Somebody educate me, please. Help2

The Cook, "Slingerland Book" , covers details about most hardware used on their drums, w/ no mention of the bass claws. Your guesses are probably all correct, different suppliers, different decades, subtle changes in manufacturing & crimping, change of ownership, & changes in metal thickness. If one looks closely at any makers hardware, lugs & claws , you can see variations over the years, that are not announced, & only noticed by close up comparisons. ( have you inspected the width of the claws, to see if they were adapted for different hoop thicknesses over the years ? )

I did not. I'll have to give that a look. Thanks for the response!

SlingerLynn,

I just sent all the Slingerland claws I had to ShawnM for a project he's working on. He should get them today, so you might have him to check them out and verify what I'm about to tell you.

The ones I had all came off of the same drum, a 1970s Slingerland marching drum. They weren't all exact duplicates of each other, but showed varying degrees of what you're describing. I'm wondering if some of them at one point in time have more tension applied than others.

I don't mean to rile any avid Slingerland fans, but I've always felt this style of claw was a little weaker than other styles/brands and more apt to have problems. Just my thoughts.

The Pearl "streamlined" version claw that was used on their FG and WFG set of the 70s, although overall a bit stronger built than the Slingerlands (IMO) were prone to doing the same thing -- put too much tension on them and they tended to pull out a little.

Hope this helps. At one time I actually took a comparision photo of the Pearls and the Slingerlands to help someone decide which ones he had. IF I find it I can post it if you like.

Bill

I will check them tonight against the ones off my '79 Slingerland kit.

When I went through them cleaning and polishing yesterday I didn't notice any variance, but I also wasn't looking for it.

The one in your picture appears to be a little flattened versus a non squished one, look at the t-rod hole end.

Thanks for the responses, guys!

I would like to see that if you can find it.

I don't know why, but I just naturally have always noticed inconsistencies. So, I noticed this. I think you're talking about the back side of the claws where the one at left in pic 2 appears to be rounded from front to back and the one on the right is not completely rounded just before the tail. If so, good eye! I didn't mention that because I didn't think it was very noticeble in the pictures - at least not as noticeable as the angle of the front.

Thanks again fellas!

yup thats what I was talking about and also the first thing I saw.

Hi Lynn, Just as a observation my kit came with 9 60's T rods and claws and 11 70's T rods and claws. All of the 60's rods and claws were spray painted silver and the 70's rods and claws were bought by the previous owner as replacements. Both claws look very much the same as the one on the right in your 2nd pic. I have no idea if they are correct/incorrect/mismatched as after some 40+ years they could be just about anything. But I've been wondering the same thing myself. I can see some of the claws wrap around the hoop a little better than others. Not sure of they were bent slightly due to being over tightened at some point. Or if they just vary somewhat. Interesting topic and will be interesting to see what the deal is. Glenn.

Good eye!

That's interesting, Glenn! I keep hoping kevins, blairndrums, MIKEY, vintagemore2000, RogerSling, or one of the many guys that really know Slingerland stuff (I apologize if I left any Slingerland guru's name out) will chime in.