What magnets did the original PAFs use?

[Macleod]

Thanks. :ahem

A set of your tele pickups, I guess you call them "cub". I love them, still keep them.

The other pickups I think are yours are those I bought from Torres Engineering. A blues special tele lead (staggered 60's style), and a vintage strat neck, as they were calling. I think I made the purchase in November 2002. I am not too sure if those are yours but remember that my purchase date sort of matched the dates (you gave on some old thread) during which you were a subcontractor for them. No? From what I understand, they gotta be yours as they are quite good, unlike what I hear about Torres' other pickups. Any input there?

MB

Hmm...I don't think I did any Tele or Strat stuff for them, and I'm pretty sure I didn't do any staggered Tele bridges.
If anyone has a humbucker from those dates though, you'll find a signature under the coils that says "Made by WolfeTone to Torres Specs"
If they're junk...it was because they were made with Torres-supplied parts.

 

[Zhangliqun]

The following table is from Duncan's Q&A #226. So A4 is not a weak a5, its just that their composition is different. It is funny that actually the gauss readings of both a3 and a4 is lower than that of a2's. So that makes them weaker than a2's no?

Magnet material
Nominal Chemical Composition
Gauss
Oersteds Nominal
Maxim-um Energy
Alnico 1 12 Al, 21 Ni, 5 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 7200 470 1.40
Alnico 2 10 Al, 19 Ni, 13 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 7500 560 1.70
Alnico 3 12 Al, 25 Ni, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 7000 480 1.35
Alnico 4 12 Al, 27 Ni, 5 Co, Bal. Fe 5600 720 1.35
Alnico 5 8 Al, 14 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 12800 640 5.50
Alnico 5DG 8 Al, 14 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 13300 670 6.50
Alnico 5 col. 8 Al, 14 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 13500 740 7.55
Alnico 6 8 Al, 16 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, 1 Ti, Bal. Fe 10500 780 3.90
Alnico 8 7 Al, 15 Ni, 35 Co, 4 Cu, 5 Ti, Bal. Fe 8200 1650 5.30
Alnico 8 HC 8 Al, 14 Ni, 38 Co, 3 Cu, 8 Ti, Bal. Fe 7200 1900 5.00
Alnico 9 7 Al, 15 Ni, 35 Co, 4 Cu, 5 Ti, Bal. Fe 10500 1500 9.00

http://www.seymourduncan.com/website/support/seymours_q_and_a_4.shtml#226

Okay, I'm stumped. Gauss numbers are typically 2 digits (e.g., 25, 37, etc.) but I don't see any 2-digit numbers up there.

 

[turkish]

Hmm...I don't think I did any Tele or Strat stuff for them, and I'm pretty sure I didn't do any staggered Tele bridges.
If anyone has a humbucker from those dates though, you'll find a signature under the coils that says "Made by WolfeTone to Torres Specs"
If they're junk...it was because they were made with Torres-supplied parts.

Thanks man, I appreciate your help. :dude

MB

 

[turkish]

Okay, I'm stumped. Gauss numbers are typically 2 digits (e.g., 25, 37, etc.) but I don't see any 2-digit numbers up there.

You are right. I too see the gauss reading given by generally 2 digits, just like in the description of the duncan antiquity HB's.

But Seymour's articles on Vintage Guitar Magazine (that's the source of those q&a's) give them as I have posted above. In another q&a (#196) he says that

Gauss is the Centimeter, Gram and Second (CGS System) unit of magnetic Induction.
Gauss = Total Flux in Maxwell’s (divided by) area in sq. centimeter. Oersted is the Centimeter, Gram and Second unit of magnetizing force. I use this to see how far the magnetic field travels down a string using a particular pickup. You can have more than enough magnetic field in your pickup that can effect the sound of your instrument.

That's why I think our confusion is due to the use of two unit systems, the CGS system and something else that I dunno. That is I don't know what the unit of a 2 digit gauss reading is, it wasn't stated on the sources I saw.

Or it is simply due to the following: The gauss reading in that table is in CGS system, hence the number of lines per square centimeters. The area of a magnet bar is like 5 sq centimeters I think, thus the gauss reading for example of a fully charged a2 would then be 5*7500= 37500. And the meters simply measure the mega (kilo ?) gauss and would read 37-38. No?

