No the problem is not ALWAYS them staying that way. The problem is SOMETIMES them staying that way. There's no doubt, 1960's quality control in the Japanese factories was remarkably inconsistent. So much so, that the moniker "stencil drums" has always seemed very inaccurate to me.

Some of them are out of round, with lousy bearing edges, and poor overall construction, others are perfectly fine. Regarding hardware, I've heard it blamed for all sorts of things, but I can honesly say in the dozens of japanese kits I've refurbished over the years, the only hardware problem I have ever noticed is that the cast metal lugs sometimes become brittle over time. Other than that, I for one have never experienced any kind of untoward hardware problems on any of them...ever.

Now regarding "winding the heads too tight" I think this is a fair complaint, but I would reply that these drums sound best in their lower registers and should never be wound too tightly anyway. They simply are not designed to be tuned high and never sound good that way. These drums were designed and marketed in the era of Gene Krupa and Ringo Starr. During those times, it was fashionable to tune the toms quite low compared to today's drums.

I could make the complaint that modern drums with their double 45 bearing edges and thick wood shells can never really produce that wonderful mellow and warm vintage sound of the drums (any drums) of the 60's. Does that mean they are poorly made or bad drums? No, it only means they were not designed to sound that way. Just as the old Japanese drums were not designed to be tuned tightly. It would never have occurred to the drum building engineers of the time to design them to withstand tight tuning. It would be as alien a concept to them as an electric guitar would have been to Manuel De Falla.

I agree. Ive gigged MIJs exclusively for 5 years and not had a single problem. They have never gone out of tune during a gig either. It could just be luck but I rotate about 5 kits which leads me to think I dont have a behind full of four leaf clovers :P

I think lousy spurs and iffy tom mounts (sometimes) are the two worst attributes of MIJ drums. My Rogers drums, especially the 12" detunes just as much as any MIJ's I've owned. If it detunes, put a lug lock on that one rod. Spurs that swivel and point forward (ala Pearl design) changed the whole game. Also, I used to think the Pearl stencil hex-rod mounting system was a bad design, until I came to find almost all the sets I'd owned were missing the internal backing plate that reinforces the down-rod from tipping. When that plate is in place the set-up is very sturdy.

Interesting thought, but I doubt that there was very little "design intent" with these drums other than to create a cylinder onto which a wrap could be applied, cheap hardware fastened and heads affixed. Voila', a drum that could be sold for a fraction of the cost. Of course I may be wrong but why else use Luan or layup shells in a vertical grain format. It was easier and cheaper. I think if you really go back and listen to most of the pop recordings in the 60's, toms and snares were still tuned tighter than what became the norm in the 70's and what is still considered normal in most styles of music today. Drum tuning for pop music throughout much of the 60's still favored the traditional jazz tuning on which most of those drummers grew up learning.

I still don't have an MIJ kit (someday) but I would surmise that you are right in that they work better in the lower tuning ranges. As to over tensioning these drums, or any for that matter, it seems like the novice drum tuners (and this unfortunately includes some professional drummers) have a tendency to "tune up" a drum when they sit behind it. It is a natural tendency for most guys to sit down at a kit that is foreign to them, tap the drums a bit and then pull out a drum key. The vast majority of the time (and I see a lot of this) they start increasing the tension on the batter head like some instinctive reaction whether it makes sense to do so or not. Eventually the drum chokes. Since these kits were mostly used by kids that were just starting out, that means they were seldom tuned well and I believe the natural inclination was to over tighten the heads. "Hey, they are easier to play when the head feels like a counter top!" That lead to really poor sounding drums that could actually collapse under tension; especially snare drums. Of course this is all speculation on my part.

John, your enthusiasm for these kits is pretty infectious, I am not going to lie. I want one. I don't need one but I want one.

I am at a friend's place right now. He has an unbadged Star kit wrapped in Red Pearl. This is post 67 as it has the thicker shells and the gray painted interiors. It has poor wore out heads on it and sounds pretty bad. He thinks it is a piece of junk. I am going to re-head it and show him the real deal. He does not quite have tuning abilities as I do (though can tune his homemade snares very well.) It is a 12,16,20. I will keep you all in the loop on this though might take a couple months before I get around to it.

Good discussion gents - thanks for contributing and enjoying it with me.

tnsquint - know before you buy one - that whatever ply-up you get, it can be made to sound very good. The difference is that the pre-67 thin shells (w/ rings) will have more bottom end and a bit fuller in general. It will be very light-weight and delicate, yet will be booming when setup right.

I certainly am not an expert by any means and specifically I do not know about the snare as much as the capabilities of the toms and BDs.

A recent acquisition/project is a Whitehall Root Beer Swirl that is 3ply, expect for a 14 inch tom which is thicker, which I will cut down and make into my matching snare.

I have another project of the 3plys which will feature a 3 ply snare (w/ rings). We'll see how everything shapes up with edge work and new heads.