The difference in mass between Aluminum and Brass seem to make it easy enough to tell by weight alone. I've been collecting data and fitting models to this end. I suspect the only reason this method hasn't caught on yet is that it doesn't seem "scientific" enough for people. They have come up with all sorts of reasons why just weighing full dress drums might not work because of changes over time from the early 60s on: lugs are different weights, strainers are different weights, rims are different weights, shells are different thickness, heads might be different weights, snare sets might vary in weight (12 strand vs 40 strand), and mufflers changed. What doesn't seem to have been done is actually test the method out.

Unfortunately I've got more data for 5" shells (and full dress drums) then 6.5" ones. But I'll dump what I've got so others can see where things are at.

5" Aluminum shell only Supra weights are in the 800-900g range

5" Brass shell only Supra weights are in the 1260g-1650g range

5" Aluminum full dress Supra weights are 2700g - 3400g

5" Brass full dress Supra weights are 3850g - 4300g

Current best estimate for full dress 5" Supra classification is:

if < 3600g then Aluminum

if > 3800g then Brass

Note that the lowest recorded value for 5" full dress Supra Aluminum snares is an unusual value. The 2700g is 500g lower than most others, but I don't know why. The usual range seems to be 3200 - 3400g. Some day I'll take my snares apart and get a bare shell weight which will help. But I'm a bit busy on other projects (see the links in my signature) so I haven't taken the time to do this yet. (edit: see later post with bare shell and component wts)

For the 6.5" case here is all I've got:

6.5" Aluminum shell only Supra weights are not available. If you have any please help!

6.5" Brass shell only Supra weights are in the 1960g - 1975g range

6.5" Aluminum full dress Supra weights are 3500g - 3800g

6.5" Brass full dress Supra weights are 4550g - 6000g

Current best estimate for full dress 6.5" Supra classification is:

if < 3800g then Aluminum

if > 4000g then Brass

Yours is 4445g putting it in the Brass camp. Or to be more accurate, the "not Aluminum" camp. I haven't got data on the different mass of Bronze vs Brass shells.

If you take all the hardware off yours and get a bare shell weight that would be even more reliable. And if you can provide the bare shell weight, the lug weight (all 10 together is fine), the strainer weight, the butt weight, and the muffler weight, that would add a lot to our current information. And it would probably inspire me to take my two snares (one Brass one Aluminum) apart completely and weight all the components separately.

Hope this helps.

Good idea, so i took the snare apart completely with the following results, maybe this can help other guys who are in the same situation:

Weight components

Ludwig Supraphonic Chrome over Brass (Bronze?) 6.5x14 70s/80s? pointy badge snare:

1 Lug: 61g

Strainer P85: 122g

1 Tension Rod: 13/14 g

Butt Plate: 31g

Knob only: 39g

Muffer only: 34g

Bare Shell weight: 1978g

so we can exclude Aluminium definitely?

than it would be brass or bronze?

and one step further, it is a Chrome over "Whatever" 70s snare according to the Serial number?

very interesting the whole Thing.

let´s do some more Research Coffee Break2

If it`s 70`s then it`s triple Chromed. That means a layer of brass before chrome. Ludalloy, Brass, and Chrome would be my guess.

I'd say not Aluminum at that weight for the bare shell, although now that I've got the data I need to do a bit more modelling work. Thank you. What I tried to do was model the shell as a hollow cylinder of a given thickness and density of material (different for Alu and Brass), and then work out the weight ratio of a 5" (where I've got more data) to a 6.5" (where I don't have enough data). The previous work put the expected weight of an Alu 6.5" shell at around 1200g. The density of Alu is 0.1 lbs per cubic inch and the density of brass is three times that (0.303 to 0.315 lbs per cubic inch) depending on the specific alloy. So we know bare shell weights should be reliable. The question is whether full dress weights are good enough.

Now I'll go through that process again and also be able to add other hardware weights into the full dress weight modelling. I'm really needing to disassembly my two snares and weigh their hardware components.

The date range for that badge (BO2 in Rick Gier's classification) and serial number 2088954 fits in the range 1972 to 1982. It's not possible to get an exact year from the badge number, although it is more likely to be early 80s. The strainer is a two hole blackface P85 and those are associated with snare drums from 1973 (around serial number 1060000) and continue in use through the early 1980s. So that's consistent but doesn't narrow it down to any particular year.

Ref: Richard E Gier, 2013. Serial Number Based Dating Guides for Vintage Ludwig Drums. Rebeats: Alma Michigan.

I think this is less than half the story. Is your information based on research specific to Ludwig plating techniques? Or generic info on chrome plating? Is it your own research, or does it come from somewhere else? If somewhere else then references please?

Triple Chromed usually means 3 plating layers doesn't it? There are issues which arise among different materials and the composition of layers is chosen so that you don't have a galvanic interaction between layers. The familiar snare acne on Supraphonics happens because there are tiny pinholes in the intermediate layers and the Aluminum interacts with the Chrome. The secret of success is having sufficient preparation of the surface, and sufficiently thick (and pinhole free) intermediate layers. Sometimes the people who did the plating (it was outsourced) got all the layers right. Sometimes they did not.

