1959 Pickups - I know…

[glorioso]

Question.

Why does my Murphy Lab 1959 have pickups with AlNiCo III pickups and the Gibson Collectors edition 1959’s, at $1k a set, have AlNiCo IV magnets? Which is it?

I understand that they were inconsistent at the time, but shouldn’t they know?

BTW, excellent guitar but want to change the pickups. Not paying $1k MORE, though. I would assume the Murphy Lab was about as authentic as it gets.

​

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

Question.

Why does my Murphy Lab 1959 have pickups with AlNiCo IIV pickups and the Gibson Collectors edition 1959’s, at $1k a set, have AlNiCo IV magnets? Which is it?

I understand that they were inconsistent at the time, but shouldn’t they know?

BTW, excellent guitar but want to change the pickups. Not paying $1k MORE, though. I would assume the Murphy Lab was about as authentic as it gets.

​

Before you spend any big money buy a few Alnico Bar magnet's(rough cast) and try them in your Custombuckers. Get a II, a IV and a V and see which gets you the tone you like?

 

[glorioso]

Before you spend any big money buy a few Alnico Bar magnet's(rough cast) and try them in your Custombuckers. Get a II, a IV and a V and see which gets you the tone you like?

Oh god no. That’s not my point. I’m wondering why the Murphy Labs, and presumably all R9’s, at their price don’t have period correct pickups in the eyes of the creators.

 

[Blind Lemon Chicken]

iT'S 1 LESS.. I'm guessing the 3 is a little more versatile than the 2 which is a stronger magnet. a little tinkering with the amp and guitar knobs would adjust it. I'm thinking.

 

[GreenBurst]

Gibson speced A2 magnets in 50s humbucker LPs. But being the dawn of electric guitar growth there wasn't the understanding on magnet options and impact on tone. Also, amps were significantly more basic than what we have today.

It didn't appear Gibson monitored what magnets were being shipped to them, or allowed replacement types to keep production moving. Vintage pickup magnet analysis has shown that Gibson used A2, A3, A4, and A5 magnets in their pickups. Eventually specing to the latter in the 60s.

So, technically Gibson is using period 'correct' magnets. Whatever Gibson is now marketing as vintage would take into account modern amplifiers and music genre requirements. After all, they aren't shipping these back to the 50s. They want to be successful in today's market.

If you have issues with your tone, start with tweaking pickup height and pole piece heights as well as your amp settings. If that doesn't address your concern then investigate alternative pickup options that may suit your playing style and music genre(s). There are pickup winders here supporting the LPF.

I hope this helps.

 

[mdubya]

What is Alnico IIV?

I recently got a set of the most current Custom Buckers and I really like them.

I have recent sets of Burst Buckers, a couple of sets of Tom Holmes, a set of Mojo Tone '59s, etc.

BTW - You think the current owners of Gibson know what the then company did 75 years ago?

 

[CS Murphy 'R9]

What is Alnico IIV?

It is a very different way of writing Alnico III

 

[bluesky636]

Question.

Why does my Murphy Lab 1959 have pickups with AlNiCo III pickups and the Gibson Collectors edition 1959’s, at $1k a set, have AlNiCo IV magnets? Which is it?

I understand that they were inconsistent at the time, but shouldn’t they know?

BTW, excellent guitar but want to change the pickups. Not paying $1k MORE, though. I would assume the Murphy Lab was about as authentic as it gets.

​

Read this:

PAF Pickups: Alnico Magnets for Humbucker Pickups

When it comes to vintage spec PAF pickups ThroBak gets many requests for detailed descriptions of the Alnico magnets used in them as it relates to pickup voice and feel. So in response I have packed...

www.throbak.com

 

[Chili-Mike]

Oh god no. That’s not my point. I’m wondering why the Murphy Labs, and presumably all R9’s, at their price don’t have period correct pickups in the eyes of the creators.

