Ian's Original 18 Watt

[Gabi]

Hi all!!

By the kindness of our member from London, England - Ian Sayer (nickname: Ian) who made available 33 quality shots of his original 18 watt amp, we have now a new album in the Gallery section. Check it out here:

http://18watt.com/modules.php?set_album ... php&page=1

Also he wrote a story accompaning his amp that is quite interesting (THANK YOU, IAN!!!)


This is an Amp I bought second-hand for £120 (about $190) in "Macari's Music Shop" in Charing Cross Road (Central London) in 1977 (1). I really bought it just as a practice Amp, to play Clapton Bluesbreakers solos quietly at home. Actually it was never really suitable for that, because like many old valve amps it has little tonal variation, and it really only sounds good at high volumes.

For the last 20 years it's languished in my attic, along with a 1973 WEM Dominator and a 1973 Antoria Les Paul Custom. More recently I decided to dust it off & get it going again, although I knew the rectifier valve was cracked, and anyway I reckoned that by now I probably ought to replace all the valves.

But of course, as soon as I started to search the web for a source of old EZ81's & EL84's I immedeiately found people replying to me saying "wow that's an interesting old Amp you've got, do you know what they're worth these days?". To which my answer was "no, I've no idea, I don't think it's worth much at all, is it?" Actually that's not quite correct, because when I bought it I did of course know that Marshall valve amps were highly rated, and I was never really like to give it away without checking its value, however, two weeks ago I'd have guessed that value somwhere in the region of £250 (ie $400).

I'ts nice to know it's now become a valuable old amp, and even nicer to know there's so much interest from groups like 18Watt.com, but in fact to me its monetary value is precisely $-zero, because I'm never likely to sell it. On the other hand, I am likely to take much better care of it now, and I'll certainly get it going again - it was working fine when I last used it, and it may work again simply by replacing the EZ81, but given the escalating value I think it's best to get an expert to check it out before I connect it to the mains!.

Apart from its EC Bluesbreaker sound, which is lovely at high volumes, but a bit too clean & polite for me as a low volume practice amp, what I particulary like about this amp is that as far as I know, it's never been altered or changed in any way. And it's also interesting because it seems to be a very early example of the type;- eg., note the AlNiCo Celestion G12's from Marshalls pre-1966 days at Hayes (3), the twin Vox-style Heat Vents, unusual looking Trem. Pedal, and early Serial No.1426, etc. According to accepted wisdom, Marshall started manufacturing these amps in 1965, however, if the S/N is anything to go by then it then it suggests a date more like May 1964 (2).

Having previously described the Amp to Graydon & Gabi as being in "almost mint condition", I'd better own up and point out that when I moved house in 1990 the amp got knocked, which broke the Marshall name badge (accross the "M"), and also put a 1-inch tear in the grill cloth. But otherwise; what you see is what you get!

Any questions or comments I'd be glad to help, if I can.


Ian (London, England)


Notes.

1. At first sight that may seem expensive, because $190 was quite a lot of money in 1977 (at today's rates it's roughly equivalent to about $1500). But that's really a false picture, because in 1977 all musical instruments were much more expensive, at least in the UK. For example, three years earlier in 1973 I bought a 15W WEM Dominator and an Antoria Les Paul Custom (both new);- the WEM was £90 (ie $145) and the Antoria was £130 (ie $210). I could have had a real Les Paul for about £550 ($900). So the Marshall was actually quite cheap.

2. Accepted wisdom says that these model "1973" Combos began production in mid-1965. However, a simple calculation, from the S/N, suggests this Amp was made around May 1964 e.g.; according to Bruce Clement (www.xyz), Marshall began numbering with S/N 1000 on their first prototype amp in September 1962, a date confirmed by Jim Marshall himself. At this stage Jim Marshall says he was making one amp a week using a room at the back of his music shop in Hanwell (outskirts of West London). At this time they were also making speaker cabinets at a small workshop nearby in Southall (one mile from Hanwell), however, at that rate they would have reached S/N 1070 by the end of 1963. After which Marshall opened a factory at Hayes in 1964, and according to Jim "we were then making 20 amps a week". At which rate Marshall should have easily reached my Amp with S/N 1426 by about May 1964. But maybe it's not that simple?


