Peavey T-40 and T-60, Neck plate, Circuit and Ash. . . . .

I had intended to do this last week but time ran away with me.
So, to the next part.
Below is part of the e.mail I sent to Chip and his response. 
Once again, fascinating reading!

Having a good response to the feature - reader numbers have gone up
by over a hundred a day - around 800 for the week!!

I think you has answered this one before - the Peavey script on the neck
plate is upside down so when you rotate the guitar, so the back is to the
audience (Hendrix style) "Peavey" is the correct way up??

I know you have covered this one quite a lot and you would have perhaps
preferred a more simple arrangement, although a lot of owners like the
feature - the circuit!
How did you and Hartley find yourself going down that route?
An idea you/he had or was it offered to you? Red Rhodes designed?

You also have said that the T-40 pick-up would have been different,
if you had your time over again.
To me and thousands of owners, it sounds like a T-40 and several
other basses, when selecting all the different options but you would
have done it differently?

The Ash body was chosen for marketing purposes?
Looks good under a Sunburst and in those days weight meant
better tone/sustain?
Are the plain colours Poplar?

Eric;
I'm happy for you that the readership is climbing. I think your style of writing 
might have a lot to do with this.

The Indians, of North America, at least, wore their necklaces or such, so that 
they could see it right-side-up, as they believed themselves to be the center of 
the universe. 
We modern persons wear necklaces for others to see, hence their positioning.  
We, Hartley and I, figured the person wearing the guitar or bass, already knew 
what brand it was, so made the neckplate to read properly when the one holding 
the instrument held it out and rotated it for the viewer to read.

The first I heard of the Red Rhodes circuit was when Hartley told me about the 
new clever circuit that Red Rhodes gave to Hartley. 
I have, or had, no way to know whether Red thought of it or if it was something 
that was passed around.  
At the time, I could see no harm in using the circuitry, so went along with it. 
I have since learned that the circuit bled some trebles through the tone pot to 
ground all the time. 
It seems as if we should have had 300k ohm pots made to prevent the overtones 
we were unknowingly losing. 
I now cut or unsolder the red centertap wire to prevent the leakage of high overtones. 
I also remove the chrome covers from the pickups and hear a much more pleasing 
sound, (to my ear).

I also designed the input of the signal from the pickups to enter the pot through the 
middle lug, a practice that most pot manufacturers insist on. 
Gibson and Fender bring the signal in through an outside  lug which gives an 
unwanted side effect. 
That is, if both pickups are on together, when you change the volume or tone of either, 
it affects both pickups. They are interdependent. 
Wiring the signal to the center lug removes the interdependence, giving more control 
over the tone; moving either volume or tone of one pickup doesn't affect the other pickup.

I am finding that the T-60 pickup is a better bass pickup in that it has some pleasing 
treble overtones that fill out the sound in a way that's pleasing to my ears. 
These overtones can be eliminated with the tone pot if so desired. 
However, you just can't get them through the added resistance of the added length of 
coil wire of the larger T-40 pickups. 
Since resistance inhibits treble tones, and both T-40 and T-60 pickups have about 
the same number of turns of wire, the T-40 pickups lack some nice sounds I'm 
finding on my short-scale basslets. 
I'm using the 25.5" fret scale to make it more familiar to anyone who plays guitar 
also. Surprisingly, the 22" scale bass sounds very nice, but, unfortunately,
look like a toy.
Neil Diamond's lead guitar player uses the 24.75" scale basslet in the studio for
 its sound.

 


















 Ash sunburst bodies still had the weight of the natural wood models and are relatively 
rare, when compared to the other color options.
We introduced the solid color instruments so that we could use the much lighter Poplar 
wood for bodies. 
We had the Ash bodies for weight, although both Hartley and I knew that weight didn't
mean more sustain. 
He told me that "We were the "new kids on the block" so we dare not make too many 
waves until we were established. 
Many years after I had left Peavey, I made a skeleton T-60 to prove beyond a doubt 
that you could get equal sustain.

Chip.