Murphy Labs does the aging. They don't build the guitars and they certainly don't make the pickups. As to why Gibson changes magnets or other components from time to time and claims each iteration is the closest ever to a PAF, I think the answer is that they can sell them. Genuine 57-62 PAFs often sound different from one another, so it's really a question of which original PAF are they copying this year?

 

[mdubya]

Consider that Custom Buckers do not even claim to use plain enamel wire.

That said, the current Custom Buckers sound great, imho.

 

[Hayduke]

Legend has it, on January 1, 1959, a fabled unicorn named Aurora Starlight, arrived at Gibson and gave 25 hairs from her magical tail, before returning to her dense forest home in Iceland, never to be seen by humans again.

Gibson took the magical hairs and wove 12" of pure magic into each humbucking pickup they made that year, and THAT my friends is why it is utterly impossible to recreate the magical tones of 1959 pickups.

 

[Flogger]

The current AIII spec was arrived at by long term listening tests of various formulations, and settling on the one that all agreed fell right in the middle of PAF territory. Not the brightest or darkest, not the strongest or weakest, but the good old median example. I think that they did a good job, frankly. They do some things that PAFs do, and that's as good as it's gonna get in my snack bracket. But that one knackered 57 Goldtop though...

 

[NickiC]

BTW, excellent guitar but want to change the pickups. Not paying $1k MORE, though. I would assume the Murphy Lab was about as authentic as it gets.

There’s your answer. Most will swap out the pickups anyway, you as well. Some will buy a new set of pickups before they even own the guitar. Or play it.

 

[TM1]

There’s your answer. Most will swap out the pickups anyway, you as well. Some will buy a new set of pickups before they even own the guitar. Or play it.

Early PAF'sused magnet grades that were all over the place. They basically used whatever they had in-stock to get the work done! I would buy some magnets that varied and try them and see which ones sound best to your ears! Get the ones from ThroBak as those are the closest to what Gibson used!

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

I don't remember people mentioning such a thing as Alnico 4 magnets in pickups 20 years ago. I have never seen any vintage documentation referencing it for anything. The specs they list today for Al, Ni and Co in 2 and 4 magnets have pretty much the same ranges for percent composition. I don't even know how they are saying they can differentiate the two other than by word.

If you look at just magnets back in the 40's and 50's it was pretty simple. You had Alnico 2 magnets which had an isotropic arrangement. This came after Alnico developed in the 30's which had no designation of 1 at the time. They started changing the amounts of Al, Ni and Co in Alnico 2 magnets to make them more durable. Not sure if this was when Alnico 3 got a designation or if that came some time later. There was a new anisotropic arrangement magnet developed during the war that was much stronger magnetically than Alnico 2. This new Alnico 5 magnet started being used by industry in things such as speakers.

Alnico 5 began its use in PAF pickups around 1958. Also, by late 58 you start finding magnets, on occasion, that are shorter than the 2.5" in length that Gibson had been using up to this time. These shorter magnets are around 2.37" in length. By 1960 that is the norm.

Alnico 2, 3 and 4 magnets are pretty much the same magnetically. The biggest difference is that Alnico 3 will be less prone to breaking or cracking. Personally, as far as pickups are concerned, I would group 2,3 and 4 together as the same entity as far as how they are going to sound with your bobbins. The biggest difference is going to be how that entity compares to Alnico 5.

An Alnico 2,3 or 4 magnet will create less millivolts than an Alnico 5 magnet with the same bobbins. Generally, and dependent on what you are doing with that signal after it leaves the guitar, the lower output Alnico 2, 3 and 4 magnets creating a softer warmer tone and the the stronger Alnico 5 magnet a more powerful brighter tone.

I found it totally amusing investigating Alnico 4. AI, which I have to look at every time I do something now, seems to think it was developed in 30's at the same time as Alnico. All reference of it seem to be related to guitar pickups. It really makes me wonder how confusing AI is going to make things in the future and the problems it is going to create. As far as researching technical and historical things I find it misleading more than not.

 

[GreenBurst]

There is a simple solution for AI concerns. When doing Internet searches skip the AI response at the top of the results list and focus on the articles further below. You learn and understand more when getting info from an article and you avoid the misinformation from AI. It's win-win for the person searching for information.

