Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Donn]

I recently came upon a C12 on ebay with a story that bears repeating, as it's a testament to the sad state of many vintage mics.  The mic had a buy it now of $12,000, but it had several problems (besides the price itself).

1.  The tube was an RCA 6072.  OK, not the end of the world.  It happens, and GE 5 stars can still be found fairly easily
2.  A couple of resistors looked like replacements.  Again, it happens, and is becoming more and more common.  If a buyer doesn't like the choice of caps or resistors, he/she can replace them with a respected and sonically pleasing substitute.
3.  A non original T14/1 which looked like a Teleusa Haufe.
4.  But the most glaring problem was the fact that the casing was an aftermarket one.  No logo.  No serial number.

The assumption might be that the seller is a hack or con artist.  One would think so, but I personally talked via phone with the seller at length on two occasions.  He came across as a very sincere home recordist who thought he had gotten a reasonable deal on a C12 a while back.  Now he wanted to sell it.  He even added information I had given him about the non original Xformer and resistors. In our 2nd conversation, he even thanked me for dealing kindly with him, because he apparently took a lot of abuse over his listing. 

The bulk of the guts may have been original.  They looked like it.  Seimen's cap, red colored resistors of the right size and appearance, silver foil caps also looked correct, etc, but this mic was a shell of its former self.  Unfortunately for the owner, due to the lack of original casing, it'll never be worth a whole lot, in my opinion, because its genuineness from head to toe will always be in question. 

The seller was a super nice guy, and I don't think he's out to cheat anybody, but I think he got cheated.  Like a lot of us, he learned some hard lessons.  I remember my first C12.  It had a later capsule (red spacer) which I later demanded that the seller swap for an original era correct CK12 capsule. It had been fitted with two posts rather than the original suspension mount.  (I found someone willing to sell me one and I had it installed).  It had been modded for a Seimens E88CC with some additional circuitry added for the non original power supply (I sent it back for credit and got the original PS working and had the added components removed).   

In good faith, I've invested into this mic to make it as original and historically accurate as possible under the circumstances, and although it cost some money, I feel like I've rescued an orphan mic and lovingly restored it to the best of my ability.  In short, its a lot more like a real C12 than when I bought it.

There's too many mic techs who have no respect for the sound, beauty and elegance of historically accurate mics. Sometimes parts need to be replaced, but gutting them like they were performing a C12VR modification?  This is heartbreaking.  I hope the honest and committed vintage mic users can restore their mics to some semblance of originality faster than the cheaters can "clobber them together" as Klaus likes to put it.  To see the damage and defilement done to one of only 2,000 plus C12's that were made is a shame. 

I'm thankful for two things:

1.  Forums where users can be educated about the benefits, and care of Vintage mics
2.  Those who value history and originality above  personal "innovations" (which they then use to rape perfectly good mics.)
3.  Those who are willing to take the time and expense to rescue a poorly cared for or indiscriminately "innovated" mic and make something out of it.

As for the man whose C12 inspired this post, I hope the capsule is original and he can have it restored to at least get a good sounding C12 style mic,  even though it may not be worth what he hoped it would be. 

I'm thankful I own two solid examples of what a good working C12 can really do.  Sadly, these will become more and more rare as time goes on.   

[klaus]

A couple fo comments:

1. From your description, the ebay seller may have had a Pape mic, not a C12. Norbert Pape's C12 copies came with blank housing tubes, large Zebra-striped resistors, and newer T14/1 (Tele/USA had a special type made, to compensate for lack of low end of their early capsules, so I doubt that the Haufe T14/1 in that mic was from Tele/USA)

2. Which brings us to the lager issue at hand: pricing of more or less original vintage microphones. I believe it is entirely up to a potential buyer to get thoroughly educated on this particular type of collectibles- just like one would with old stamps, Tiffany lamps or Ferraris.
So my pity is limited for sellers who find out too late that what they now want to sell at a premium price was really not worth what they through it was, only because they failed to use proper authetication procedures at the time of purchase.

