look for them: Steven Kovacik-Luthier"

I don't think that anyone makes repros of prewar tuners, but the vintage repros of postwar tuners are pretty good.

If your tuners were original to the guitar, and would not keep the guitar in tune, I would look for vintage repros that fit the holes on your guitar, and put the old ones away for when you sell the guitar. Heck, I would probably do it even if some holes had to be modified or redrilled.

But you are in a better situation than that. Assuming that your tuners are not original, they might be valuable, anyway. It may take hours of research, but if you can figure out exactly what make and model they are, and link them to a Martin they were used on, you'll probably get hundreds of dollars for them on reverb or ebay. Use part of that dough to put a nice set of repros on your guitar.

[citizenk74]

I can't add anything to the excellent advice already given. That is obviously a guitar that has been played and loved. Get some functional tuners on it (in line with the above suggestions), and play it in good health!

[campusfive]

I highly recommend skipping actual vintage tuners (increased price for mediocre performance), and going with a modern vintage-replica style. I put replica Waverly 16:1 tuners on my 1937 ES-150 (Waverly Guitar Tuners with Butterbean Knobs, for Solid Pegheads | stewmac.com), and a good friend put the less expensive Grover Sta-Tite 18:1 replicas on his 1939 ES-150 (Grover 18:1 Sta-Tite (97-18 Series) 3+3 Tuners | stewmac.com)

Suffice it to say both of us are very happy with our choices. But for the expense, I would love to replace the original Sta-Tites on my '32 L-5 and '35 L-12. Frankly, this whole thing reminds how much I should probably prioritize replacing the tuners on my L-5, especially considering how great they perform on my ES-150.

That said, the original tuners on my '32 Epi Deluxe work perfectly.

[Masterbilt]

This is indeed a late 1935 Epiphone Triumph, possibly from the last Triumph batch before being upsized by one inch (I notice that the f-holes are not the standard shape Epiphone used, not sure what's the story there).
Tuners: My Epiphone instrument research suggests that this guitar originally had single, clipped-plate units with oval metal buttons - either Grover brand or the no-name variety which was prossibly made by Waverly (here a pic of these on a 1932 Triumph). Epiphone used both versions in that period. In the OP's photo you can see faint footprints of such single units on the back of the headstock (although there are also footprints of the non-original strip tuners it had on last).
I agree with campusfive - I would also recommend to go for vintage replicas. They look great and are likely working much better at a cheaper price compared to old period examples.

Felix

[submorstua]

Wow, everybody, thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it.

Now, that is a great first post! You'll fit in well here.
...
we don't really own a guitars like that, we are just their stewards...

Thanks, that makes me feel very welcome! Couldn't agree more with the sentiment of us being stewards, and I think it implies that we have a responsibility to keep playing them to keep that wood vibrating. Got to get some tuners on there to keep playing!

Tuners: My Epiphone instrument research suggests that this guitar originally had single, clipped-plate units with oval metal buttons - either Grover brand or the no-name variety which was prossibly made by Waverly (here a pic of these on a 1932 Triumph). Epiphone used both versions in that period. In the OP's photo you can see faint footprints of such single units on the back of the headstock (although there are also footprints of the non-original strip tuners it had on last).
I agree with campusfive - I would also recommend to go for vintage replicas. They look great and are likely working much better at a cheaper price compared to old period examples.

Felix

Felix, you're right, the indents look like Waverly clipped ends, like your site shows (a site I should note is indispensable for Epiphone owners trying to figure out details, so thank you!). I think the bottom two might have been replaced at some point with pointed-end tuners because you can see indents and tell that someone forced the bottom screws in at an angle... too bad because it makes fitting different ones a little harder.

...if the correct tuner for the guitar also appeared on a Martin, you are probably out of luck. Generally speaking, pre-war Martins are way more expensive than Gibsons, and the prices for tuners are sky high. Also, pre-war tuners are generally low quality. So ... you will be paying hundreds of dollars for a set of tuners that are a 6:1 ratio. Here is a real good site to look for them: Steven Kovacik-Luthier"

Yep, that's the case with these and that's one of the sets I found. From research on those tuners I think they appeared on Martins and on the D'Angelico style A, so price is way up there...

