Charlie Christian pickup opinions

[Ryguy]

Nothing to see here.

[neatomic]

nothing soundsl ike the original 3 screw design..that cc pickups in uk copies exactly!...the two huge magnets that go under the body capture such a large portion of the string...can't be duplicated by a smaller pup

biloft studied/copied lollar...only unlike lollar he builds whatever is requested..which is not always a good thing!!

so, cc pickups from uk..no question!




cheers

ps- seymour duncan custom shop also made authentic cc's at one time

[Franz 1997]

nothing soundsl ike the original 3 screw design..that cc pickups in uk copies exactly!...the two huge magnets that go under the body capture such a large portion of the string...can't be duplicated by a smaller pup

biloft studied/copied lollar...only unlike lollar he builds whatever is requested..which is not always a good thing!!

so, cc pickups from uk..no question!




cheers

ps- seymour duncan custom shop also made authentic cc's at one time

I don't understand this. Fine, the larger magnets magnetise more of the string length, but the magnetic window is only under/around the coil in either case. I'd guess in order to make a comparison one would need to have played / owned both types. I have; a Gibson 175CC , and the Lollar CC.( and others). FWIW, I'd take the Lollar every time; the original CC sounded thin and brittle by comparison.

Others may disagree , but I can't see how you can compare unless you have actually played/ owned both types. Fred Archtop has made some CC vids that seem to bear out this point; he has several CC guitars. Daniel Slaman thinks there is little if any difference, and he has used both types in his guitars.

[icr]

I only have a single guitar with a CC pickup from UK, so I can't 'compare' anything. However, search for "Fred Archtop", he has posted some of the best videos out there comparing CC pickups from his fantastic collection of guitars.

[blue_lu]

how about tk smith?

[2bornot2bop]

Is the OP from the UK or elsewhere? If you’re from the US I have a Biltoft humbucker I’ll practically give you to sample for yourself. The pickup is in brass with a black insert with a silver center. I’m not using it.

[ThatRhythmMan]

Are you married to that idea? Does the guitar have a feel that you believe you couldn’t find in another guitar? That guitar will never be the same or sound nearly as good acoustically. A very limited number exist as it is.

If you want an electrified Epiphone, have you considered a Zephyr Regent? Nice examples can be had for less than what your Triumph Regent is worth.

[delo054]

Pete Biltoft made a CC replica for me that I put in a Loar lh-300. I couldn't be happier with the sound of the guitar. I've included a video below, be warned the mic on the camera was clipping so the distortions aren't from the guitar or amp.

[ThatRhythmMan]

One other question, what is the condition of your Triumph currently?

[silverfoxx]

I don't understand this. Fine, the larger magnets magnetise more of the string length, but the magnetic window is only under/around the coil in either case. I'd guess in order to make a comparison one would need to have played / owned both types. I have; a Gibson 175CC , and the Lollar CC.( and others). FWIW, I'd take the Lollar every time; the original CC sounded thin and brittle by comparison.

Others may disagree , but I can't see how you can compare unless you have actually played/ owned both types. Fred Archtop has made some CC vids that seem to bear out this point; he has several CC guitars. Daniel Slaman thinks there is little if any difference, and he has used both types in his guitars.

I agree with Franz 1997, in regard to the Lollar pickup, having also had a Gibson Es175CC , and subsequently ,acquiring a Collings Eastside LC Jazz
guitar with a Lollar CC ( housed in a humbucker surround ) the Lollar emits no extraneous sounds at all, but the Es175CC did, although the Gibson
looked well suited with the CC ,its tone quality was not comparable. Fred Archtop however manages to extract a very pleasing tone from all of
his Archtop guitars with CC pickups, but he is an extraordinarily good player, able to get a good tone from a Cigar Box with rubber bands one imagines.

Silverfoxx

[omphalopsychos]

I had a Gibson L-50 modified to be an ES-150 a couple of years ago. I'm usually not for modding vintage guitars but this one makes sense since the output is a guitar Gibson built in the factory. This one has the UK CC Pickups one.



Full disclosure, I am selling this guitar. It's on Reverb, but Reverb is too much of a hassle these days. PM me if you're interested.

[Kirk1701]

I beg the OP not to route the carved top of his Epi Triumph. If you want an electric sound, get an electric guitar. Don't destroy a perfect acoustic guitar.

