$200K 1963 JTM45 One Of 6 Prototypes

[stickyfinger]

He's hoping some rich famous guitar rocker with money to blow wants to add this to their collection. Maybe, but likely at a lower price. Trainwrecks sell for 50k to these guys but eventually most get sold again.

 

[Derrick111]

The 500k fugazi Explorer he had on his wall tells you all you need to know about his interest in anything electric.,

What is a fugazi Explorer? As in the band Fugazi?

BTW, that is one sloppy cap job and I would expect a very clean job as a bare minimum at the higher end of pricing, let alone $200k.

I do wholeheartedly disagree with a post made earlier that any clone with Mercury Magnetics transformers will sound like a 60s original in a blind test. MM transformers are well built, but very "clinical" sounding where as the originals are very "organic". Possibly with Merren or Pacific Transformer iron, but not MM.

 

[StingRay85]

Orange drops in the PI

 

[London John]

What is a fugazi Explorer? As in the band Fugazi?

Guitar, very long and tragic tale of tawdry lies and greed. He was conned, but he took the bait until put straight by well wishes.

 

[NickKUK]

Here are the screenshots:



I don't know much about this era, but a couple of things stand out immediately:
- The PI layout looks wrong for 7 turret-wide board. Likely cut down from an 8 turret board (as MG were known to do).
- The yellow/blue Dubilier caps are anachronistic (should be grey RS PIO).

Resistors look too new for a 1970s build. I'd expect carbon comp that is sharp cornered. Especially if it's on the cheap and using older 50/60 stock being sold on the cheap.

Also very clean.. very clean. Both in terms of dust, solder oxidisation and metal patina/rust. It's like it's had a serious service - ie someone has gone through the old resistors and replace them and possibly the chassis itself. The silicon wonder seems like a real bodge service. The volume knob wiring and soldering etc looks period.

This is 6 years earlier (1957), where I don't expect it to be this bad in terms of dust, I would expect a level of level of patina/oxidisation of metal for people that have essentially DIY'd without plating technology to protect it:


Only other question I have is the power - for 1963 in the UK there would not be a need for parity. 1963 UK mains sockets for UK market (unless they were intended for the US market) would have had a 3 pin UK plug without the ability to reverse polarity.

Now if this was a production prototype was it for the US rather than UK first? Typically you'd get the UK market out, sell the amps and then worry about retrofitting - this would get your money in first.

 

[vtrain]

Resistors look too new for a 1970s build. I'd expect carbon comp that is sharp cornered. Especially if it's on the cheap and using older 50/60 stock being sold on the cheap.

Also very clean.. very clean. Both in terms of dust, solder oxidisation and metal patina/rust. It's like it's had a serious service - ie someone has gone through the old resistors and replace them and possibly the chassis itself. The silicon wonder seems like a real bodge service. The volume knob wiring and soldering etc looks period.

This is 6 years earlier (1957), where I don't expect it to be this bad in terms of dust, I would expect a level of level of patina/oxidisation of metal for people that have essentially DIY'd without plating technology to protect it:
View attachment 157888

Only other question I have is the power - for 1963 in the UK there would not be a need for parity. 1963 UK mains sockets for UK market (unless they were intended for the US market) would have had a 3 pin UK plug without the ability to reverse polarity.

Now if this was a production prototype was it for the US rather than UK first? Typically you'd get the UK market out, sell the amps and then worry about retrofitting - this would get your money in first.

I’m no Marshall historian, but I have doubts they were making anything for export in 1963, or even maybe 1964.

I personally think the amp looks too clean, and there are zero details on where it’s been for the past 60 years and why it looks so clean. Who had it, how was it stored? It obviously didn’t see a lot of road time.

 

[vtrain]

He's hoping some rich famous guitar rocker with money to blow wants to add this to their collection. Maybe, but likely at a lower price. Trainwrecks sell for 50k to these guys but eventually most get sold again.

More like a wannabe rocker with deep pockets, IMO. Maybe some CEO who has a bunch of “10-tops” in his office.

No offense to 10-tops or people who love them!

 

[Jethro Rocker]

Now if this was a production prototype was it for the US rather than UK first? Typically you'd get the UK market out, sell the amps and then worry about retrofitting - this would get your money in first.

Nope, no way. As Ken said they were struggling to make amps and sell them, it was a brand new thing for them. NO exporting at all. No prototypes, they made the first, sold it and continued.
I agree with the cleanliness how could an amp of that age look that clean???
Hell I was born in 63 and I don't clean up nearly as well

 

[Jethro Rocker]

I’m no Marshall historian, but I have doubts they were making anything for export in 1963, or even maybe 1964.

