Here's another one of my foibles: Now that they told me I shouldn't, I'm going to do it. I will prove them wrong.

Alright, I was out of line with my "fuck all" comment. I apologize to anyone and everyone who that was directed at, or felt it was directed at them. The sentiment should have been made without such strong verbiage.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
When people debate/argue in poor faith (ignoring or misrepresenting my points, taking things entirely out of context, raising straw man arguments, etc.) I tend to simply bow out--often silently. When they become insulting I generally tend to ignore them--often permanently.

Life's too short

Exactly! There's a strong example to be made here because Mark didn't put you on his ignore list after your first post in this thread, despite all that. Life's too short, but there's plenty of good discussion to be had before we get planted.


I find myself agreeing with JHE. The Mona Lisa, this ain't.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Here's another one of my foibles: Now that they told me I shouldn't, I'm going to do it. I will prove them wrong.

IIUC [1]: Not... really.

They didn't say you couldn't do it, right? That you were incapable of doing it? They expressed the opinion that you shouldn't do it?

If so: You can spite them, but, you can't prove them wrong, as such.

[1] IIUC: If I Understand Correctly

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Here's another one of my foibles: Now that they told me I shouldn't, I'm going to do it. I will prove them wrong.

IIUC [1]: Not... really.

They didn't say you couldn't do it, right? That you were incapable of doing it? They expressed the opinion that you shouldn't do it?

If so: You can spite them, but, you can't prove them wrong, as such.

[1] IIUC: If I Understand Correctly

We’ll, I’ve never seen a Second Baptist Church.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
We’ll, I’ve never seen a Second Baptist Church.

Maybe I'm just dense, but, I didn't get that reference the first time, either

I know absolutely nothing about amps, so I can’t comment on the specific case.

Here’s a general take: It seems like if a guy solicits input on modifying a “classis” it is fair to let him know the potential loss in value that may be caused by modifying said classis. If the guy understands and still wants to modify, unless one has suggestions on how best to accomplish the desired modification or a compelling offer to buy, it seems best to simply STFU.

Billy’s property is Billy’s and Billy ought to be able to do whatever the heck he wants with said property.

Now, if Billy has a priceless heirloom that would lose tremendous value and Billy has no clue what value he’d be destroying, a guy might be doing him a favor to fill him in. Once apprised, if Billy doesn’t care and wants to proceed anyway get out of his way. It is still a (somewhat) free country.

quote:

Originally posted by nasig:
people that give unsolicited advise in the 'you should' or 'you shouldn't' form are boring knuckleheads

QFT

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
Me: "I'd like to re-lume the dial and hands on this watch."

Them: "You shouldn't do that. This is an original, untouched dial. You'll ruin the value."

Me: "I understand that. But I need to be able to use it in low light. That's the value to me. I am never selling it."

Them: "I really wouldn't do that. Can you wear a different watch when you're working?"

Me: "Since I'm a 'watch guy' and have more, yes. But I don't want to. I want to wear and enjoy this watch. It has a boatload of sentimental value."

Them: "How 'bout if I swap the dial out for a similar one that's not original to the watch, then you can preserve this dial?"

Me: "How 'bout if I just go to another watchmaker that'll give me what I'm asking for?"

Understood.
I have this 1974 6105-8119 which I had a resto-mod done on. Totally brought it up to modern day spec. Triple lock crown to replace the destroyed pin lock original, relumed dial, sapphire crystal, total refresh of the movement, glass bead blasted case.
Purists think I ruined it, but I did this @ 1999 when these weren't considered worthwhile, but I liked mine and wanted the mods.

Now a purist would balk at it, but those that know would like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapping Twig:


Understood.
I have this 1974 6105-8119 which I had a resto-mod done on. Totally brought it up to modern day spec. Triple lock crown to replace the destroyed pin lock original, relumed dial, sapphire crystal, total refresh of the movement, glass bead blasted case.
Purists think I ruined it, but I did this @ 1999 when these weren't considered worthwhile, but I liked mine and wanted the mods.

Now a purist would balk at it, but those that know would like it.