3. I often wonder if American readers have any idea where obscure little places like Hanwell, Southall, Hayes, & Bletchley are! In case it's of any interest; Hanwell, Hayes & Southall all merge into one another on the outskirts of town, about 12 miles west of Central London (ie about 5 miles from Heathrow Airport). Hayes & Hanwell are ordinary small towns. Southall is a little down at heel, but rather more interesting, because since 1960 it's been the centre of Britain's Indian Punjabi Sikh community, and apart from hundreds of seriously "ethnic" little curry joints, it's also packed with Indian food shops selling literally hundreds of different spices & herbs etc. - it's a 15 min. drive for me & I often go there to buy spices (I do a lot of cooking, & a heck of a lot of Indian!). Finally, Bletchley, ie where Marshall have been since 1966, is in Milton Keynes, which is a "New Town" (ie a concrete jungle) about 45 miles north west of London.

Ian Sayer

[Plexi]

Yeah great pics for sure.. and now its brought up some questions,maybe Mark could eyeball.. In this amp it looks as though the V#3 tube is reversed in the hookups. And looks like some of the other amps were like that too, just the oppisite of the wem schem.. You can see it pretty clear in his pics.
Richie

[Sean]

What a site!! As a 2x12 that is indeed is a very rare 18 Watt. What is so interesting is the cosmetic differences in this amp compared to other ones. Look how the chassis is not inset so the knobs protrude. I have seen 50 Watt Bluesbreaker amps that left out this feature also. It was as if they forgot or just refused to put in the 3/8 inch piece under the faceplate cutout. The weird thing about Marshall's of this vintage is that the next day or the next week they would decide to build out this cutout on another amp.

Also look how the faceplate cutout is square and not rounded with the 1/2 radius in the corners. Maybe Jim and Ken Bran felt overwhelmed at times and did not want to take the time to do these things. It does'nt matter because these little peculiararities only add to the amp's appeal. Things were definitely kicking on Uxbridge Road at this time!! Jim and Ken's little speaker cab operation had exploded literally overnight with orders from Kitchens and Rose Morris, not to mention the local musicians that wanted one.

Thanks Gabi for getting that guy share his amp with us. He is a lucky man indeed.

Sean Phinney

[Gabi]

You are welcome, Sean...

Ian sent a correction for the footnotes I am quoting here:

CORRECTION:
I need to make a small correction in that "Story" I sent to explain the photos;- in footnote-2, I gave the wrong Website for Bruce Clement's Chassis pictures (actually I gave a nutty reference!), and in the same footnote I completely omitted a reference for Jim Marshall's own explanation of his early Amp building (it's not the stuff from the Marshall Website; its better than that). So, footnote-3 should read as follows (I give it in it's entirety);-

2. Accepted wisdom says that these model "1973" Combos began production in mid-1965. However, a simple calculation, from the S/N, suggests this Amp was made around May 1964 e.g.; according to Bruce Clement (http://www.bruceclement.com/music/chassis.htm), Marshall began numbering with S/N 1000 on their first prototype amp in September 1962, a date confirmed by Jim Marshall himself (http://www.blamepro.com/mar/jim.htm) At this stage Jim Marshall says he was making one amp a week using a room at the back of his music shop in Hanwell (outskirts of West London). At the same time they were also making speaker cabinets at a small workshop nearby in Southall (one mile from Hanwell), however, at that rate they would have reached S/N 1070 by the end of 1963. After which Marshall opened a factory at Hayes in 1964, and according to Jim "we were then making 20 amps a week". At which rate Marshall should have easily reached my Amp with S/N 1426 by about May 1964. But maybe it's not that simple?

[Graydon]

Ian's amp appears to have been worked on just a little. The filament harness is the funkiest one I have ever seen. I am pretty sure that is not original. Also, there seems to be a combination of carbon comps and carbon film resistors. In the originals, all resistors were typically of the same type. I suspect at least a couple resistors in there have been changed.

The cabinet control panel cutout is only a single depth as Sean pointed out. Between that and the square corners, that would lead me to believe it is not a real Marshall cabinet, however the rest of the details look correct, so maybe Sean's analysis is correct. Blockhead's clone has only a single depth like this, so maybe Blockhead also had access to a real 18W like Ian's.

This amp uses ceramic disks everywhere almost. I have been tempted to build one using ceramic disks in every location just to see what it would sound like. One of these days...

[Plexi]

Graydon: In the older Marshalls, they had a transition, they used the older looking Carbon resistors, then they also had the shiney looking tan body resistors and the shiney looking more dark brick color.
I think as they changed to the other types they used or mixed the parts they had in stock. You see alot of the older marshalls have the mix of types in those years. But thats all just a guess of why they had they used different ones.