Epiphone did make electric guitars that made that fat, electric bebop tone. I had a 54 Century with a Lollar CC. It sounded as good as any ES-150. Hammertone will, I hope, bear this out. I got it from him.

I wish I'd known of this a few months ago. I wanted the exact opposite: a much louder, woodier acoustic tone with a more refined neck and board. I would've gladly swapped guitars with you. I sold it in April, if memory serves.

Gibson always had the market cornered on the Electric Spanish front. This is partly what led to the sale of the Epiphone company. All the bop guitarists were playing Gibson ES guitars or electric L5s.

There are many players here, like myself, who prefer the unique acoustic archtop sound that Epiphone stood for. There's so many 80 year old guitars out there with rotting binding and off-gassing pickguards. PLEASE don't rob us of a perfectly playable example.

That's my plea for the day. I wish you luck on your search.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[jads57]

I've had excellent results 2 different times with CC Rider pickups in both a Tele and a floating archtop double CC Rider humbucker custom fabricated from
Peter Biltoft Vintage Vibe Pickups.
Email him he's easy to work with and will make you what you're looking for at a reasonable price!

[entresz]

I'd never dream of routing a hole in a Epi acoustic archtop - they are some of the best acoustic guitars made. It would be a terrible shame to subject a fine acoustic to that kind of treatment. It really sounds like you just have the wrong guitar. It's like sticking a chevy V8 in a Mercedes Gullwing. If the Epi was butchered already, that's a different story.

That said, the only pickup I would consider is the actual CC pickups replica. It's the true replica of the original Gibson pickup, and it's impossible to make that pickup in a floating form. Both the Biltoft and Lollar versions are in reality more like a P-90 in most respects.

I actually have the Biltoft floating CC, it's a fine pickup. If you're not getting the sound you want with that I'm willing to bet routing that guitar won't give you what you want.

[Ryguy]

Thanks everyone for your input.

[Hammertone]

...I had a 54 Century with a Lollar CC. It sounded as good as any ES-150. Hammertone will, I hope, bear this out. I got it from him....

And I got it from another member of this forum, ha!

[Fred Archtop]

I've had the Lollar and Biltoft, both in humbucking format mounted successively on the same guitar (Gibson ES300 1946) and I have 2 other archtops from Slaman's worshop mounted with the CC PU UK (Slaman ES250 and Gibson L50/ES150).

CC PU UK sounds very different, much fatter and complex harmonically, than the 2 others. Veeery close to the original Gibson prewar CC, except it has more punch (the coil hasn't weaken with age).

My ES300 came from J. Geils' personal collection and was mounted with a CC PU from a prewar Gibson lap steel. I didn't like the sound at all, too muddy, no dynamics on treble. Then I changed for the Lollar/humbucking format CC (to fit the original P90 hole). The sound was good but clearly on the side of an old P90, which I wasn't looking for. Finally, I had a CC PU made upon command by Pete Biltoft. Much closer to an original CC sound, with this characteristic attack and decay of sound.

here is how it sounds now with the biltoft model:

Cheers.

[Franz 1997]

I've had the Lollar and Biltoft, both in humbucking format mounted successively on the same guitar (Gibson ES300 1946) and I have 2 other archtops from Slaman's worshop mounted with the CC PU UK (Slaman ES250 and Gibson L50/ES150).

CC PU UK sounds very different, much fatter and complex harmonically, than the 2 others. Veeery close to the original Gibson prewar CC, except it has more punch (the coil hasn't weaken with age).

My ES300 came from J. Geils' personal collection and was mounted with a CC PU from a prewar Gibson lap steel. I didn't like the sound at all, too muddy, no dynamics on treble. Then I changed for the Lollar/humbucking format CC (to fit the original P90 hole). The sound was good but clearly on the side of an old P90, which I wasn't looking for. Finally, I had a CC PU made upon command by Pete Biltoft. Much closer to an original CC sound, with this characteristic attack and decay of sound.

here is how it sounds now with the biltoft model:

Cheers.