 

[glorioso]

I don't remember people mentioning such a thing as Alnico 4 magnets in pickups 20 years ago. I have never seen any vintage documentation referencing it either. The specs they list today for Al, Ni and Co in 3 and 4 magnets have pretty much the same ranges for percent composition. I don't even know how they are saying they can differentiate the two other than by word.

If you look at just magnets back in the 40's and 50's it was pretty simple. You had Alnico 2 magnets which had an isotropic arrangement. This came after Alnico developed in the 30's which had no designation of 1 at the time. They started adding more Al, Ni and Co to Alnico 2 magnets to make them more durable. Not sure if this got the designation Alnico 3 at this time or some time later. There was a new anisotropic arrangement magnet developed during the war that was much stronger magnetically than Alnico 2. This new Alnico 5 magnet started being used by industry in things such as speakers. It began its use in PAF pickups around 1958. Also, by late 58 you start finding magnets, on occasion, that are shorter than the 2.5" in length that Gibson had been using up to this time. These shorter magnets are around 2.37" in length. By 1960 that is the norm.

Alnico 2 and 3 magnets are pretty much the same magnetically. The biggest difference is that Alnico 3 will be less prone to breaking or cracking. Personally I would group 2,3 and 4 together as the same entity as far as how they are going to sound with your bobbins. The biggest difference is going to be how that entity compares to Alnico 5.

An Alnico 2 magnet will create less millivolts than an Alnico 5 magnet with the same bobbins. Generally, and dependent on what you are doing with that signal after it leaves the guitar, the lower output Alnico 2 magnet creating a softer warmer tone and the the stronger Alnico 5 magnet a more powerful brighter tone.

I found it totally amusing investigating Alnico 4. AI seems to think it was developed in 30's at the same time as Alnico. All reference of it seem to be related to guitar pickups. It really makes me wonder how confusing AI is going to make things in the future and the problems it is going to create. As far as researching technical and historical things I find it misleading more than not.

That’s a great read, thank you. A lot of wonderful information and I appreciate you taking the time

 

[mdubya]

Consider the content of copper and Alnico is actually different today than it was in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s.

42 awg copper wire with plain enamel today does not sound exactly like it did 60 years ago when made today. Same goes for Alnico magnets. So A3 might get used where A2 was original spec. A4 might get used where A2 or A5 was original spec. Do you want the tone or do you want the specs?

Nobody can hear your pickup and say too bad it is an A4 or A3 and not an A5 or an A2.

Even if you are playing through a vintage amp, the spec will have drifted since new.

Quality of electricity coming from the wall, the condition of your vintage speakers, the list goes on and on.

Ever try to find a Celestion greenback that sounds like a real Pulsonic coned green back in perfect condition? These are all unicorns, now.

Even if you have the real thing, there is every chance it doesn't sound the same as it did in 1965.

That said, vintage gear seems to have a quality of tone that is just out of reach with modern reproductions. No matter what you do.

Hold your breath and turn blue? Mmmm... that might help. Or not.

JMHO.

FWIW - I have a 1976 Marshall JMP 2204 and vintage pulsonic greyback Celestions. They have aged and changed over the years. Modern components to keep the old Marshall in spec do not sound quite the same as the original components sounded 30 and 40 years ago.

My bud's carefully assembled and tweaked JTM 50 clone sounds more like we remember original Marshalls sounding than do his real vintage metal panel and plexi amps. The specs need to be tweaked with the modern components to get it there, though.

 

[EdwardR9]

If you talk to Wolfgang at Amber Pickups, he had a Physicist analyze a slew of real PAF pickups and they all spec out as A4 with a good documentation of gauss. I just popped in a set of Cream T Whiskerbuckers and they are tuned to a certain Q and the A4 is at 60% charge. Two sets of Custom Buckers came out sounding phenomenal with a bit stronger A3, but there is something about a degaussed A4 or A5. Gibson definitely tweaked the top end response.