Metropoulos Forum

The chassis has a "18GA" date, but the paper type is 003. I didn't think 003 was around that early? Any thoughts?

july 68 I would say.

the 003 code is normal for a t1221 from that year.

if you are confused by that celestion date chart everyone refers to, ignore all the sentences that read "date codes are written in the form...etc, etc" it is complete nonsense.

18 GA would be July 18, 1968. 102 003 cones are standard for that year. There were H1777 cones up to late 66/early 67.

The Celestion date code chart isn't complete nonsense, but they flipped the date codes around in 69, so you have to know something of your speaker build characteristics, cone #'s, etc.

Pre 68 it was as yours is, it goes day, month, year

After 68 it was month, year, day such as DD21, April 21, 1971.

The problem lies in that the Celestion employees frequently used the pre 68 setup well into 69, and didn't stamp the codes the right way.

Fun, ain't it?

Scumback Speakers wrote:Fun, ain't it?

Thats why we rely on you, Jim!! You've got this shit down to a science!!

Right!

If Jim don't know a thing regarding an old Celestion, than it is simply not worth to know it

Regards

Robert

Oh I see, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. I noticed it has a little coil rub, but it doesn't seem to affect the sound any.

Dang this is a fine example of the speakers eddie used in the early years along with the 30 watters

the boogie man wrote:Oh I see, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. I noticed it has a little coil rub, but it doesn't seem to affect the sound any.

Danger, Will Robinson. Voice coil rub is the beginning of the end. You should send that to Chris ****** to be fixed. He's got the tools/chemicals/knowhow to save that original cone & coil if it's not too bad. I've referred him a good 10-12 clients over the years, and they all say their speakers sounded great after getting them back from him.

Scumback Speakers wrote:Danger, Will Robinson.

Scumback Speakers wrote:

the boogie man wrote:Oh I see, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. I noticed it has a little coil rub, but it doesn't seem to affect the sound any.

Danger, Will Robinson. Voice coil rub is the beginning of the end. You should send that to Chris ****** to be fixed. He's got the tools/chemicals/knowhow to save that original cone & coil if it's not too bad. I've referred him a good 10-12 clients over the years, and they all say their speakers sounded great after getting them back from him.

Thanks for the advice! I realize that it's the beginning of the end, but I didn't know anyone could help. I usually just crank up my JMP and let the chips fall where they may. I have another 68' cab with 25 Watters and one of those has a little coil rub as well, but once again doesn't affect the sound at this point.

Could you PM me Chris's contact info? Thanks so much.

Scumback Speakers wrote: The Celestion date code chart isn't complete nonsense, but they flipped the date codes around in 69, so you have to know something of your speaker build characteristics, cone #'s, etc.

Pre 68 it was as yours is, it goes day, month, year

After 68 it was month, year, day such as DD21, April 21, 1971.

The problem lies in that the Celestion employees frequently used the pre 68 setup well into 69, and didn't stamp the codes the right way.

Fun, ain't it?

this backs up my point though doesnt it?

for a complete beginner that chart can be very misleading.

the easiest way to date a greenback is by its appearance and characteristics, not the date code. but most people dont realise this and will just go straight to the chart.

the position of the two numbers, whether in front of, or after the letters is of no relevance to dating it in my opinion. that is just a 'characteristic' in itself, not a basis for dating the speaker. and as you have pointed out there is no consistency in that characteristic either. but that chart suggests otherwise. most people will use the position of the numbers to see which section they should be looking at on the chart. 1963-1967 or 1968-1991, and this is the main flaw in that chart and where it misleads everyone.

when you know the period features of a greenback, you can easily narrow the date down to within a couple of years, and then to date it more accurately all you need to look at is the pair of letters. whether the day numbers are in front or after is irrelevant. on some early 70's speakers the numbers aren't even there at all.

