I'm interested to know why you say the swivel feet were a bad idea. I have a Ludwig kit that I bought new in 1976 with all swivel feet hardware - 4 cymbal stands, snare stand, and hi hat. I still have them all, and I've never had a lick of trouble with them. They are still self-leveling, despite the fact that they got wet a few times in a basement that was prone to flooding. The rubber bottom pads are still good and intact. And unlike the crutch-tip feet, you never lose the swivel feet. I think they were a great idea, but I suspect that Ludwig thought they were too expensive, and went back to the crutch-tip feet, in a larger size. Regards, MB

I bought a Ludwig Hollywood set in November of 1975 and, of course, it came with the flat based stands. I immediately set about upgrading my hardware one stand at a time as I could afford them (I was a Freshman in High School in late 1975). The first stand I ordered (thru Franks Drum Shop) was an Atlas Snare stand in December of 1975. I received the Flat legged version. Next I ordered a throne and it came with the tubular legs and swivel feet. Next came a cymbal stand which also had the same setup. The next cymbal stand had the big rubber feet but still had metal fittings. The next one was a boom stand which was more or less the same. The next I bought had both the big rubber feet and some black plastic knobs. The last one had all plastic knobs. There was about a five or six month gap between each stand purchase. They were all ordered as Atlas model stands and as I recall that is what the boxes they came in indicated they were (I still have some of those boxes around here somewhere). I recall first seeing the new Hercules stands in the '80 catalog which came out sometime in 1979. This was also the first catalog with the 6 ply drums in it.

So I had a front row seat, as it were, to the evolution of the Atlas stands thru the mid/late 70's. No two that I bought were totally identical but all were from the same line as it evolved towards the Hercules which was a big jump as far as being (or at least looking) heavier duty. Big and strong and (relatively) heavy was what they were shooting for, and what we were buying. Can you say "Ludwig modular hardware"? I knew you could :) .

For cymbal stands the most readily identifiable feature between Atlas and Hercules is the center tube. If it has the diameter reduction near the upper end it's an Atlas stand, if it is the same diameter all the way to the top it's a Hercules.

Because they would slide around. I never saw any with rubber pads, they were all nylon (I still have one) which of course slides on carpet.

I've never had that problem at all. I own 10 of them Love them.Plus a super easy fix, put stick velcro taps on the bottom cut to size., I've never had to do this but I've known drummers who have and did.

Thanks Frantic Freddie. You are correct - the bottom disc on the swivel feet is a gray nylon, not rubber as I previously stated. I use a cheap piece of indoor/outdoor carpet as my drum rug, and I've never had a problem with the swivel feet stands sliding around. Like Vintagemore2000 says, "I love them!"

To each his own, I guess...All this hardware stuff is certainly personal preference.

But I certainly agree with Northamusi, that putting rivets along the wrap seam was certainly Ludwig's worst idea. I saw several of these at the Chicago drum show. P-yoo! They are ugly! Ludwig should've been embarrassed to sell those.

Regards, MB

I dunno....tucking the wrap into the scarf joint was also pretty bad.

Only to a restorer! :p

Actually the reason that was done was the wrap was applied to the outer ply of the shell BEFORE it was bent & formed in the mold, instead of after like they do today. Stronger bond to the shell they must have thought, I suppose.....The Band

It produced the ludwig hump,...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdJJDfY0-s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdJJDfY0-s[/ame]

Can anyone tell us what technique the other drum manufacturers (Rogers, Gretsch, Slingerland) used in lieu of Ludwig's scarf joint procedure? I'm just curious, as I'm sure others may be also. And what technique was the best (least prone to later problems)?Thanks in advance, MB