After looking at this amp, i went and looked at all the real 18 pics i could find, and there is one amp in the pics that uses black heater wires that are the same type as the white wires on this amp,but the others used the red and black. (Marshall was always updating..lol)

As you said, everything on the cab looks real,but the square panel cutout with no bevel.. weird huh,,

Ok other things that seemed to have changed between some years..or maybe models. Some had a ground switch, then some have the standby switch,labeled on the control panel. The light or indicator is different.

But the thing that got me was what i posted above, the V3 looks to be wired reverse to the wem or other layouts, and i found another pic of a real amp that was like that. In other words just swapping sides of the tube its useing..
Maybe i'm just seeing it wrong but , but it looks pretty clear in the one pic. Its even like this on the Doyle schematic..which we know alot of things were wrong, but it looks to be right for this amp. Just opposite of the wem.
Although the wem also has many different values etc, in the trem circut.

Hooking it this way would be more voltage to the tube for the non trem side, and less for the trem.. a phase difference?? and maybe a little different tone to the amp, or way it reacts. Might even be a good thing for the wacky trem problems..lol If you look at the old Voltage chart, Mark D switched his around like this setup. Look it over and see if you can tell.

As for amps useing the disc caps, alot of old amps used them. You may have to measure them for values,and sometimes they can be sorta microphonic or noisey,some can sound smooth,and others sound bright or brittle. Sometimes you never know till you try, and see how it works or sounds.

Liked the pic of the footswitch,different from the other types we've seen.
I think Blockhead copied there amp from the "holy grail" of 18 watters,or so they say.


Richie

[Psalm150]

I'd be interested to know how Ian's amp sounds compared to a 2x12 with the ceramic speakers.

[Ian]

Hi Guys,

Well, my old 18W Marshall Combo seems to be causing some debate, not to say suspicion!

OK, so Graydon is not convinced. But Plexi seems less troubled by the sight of ceramic discs & mixed types of resistors etc?

Well, I'm certainly no Amp builder, so I can't say for sure what's original & what's not in that circuit. But what I can tell you, with absolute certainty, is that I've had the amp for 26 years, and until 10 days ago I'd never even looked at the circuit, let alone ever tried to alter anything. And that's a fact!

But, of course that does'nt rule out changes made by the previous owner prior to 1977.

To my entirely inexperienced eye, all the soldering looks consistent & unchanged, and the basic layout of components looks very similar to that in most original 18W Marshalls, however, the more I look at these old Marshall circuits, the more I'm begining to believe that in the early days Marshall were making small alterations to the circuit design almost from month to month, eg see www.bruceclement.com/music/chassis.htm.

On this Formum I think I also saw some debate about red dye/paint identifying original solder joints? Well, on my circuit there's no trace of any dye/paint on any of the joints. However, looking again at the pictures on Bruce Clement's website, it appears that red/dye was commonly used after about 1967, whereas before 1966 the joints were left plain.

I'm not sure why we are suspicious of the cabinet? Is that just because the corners are cut square where it meets the Plexi? I don't think that's at all suspicious, is it? Of course I can see that all the other 18W examples in the Gallery, ie both real & cloned, have rounded corners, but then all of those amps have styling features which are noticably later in date, eg the long mesh vent, Greenback speakers, square shaped power lamp (I think round is earlier; again see Bruce Clement), newer looking Alloy Trem Pedals (are those really original?), and of course much higher Serial Numbers.

Ah, yes! Serial Numbers. I meant to ask you about those. Firstly; does that little Alloy tag on the back of my Amp give the S/N? Ie S/N 1426. I asked Marshall UK about that, and they say it is the S/N. Do we all agree on that?

Is there any agreement about matching serial numbers to production dates? Because on the face of things 1426 is a very early S/N. Does anyone know what date this corresponds to? I reckon its summer 1965 at the very latest. In which respect, I also note that the gold Marshall sticker on the speaker Magnets clearly says "Silverdale Road, Hayes", and according to the Marshall website, they moved from Hayes to Bletchley at the end of 1965. So the Amp certainly appears pre 1966.