As far as the choice of intermediate layers goes, here is what some others have mentioned specifically about the Ludwig process:

ref: http://www.drumforum.org/index.php?/topic/104785-removing-chrome-from-aluminum-shell/?p=1161614

In The Ludwig Book, Cook does make mention of Paolo Sburlati's claim of an alloy change in 1968 from Aluminum to Ludalloy. Sburlati associates this change with ink stamps saying AG or Anti Galvanic, but in his own book Sburlati 1999:144 has a slightly different story and 1969. In the absence of evidence on what Ludalloy is, I'm a believer in the difference being in the plating process not the underlying material. But I think it's a moot point because there are snares from before and after 1968 which do and don't have any snare rash. The proportions of snares with rash varied from one production period to another, but it wasn't like all acne stopped one month. You can't just say "1970s thus Alu because by that time they sorted out the plating issues". That just doesn't fit with the evidence. Including my very own 1972 5" Supra with "Anti Glavanic" ink stamp and a bit of acne. But I'm not arguing anecdotal evidence from individual cases. The general pattern is of a proportion of snares with rash in the 1970s. We just don't have an accurate estimate of the actual proportion yet.

Ref: Rob Cook, 2013. The Ludwig Book Rebeats: Alma Michigan.

Ref: Paolo Sburlati, 1999. Ludwig Yesterday and Today 1909-1999. PSE: Turin, Italy (dist by Ludwig)

And some claims that the difference between Ludalloy and Aluminum is marketing.

http://www.vintagedrumforum.com/showthread.php?t=15361

Shouting about the full dress drums being the same weight because of other hardware factors (as seen the the above thread) isn't as convincing to me as actual measurements would be when they were done in a properly designed experiment. And claims that two bare shells weigh the same when one is Alu and one is Brass needs further examination as well. We know the densities are different (Brass is three times more dense than Alu), so in order to weigh close the same amount, the shells from two different materials would have to be different thicknesses. Anybody measured that? The only info I've been able to scrounge up gives 1.7mm thickness for a couple of 70s Acros, a 70s Supersensitive, and a 1963 Supersensitive. But I can't tell if that 1963 was meant to have a Brass shell, and it is not much to go on. I'd love to have some thickness measurements of a Super Ludwig shell with seam from the early days which are meant to be thicker than later Brass shells.

The catalog says triple plated,...that`s gonna be dipped three times. Brass don`t bond well to steel, so Supra`s bubble. Chrome don`t like to stay on steel either. The Nickle or Brass serves as a bonding agent.

The three dips for triple plated are just as the triple plating on my Phonic Ferro snare. Which are heavy.

The Nickel, the Brass, and then the Chrome.

Ludwig tried to get away with two steps, and we all know how that turned out.

If it`s ludalloy, Nickel, Brass and then Chrome,...the Magnet wont stick. The hoops being steel, Nickel, Brass and then Chrome, magnet will stick. A Brass shell wont have steel fasteners or washers. You can`t have Brass and steel join, the electrolysis will happen in months and cymbal green will stain.

Chrome is actually more like a clear coat over nickel plate that keeps it from tarnishing. It also lends a bluish cast to the nickel as opposed to that plating's usual goldish hue. The reflective silver surface you see on a chrome plated item is actually the layer of nickel plate, which is usually put over a base coat of copper plate. Copper/nickel/chrome = Triple plated.

If that`s what Ludwig did, then they deserve what they got, a poor temporary finish.

Calling it Chrome finish when it`s polished Nickel is wrong.

There`s a short video from the 70`s that shows how my snare is Chrome plated. (in the factory before laws made it too expensive to continue) The shell is tempered, cleaned, plated in Nickel, then Copper, then the final Chrome is plated on. Triple plated. Their thickness is dependant on how long it is in the bath for.

Copper, Nickel, and Chromium are all Elements that wont separate during plating steps.

Zenstat`s method of weighing by dimensions and mass relies on knowing the thickness of each layer. Minutes in the bath make the difference in the weights.

Some Phonic snares are magnetic and some are not, but all are made by the same flat stock Ferromanganese steel supplied by an auto maker.. Because of layer thickness, the magnet may or may not stick to it.

First of all a BIG thank you to all of you for helping me out ;-). Party

I mean the most important Thing for me is, that the Sound of this supra is really cool, but the history behind a drum is also very interesting for me (as you can see).

so i have a triple plated supraphonic?

have there been a lot of in this time? is it now still a classic Aluminium 402 (Bonzo), but with more weight?

for me this drum is very Special, so is it a Special drum, or maybe kind of unique?

i know, a lot of questions :-), sorry for that DOH

@ zenstat: i could also weigh my acrolite 1976 components, would this be helpful?

cheers Coffee Break2

every new Input is welcomeWalking