3. The issue of changes/ modifications or upgrades- however defined- to vintage microphones is one of discretion of the owner, and should be entirely driven and directed by the owner, not the service provider: You can indeed make a case that, for example, a modified M249 will be a better recording tool than a stock one. As long as these mics are still so valuable because they are superb tools, tailoring, improving or customizing a tool is entirely up to the owner, as long as it is understood that that procedure will narrow the market of potential buyers down the road (but it will not automatically lower the price.) Vintage condenser mics are by and large not meant to be viewed in a museum, but are still the most desirable recording tools of today- stock or sometimes altered.  The problem rarely is with the alteration, but its representation or disclosure (or lack of) towards a potential buyer.

[Jim Williams]

LA film scoring guy Chris Stone had a couple of those C-12 knock-offs I serviced back in the 1990's. The cases looked original, but the innards were done point to point with more modern parts. The capsules were extremely clean, like new. The inner screens were removed. They sounded like C-12's to me. I would have no problem substituting these mics for a "real" C-12 in less than pristine condition, most of which have already had a long and hard life.

On another note, this "maintain vintagitus" thinking about old microphones sounds much like the same stuff I've heard for years about old guitars. If strict originality is the most important feature, than maybe they belong in a museum or in a collection behind glass like the Japanese do with old guitars.

[Donn]

I agree to a point, Jim.  There's a balance between real world usability and becoming a curator of history.  These mics need to be used, but with a minimum of unneccesary tampering.  I'll take a 21st century working cap or resistor over one from the 50's or 60's that's no longer functioning correcly any day.  The inside of a C12 looks made to be maintained with replacement parts when needed.  I'd also take a good reskin over an old diaphragm which has lost its sonic integriy.  But eliminating the T mount and drilling holes in the platform to replace it with a two point mount?  Removing working components to replace them just for the sake of replacing them? Reskinning a perfectly good diaphragm to lower the mass? (I hope that was an SPA-led fad whose time is waning). 

I don't object to mods such as 5751 or E88CC tube mods which still allow the mic to be returned to stock, but some of these others are overkill in my opinion. 

[Jim Williams]

Maybe it's the capitalist in me, but if I bought a product and decided to change part of it to suit my personal needs, I don't see any problem with that. After all, it's mine now.

Many artists and engineers have done this through the history of electrically reproduced music and well before. Some musicians had "modified" their Stratocasters; that too is frowned upon nowadays, but I wouldn't argue with the owner who had done that; it was theirs to do with whatever they wanted.

Once upon a time I got upset when the Who and Jimi Hendrix destroyed perfectly good guitars, some of which would be worth many thousands of dollars today. I got over that when I understood it wasn't my decision to make, it belonged to them to do with as they pleased. If they decide to ruin an investment, it wouldn't be the first nor the last time. That stuff isn't mine so I just don't care what they do. Tampering is part of human nature, I've learned to embrace it rather than resist it.

[klaus]

...Once upon a time I got upset when the Who and Jimi Hendrix destroyed perfectly good guitars, some of which would be worth many thousands of dollars today.

...and isn't it a funny twist of fate and circumstances, and a broadside to anyone's concept of logical reasoning, that these very guitars (or, better, their parts relics) are now worth many thousands of dollars MORE because of these acts of mutilation that, over time, have transcended such mundane reasoning?

We are not there yet, but I could conceive that one day a Church mic- nothing but a mutilated U47- will pay as much or more than the same unadulterated U47 would.

Another example of reversal of tastes, despite logical and trendy reasoning to the contrary at the time, but here in reverse:  The late nineteen sixties brought a wide-spread fad of stripping Fender guitars and basses of their paint, then refinishing them in "natural". This was the era of real wood hot tubs, the ascendence of Birkenstocks in the U.S., and a general embrace of young people of all things natural.

It took me quite some detective work to understand what (from today's perspective beautiful) paint job was obliterated through this process on my 1961 P-Bass, now that I apply MY sense of beauty, not the prevalent aesthetic of players forty five years ago.

[Piedpiper]

Reskinning a perfectly good diaphragm to lower the mass? (I hope that was an SPA-led fad whose time is waning). 