I think the question of "packing" under the Plexi Panel, ie to alter the protuding height of the rotary controls, falls into exactly the same category, doesn't it? I mean if this is what it seems, ie a very early example of an 18W Twin-12, with lots of early features such as AlNiCo speakers (are they AlNiCo, I don't even know that?!), twin heat vents, round power lamp, odd looking Trem Pedal (but stylistic match for Cab., in same materials, inc. Plexi cover), very early S/N, old Marshall lables clearling saying "Hayes", etc., then surely the obvious explanation for the squared corners around the Plexi, and the height of the control knobs, is simply that this was the early form of Cab design? And as production progressed through 1966 to 1968, stylistic improvements were made, eg single long mesh vent, Celestion Greenback speakers (do I have that right?), square power lamp (is that right?), higher serial numbers (much, much higher on those that I've seen, eg over 10,000, compared to mine at just 1462 - remember, Marshall strated numbering at 1000; so S/N1426 is the 426-th Amp ever made, assuming it's genuine of course!).

No, I think the Cab. is real enough. In fact I'm certain of it. Seen in the flesh, this is no DIY job.

As for the circuit. I just don't know. But I'm dead keen to find out!


Thanks one & all,


Ian (London, England).

[Sean]

Hey Ian,

Since you ripped your grille cloth recently I will gladly remove it, dispose of it and trade you for some of my BB reissue cloth.

Thats a sweet amp, never mind our scepticism, it's just in so good of shape and so well cared for that it is almost too good to be true. Most of us are a little jealous too. As we all know, nearly every Marshall made during the first few years was a prototype in some respect. And yes, those are alnico speakers, they just don't have the magnet cover on them like the Celestion Blues or Jenson's that were their contemporaries. You could probably fetch $700- $1000 bucks for those speakers, no joke. Appreciate the post and welcome aboard.

Sean

[Plexi]

Ian: Your pics are great, theres so many things to look at and wonder about. Sorry if we pick your amp apart.. No debate at all. just curious.. To me the amp parts look original. Alot of RS parts. Also as you were saying and i agree, marshall used different parts from one day to the next. Well in the early days they did. Your amp has a 3 prong cord, and can see an extra hole drilled for mounting the chassis,or they moved the hole over some. They were changing cab designs and cosmetics..

As for the heater wires, i was looking in the Doyle book, and the 18 they have a pic of, has those same type wires.

Most of the early marshalls had a more square type control cutout, but they had the round over on the edge.. from your pics it looks like you can see a slight outline or discoloration of where the round part would be,in the corner.

Some of the Park amps had a square non rounded panel, like your cab,
and it was around this time of transition to Rose Morris stepping in the picture, And Park amps being built.
And the early Marshall amps had the standby, seems when Rose Morris took over they changed the faceplate,and switch to a ground switch.

The indicator is one that looks like used in Some of the Vox amps.
I have a very early 60s Vox T-60 amp here, that has an indicator like the one on your amp.


The only thing that most of us haven't seen is the cab differences.Which could be who knows what..lol Maybe a trial, or one of a kind.

As for the serial number..

""so S/N1426 is the 426-th Amp ever made, assuming it's genuine of course!). ""

According to the Doyle book that would be correct..

From all the experts that know about these amps maybe 60 to little over 100 were made of the 18 watters.{one reason they are rare and expensive} He may have been making more amps a week later, but he had alot of different models.


HA i bet most are still in someones attic long forgot about...some critter making a home in the back of the amp..lol

If your amp has set that long, it would be a good idea to have someone check it out. Caps can dry out etc.. Hope those speakers are ok..

From most of the pic info,cosmetics and speakers, it looks to be one of the early amps. The pics you posted of the chassis also answered some questions i had wondered about,but never could see clear in some of the other pics. That poor mullard EZ81 will have to be replaced...

Hopefully some others will add some comments..

Richie

[Ian]

Hi Graydon, Richie, Sean, Psalm150, everyone,

Whoops! Sorry if I sounded offended by Graydon's healthy scepticism!

GRAYDON:- you're more than welcome to point to anything & everying you think looks suspicious, of course! But one thing is for sure; the amp has never been changed at all in the 26 years that I've owned it. You can take that as Gospel!

RICHIE:- take no prisoners when "picking my amp apart! Go right ahead. After all, the only way I can ever learn about this amp is if you & Graydon et.al. run a critical eye over it. Who's this "Mark" guy, can he shed any more light?