I highly recommend skipping actual vintage tuners (increased price for mediocre performance), and going with a modern vintage-replica style. I put replica Waverly 16:1 tuners on my 1937 ES-150 (Waverly Guitar Tuners with Butterbean Knobs, for Solid Pegheads | stewmac.com), and a good friend put the less expensive Grover Sta-Tite 18:1 replicas on his 1939 ES-150 (Grover 18:1 Sta-Tite (97-18 Series) 3+3 Tuners | stewmac.com)

Suffice it to say both of us are very happy with our choices. But for the expense, I would love to replace the original Sta-Tites on my '32 L-5 and '35 L-12. Frankly, this whole thing reminds how much I should probably prioritize replacing the tuners on my L-5, especially considering how great they perform on my ES-150.

That said, the original tuners on my '32 Epi Deluxe work perfectly.

That's great to hear that you've been happy with the repro tuners, and what a great collection of guitars!

I will figure out a good set of reproduction tuners, because you are all right - adding 50% of what I paid for the guitar to put on 6:1 tuners sounds like a bad idea.

[Ol' Fret]

...I notice that the f-holes are not the standard shape Epiphone used, not sure what's the story there...

Three possibilities:

1. These soundholes started out as segmented f-holes, and some hack tried to adapt them later to the more modern, pointed-corner f-holes.

Unlikely - because this is a 1935 model and the segmented soundholes were only used through approximately 1934 (according to Fisch & Fred).


2. During the violin/cello-style cutting of the soundholes - I think the routing procedure in the archtop guitar world arrived later - the maker made a mistake around the soundhole wings and had to adapt the rest of the wings to the same shape. We'd be bored to know about the exact cutting procedure by means of a drill, tubular cutter, fretsaw, the right knife, the sawing sequence and where to place a thumbnail to prevent damage as the blade breaks through.

Unlikely - because the makers had great manual skills, and they would have made an effort to keep the shape around the circular portions and the wings as symmetrical as possible, checking the shapes carefully against a dark background.


3. The soundholes started out as the regular Epiphone cello-style holes by 1935, featuring squared-off edges at the wings (each corner where the circular portion began). Such wings are said to have an acoustical function in the violin world, though with careless players they can be prone to break along the grain lines.

I think a wing split was what happened here, and instead of repairing that wing some later owner/hack decided to give the soundholes the shape of the more modern pointed-corner f-holes. He/she struggled a bit against the symmetrical balanced appearance of the soundhole endings, but now that can be considered to be a charming part of this particular instrument...

[submorstua]

Three possibilities:

1. These soundholes started out as segmented f-holes, and some hack tried to adapt them later to the more modern, pointed-corner f-holes.

Unlikely - because this is a 1935 model and the segmented soundholes were only used through approximately 1934 (according to Fisch & Fred).


2. During the violin/cello-style cutting of the soundholes - I think the routing procedure in the archtop guitar world arrived later - the maker made a mistake around the soundhole wings and had to adapt the rest of the wings to the same shape. We'd be bored to know about the exact cutting procedure by means of a drill, tubular cutter, fretsaw, the right knife, the sawing sequence and where to place a thumbnail to prevent damage as the blade breaks through.

Unlikely - because the makers had great manual skills, and they would have made an effort to keep the shape around the circular portions and the wings as symmetrical as possible, checking the shapes carefully against a dark background.


3. The soundholes started out as the regular Epiphone cello-style holes by 1935, featuring squared-off edges at the wings (each corner where the circular portion began). Such wings are said to have an acoustical function in the violin world, though with careless players they can be prone to break along the grain lines.

I think a wing split was what happened here, and instead of repairing that wing some later owner/hack decided to give the soundholes the shape of the more modern pointed-corner f-holes. He/she struggled a bit against the symmetrical balanced appearance of the soundhole endings, but now that can be considered to be a charming part of this particular instrument...

