Classic-Banjo
A Site Dedicated to all enthusiasts of Classic Style Banjo
BANJO AUCTION
These are a few nice banjos that are coming up soon:
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/be4a56a631885...
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/bd87c2cfb6263...
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/f386c6136412d...
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/72521857b24a6...
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/c64d74b4e850e...
Views: 167
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jody Stecher
-
Zowie! I do love banjos.
-
Permalink Reply by IAN SALTER
-
It looks to me like they could be from someone's collection. The Windsor 'Emperor' with the two double courses is interesting.
I quite fancy this one, but imagine that a few others will too. Is it an early 10.5" hoop Weaver, with a cut down fiddle tail piece , or a CE by another maker?
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/6abe50ec7836a...
-
-
Somehow the magnifying function only enlarges the upper 4/5 of the banjo so I could not get a good look at the tailpiece. After downloading and enlarging the image on my computer I can see that the tailpiece is a modified violin or viola tailpiece. There are not enough images to determine if this was made by Weaver. The image of the perch pole is blurry but the auction house reports that the plaque says " Clifford Essex, Grafton Street.W. "
Their estimate of final bid is low: £150!
IAN SALTER said:It looks to me like they could be from someone's collection. The Windsor 'Emperor' with the two double courses is interesting.
I quite fancy this one, but imagine that a few others will too. Is it an early 10.5" hoop Weaver, with a cut down fiddle tail piece , or a CE by another maker?
https://auctions.gardinerhoulgate.co.uk/catalogue/lot/6abe50ec7836a...
-
-
I was able to make out the 'Clifford Essex, Grafton Street.W' stamped into the perch pole.
Unless I'm not reading it correctly, this text (which I can't seem to paste) points to it being one of the short lived "novelty" banjos that he made. Joel noted that they were similar to the SSS 'Special Thoroughbred' and Farland models, pitched to D.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8101061859?prof...
-
-
The idea, presented in the text, that a slightly higher tuning requires a smaller hoop makes no sense to me. We're talking about a difference of only one whole step. For a banjo tuned gCGBD an 11 inch head is correctly thought to be excellent for all pitches from fret 2 of the bass string to the highest fret of the 1st string. A banjo tuned to aDAC#E will have frets for all those pitches. Why would they sound better with a smaller head? They would not. They might possibly sound thinner, less sonorous. Now Weaver was making banjos with 17 frets and is complaining (or *someone* is complaining) that 5 more frets are unnecessary for playing music anyone would want to hear. I would think the uppermost 5 notes on a 22 fret high-tuned banjo would be clarified by a smaller pot. That just might be the reason for the small head. What a higher tuning on a banjo of any number of frets or no frets requires is either a shorter scale (nut to bridge) coupled with the same string diameters used for gCGBD tuning —or —thinner strings and no change to the scale.
So I am puzzled.
The text also seems to be hinting that the banjos Weaver made for Clifford Essex are inferior to the ones he branded as is own. At the same time it seems to say they are identical.
IAN SALTER said:I was able to make out the 'Clifford Essex, Grafton Street.W' stamped into the perch pole.
Unless I'm not reading it correctly, this text (which I can't seem to paste) points to it being one of the short lived "novelty" banjos that he made. Joel noted that they were similar to the SSS 'Special Thoroughbred' and Farland models, pitched to D.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8101061859?prof...
-
-
I think the catalog is from after Weaver stopped building for CE. The "inferior" banjos are CE specials that look like Weavers, but aren't made by him.
Jody Stecher said:The text also seems to be hinting that the banjos Weaver made for Clifford Essex are inferior to the ones he branded as is own. At the same time it seems to say they are identical.
-
Permalink Reply by Joel Hooks
-
This
Sam Harris said:I think the catalog is from after Weaver stopped building for CE. The "inferior" banjos are CE specials that look like Weavers, but aren't made by him.
Jody Stecher said:The text also seems to be hinting that the banjos Weaver made for Clifford Essex are inferior to the ones he branded as is own. At the same time it seems to say they are identical.
-
-
Oh!
Sam Harris said:I think the catalog is from after Weaver stopped building for CE. The "inferior" banjos are CE specials that look like Weavers, but aren't made by him.
Jody Stecher said:The text also seems to be hinting that the banjos Weaver made for Clifford Essex are inferior to the ones he branded as is own. At the same time it seems to say they are identical.