BTW q&a #191 and 192 are also an interesting.

MB

 

[Beebe]

The following table is from Duncan's Q&A #226. So A4 is not a weak a5, its just that their composition is different. It is funny that actually the gauss readings of both a3 and a4 is lower than that of a2's. So that makes them weaker than a2's no?

Magnet material
Nominal Chemical Composition
Gauss
Oersteds Nominal
Maxim-um Energy
Alnico 1 12 Al, 21 Ni, 5 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 7200 470 1.40
Alnico 2 10 Al, 19 Ni, 13 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 7500 560 1.70
Alnico 3 12 Al, 25 Ni, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 7000 480 1.35
Alnico 4 12 Al, 27 Ni, 5 Co, Bal. Fe 5600 720 1.35
Alnico 5 8 Al, 14 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 12800 640 5.50
Alnico 5DG 8 Al, 14 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 13300 670 6.50
Alnico 5 col. 8 Al, 14 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, Bal. Fe 13500 740 7.55
Alnico 6 8 Al, 16 Ni, 24 Co, 3 Cu, 1 Ti, Bal. Fe 10500 780 3.90
Alnico 8 7 Al, 15 Ni, 35 Co, 4 Cu, 5 Ti, Bal. Fe 8200 1650 5.30
Alnico 8 HC 8 Al, 14 Ni, 38 Co, 3 Cu, 8 Ti, Bal. Fe 7200 1900 5.00
Alnico 9 7 Al, 15 Ni, 35 Co, 4 Cu, 5 Ti, Bal. Fe 10500 1500 9.00

BTW I came across some of your pickups, and loved them. I just wanted you to know that I respect what you do! :dude So would love to hear what you think about that alnico grade issue here.

Best,

MB

PS: My source:

http://www.seymourduncan.com/website/support/seymours_q_and_a_4.shtml#226

Finding this 20 yrs later. Thanks for posting and giving your source.

It appears that strength follows Cobalt content.

A3 gets you that "Cobalt-free" sound

If you're after a "Copper-free" sound, check out A4

 

[Hiwatts-n-Gibsons]

Finding this 20 yrs later. Thanks for posting and giving your source.

It appears that strength follows Cobalt content.

A3 gets you that "Cobalt-free" sound

If you're after a "Copper-free" sound, check out A4

The resurrection is upon us! The rapture is here!

 

[EdF_PA]

So Gibson says the current Custombucker is the most historically accurate PAF copy ever. And the CBs on my ‘23 R7 BB have Alnico III magnets. But it sounds from the posts here that A3s were rarely, if ever, used for PAFS. Thoughts???

 

[Emiel]

The general consensus seems that Alnico II and Alnico V were most common in PAFs. But I think I've read somewhere that most modern alloys aren't exactly the same as the II or V of yore... maybe that's why Gibson went for III? Who knows...

 

[S. Weiger]

The general consensus seems that Alnico II and Alnico V were most common in PAFs. But I think I've read somewhere that most modern alloys aren't exactly the same as the II or V of yore... maybe that's why Gibson went for III? Who knows...

Yeah could it be that modern days Alnico 3 is more or less like 1950's A2, and thus Gibson's claim about vintage accuracy?

 

[Vics53]

My knowledge of pickups is next to nothing. But in reading all of this I'm under the impression that with so many variables it would almost be impossible for a modern day manufacturer to say "we've nailed THEE PAF sound!"

I dunno, maybe some have. I mean, if someone here said to me "these pickups in your LP will give you thee true PAF sound you've been looking for" I'd be......"uh, okay."

Not arguing with anyone here. Just saying I didn't realize there were so many variables with PAF's from back then.

Interesting for sure.

 

[Hamerfan]

Yeah could it be that modern days Alnico 3 is more or less like 1950's A2, and thus Gibson's claim about vintage accuracy?

Some years ago a did a deeper research on cobalt, which is the key to understand guitar magnet. Cobalt was mainly produced in Africa before the war and became quite rare during WWII with the demand increased with the modern production of weapons. The civil use of Co was restricted in 1940s, before USA increased their own production. In the beginning 50ies the Korean War worsend the situation again until 1953. In that time they developed the grades with the higher content of the still expensive Cobalt.