In terms of tone, sustain, brightness, volume etc, there is always going to be a 
slight variation but in real terms, the sound of the Ash and Poplar bodies are
pretty much identical - it would be very hard to determine one or the other,
if it was a blind testing.
The Wine coloured T-60 I have, shown a couple of posts ago, is one of the 
sweetest guitars you could ever wish to play.

Next time, more from Chip - Toasters to Blades - Slab to Contoured.

Cheers. :)  
























 

Peavey T-60 and T-40 - the early days, continued. . . .

Once again, I am very grateful for Chip's considerable input into this.
He is prolific, which for me is great - the whole story unfolds in great detail.
He was editor of American Gunsmith for about 10 years and wrote 
hundreds of articles, so he is no stranger to the keyboard!

This is going to be a lengthy post, as I am going to cover my oldest T-40,
while Chip continues with the story. 
The heads above show the subtle difference between the early (1977) one
and the later 1979

In the images below, you will see the "applied" dot markers that Chip refers
to in his story.
 The top image shows the way they are now and if you look closely at the 
bottom image, you will see that the dot is slightly raised. 

The tuners on the earlier one, are also very slightly different.
The top image shows early above and later below.
The middle image shows the earlier ones from above and the
image at the bottom, shows the later one from above. 

The early one also seems to have a nut at either end of the rod!
There are also markings on the neck and in the pocket - not sure
what they mean but I will check with Chip.

The pots are marked 77 and there are some scribbles and initials,
written in pencil. Brass bottomed pick-ups. 

This, as you can see, is currently stripped for an overhaul - 
not a restoration, as I like it the way it is but the switches 
are a little worn.

Anyway, more input from me next time - back to what Chip 
has to say.
I asked him this question - Did you set out to make the T-40 and T-60
a bit more special/innovative/different because of Peavey ethos/your 
desire to lead in another direction or because it was deemed as a good 
marketing standpoint - or a bit of both?

I was both a commercial artist and mechanical engineer when Peavey hired me 
and we both had the desire to build things using the most accurate and cost 
effective methods available, at the time. 
We both felt that most guitar designs and manufacturing methods were incestuous 
as everybody was copying what had been done for centuries. 
I was a machinist, dragster builder and driver, and knew that metalworking methods 
could make better and more economical instruments, than the antiquated processes 
used by all the manufacturers around in 1975, when I started designing the T-series 
guitars and basses.
Evidently, none of the luthiers had heard of Henry Ford, the father of mass production.

Things like the outline of the peghead and the ease of graphics were a well-kept secret 
for years, and we kept it to ourselves. 
As a commercial artist, I had been using rub-on lettering for years and naturally was 
ready with that in mind when we designed the peghead. 
The rub-on dot markers were successful because of the urethane paint we used
but a band touring the factory surprised the ladies putting on the dots and that 
embarrassed Peavey into changing to the inlayed vinyl dots.
It would take a book to relate the many changes to production that we initiated
but several of the innovations have changed the manufacturing of guitars worldwide. 
There are several holdouts, such as Gibson and Fender, who are trapped by the 
words they published and had to keep up some old, less-than-smart, methods. 
Fender hired me to bring them up into the modern age with Peavey, but CBS 
changed management to ex-Yamaha executives who were thoroughly indoctrinated 
by Japanese methods.

The wood supplier we chose to use was run by an old woodworker in Alabama who 
told me, "Son, in woodworking you work to 1/16 of an inch, not thousandths. 
We took him over to our Meridian, Mississippi facility and showed him that 
metal-working techniques worked with wood, as long as you controlled the
moisture level. 
He was sold on it and gave talks at wood industry meetings. 
With this process, we had to return any machined wood to a humidity-controlled 
room, each night until it got past the painting stage.  
Hartley (Peavey) and I are both aircraft fans and knew that nothing takes more 
abuse in the finish than aircraft sitting out in the sun and rain like airplanes. 
We got Sherwin Williams work up a catalyzed urethane like DuPont's Emron paint, 
which was way too expensive as it was "aircraft" related.

