Only Admins can see this message.
Data Transition still in progress. Some functionality may be limited until the process is complete.
Processing Attachment, Gallery - 133.67015%

Vintage wrap thickness...............

Posts: 5356 Threads: 87
Loading...

Something I've noticed with vintage wraps is the different thickness some have. In paticular Slingerland and Gretsch. When I bought my WMP snare I saw the WMP wrap was thin. I just figured it was rewrapped but now I'm not so sure. The 15" Slingerland marching snare shell I've been working on recently is a 53-56 vintage I think and it also has a very thin WMP wrap. This drum has the wrap tucked into the seam and is 100% original I beleive. The WMP Gretsch wrap John V sent me is also on the thinner side. Jeff C sent some some wrap samples for the wrap tests of which 1 is from his 59 RK solid maple snare. This wrap (blue over red sparkle) is thicker much like the early RK's (with tucked seams) I have and the later 68's in light blue pearl. The latest Rogers shells I have also are WMP Cleveland era Jasper shells. Wrap is thin on these also and original. Ludwig is the only brand I don't have so can't speak for those.

I always thought the older wraps were all the thicker stuff but seems this is not the case? The rewrap I did on a 13" tom the wrap was very thick. I thought the newer stuff was much thinner from what I've read. Was there a point in time where thicker wrap became the standard? I assume Delmar made these wraps. Or was there another source? Anyone else notice this? With tight fitting heads on some drums and not on others..... I just wonder if wrap thickness was something specific each company knew about and adjusted with different shell ply thickness? Or just used whatever stock came in until the next batch arrived?

Here are some measurements.

The WMP Gretsch wrap (50's I think?) is .010 thick.

The blue over red sparkle Slingerland wrap (59) Jeff sent me is .030 thick.

The new Cream Pearl wrap I used from Drum Foundry is .020 thick.

The 2 samples of MIJ wrap (gold and blue sparkle) I have are both .020 thick.

Help2 :confused:

Thoughts anyone? I did try to search for answers here but didin't find much info.

Glenn.

Not a guru just havin fun with some old dusty drums.
Posted on 11 years ago
#1
Loading...

There have been a number of wrap makers. Both Slingerland and Ludwig, for at least part of their production purchased wrap from Europe; both Italy and Germany. This could account for the thicker wrap on the Slingerland.The wrap made by Deutsche Celluloid was quite thick and the premium stuff was very glossy with great depth yielding a stunning 3-D effect. The earlier German glitter/sparkle wraps were about 30 thou. The wrap thickness is somewhat dependant on the pattern. Glitters can be as thick as 50 thou, due to the embedded material. Where the pattern is dependant on the interplay of dyes, suspended tiny particulates or thin flat objects, the wrap can be thinner. There has also been a change in the wrap base over time. The earliest wraps were organically based----casein, etc. , then some cellulose based "plastics" became common, then acetates, foils , and others. Some wrap patterns are images, others are physical materials. The acetates and foils tend to be quite thin.

If you look at the catalogues, there was a concerted effort to reduce the cost of wrapping drums ,as the 1960's progressed. Although drum companies, buy in volume and get good deals, wrap still costs and it could be a considerable part of a drum's overall price. Cheaper wraps became common, with acetates entirely taking over certain companies' offerings. Glitter and Sparkle were interchangeable at one time but because the construction of those was expensive the wrap makers came up with a cheaper almost 2 dimensional version, with identical particles, in a thin flat plane. This became sparkle and the version made with tiny uneven glass chips floating in a deep substrate( which had previously been known by some companies as " sparkle") became glitter---staying expensive. There is a thickness difference , determined by the particles.

Posted on 11 years ago
#2
Posts: 5356 Threads: 87
Loading...

Calfskin thank you for the excellent detailed reply! Being a newcomer I have a lot to learn and this has been something of interest for a while with me. And also to help me better understand how things were made. That's interesting some of the glitters were .050 thick!! And the fact some came from Europe. I had no idea. This has been great to learn about and again many thanks. :) Exactly what I was looking for.

Glenn.

Glenn.

Not a guru just havin fun with some old dusty drums.
Posted on 11 years ago
#3
Loading...

glad if it was a help. i have the priveledge of having a considerable array of wrap samples handy. i put the mic. , as you did, to a bunch and got from about .005 to .050. the real thick one was a roll of tangerine glitter from Delmar----quite new , the thin stuff was a kind of foil; also quite new.

Posted on 11 years ago
#4
Posts: 5356 Threads: 87
Loading...

That's great you have a good selection of wrap samples. .005 is waaaay thin. Sounds like some cool stuff you have there. That tangerine glitter sounds pretty nice. And thick too!

Glenn.

Not a guru just havin fun with some old dusty drums.
Posted on 11 years ago
#5
Loading...

Somewhat related, but perhaps participants in this thread may know: Did the ink-stamped designation I have seen on drum shell interiors "P 0.20" indicate the shell was intended for a pearl covering, 0.20" thickness?

Thanks

Posted on 11 years ago
#6
  • Share
  • Report
Action Another action Something else here