BaronGreenback wrote: this backs up my point though doesnt it?

for a complete beginner that chart can be very misleading.

the easiest way to date a greenback is by its appearance and characteristics, not the date code. but most people dont realise this and will just go straight to the chart.

the position of the two numbers, whether in front of, or after the letters is of no relevance to dating it in my opinion. that is just a 'characteristic' in itself, not a basis for dating the speaker. and as you have pointed out there is no consistency in that characteristic either. but that chart suggests otherwise. most people will use the position of the numbers to see which section they should be looking at on the chart. 1963-1967 or 1968-1991, and this is the main flaw in that chart and where it misleads everyone.

when you know the period features of a greenback, you can easily narrow the date down to within a couple of years, and then to date it more accurately all you need to look at is the pair of letters. whether the day numbers are in front or after is irrelevant. on some early 70's speakers the numbers aren't even there at all.

No, I disagree. Since Music Ground was faking these speakers (I was involved in a case of determining this for a client and his credit card company) every chance they got, the position, the way it's stamped, where it's stamped on the frame and if the letters or numbers were first all were important.

Not only that, before 67 they stamped the cork gasket and not the frame, so there's another reason in being able to tell if it's real or not. You may not have come across faked Greenbacks, restamped date codes, and falsified cone #'s and labels, but I have. You can't just dismiss the date code and Txxxx stamp and it's position as having "no relevance", even if it's your opinion. Opinions have a nasty habit of turning into facts on the internet if they go unchallenged. So I'm challenging your opinion as being incorrect before it turns into "internet fact" or lore. Sorry, you can't dismiss it that simply.

It also makes me wonder if the Greenbacks you have seen, or might own, are in fact genuine, for you to make that kind of statement.

the boogie man wrote:Could you PM me Chris's contact info? Thanks so much.

Email me for that. I don't PM, hate that little window.

Jim my Music Ground cabs had the right numbers on the cones, all they had done was flip the grill cloths.
This was back in late eighties, so I don't know when they started 'duplicating' Celestions, ect...

yngwie308

Scumback Speakers wrote:

BaronGreenback wrote: this backs up my point though doesnt it?

for a complete beginner that chart can be very misleading.

the easiest way to date a greenback is by its appearance and characteristics, not the date code. but most people dont realise this and will just go straight to the chart.

the position of the two numbers, whether in front of, or after the letters is of no relevance to dating it in my opinion. that is just a 'characteristic' in itself, not a basis for dating the speaker. and as you have pointed out there is no consistency in that characteristic either. but that chart suggests otherwise. most people will use the position of the numbers to see which section they should be looking at on the chart. 1963-1967 or 1968-1991, and this is the main flaw in that chart and where it misleads everyone.

when you know the period features of a greenback, you can easily narrow the date down to within a couple of years, and then to date it more accurately all you need to look at is the pair of letters. whether the day numbers are in front or after is irrelevant. on some early 70's speakers the numbers aren't even there at all.

No, I disagree. Since Music Ground was faking these speakers (I was involved in a case of determining this for a client and his credit card company) every chance they got, the position, the way it's stamped, where it's stamped on the frame and if the letters or numbers were first all were important.

Not only that, before 67 they stamped the cork gasket and not the frame, so there's another reason in being able to tell if it's real or not. You may not have come across faked Greenbacks, restamped date codes, and falsified cone #'s and labels, but I have. You can't just dismiss the date code and Txxxx stamp and it's position as having "no relevance", even if it's your opinion. Opinions have a nasty habit of turning into facts on the internet if they go unchallenged. So I'm challenging your opinion as being incorrect before it turns into "internet fact" or lore. Sorry, you can't dismiss it that simply.

It also makes me wonder if the Greenbacks you have seen, or might own, are in fact genuine, for you to make that kind of statement.

I think you misread my post.

I am only referring to whether the numbers are in front of or after the letters. eg 21DD or DD21. Not any of the other characteristics you mentioned, which I agree with you can help verify and date the speaker.

Also I never said this (numbers before letters and vice versa) was completely irrelevant. The point I was trying to get across was that due to inconsistencies, as even mentioned by yourself earlier, it is not a solid starting point on which to base dating a speaker. (which is what people do when using the chart)

Personally I think basics such as the colour of the magnet cover are a better starting point, and then narrow down from there with other characteristics such as black solder tabs or grey solder tabs, cone codes etc, etc...