Trashy sounding, cast, hand hammered, B20 cymbals from the last decade or so. If that's what these are then you've done OK for your $25 or however much they cost. In fact I would say any lot of 3 cymbals would be good at that price so you can't really lose. I hope they're good enough. Let us know. :)

Ok, so the cymbals finally arrived! They're very curious.

I think it's safe to say they're B20 and hand hammered. But the lathing looks strange to me, reminds me of my 5* Super Zyn and they are incredibly thin. Easily bendable by hand. I haven't weighed them yet, but even the 16" is certainly below 1000 grams. They have very very VERY trashy sound with a sort of high-pitched screech and a little bit of paperness. If I make hi-hats out of the two 14"s, they are very weak, sloshy and dark. They sound alright as trashy fast crashes though.

So, now, what are they?

They really bear no markings and are hand hammered B20. The profile, as you can see, is quite high, very turkish and very different from my Super Zyn. Along with the strange lathing, this leads me to believe these used to be orchestral Ks and somebody lathed them down for drumset application and went bit too far. I heard that this happened, when Czech drummers couldn't obtain foreign cymbals because of the iron curtain. Ochestral Ks have been around since the beginning of the century, probably. I photoraphed the edge of one of the 14"s - you can see that it varies in thickness - this could be due to amateur modifications.

Or am I completely wrong and these cymbals are something else? Let me know! I'll try to post the exact weights and some soundfiles soon.

Pic 1 - 16" cymbal

Pic 2 - 16" cymbal profile

Pic 3 - lathing closeup

Pic 4 - bell lathing detail

Pic 5 - underside detail

Pic 6 - uneven edge detail on a 14"

Pic 7 - weird lathing detail

Pic 8 - impurities in bronze - found on all three cymbals, means they're quite old, right?

Pic 9 - hi-hat wear. Could be residue from orchestra pair wear?

Hi, I know what these are. They're not re-worked orchestral K's, although that is very interesting and I never heard about that. I've had a few of these cymbals before. I got them for cheap on eBay because they intrigued me. The hammering is very K-like indeed. I weighed in earlier on this thread before you got the cymbals and I said that I was sure they were B20, hand hammered, trashy sounding cymbals. That's what I thought then and your description of the cymbals along with the photos has just confirmed what I was thinking. I had a 16" and some 13" hats, identical to these. Very light and trashy sounding. The 13's were useless as hi hats. Like you mentioned about the 14". The 16" was very musical sounding. If it were a 20" there is no way I'd have sold it. From what I know about these they are made in Wuhan in China, but my source on that isn't too reliable. Some have suggested roto-cast Italian, but to me the bronze and the lathing don't look very Italian. I think they're nice cymbals. Very musical with a nice, quick crash sound. I don't usually use a 16", but I owned and played a 16" one of these for a while and it was a great fast crash. My only gripe was that it was too small for my taste. But these really are nice cymbals to have around. They're unlike anything else I've played. Enjoy them.

Here are some pictures of said cymbals. You'll notice they're the same kind of cymbals that you have there. They are. They're still a bit of a mystery though. I think they're Chinese in origin and not Turkish.

I dunno. Could be Italian, could be Chinese (for both Gilnar's and Chromeo's), could be something else (other than North American). Chromeo, yours shows a sharp bell/bow transition (underneath shots) which really contrasts with the look of Gilnar's 16 in terms of that particular production technology.

Both the Chinese and the Italians produce cymbals with no pressed in die stamp, and once the ink disappears a country id with 100% certainty has gone. It is also worth remembering that Italian does not equal UFiP does not equal rotocast. Rotocasting only came in around 1978 (different sources vary on the particular year) and before that they were "gravity cast" in vertical molds shaped like cymbals. And there are several Italian companies (Tosco being the most conspicuous one) which never used rotocasting.

I've seen similar (but not identical looking) spiral lathing like that. For example on my 18" early Dream Contact. Later on they quit doing this style of pin lathing, but that doesn't mean other Chinese brands haven't used it and/or continue to use it. These have the pin lathing all the way up the bell and on both the top and the bottom.

[img]http://black.net.nz/cym2014/contact-top.jpg[/img]

[img]http://black.net.nz/cym2014/contact-bottom.jpg[/img]

Meanwhile, pic 5 (bottom shot of Gilnar's cymbal) reminds me of my pre rotocasting UFiP in some aspects. Ditto for the top shot in the bell details. In particular I'm looking at the areas which look like "flowing" of the metal. However, as best I can tell these may be casting details but not rotocasting signs. I apologize for not annotating these pics to make what I'm talking about clearer.

[img]http://black.net.nz/cym2014/UFiP1s.jpg[/img]

[img]http://black.net.nz/cym2014/UFiP3s.jpg[/img]

Here are some pics which are annotated to show (blue arrows) the stepped look of Italian lathing. As always this is an "ideal type" and there is variation around the "ideal type". The red oval in this pic shows a little bit of the "flowing" mentioned above:

[img]http://black.net.nz/cym2014/ItalianLathing.jpg[/img]

and another example of Italian style lathing (and overall shape and look of course)

[img]http://black.net.nz/cym2014/Italian-lathing-style.jpg[/img]

For me below 1000g for a 16" is just a thin crash. I wouldn't say incredible. But that's just my mapping of words to categories.

It would only mean they are "quite old" if they are North American in origin. "Quite old" in this case being 1950s and maybe into the early 1960s, although they were getting rare by then. Those sorts of pits and casting flaws are occasionally found in current Chinese cymbals. I don't think they have appeared in Italian cymbals much since the 1970s. Again, never say never appear. Just relatively uncommon. I'm not sure about all Turkish sourced cymbals but I suspect they are like the Chinese cymbals and have occasional pits or casting flaws like that. My Bosphorus cymbals which were made around 2000 have a few.

That's an interesting question. The wear doesn't look exactly like hi hat wear to me, but I lack experience in this area. I've wanted somebody to post an example of orchestral pair wear so we could compare it. That's the only way we as a community can learn more.

My vote is Chinese and pressed. One thing about Wuhan casting and pressing is that their B20 is very soft and porous, unlike the Italian makers, who seem to produce a harder, denser alloy. The lathing looks cheap to me. Going by the pictures alone and not the owner's testimony, I would almost question if they weren't spun brass.

Zenstat, if we are looking at the same thing, I think the "flowing" you are referring to on your cymbal is most likely not from casting, as so much of the original cast is removed during lathing. I vote that what look like radial lines are created by shadows created in the metal when hammering.

Thanks Jeff. Yes I believe we've eliminated "flowing" having anything to do with casting itself, but I'm still using it to describe the look. I think I need a better term. I've wondered about something to do with lathing or hammering (or the interaction between these two). But I certainly don't know. The other possibility I wonder about is that of runs in some kind of clear coat sealant put on the cymbal. Not by UFiP necessarily. It's just that the contrast between this clean as a whistle one and my other grungy pyramid stamp ones makes me wonder about it. Reminds me of the effect of the coating Paiste uses. Neither my old cymbals nor my much newer Class ones look like this particular one in terms of how the surface has "aged in".