The only thing that we did for marketing reasons, even though we knew that it was 
wrong, was to make individual saddles with height adjustment like Fender. 
Peavey was afraid that Fender would use that against us while we were "the new kids 
on the block". 
There is no valid reason to support individual height adjustment for the strings. 
The  height of the strings should be in an arc that mimics the arch of the frets. 
We chose to use an inexpensive method of tilting the neck for string height 
adjustment, although most musicians refused to read any instructions. 
All other design features were done for functionality and not tradition.

Chip.





Many thanks, Chip - I have more questions for next time.

Cheers. :)  

Peavey T-60, T-40, Chip Todd - Hartley Peavey - "Take from the top!". . .

As I said in one of my previous posts, I am very lucky to
have a substantial input from Chip, himself and I am grateful
for the time he has put into it and he has indicated there is
more to come.

I you own, or have owned  a Peavey T Series guitar, I'm sure you
will find what Chip has to say, very interesting as the story unfolds.

Thanks Chip. :)

So, back to the beginning, from the man who put the "T" in the 
T series Basses and Guitars, in his own words.

I think that Hartley first thought seriously about making guitars in early 1975, 

as he hired me in mid-1975. 

Both Gibson and Fender were telling dealers that if they didn't buy amps, they 

wouldn't be able to get guitars. 

That's illegal and called "tying in a product". 

Both made amps; Fender's were pretty and Gibson could hardly give their 

amps away.  

Instead of starting illegal proceedings, Peavey decided to make guitars 

knowing that "a best defense is a good offense". 

I had a warranty repair center in Houston doing work for Gibson, Fender, 

Ovation, Harmony, and other companies after getting out of the monorail 

business. 

I had contacted Mudge Miller, a friend who was the Gibson Sales manager, 

to find out how I should get into the guitar repair business, as I had met him 

while doing repairs for a music store while in college. 

He advised me to go to Houston and not fight Arnold & Morgan in Dallas. 

I took his advice and moved to Houston. 

Several years later, I was delivering an Ovation acoustic to Brook Mays, 

the largest chain in Texas, a repair that involved  extensive work around the 

outside edges of the sound board. 

I had airbrushed a Walnut sunburst on the front to hide the repairs, went to 

Brook Mays to return it, and Peavey's Texas representative was there and 

saw the sunburst Ovation. 

Since Ovation didn't do any sunburst at that time, the rep. was impressed 

and flew to the factory to tell Hartley about me. 

I had a college degree in both commercial art and mechanical engineering 

and both tied in with starting a factory. 

The rep, Bob Belfield, flew me to  Meridian, Mississippi to meet Hartley, 

(several of the Peavey reps had there own airplanes, as they were making 

around $250,000 while the reps for other music manufacturers were making 

about $45,000).  

Hartley's first question was, "What do you think of the "Zero Fret"? I answered, 

"It's the most sensible way to automatically achieve a perfect action on fretted 

instruments but something that the Japanese guitar makers have screwed up 

by losing their nerve and making the zero fret oversized". 

He grinned his large smile which said that we were going to get along fine. 

He hired me that day and we "made the town that night". 

Bob flew me back to Houston where I gave my repair center to Kevin Perry, 

who was my main help in Houston. 

I started work for Peavey in June or July of 1975. 

Neither Hartley nor I played the serial numbers game, so didn't keep serial 

number/date manufacturing dates recorded, in fact, we started with the serial 

numbers in the 25000000 range and used blocks of numbers that we took 

from the amplifier numbers. 

We didn't even keep track of the starting date of production; the current serial 

number list is just "a wild-ass guess", at best.

The six digit numbers were used as a lame attempt at my trying to get around 

using amplifier numbers, as were the 8M numbers, since the serial number 

program didn't recognize letters.

  
Hartley and I designed almost everything together. 

About the first or second day at work, Hartley took me to lunch at a small cafe 

that had home-style plate lunches and we were talking neck production. 

We were drawing to each other on napkins and arrived at a novel neck 

construction together. 