When you had it done, it was a moderately old watch, and hadn't attracted collector interest or or value as a vintage piece. Of course, the reason that vintage pieces hold on to value is that they escape modification or restoration, but who could know at the time? There are lots of watches made in 1974 that never turned out to be worth a dime.

And, as you note, it is your watch anyway.

Mark123's Bassman has some value as a vintage amp, but that is also linked to being able to use it. Some would restore it - new capacitors, fix any bad wiring, etc. - but would not modify it. But many were and are modified, and they still have value both as collectibles and as useful tools.

Another thing to note about old tube amps is that mods are very easily reversed or removed. These were wired point to point, and the circuits can be changed easily. They can just as easily be put back into their original configuration.

May i ask when or how was this submitted to others to give an opinion?

You should do as you please, while keeping it as original as possible

In the end, what matters is how it is valuable/useful to you.

0-0

It’s your thing

Aw

Do what you wanna do.

quote:

Originally posted by 0-0:
May i ask when or how was this submitted to others to give an opinion?

You should do as you please, while keeping it as original as possible

0-0

It was me asking about the amps potential by converting the unused channel to two extra gain stages, I was hoping that someone had blazed the trail for me.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by calugo:
Why bother asking anyone's opinion on whether or not to modify something you own? …

Well, the original question was “I have this amp, I’m not using the bass channel, I can make the preamp section like a JCM800 but that leaves a whole 12AX7 unused. What can I make it into that will use the extra two gain stages?” Then the insults started.

I really enjoyed reading the thoughts of others here. It's good to get varied opinions.

Mark, enjoy the amp however you want it.

I also enjoyed reading the thoughts here. But to me seems like a no-brainer (which is easy since I have no brain ) - do with it whatever you want.

Tell anyone that bitches about it to offer 10 times what it’s worth and preserve the “heritage” or whatever. That’ll end any conversations over whether or not you should mod the amp.

^^^
This.
When they buy it, they can do what *they* want with it. Until then, they can offer advice if solicited, and then shut up immediately.

Thank you for not being emotionally wrapped up in the possessions of others.

I don't know much about a 1967 Fender Bassman amp. If there are still relatively easily found, then, there is no harm in modifying it.

Just as with older, collectible firearms, I feel as if we are curators of such items, caretakers, because these objects will remain after we are gone.

In, say, 1956, no one would have thought twice about customizing a S&W Model of 1950 Hand Ejector in .44 Special with a 4" barrel, but now, it would be a tasteless thing to do, even if it's your property.

Another factor to consider- the modifications you're thinking of making- are these reversible? Can the item be returned to its original condition, or are these hidden within thee object, and so minor as to be of no long-term consequence? If so, then the changes are no big deal.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I don't know much about a 1967 Fender Bassman amp. If there are still relatively easily found, then, there is no harm in modifying it.

Just as with older, collectible firearms, I feel as if we are curators of such items, caretakers, because these objects will remain after we are gone.

In, say, 1956, no one would have thought twice about customizing a S&W Model of 1950 Hand Ejector in .44 Special with a 4" barrel, but now, it would be a tasteless thing to do, even if it's your property.

Another factor to consider- the modifications you're thinking of making- are these reversible? Can the item be returned to its original condition, or are these hidden within thee object, and so minor as to be of no long-term consequence? If so, then the changes are no big deal.

Everything is completely reversible. Well, except for the electrolytic filter capacitors. It would be silly to replace them as they wear out. I kept the old ones and I suppose I could hide a new capacitor inside the old shell but I don’t think anyone expects them to be OEM.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Everything is completely reversible.

In that case, tell those guys to take the rod out of their ass so they can shove it back in. If a man owns the pistol I used for an example, there is no harm in putting a modern set of grips on it, which can be taken off at any time.

I think web forums are ripe for such silliness. People want to demonstrate to others how they are purists, and therefore, more thoughtful than others. Posturing, and nothing more.

Don't just modify it. Modify and take pictures of the process, and then post the pics for all the purists to see. When they plotz, offer to call an ambulance for them.