As much as I appreciate your sentiments, I have to say that I have preferred SPA's modified C12 to the original. Perhaps one prudent way to handle this would be to replace good working original capsules with reskinned nonworking ones, thus leaving the legacy alone. Of course, then you've got to find a nonworking original... or maybe just start from scratch...

[Donn]

Perhaps one prudent way to handle this would be to replace good working original capsules with reskinned nonworking ones, thus leaving the legacy alone. Of course, then you've got to find a nonworking original... or maybe just start from scratch...

interesting point.  I've done just that, Tim.  I have three capsules and two C12's.  Two of them are 6 micron, and one is a 2.5 micron.  I actually like lower mass diaphragms for certain uses, however, the EQ curve seems to "shift" to the right a bit, making a traditionally bright mic even brighter.  One of my mics came from Chung King studios with an original diaphragm that was old, dirty, and sounded terrible, even after a good cleaning.  Bottom line: The mic was unusable until the capsule was re-diaphragmed. Reskins are getting better all the time in my opinion.  If someone buys a mic with a low mass diaphragm and they don't like it, they can have it redone with 6m if they want at pretty reasonable rates.  In any case, I'm only advocating a minimalist approach to mic mods.  Jim is right that people can do what they want with their mics, but taking a vintage mic to the point of no return is still a shame, in my opinion.

[Piedpiper]

"no return" is the key word.

The SPA modded C12 I compared to the original was definitely not brighter, just more refined. Dunno what else I did to it...

[klaus]

...and, if "no return" is the word, then I would make sure that the S.P. thin-film treatment is now limited to diaphragming: In the past, the backplates were also included in S.P.'s treatment of CK12s, and they could no longer be used with stock-AKG CK12 diaphragm rings once altered.

[Jim Williams]

...and isn't it a funny twist of fate and circumstances, and a broadside to anyone's concept of logical reasoning, that these very guitars (or, better, their parts relics) are now worth many thousands of dollars MORE because of these acts of mutilation that, over time, have transcended such mundane reasoning?

We are not there yet, but I could conceive that one day a Church mic- nothing but a mutilated U47- will pay as much or more than the same unadulterated U47 would.

Funny, for several years those Church mics had a greater re-sell value than the originals, it was their rep.

Back in 1977 Frank Zappa gave me and Rex Bogue the broken and burned strat from the Miami Pop festival that was played by Jimi Hendrix. Frank wanted to "test" us as he trusted no one. He said, "put this sucker back together and we'll talk".

We did, used a new neck as the original was missing the peghead. It was featured on the cover of Guitar Player Magazine. I installed a preamp, piezos in the neck and used the original burned parts. Dweezil still has and plays it. All of Frank's guitars were fitted with custom electronics as you can hear on all those albums.

Needless to say, that burned and restored strat is priceless. It's worth much more than a pristene 1965 strat sells for.

[soapfoot]

Instruments such as vintage guitars are a special case, in my opinion.

There are those who feel that the best examples of these instruments, left intact and original, possess a certain intangible quality that can transcend measurable utility value.  I believe this is the source of the desire of many to keep them original in most cases.

An all-original 1957 stratocaster is a limited instrument in some respects; however the most spectacular among them transcend--and render irrelevant, to me--these limitations.  The limitations of older instruments is, in many cases, contributory to their personality and identity.  The personality and identity of a vintage instrument can inspire a player or artist, and the relationship of what is "better" for a given artist is not always a logical one.  Some view an instrument as a "tool" like a hammer, and some view an instrument as a personal, sentimental extension of oneself with which to cultivate a deeply personal relationship.  There are great musicians of both types.

A great vintage instrument that 'speaks' to the player is for me not unlike "hitting it off" with a person-- I don't really want to change it.  I want to relate to it, warts and all.  It's similar in my mind to this-- B.B. King is in some respects a technically "limited" guitarist; however that certain intangible quality he has renders his technical limitations completely moot. Would B.B. King be better if he had the technique of Steve Vai?  Moot issue, because I like B.B. King just how he is. Would a truly spectacular '57 Stratocaster be better with bigger frets, a more mechanically reliable vibrato bridge, and shielded electronics?  Also moot, because I like it how it is.  I'm sure there are those who would disagree on both counts!