That might be a good option if you like the design. I was looking at that strainer for a Kent snare I'm trying to get back together. I just dont know if the mounting holes are 1 inch apart hole to hole, or center to center.

Actually, now that I think about it, that strainer might not be your best option if your snare shell is one of the thin 3 ply shells. If it is 5-9 plies, it would be fine, but if it's thin, the holes being so close together might put too much tension on the shell.

Other than finding another original strainer in better shape, I know of no direct replacements for the old 3 hole spacings. There might be one out there, I just dont know about it.

Thats a great point. From what I can see in this picture, THIs one has the mounting holes spaced far apart which should spread the tension across the shell a little better:

http://www.drumfactorydirect.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_104_40&products_id=2419

And this is funny because this one was the very first one I considered buying!!

Does the Valencia snare have re-rings? If it does, I might go for a strainer that has a wider vertical mounting design. But most importantly, I'd check to see how many plies the shell is. If it is 5 or more, you'll probably be fine with any strainer you like, but if it's a 3 ply, I'd go with a wider vertically mounted unit.

Cn, the Valencia shell does have re-rings on the top and bottom. Its really thin, so I'm 99% sure its three ply.

Wouldnt a horizontal hole spacing be best to distribute the stress across the shell? Or are you saying that because it has re-rings that a vertical mount is safer? And if so.....how the heck can you tell how far the holes are spaced from the pictures?

By the way, heres a pic I just took of the shell:

Hey Mike, is there no "backer" in the shell, behind the strainer? Most of my thinnies has a small piece of shell behind the other parts to alleviate this caving in of the shell.

Well, I'm no physicist, so you may want to solicit some more opinions, but here's what I'm thinking:

This is a really thin shell, and with lots of tension from the snare wires, you'd want to spread that tension out and away from the weakest part of the shell. And since I happen to have one of these shells that is caved in at the strainer, I'm thinking the middle of the shell is the weakest spot (all the way around the shell.) So I think having two points (holes), far-ther away from each other (toward the edges) would provide the most resistance to the tension.

I know that I'm not explaining that very well, sorry, I'm not a technical writer.

Also, the mounting schemes for the strainers are shown on the product pages on the drumfactory site. They are the pics that look like blueprints.

Jon, nope! Just the screws and bolts. If you enlarge the picture and look to the right you can see the three holes for the strainer. Thats just how it was when I removed it. Actually, a small piece of wood in back of there seems like a good idea when I put the new strainer in!!!

Cn.....actually you explained it very well, BUT.....

I just looked at the shell and I realized something.....the three existing holes for the original strainer (and one hole is the big one for the knob) have seriously weakened that side of the shell!!! Theres no way I can drill any more holes there and not have the thing cave in!!

So......my beady little mind came up with the idea of REVERSING the original position of the strainer and the butt plate. This way, I'd only have to drill two little holes, spaced far apart for the butt plate , on the side where the three original strainer holes are. The other side, where the old butt plate WAS, can support a new strainer easy.....the butt plate holes are tiny and very far apart....almost 2 1/2 inches mid hole to mid hole. No weaken problems there. What do you guys think?

Good point. You know, I replaced the strainer on my Apollo only because the original was incomplete and unusable. If I were you, I might reconsider replacing the original. If it is all there, it may be the best thing for the drum. Try taking it apart (carefully!) cleaning all the parts, putting it back together, re-lubricating it and see if it doesn't work better at that point. Sometimes the parts dont work very well after years of dirt, dust, and rust collect inside the mechanism.

Using the original strainer might be a better alternative than filling in the holes on a shell this thin.

You should ask member Osaka Bop what he thinks. He rocks a set of Valencias.

Cn.... I was just thinking that also...but then I took a good hard look at the original strainer.

To call it primitive is being kind. Its pretty awful, and I cant see it EVER really doing its job well.

So...I might be back to my idea of reversal.

It's looking to me like there are only three alternatives here, in the order of my preference:

1) If there is a vintage American strainer from that period with the exact same hole requirements, maybe I can find one and use it as long as I dont have to drill any holes at all. Looking at the old strainer, it looks remarkably like a Slingy "Zoomatic" to me!!

2), New, high quality strainer installed using the reversal method.

3) Procure a thicker, quality shell, recover in Blue sparkle, and mount the Valencia lugs and badge on them.