Lollar make - or at least made - a CC with a full size long coil, and then later a HB sized model, which is much smaller. These will tend to sound different. But my real point was that the long magnets of the original CC are only partly- or slightly- responsible for the characteristic sound. According to Lollar, who seems to know something about it, it's the combination of the thicker wire, a magnetic window of around 2" around the coil which you can now get with small magnets, and overall inductance of the coil/ metal assembly that makes the main difference. The magnets' job is to magnetise the strings; I'm guessing that small, powerful alnico magnets simply weren't available when they made the original CC pickup. The original magnets were cobalt/ steel, and had to be big to retain enough charge. Alan's ( silverfoxx) and my experience with the Gibson CC 175 were pretty much the same- disappointing sound and bee-swarm hum - althoiugh that could have been because the big magnets had lost much of their power by then.

Surprisingly ( to me anyway) those 175 CCs still command inflated asking prices. I should have kept it. They also had the disadvantage of a very unattractive walnut-burst finish, maple neck and the skateboard -sized Norlin headstock.

[Jabberwocky]

I aver that part of the tone of a 3-point mount Charlie Christian Blade pickup equipped archtop results from the damping effects of that huge hunk of metal and wire on the soundboard. Part of the charm comes from the weakened cobalt magnets. And part of the package called the Charlie Christian Blade pickup tone comes from an octal preamp driven valve amp.

I don't really hear that tone in the humbucker housed CC creations, be it Lollar, Vintage Vibe, Creamtone, whatever. They are nice sounds but they are not the 3-point CC Blade sound.

So, yeah, if you chase that tone, start with a 3-point mount that damps the top. Get an octal valve preamp, a hempcone speaker driver, a Fender Tweed-style power amp section and you will get mighty close.

Rout an L-50 for a CCUK 3-point mount pickup.

[Ryguy]

Thanks Fred for posting that video and your experience, that is very helpful.

I should clarify that I really like the tone of the guitar now with the floating Pete Biloft CC pickup, I just want more of that tone...a little more body and fullness that comes with a mounted pickup vs. floating. I have also considered a p90 instead of the CC, as I have played p90-equipped hollowbodies for many years and love that sound, but really find myself leaning more towards the CC tone.

I'm not really looking to ape the Charlie Christian tone either--I like Jimmy Raney, Barney Kessel, the early Tal Farlow tones, and love this:

. Unfortunately I do not, and likely will not have the scratch for a Slaman, or a vintage ES350, etc. for that matter.

For those posters that are concerned about "destroying", "butchering" and "subjecting a fine acoustic to that kind of treatment", I suppose I see things quite a bit differently. As you took the time to share your thoughts, I'll take the time to offer a response. I have been playing for over 25 years, much of that full-time/professionally (not in jazz ), and am very, very passionate about guitars. However, I do see them as tools, not as objects of worship. I like to mod guitars until they fit me perfectly. I know what I like in a guitar, and what I don't, and I absolutely love this guitar, and will not be selling it. I have already modified it by shaving the neck down a little to a more comfortable profile. And I'll likely have the binding replaced at some point...and a GIANT GAPING HOLE CUT out for a neck pickup (sorry, couldn't resist).

[lawson-stone]

Thanks Fred for posting that video and your experience, that is very helpful.

I should clarify that I really like the tone of the guitar now with the floating Pete Biloft CC pickup, I just want more of that tone...a little more body and fullness that comes with a mounted pickup vs. floating. I have also considered a p90 instead of the CC, as I have played p90-equipped hollowbodies for many years and love that sound, but really find myself leaning more towards the CC tone.

I'm not really looking to ape the Charlie Christian tone either--I like Jimmy Raney, Barney Kessel, the early Tal Farlow tones, and love this:

. Unfortunately I do not, and likely will not have the scratch for a Slaman, or a vintage ES350, etc. for that matter.

For those posters that are concerned about "destroying", "butchering" and "subjecting a fine acoustic to that kind of treatment", I suppose I see things quite a bit differently. As you took the time to share your thoughts, I'll take the time to offer a response. I have been playing for over 25 years, much of that full-time/professionally (not in jazz ), and am very, very passionate about guitars. However, I do see them as tools, not as objects of worship. I like to mod guitars until they fit me perfectly. I know what I like in a guitar, and what I don't, and I absolutely love this guitar, and will not be selling it. I have already modified it by shaving the neck down a little to a more comfortable profile. And I'll likely have the binding replaced at some point...and a GIANT GAPING HOLE CUT IT for a neck pickup (sorry, couldn't resist).

Huge Royce Campbell fan here. Pairing him with the impressive Chris Whiteman is almost more than a mortal soul can bear.