-
-
You are right Sam. Weaver stopped making banjos for other banjo companies such as Clifford Essex after 1906. The Weaver manifesto/mission statement was published after Weaver was featured in the newspaper 'The Sketch' 30th January, 1907. In my experience, the CE 'Specials' made by Weaver were/are identical to genuine Weaver banjos in all respects. The CE banjo in the auction was definitely made by Weaver but is unusual in having 22 frets, I doubt that the tailpiece is original but was probably a replacement for the, in my opinion, awful, standard, CE heavy metal tail piece, fitted to many CE banjos. I have only seen three 22 fret Weavers in the past sixty or so years, out of the many which I have owned or seen/handled/played, in that time. Auction estimates for anything are generally set low to attract customers, I would expect this banjo to make at least £250 - £300.00.
Jody Stecher said:Oh!
Sam Harris said:I think the catalog is from after Weaver stopped building for CE. The "inferior" banjos are CE specials that look like Weavers, but aren't made by him.
Jody Stecher said:The text also seems to be hinting that the banjos Weaver made for Clifford Essex are inferior to the ones he branded as is own. At the same time it seems to say they are identical.
-
-
Hi Jody, the concept of smaller banjos being needed for higher pitch does not have to make sense to you... applying your own personal life experiences, values and knowledge on previous historical situations is called "presentism".
This is something "they" believed, therefore it was a thing regardless of your understanding of it.
Pitching the banjo to D was a concept that took form around 1890, the idea being that the higher pitch would have more carrying power and brilliancy in a concert setting. It was around 1890 that Stewart introduced his "specialty" model banjo.
This model/size became the preferred instrument of Alfterd Farland. In 1893 Stewart worked with Farland to make a Specialty sized banjo with a three octave neck. This was the first Special Thoroughbred, -- a Thoroughbred in the Specialty size for pitching to D (that was where the name came from). This became a stock model and at some point after this SSS extended the Special Thoroughbred name to include 11", 11.5" and 12" banjos with three octave necks (yep, even 12"-- I've seen and played examples of these).
One factor that influenced the three octave neck was better strings. By this time string makers had developed rectifying and better varnishes or coatings that were flexible. This made strings more consistent and a three octave neck was now reasonable based on truer strings (false strings have bad intonation which is worse or more evident in the higher positions).
While fairly short lived, the D pitch was picked up by many other professionals and the concept even factored into the A v. C notation arguments.
Banjoists such as George Gregory played "large" banjos (12" rims) and he would pitch them to D. So while what you are saying is factual, and banjoists were able to pitch their regular banjos (11") or larger to D for concert work, the concept of needing a smaller banjo was something that "they" believed was needed (if not just to sale more banjos).
Circling back to presentism, we now have the "A scale" banjo. This is a regular banjo that is made with a short scale (approximately two frets shorter) designed to play in the key of A for accompanying fiddlers during old time jams. This was a development that came about when festival style jam culture fell into a "follow the fiddle" format. Banjoists were using a capo d'astro at the second fret most of the time so the "A scale" was developed to sell more banjos... ahem, I mean, solve the problem of needing a capo clamp.
This now causes confusion as people will see classic era banjos and apply presentism (with their experience with jam culture and A scale banjos). They see a 19 or 20 fret regular banjo and *think* it is an "A scale"... wire strings go on, pitch gets raised, rim gets warped.
-
-
Thank you for the detailed information, Joel.
Physics is absolute and holds true in all eras. The pitch of a vibrating string is determined by three factors. They are diameter, tension and vibrating length. The capacity of the resonating chamber has no affect on the pitch. To say so is not an example of presentism.
It is not for another person to say what has to make sense to me. It is understandably unimportant to you whether or not I understand something from the past.
It matters to me.
Trying to understand the past has long been important to you. Please don't talk down to me or any other member of this forum and wag the finger of "presentism".
Now then,
I did not say or mean to imply that a banjoist can tune higher for a concert. What I meant to convey is that except for a few of the very highest pitches, the pitches of the higher tuned banjo are ALREADY present and frequently played and heard on a banjo tuned gCGBD without retuning and that these pitches sound good at that tuning without switching to a smaller pot. For instance the open bass string of D tuning is D. Well that is found at fret 2 of a banjo in the lower tuning. The third fret of the third string of a D-tuned banjo is C. That is found at fret 5 of the 3rd string or fret 1 of the second string. And so on.
Physical laws of the present 21st century were fully operative in the 19th and 20th century. And those past times were populated by intelligent innovative people who were not ignorant of these laws. There must have been a reason for the smaller body. In the case of the violin family we see smaller sizes for higher pitched instruments and bigger ones for those tuned lower. This is to give the best resonance for most of the gamut of pitches and to create a characteristic sound. But the viola is tuned a full 5th below the violin and the cello is tuned a full octave below the viola. The size change is necessary. For one thing, the instrument had to be bigger to accommodate longer strings.