I said, "Where's my traditional $1 which is what most companies pay an 

engineer for patents, and he quickly said, "You're eating it". 

We "co-patented" the invention together. 

The hardest thing we designed was the peghead, since he wanted six keys 

on one side like Fender; anything  far away from Fender looked funny to us, 

but we didn't want to copy Fender, 

We finally settled on the T-series design, but I made a 3 per side version for 

the first prototypes for the 1976 NAMM show. 

The first three prototypes were made in my carport, by Charley Gressett 

and Bob Lowe, (later changed to R.T. Lowe), with minimal tools, in two days. 

We hadn't planned on names, yet, so Peavey told me to make them up. 

I used "CT-1", (my initials), for the 6-inline peghead, "CT-2" for the 3/side 

peghead, and "CT-B" for the bass guitar. 

The later naming meetings in late 1976, were hilarious events. 

Some time before that NAMM show, Hartley told me,  

"We're lucky to have a very profitable amplifier program to sponsor us, 

so I don't want to go to market until you say we're ready".

You asked about the pickguard. With the compound curvature of the front, it 

took a whole bunch of screws to keep the pickguard from bowing up in places. 

People have complained about the screws, but fail to notice the number of 

screws on the Stratocasters, which had a flat front. 

We were never allowed the same rules as Fender and Gibson. 

  
I showed Chip this youtube clip, to see if he agreed with the content.
See from 0:58 to 2:50. 

 

  
The guy on U-Tube was mostly correct. He just flubbed a couple of minor facts.

We did use many innovative techniques, that changed guitar manufacturing 

around the world. 
Gibson and Fender were locked into antiquated manufacturing 

ideas by tradition.

He added this at the end

  
Sorry, this turned out to be "War and Peace", but the whole program was breaking 

new ground.

Chip  

I think it's a good story, well told.

More to come next time, with some images of my earliest T-40 and the
subtle differences between that and the main production that followed.

My thanks to Chip - I look forward to the next part.

Cheers. :) 

If you have landed on this page and you want to go to the 
latest post, go here:
Latest post. 

   

Peavey T-60 and Eighty Thousand Visitors. . .

Hi to all out there.

As of today, over 80500 visits have been made to my blog.
So, thanks for dropping in - the story continues.





















I first saw a Peavey "T" in late '78 or early '79, a T-60 - I can't
remember exactly when but I do remember thinking at the time, 
this is a bit different!
The pic above is not of one of mine - I have borrowed this shot, from
a recently sold, mid periodT-60, as it has a very fine example of
the control details.
This one has the Blade pick-ups and the small selector switches, 
my first encounter with a Peavey T, was of course with the earlier
Toaster type, as the Blades didn't come in, until later. 

As the controls were different to the usual set-up, they all came with
this printed film, which sort of explained what the controls did.
On the tone controls, it was marked Treble, to Bass but in reality, 10
is Single coil and then 9 and 8 takes the top edge off the single coil
until it reaches 7.
At 7, the Humbucker engages, beefing up the sound and the remaining
rotation, take the top off the Humbucker, as would a normal tone control.

I will cover more of the sounds and options, later on but as you can 
imagine, in the late 70's, this was all very different to what we were 
all used to.

Ever since then, I have been a fan of the Peavey T and over the years
have come across all the variations and learnt more about them.

I have started a list of questions to ask Chip - in order to fill in the gaps 
and confirm some of the facts. 
I will make a start on the story, next time. 

 

Cheers. :)

Peavey T-40 and T-60, The Story. . . . . .

I have been asked, many times, about the "T Series" Peavey
Basses and Guitars and have said that at some point, I would
collate all the information I have and do a feature.
So, the next few posts will be about the T-40 and T60.

 

Way back in April, 2010 - in the early days of my blog, this was the
first picture I posted of the collection - The Three Forty's!

The earliest one I have goes almost back to the beginning and I have
had all the years after that. 

So, sit back, relax and I shall begin the story of the Forty's and
Sixty's, as I know it, next time.

Cheers. :)