When I first started researching this guitar, I saw the larger f-holes and thought that Epiphone was beginning to devise their new f-hole shape for the 17" model and was experimenting. Now that I look at the exact shape after reading your comments, I absolutely see that they aren't the shape of the newer ones. The angle of the flat inner edge (still visible on the lower end of the right f-hole) is different, and the midline points are more pronounced. It's obvious that these have been modified, but who knows why... oh well. Luckily I still love the sound of the guitar!

[Matt Cushman]

After looking at the f-holes I was curious about what looks like a crack that seem to start on each of them. You may want to check them out to be sure they are stabilized. You don't want them to grow or worsen over time.

[submorstua]

After looking at the f-holes I was curious about what looks like a crack that seem to start on each of them. You may want to check them out to be sure they are stabilized. You don't want them to grow or worsen over time.

Thanks, yeah this was the first thing I checked when looking at it. I've had discussions with two luthiers who both thought I should leave them alone because they're stable or already cleated.

[Ol' Fret]

When I first started researching this guitar, I saw the larger f-holes and thought that Epiphone was beginning to devise their new f-hole shape for the 17" model and was experimenting. Now that I look at the exact shape after reading your comments, I absolutely see that they aren't the shape of the newer ones. The angle of the flat inner edge (still visible on the lower end of the right f-hole) is different, and the midline points are more pronounced. It's obvious that these have been modified, but who knows why... oh well. Luckily I still love the sound of the guitar!

Absolutely correct, submorstua (btw., what a moniker!)
Not only they (probably) 'corrected' the originally squared-off wing edges, they also widened the center area of the soundholes between the "nicks", which has changed the upper and lower curves on the in- and outside.
If you check the Epi soundholes between 1935 and 1950: at first appearance they seem to have the same shape; on closer inspection they vary, especially around the circular portions. Similar soundhole 'issues' - to the confusion of some folks - can be watched on certain 1950's German archtops (often unlabeled) where the makers were still forced to use templates, saws and knives.

Increasing the size of the soundhole area... was often done to make the electric wiring easier or to raise the main air resonance of the guitar (everything else being equal).

[LtKojak]

...man, I'd restore the sweet beejesus out of that instrument. I'd carefully repair all dings and marks just as it was a just for display-only purpose instrument, but at the same time, I'd prepare it to be a player as well, checking if the truss rod works accordingly, and all points for integral structural integrity, like loose braces and or Kerfeds.

I don't know why, but this particular instrument somehow is speaking to me, like if it had a soul trapped inside that's only patiently waiting for somebody to play on again, so it'll allow that inner voice to be heard again. Kinda the story of the genie in the bottle, you know?

For the record, only very few instruments had this effect on me in my relatively long life so, FWIW, take good care of it.

Yours very truly,

[Masterbilt]

...checking if the truss rod works accordingly

Ok, Epiphone archtops didn't have adjustable truss rods until 1937.
For your info attached pics of another 1935 Triumph, in pretty nice original condition.
Felix

[submorstua]

Ok, Epiphone archtops didn't have adjustable truss rods until 1937.
For your info attached pics of another 1935 Triumph, in pretty nice original condition.
Felix

Felix,

This is something I haven't understood so I'm glad you mentioned it! I have read that these guitars had non-adjustable trussrods, but how do they work? Just a reinforcement under the fretboard? I assume it's metal?

I have an interest because my job involves MRI research and I have always wanted to "archive" classic archtop carves using the scanner. I thought if someday I do a refret, then I could do this scan, but it's only possible if there is no metal trussrod... or I guess if the neck was removed for a reset.

Thanks,
Tyler

[Masterbilt]

I have read that these guitars had non-adjustable trussrods, but how do they work? Just a reinforcement under the fretboard? I assume it's metal?

Good question - so far I never had the chance to look under the fretboard of any pre-1937 Epiphone archtop.
But I had the necks of several vintage Epis tested with a strong magnet.
Now, all pre-1934 examples showed strong magnetic attraction - so I guess these have a steel bar inlaid under the fretboard, as a nonadjustable reinforcement. Possibly like Martin guitars of that period.
Interestingly, examples from the 1934-1936 period don't seem to react to a magnet. Whatever that means - maybe a non-magnetic metal bar?
I hope to find out some day ...