Mr. Weaver had a reputation as a skilled luthier. He was no idiot. If he found an advantage in reducing the ssize of the pot by a quarter of an inch for a tuning one step higher, there must have been a scientific reason. I can't see him doing it because the public expected it.
One more thing, and we have discussed this topic before: The short scale banjo designed for playing a particular regional style of Appalachian mountain music was not created to sell banjos. It started in a small region that spanned the border of SW Virginia and North Carolina. In this small area a small group of banjo players sought to replicate the sound and style of a local guy named Charlie Lowe. The strings were taut, the tuning high, the frets nonexistent. Kyle Creed began making banjos intended for this way of playing in order to meet a local demand. The price was low. The fingerboards were formica! After a while people from outside this particular region began ordering banjos and then others starting making them. The repertoire in this region was mostly in D and A so the short scale made sense because the laws of physics were operating in the Blue Ridge Mountains just as everywhere else.
You are right about the prevalence of misunderstandings within festival culture, including the follow-the-fiddle idea. But that notion did not operate in the culture which originated fretless A-tuned banjos. No indeed. It was follow the dominant musician. And that guy was Charlie Lowe. And he was a banjo player.
-
-
I think I have discovered the reason for the smaller pot intended for D tuning. I found it in the SS Stewart advert.
A sharper tone was sought. Projection was wanted. Same idea as the raised head (so called "archtop") banjos made by Paramount, Gibson and others. Warmth and resonance are lost. "Ping" is gained.
The higher pitch is also designed for this.
It is not about making the pot small to accommodate the higher pitch. It's about using the small pot and higher pitch together to aid in projection.
Jody Stecher said:Thank you for the detailed information, Joel.
Physics is absolute and holds true in all eras. The pitch of a vibrating string is determined by three factors. They are diameter, tension and vibrating length. The capacity of the resonating chamber has no affect on the pitch. To say so is not an example of presentism.
It is not for another person to say what has to make sense to me. It is understandably unimportant to you whether or not I understand something from the past.
It matters to me.
Trying to understand the past has long been important to you. Please don't talk down to me or any other member of this forum and wag the finger of "presentism".
Now then,
I did not say or mean to imply that a banjoist can tune higher for a concert. What I meant to convey is that except for a few of the very highest pitches, the pitches of the higher tuned banjo are ALREADY present and frequently played and heard on a banjo tuned gCGBD without retuning and that these pitches sound good at that tuning without switching to a smaller pot. For instance the open bass string of D tuning is D. Well that is found at fret 2 of a banjo in the lower tuning. The third fret of the third string of a D-tuned banjo is C. That is found at fret 5 of the 3rd string or fret 1 of the second string. And so on.
Physical laws of the present 21st century were fully operative in the 19th and 20th century. And those past times were populated by intelligent innovative people who were not ignorant of these laws. There must have been a reason for the smaller body. In the case of the violin family we see smaller sizes for higher pitched instruments and bigger ones for those tuned lower. This is to give the best resonance for most of the gamut of pitches and to create a characteristic sound. But the viola is tuned a full 5th below the violin and the cello is tuned a full octave below the viola. The size change is necessary. For one thing, the instrument had to be bigger to accommodate longer strings.
Mr. Weaver had a reputation as a skilled luthier. He was no idiot. If he found an advantage in reducing the ssize of the pot by a quarter of an inch for a tuning one step higher, there must have been a scientific reason. I can't see him doing it because the public expected it.
One more thing, and we have discussed this topic before: The short scale banjo designed for playing a particular regional style of Appalachian mountain music was not created to sell banjos. It started in a small region that spanned the border of SW Virginia and North Carolina. In this small area a small group of banjo players sought to replicate the sound and style of a local guy named Charlie Lowe. The strings were taut, the tuning high, the frets nonexistent. Kyle Creed began making banjos intended for this way of playing in order to meet a local demand. The price was low. The fingerboards were formica! After a while people from outside this particular region began ordering banjos and then others starting making them. The repertoire in this region was mostly in D and A so the short scale made sense because the laws of physics were operating in the Blue Ridge Mountains just as everywhere else.
You are right about the prevalence of misunderstandings within festival culture, including the follow-the-fiddle idea. But that notion did not operate in the culture which originated fretless A-tuned banjos. No indeed. It was follow the dominant musician. And that guy was Charlie Lowe. And he was a banjo player.
© 2025 Created by thereallyniceman.
Powered by