[Ryguy]

I've had the Lollar and Biltoft, both in humbucking format mounted successively on the same guitar (Gibson ES300 1946) and I have 2 other archtops from Slaman's worshop mounted with the CC PU UK (Slaman ES250 and Gibson L50/ES150).

CC PU UK sounds very different, much fatter and complex harmonically, than the 2 others. Veeery close to the original Gibson prewar CC, except it has more punch (the coil hasn't weaken with age).

My ES300 came from J. Geils' personal collection and was mounted with a CC PU from a prewar Gibson lap steel. I didn't like the sound at all, too muddy, no dynamics on treble. Then I changed for the Lollar/humbucking format CC (to fit the original P90 hole). The sound was good but clearly on the side of an old P90, which I wasn't looking for. Finally, I had a CC PU made upon command by Pete Biltoft. Much closer to an original CC sound, with this characteristic attack and decay of sound.

here is how it sounds now with the biltoft model:

Cheers.

And Fred, that ES300 sounds fantastic (looker too)!

[silverfoxx]

[QUOTE=Ryguy;1056819]Thanks Fred for posting that video and your experience, that is very helpful.


I'm not really looking to ape the Charlie Christian tone either--I like Jimmy Raney, Barney Kessel, the early Tal Farlow tones, and love this:

. Unfortunately I do not, and likely will not have the scratch for a Slaman, or a vintage ES350, etc. for that matter.

Ryguy you are in good company here with your" likes" of these great players.. and although I lack the skills or know anyone wiling to undertake the
mods you desire to alter your guitar, I applaud your ideas, and agree that they are tools ( but I love 'em) and if you alter yours to your own liking ,the
intrinsic value is of little consequence, as you want to keep it. Perhaps post again when you have had it modified.

Silverfoxx

[Ryguy]

[QUOTE=silverfoxx;1056840]

Thanks Fred for posting that video and your experience, that is very helpful.


I'm not really looking to ape the Charlie Christian tone either--I like Jimmy Raney, Barney Kessel, the early Tal Farlow tones, and love this:

. Unfortunately I do not, and likely will not have the scratch for a Slaman, or a vintage ES350, etc. for that matter.

Ryguy you are in good company here with your" likes" of these great players.. and although I lack the skills or know anyone wiling to undertake the
mods you desire to alter your guitar, I applaud your ideas, and agree that they are tools ( but I love 'em) and if you alter yours to your own liking ,the
intrinsic value is of little consequence, as you want to keep it. Perhaps post again when you have had it modified.

Silverfoxx

Thanks Silverfoxx, I appreciate your taking the time to reply and comment! And fortunately, I have a wonderful luthier who, in addition to doing great work, understands my playing style, goals, etc., and is a pleasure to work with on projects like these. I do respect everyone's approach to vintage instruments, and also love my guitars, as both tools and works of art, as it were. I also draw somewhat of a line on modifying vintage guitars, which is not to touch pristine examples. I have an 1965 Gibson ES330 that I wouldn't dream of touching, as it is impeccable. The Epi on the other hand, was already something of a player's grade when I got it. But what a sound and feel that it has!

I am planning to record several videos with the Epi as is, and then another set after the modifications in order to share my experience with the jazz guitar community.

[Kirk1701]

I actually agree that guitars are tools, not holy relics. However, if the particular guitar you have is the wrong tool for the job, then you need a different tool. A fingerplane will not do the same job as a rasp or vice-versa.

Barney Kessel mainly played a CC era ES-150. There's a video kicking around where he talks at length about the particular materials that make that guitar/pickup combo so unique. I believe Tal Farlow also used a later version of the same guitar, with two humbuckers. It became the basis of the Gibson Tal Farlow model.

I honestly feel you will lose the great sound it already has if you route it. This is simple physics.

It will also not be a cheap process. Consider that it's not just the pickup route. You also have to drill three holes for the pickup adjustment screws, plus one more for the jack. What sort of bracing are you routing/drilling through?

Of course it's your guitar. You can do as you please. No one would argue that. I completely understand that cork-sniffers love to spend other folks' money.

I'm not that person. I'm a player also. You say your Epiphone is a good player. Excellent. Leave it so. Let it be what it is. It's easier to find a good-playing electric archtop than it is an acoustic.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter. It's just too upsetting to me as an acoustic player to think about lol!



Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk