I do I do!!!Great set Tommy!!!! We'd all expect nothing less. Now that we've seen the Rogers and the WFL's, can there be maybe a Slingerland 80N set in the works that you're hiding??As a fellow Buddy nut, whacko,........we'd say an aficionado, that's a little more refined Cool Dude, have you in your sets or gigs used a 22" swish knocker that Buddy added in the 80's?And sound wise I know the Rogers are your number one set but how do the WFL's stack up, do they give the Rogers' a run for their money?Keep 'em coming TommyBGT
BGT!... THANKS! ... glad you enjoyed. I have had these for quite a while, but don't post them up all that often, so in that regard... they're fresh! You know, I have had my chances on aquiring a Slingerland 80N in WMP more than a few times, but was never totally happy with the "deal" or certain aspects of the set in question. You never know though. I will say that Buddy is inarguably associated with Slingerland the most by the masses, so a Rogers BR Celebrity or even a 50's era WFL/Ludwig BR Super Classic tend to be a little more difficult to find. This in no way takes away from NICE Slingerland 80N's such as yours. It helps augment them and keeps Buddy visible!
Regarding a 22" A Zildjian Swish Knocker: You know, I never have included that cymbal into any of my BR set-ups, as he wasn't using that cymbal while with WFL or Rogers. And again, that's just my take on it as I try to be period correct on the sets. Personally I LOVE that cymbal though! Now... if I had an early 80's era Ludwig Buddy Rich w/modular hardware, I would indeed have the Swish in place! Yours looks KILLER... and I bet it sounds that way too!
WFL vs. Rogers: This is a very good question! Having played both the WFL and Rogers extensively, I can honestly say that the Rogers at 5 plies of maple w/rings "speak" so much more clearly than the 3 ply w/rings WFL's. Doesn't mean the WFL's aren't nice... not at all! It's just that the Rogers are more articulate and a little less "thuddy" if you will. This can easily be heard by A/B-ing recordings of BR from the 50's against recordings from say 1966 when he was at the HEIGHT of playing Rogers. Buddy is Buddy of course!.. ( always freaking incredible ) .. but the difference in the "tone" of those two sets is amazing. Rogers had a reputation for being more of a jazz drum than Ludwig, which was really known for being more Rock and Roll.. ( and especially so after February 1964! ) .. and I attribute a lot of THAT to the shell design/make-up. BTW, this doesn't mean that either drum company couldn't cover any style of music, as they both did!, just that the Rogers drums are "clearer" in tone, and I think 5 plies of maple w/rings vs. 3 plies of mahogany/poplar/mahogany w/rings will do that. THANKS for the kind words!
james: THANKS!, and glad you liked!
LudwigLover: Yes indeed! The set originally came with BOTH "L" arms, hoop mounted spurs, and the rail consolette... but there were NO 50's era flat base cymbal stands or HH stand. I originally played the set with two #1400 mid 60's flat base cymbal stands, and had my eye out for two #1399 WFL Adjustable-height floor stands. Those still haven't showed.. ( nor do I think they will either... RARE! ) .. but I did find two #1400 mid 50's era flat base cymbal stands.. ( rare in their own right! ) .. and freaked when I saw them. Needless to say I grabbed 'em! The #1121 flat base HH stand was eventually located and added to the set making it complete! Good eye!
Tommyp
