These pics are of the Stanople 11in splash. 289 grams. 3 5/16 Bell Diameter (same as the UFIP coming next). No damage other than the wavyness. 1/2 inch mounting hole.

Great sounding splash (they all are). The only interesting thing is the wear pattern indicating it was once used as a hi-hat with another smaller diameter 10in cymbal. That wasn't really unusual during the first years of hi-hat stands.

Flexibility Statement #1 - to say this cymbal is flexible would be a drastic understatement!

These pics are of the UFIP 12in splash / hi-hat. 379 grams. 3 5/8 inch Bell Diameter. It sits perfectly flat. No damage. 3/8 inch mounting hole.

I know the broad opinion on UFIP is that they formed as a co-operative in 1931 so that ruins my assumption that any cymbal with that small of a hole must be 1927 or earlier. Does anyone else have experience with UFIPs having a 3/8in hole?

This cymbal really reminds me (tone, responsiveness and feel) of early ultra thin A. Zildjians I own or have owned.

Flexibility Statement #2 - to say this cymbal is flexible would be a drastic understatement!

The last on of the bunch is the oddest of them all. It's a 12in splash / hi-hat (both of the 12s have hi-hat wear patterns). 367 grams. Unusually large 4 1/8 inch Bell Diameter. And then there's that dang 3/8 inch mounting hole. Very slightly wavy though it's so flexible that is conforms easily to other 12in in a hi-hat format.

Very dark sound. Reminds me of a very dark and thin K. Zildjian (also with a 3/8 inch mounting hole) that I sold recently.

As I said before, I'm thinking Ajaha. . . mostly because I can't think of another candidate.

I'm pretty sure this cymbal is as dark as it is because of the way it was made. The bell is larger than you'd expect from a 12in and so more of the weight is there than the other 12, meaning the bow is thinner than the UFIP.

The last pic shows the two 12s side by side so you can see the difference in bell size between the Unknown and UFIB cymbals.

The crazy thing is that about 1/3 of the way down the bow it goes from being "super thin" to "there is NO bleeping way its that thin". It's that way for only 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch, then going back to just "super thin.

Thoughts? Corrections? Etc.

Flexibility Statement #3 - Holy $%&* this thing is flexible!

Bottom line is that all three are vintage B20 cymbals each having an amazing sound you just can't find new.

Sigh, I love old cymbals.

Pete

Thanks for posting these. Old Italians seem to be overlooked.

Yep. I'm no expert on vintage cymbals myself. My asset is basically heavy training in context driven research (it's a thing, ). And there just ain't enough out there on old Italian made cymbals, so that can make it tough.

I stumbled onto something that has either answered one of my questions or maybe just deepened the mystery.

On Rob Scott's excellent site, he details the timeline of Italian maker's marks. It's actually something he got wrong that spurred me to dig a little into the Zenjian brand/maker. The site lists the company as a UFIP sub brand from the 1940s to 60s made for Ludwig and other. But I revisited Drumarchive.com and went over the vintage Ludwig pdf catalogs.

I found this in a 1927 Ludwig catalog, page 55 for anyone who wants to check it out.

Seems that Zenjian was making cymbals at least from then and who know how long before.

If UFIP really did begin in 1931, (at least) the early Zenjians can't be UFIPs. Plus they would have had 3/8 inch mounting holes so my unmarked cymbal could be an early variant.

Pete

Interesting. I had a related set of questions about another 3/8 inch mounting hole on an early K Zildjian without much in the way of responses. Too few surviving examples and thus limited information?

Pete

Well, OK. From what I’ve seen, there seems to be extremely limited knowledge regarding pre 1930 cymbal manufacturing. Such is life.

Pete