Felix

[Doctor Jeff]

Man, I am envious - would love to find something like that. I love the dings and imperfections - signs that it has been well used and well loved.

Re' the tuners, I would recommend Stew Mac as the source for repro tuners. Golden Age tuners are highly recommended.

I'd be somewhat surprised if you couldn't find a 3-on plate that would fit the post spacing, but if not the Golden Age 3-on-3 would work.

Golden Age Vintage Keystone-style 3+3 Tuning Machines | stewmac.com

I'd say screw the screw holes, so to speak - just leave them alone or fill them and go with modern repro tuners.

I've used Golden Age tuners on 3 or 4 vintage guitars I've renovated, and in most cases the screw holes lined up.

In any event, it's on the back side of the guitar. We won't care about the screw holes.

[campusfive]

I wouldn't bother with 3-on-a-plate, because those weren't what was on the guitar originally.

[nopedals]

BTW this guitar is not a restoration candidate. Spend your money on getting it playable. Don't spend an extra nickel on cosmetics or vintage parts. It is never going to be anything but a mutt, but it can be a great playing and sounding one.

[GNAPPI]

Now, that is a great first post! You'll fit in well here.

I agree, I think my first was something like "Do all archtops have arch backs?" I never got an answer... I still don't know.... sigh, well... do they? :-)

Seriously, that's a great git have fun with it.

[submorstua]

I agree, I think my first was something like "Do all archtops have arch backs?" I never got an answer... I still don't know.... sigh, well... do they? :-)

Seriously, that's a great git have fun with it.

Haha thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it!

Not all archtops have arched backs, by the way. Early Gibson archtops had flat backs. I know the L50 was flat in the early to mid-30s.

[Hammertone]

I agree, I think my first was something like "Do all archtops have arch backs?" I never got an answer... I still don't know.... sigh, well... do they? :-) Seriously, that's a great git have fun with it.

Haha thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it!

Not all archtops have arched backs, by the way. Early Gibson archtops had flat backs. I know the L50 was flat in the early to mid-30s.

Martin archtops, built from the early '30s to WWII, have flat backs.
Roger Junior models with Berlin labels, built between @'47 and '53, have flat backs and carved tops.
John Zeidler built some archtop guitars with flat backs.
Various other great builders have tried it as well - Bill Comins, Steve Holst and more.

[Doctor Jeff]

I wouldn't bother with 3-on-a-plate, because those weren't what was on the guitar originally.

That's true, didn't realize that when I posted. Looks like orignals are open-backed, possibly Grovers.

1935 Epiphone Triumph

I don't think modern Grovers come in an antique nickel finish, so the Stew Mac Golden Age might look better. You can relic chrome and nickel by treating with ammonia, btw, if you're so inclined.

[Hammertone]

Several companies make high-quality sets of vintage-style open-back tuners that match the guitar nicely and are available in nickel-plate:

-Waverly (made in USA?) - excellent quality, expensive
-Gotoh (made in Japan) - excellent quality.
-Grover Sta-tite (made in China) - 18:1 ratio - surprisingly excellent - I have them on some guitars. Stay away from the 12:1 model - it's garbage.
-Schaller (made in Germany) - current "Grand Tune" style is excellent, expensive. The earlier version had a massive QC issue and was discontinued.

Your guitar originally came with Waverly tuners, but the original versions look different from the current version. Your best bet is to fill the existing screw holes are redrill them to match whichever tuners you get.

I would not put keystone-button, closed back tuners on this guitar. If you don't want to spend a lot of money, Grover Sta-tite tuners do come in nickel, work great, and would perfectly complement the look of this guitar. Nickel reflects light on the yellow side of the spectrum, and ages all by itself - you don't need to treat it, IMO.

http://www.stewmac.com/Hardware_and_Parts/Tuning_Machines/Solid_Peghead_Guitar_Tuning_Machines/Grover_181_Sta-Tite_97-18_Series_3and3_Tuners.html