A recent promo shot. The banjo is a 1910 Vega Tubaphone (11-1/2" pot) with a custom 28" scale neck by Doug Unger.

Rating:
  • Currently 5/5 stars.

Views: 211

Favourite of 1 person

Comment by thereallyniceman on July 4, 2014 at 17:24

That is one beautiful banjo, Peter. Doug Unger's work is amazingly beautiful.

I found that Fairbanks/ Vega banjo necks were a little narrow for my fat fingers. Is this neck a little wider than normal?

Comment by Peter LaBau on July 4, 2014 at 18:17

Hi Ian, yes, the neck is wider than what would have been on a banjo like this originally. It's 1-5/16" at the nut, and 2" at the other end. The neck shape is that of a Whyte Laydie replica I owned years ago that was built by Mike Allison, from Providence, Rhode Island. It was just luck of the draw, it wasn't custom built to my specs, but I've never found a shape more pleasing to my hand. When I had Doug make this neck for me, I had him use the profile of that Allison banjo neck. I've had this banjo for almost thirty years and have never found anything I like better. I do have another that I use for raised "D" bass tuning- it too incorporates an 11-1/2" Tubaphone pot, probably built a year before the one on the Unger banjo (1909). The neck on that is also a 28" scale neck from a later Van Eps banjo that I had a custom radiused fingerboard made for. I had two extra frets added that cantilever out over the head so I can reach the high octave "D". There are no inlays on that one, just edge dots. The peg head is pretty neat on that one though, I'll send photos later. The two banjos sound different from each other, no doubt owing to the mass of the different necks. Still, they make a good compliment to each other when performing. 

Comment by thereallyniceman on July 6, 2014 at 18:13

I always wanted an extended fingerboard banjo ;-)

They look nice and my Clifford Essex Professional 12" hoop, would be perfection if the 19 frets could be extended to top C.  My vellum has a grubby finger mark caused by my pinky pressing the string "at the "invisible 22nd fret", onto the vellum :-)

I believe that Mike's CE Weaver has  12" hoop and 22 frets... perfect!

Comment by Mike Moss on July 6, 2014 at 20:08

Hi Ian,

yes, the 12"/22 frets feature on the New Weaver was a major selling point for me. As a consequence of the slightly shorter scale length, the bridge is also located close to the centre of the head also gives it a very bouncy tone when played right!

Comment by Peter LaBau on July 7, 2014 at 1:27

Hi Mike, now you've got me thinking about my extended fingerboard Van Eps/Tubaphone Frankenstein. It's actually a 28-1/4" scale, which puts the bridge 1/4" further away from the center of the head than is the case with my Unger/Tubaphone banjo. (That too has an 11-1/2" Ca. 1910 Tubaphone pot.) The extra 1/4" creates a real difference in tone between the two instruments. The Van Eps has a brighter "crispier" voice than the Unger, which has a deeper, richer tone, but I like that better, I always go for a richer, warmer sound that what most people seem to shoot for. But then I think it's odd to base the standard for banjo tone on what we hear in cylinder recordings and other early audio devices. I just KNOW that the early players got more depth out their sound than what we hear when we listen now. Anyway, I digress., Now you've got me thinking of getting a shorter scale neck made for the Van Eps/Tubaphone to move the bridge closer to the middle of the head. I'd love to hear your 12"/22 fret banjo- could you post something using it? I've heard banjos of vaguely similar proportions, but they can often sound "tubby" to my ear. Sounds like you're happy with the sound- but it would be great to hear a sample. Thanks!

Comment by Jody Stecher on July 7, 2014 at 2:47

Peter, I'm not sure I agree about what we know about the tone that early players got.  What we do know does not square with the deeper richer tone theory. Really early players who used enormous pots and tuned low, yes, they got more depth. But there are decent quality recordings of Van Eps from 1950s and he is getting the same sound he got in the 1920s. Moreover, many early fretted banjos had a fret pattern which necessitated the bridge being very close to the tailpiece and a long way from the center of the pot. Fretless ("smooth arm") banjos of the same period have guide dots on the side of the fingerboard indicating the same bridge placement, very far back. This indicates that a thin snappy tone was what was expected. In reporting this I am making no aesthetic judgement about which sound is more musical. I think hum and zing each have their place.  I am looking for historical accuracy.

Comment by Peter LaBau on July 7, 2014 at 4:10

Point taken, Jody. I was only implying that there would have to  be some diminishment of sound quality even in the remarkably accurate cylinder recordings of the time. The music must have sounded richer in person, but you are certainly correct, that purposely thinner crisper attack is clearly evident in the early recordings. I have had some exposure to the probable sound of pre-recording era banjos through people like Joe Ayers here in Virginia, and that sound is very plunky and bottom heavy to my ear. It seems logical that early concert-style banjo players would have quickly learned to shove their picking hands toward the bridge to get more volume before the aid of microphones, and certainly that kind of attack would have cut the wax better in early recordings. It's also logical that scale length/pot diameter ratio would have been worked out as you say to amplify that "thin, snappy" effect. I defer to you and other qualified scholars to quantify all that, and I certainly respect your effort. I love the repertoire of Classic Style, independently of how its originators may have rendered it. I find a lot of the pieces I play just by looking through sheet music and finding stuff that grabs me. And then I play the pieces the way they just come out, affected no doubt by my exposure to all the kinds of music that have come since the Classic Style reflected the popular tastes of its time. However I end up playing them, l do my best to make the tunes I choose sound musical, in the way that I define that. I like it that we can all be as free as we want to be to express this Classic Style music however we choose, as long was we respect its basic stylistic constraints. I try to keep a foot in what it might have been, but I really like exploring what it might become. But I'm glad there are those who strive to preserve its historically accurate sound, that's so important. There's room for all of us, and I'm grateful for the diversity… thanks for your thoughts. 

Comment by Mike Moss on July 7, 2014 at 8:50

Hi Peter, sure thing! Here's a solo I recorded with my Weaver about a year ago, strung with CE Heavy strings.0 

With a Classic Style setup and technique it doesn't sound tubby at all and is quite shrill and piercing on the high end whilst maintaining a depth and warmth my 11" "standard" banjo lacks. Now I have strung it with mediums and it sounds even more twangy, I'll post a new recording as soon as I can.

Comment by Peter LaBau on July 7, 2014 at 16:48

Excellent! Well played, and the banjo sounds really good. It's actually quite close to the sound I get out of my Unger Tubaphone, on which I use Chris Sands' Medium strings. Thanks again! - P.

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Classic-Banjo to add comments!

Join Classic-Banjo

© 2024   Created by thereallyniceman.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service