Probably a result of the light, but the lettering at the sides doesn't look nearly as deeply impressed as I would have expected for a trans stamp. If there were little lines within the deeply impressed letters than the cymbal would be from the '40's. This one appears to be early '50s. I can't give you an accurate value since the market is fluctuating so much. In any case, what else do you want to know?.

I know what you mean about how the trademark is impressed. But I think this is because it was pressed in a little heavier on the right side leaving the rest of it looking somewhat non-trans stamp like. Yet in my opinion this is a trans stamp, especially after seeing the face-on shot of it.

Thanks for the replies. I was also under the impression that the smaller hole had something to do with the age. It does not fit on my cymbal stands as my other cymbals do. What do you think about the weight?

Larry

Yes exactly. Plus even the center looks very well impressed with little wear which required a second look to be sure what it was. Virtually every trans stamps I've seen, including the four I own, are so obvious I can tell what they are even with my aging eyes from a couple of feet away. I only need magnification to see the details.

The smaller hole is standard for trans stamps and for that period. It may work on some modern stands but not on others. It will work on DW's (at least mine) and at least some Yamaha stands, and of course it will work on vintage stands which are not very expensive or that difficult to find. With a weight of 1523 grams I would guess that it may have been used as a crash/ride rather than just a crash cymbal.

Alright thanks. Now here's the question. How against anything holy would it be to open that hole up to the sizes of my newer Zildjians? I know, I know, it detracts from the vintage appeal and could almost be called bastardizing, but the cymbal sounds great and I want to use it. I take very good care of my cymbals and do not abuse them. I want to put it in the mix with my current set-up and not have to change stands just to play it. I don't feel it is that terrible of an idea, just looking for feedback.

Larry

i sure wouldnt do it. no going back if you did...

mike

Ditto that.

Sacrilege.

Yeah, i hear you, that is definitly something to consider. I have a 1954 trans stamp 22" ride that is beautiful and I use it all the time, the hole is of the "newer" standard size. Does not appear to have been enlarged, so maybe the holes where hit and miss? I would not really be using it if it did not fit my stands. Glad it does, because I love it. If it sounds great, a coulpe 16th's of an inch in the hole size never hurt anybody.