PSALM-150:- Note that I haven't used the amp for over 20 years, but as far as I recall;- the tone was always notably rich & warm, and the single Tone control offered little variation. I don't recall the Trem pedal making much difference either, certainly not like a Reverb. Really, at low volumes the tone was always too polite & too heavy for me (at least with a Les Paul & three Humbuckers), ie with little in the way of brittle cutting highs. At higher Vols it was much more intersesting, ie still rich, warm, woody & resonant, but with some distorted edges creeping in, very much like Clapton's sound on the Bluesbreakers LP, however, I doub't if I ever had it above 70% Vol (too loud then for domestic practice).

GRAYDON:- you mention the "Harness". Is that the white wiring between the valve bases? I hadn't taken any notice of that before, but perhaps it does look a llittle out of place alongside the colour-coded cables? Is that it? RICHIE:- what do you think about that harness, does it look suspicious to you?

GRAYDON, RICHIE:- I've no idea which bits you mean by "carbon film vs carbon comp" resistors, and "ceramic discs". But what I do notice is that rectangular black box-like component (left of center); whats that, is that suspicious, I don't see it in other 18W circuits? Otherwise, I think I see those red disc-shaped caps and shiny maroon-coloured resistors etc. in every pre-1967 Marshall circuit, don't I? And they're always in the same geometric arrangement, ie three red caps in a line on the centre-edge of the board, four maroon resistors in an "X-shape" arrangement to the left, and three maroon resistors in a "Triangular-shaped" group to the far right (see also; www.bruceclement.com/music/chassis.htm)?

MARSHALL at HAYES. If the Marshall labels on my speakers mean what they say, then it appears the amp must date from 1964 to 1965, because Marshall were only at Hayes from 1964 (anyone know which month?) until the end of 1965 (see www.marshallamps.com). According to Jim Marshall, they were making 20 amps a week at Hayes (see www.blamepro.com/mar/jim.htm), so if S/N-1426 means what it says then this amp would have been produced after only about 4 months at Hayes, ie as early as May 1964, but certainly no later than May 1965 (note that about 70 amps were made before moving to Hayes).

WHAT MARSHALL SAY. Yesterday I got an email reply from Marshall. They say they believe the amp to be entirely original & unaltered (they have a set of photos), and they say the Alloy tag does indeed give the S/N. I can put up their email if anyone's interested, however, I don't entirely trust Marshall on ancient history!

GALLERY of REAL 18WATT. Perhaps those who've posted real 18Watters on the Gallery could tell us the S/N's, that may be enlightening. Also, I think I read somewhere that the S/N should be on the chassis, but does anyone else have the S/N on a tag.

RICHIE:- you mentioned a guy called Doyle, and I see he's written a book about old Marshall's, but does Doyle shed any light on S/N's, dates, or Alloy tags?


Many thanks, one & all,


Ian.

[Plexi]

Ian, I can only post what i think.. but i agree i believe its an early 65 amp.

The harness--- I've seen this in the pics of 2 other amps.. one amp in our pic files, used black wires. IN the Doyle book,the 18 pic has the same type harness or wireing to the heater circut as your amp.

The Doyle book is History of marshall.. very good book on marshall amps.


The caps are what marshall used in alot of amps.. you see the RS radiospares initials on them. The black box, it a .05 cap It may have been they only had this type of cap in the parts bin at the time the amp was built.
Marshall bought parts weekly, so they used what was on hand.Or that is the story. And always changing things from amp to amp, which is understandable.
All amp companies change looks and try to make them better all the time.

But i guess they were buying parts to what they needed or the best deal from companies. They used RS, Hunts, philips, and many other type or brand electrolitic caps etc..

Colin gave us some great pics when we started the group, and his amp used disc caps in some spots,and the philips caps in other places for coupling caps.

Now if this was an amp with reverb, we've never seen one, and supposed to be the first amp marshall used reverb in.. But no one has seen one..

The PT (power transformer) has a different mounting ring..or plate

Richie

[Plexi]

"""you mentioned a guy called Doyle, and I see he's written a book about old Marshall's, but does Doyle shed any light on S/N's, dates, or Alloy tags?""

Yes it has all that info. pretty much what you described. I would like to know what the numbers are for on the chassis..lol

What is funny is some of the ads in the book. If you read the ad, it says it has a standby switch,but a pic of the faceplate shows a ground switch labeled. I guess It was when Rose Morris came in the picture for marshall.
So you can see some mistakes here and there.

And the schem for the 18 in the book is not right..some of it is, some isn't.
By looking at the innards of some of the real amps.

I have an old 67 trem head 100 watter.. and 68 cab

If one looks at alot of the English made amps, you see they used alot of the same cosmetics in building,or must of used the parts from the same place.

Richie