I personally think the amp looks too clean, and there are zero details on where it’s been for the past 60 years and why it looks so clean. Who had it, how was it stored? It obviously didn’t see a lot of road time.

Agreed. Considering they sold every amp they made in 1963, it must have been used a fair bit. Where indeed is the history on this?
Fishy, man, fishy...

 

[LeverAction Gypsy]

Nowadays with the internet and the ability to 'paper trail' nearly anything, you would think at that price with its 'historical value' there would be an easy paper trail of the owners - at least for the last 30 years or so. If you sell a used car thats 20 yrs old for a few thousand bucks its easy to get the paper trail with carfax ect. Granted with cars that get registered legally its a little different but I'd want to see as much history as possible. I can track my (2) 1983 Marshalls to the last owner, if the money was there, you can track that guy down and where he got it from. Time consuming - yes - but so is coming up with $200k

 

[goldtop0]

At least the chap got the year right, M did start with the JTM45 in '63.

 

[Dirty-D]

it won't make you sound any better.

 

[playloud]

Resistors look too new for a 1970s build. I'd expect carbon comp that is sharp cornered. Especially if it's on the cheap and using older 50/60 stock being sold on the cheap.

The Piher mixer resistors (270k) also look like the wrong type to me.

Only other question I have is the power - for 1963 in the UK there would not be a need for parity. 1963 UK mains sockets for UK market (unless they were intended for the US market) would have had a 3 pin UK plug without the ability to reverse polarity.

Now if this was a production prototype was it for the US rather than UK first? Typically you'd get the UK market out, sell the amps and then worry about retrofitting - this would get your money in first.

Marshall did use the 'polarity' switch on the very first JTM45s (even though they were intended for sale locally). A byproduct of cloning the Bassman.

Orange drops in the PI

The issue with the PI is the turret positions. On a genuine example, the central turrets should each be 3 holes in, with the power supply wire coming through the hole between them. The big PIO caps make this hard to distinguish in the Johan Segeborn videos I posted, but serial #1029 in this thread has also had the coupling caps replaced, and you can see it clearly: https://marshallforum.com/threads/anyone-knows-about-this-offset-serial-1030.96615

 

[guitarzan2525]

Guitar Center used to have an original offset JTM-45 in the front Left display window of their Hollywood store. I used to make the LA rounds back in the late 80's - early 90's to visit the local vintage stores there (Voltage, Guitar-R-Us, GC Hollywood). It was sold long ago...

 

[NickKUK]

Another warning sign to me is that the jacks, indicator light surround and knobs all have wear/scratches that indicates usage but the front panel is pristine with no scratch or blemishes or even paint loss in from the indented lettering.

It feels like this was a build with period components, had a radical overall in the 1980s/1990s, then had a secondary overhaul in the late 2010-20s for the electrolyics etc leaving the carbon comp resistors solder on the turrets untouched.

I'm also questioning the front panel font indentation too - unless it was professionally done in 1963 it would have either been a font metal punch or silk screened onto plastic. I know the original marshal logo was metal embossed and then the fonts flood filled with paint so it could have been done. However for 18 year of kids in their shed, it seems very accurate.

For me, given this is a steel chassis, this is remarkably clean and free of corrosion and if it was zinc plated then the zinc plating hasn't started to oxidise and leave white powdery residue around. So unless it was stored in a dry environment this would have some corrosion unless replaced.

Lastly - looking at videos of 1962 and 1963 Marshalls - the input jacks on the 1962 offset were still the fender style not the isolated plastic jacks, the later 1963 central jtm seemed to switch to the plastic isolation jacks. So what does this mean for this amp? Is it a modified offset or a later jtm64 prototype based on the 1962 - but then the jtm 1963 also removed the polarity switch.

 

[NickKUK]

Marshall did use the 'polarity' switch on the very first JTM45s (even though they were intended for sale locally). A byproduct of cloning the Bassman.

True, and if it was created by kids/people that didn't understand the reasons they'd have simply copied it perhaps.

As an amp it's a nice looking amp and has been maintained to be playable. However is it legitimate from 1963 or 'original' then I'd have serious doubts. Would it create an inane grin when playing it - absolutely.

 

[StingRay85]

At some point, the information on sites like this will become so detailed that a forgery can no longer be destinguished from an original. We're getting close to that. Aging an alu chassis with a small ozone generator will probably create that patina within a reasonable time frame

 

[Derrick111]

I wonder if this amp's origins can traced to Musicground at any point?

 

[neikeel]

I’m with London John on this. It is all wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to start!

 

[BygoneTones]

At some point, the information on sites like this will become so detailed that a forgery can no longer be destinguished from an original. We're getting close to that. Aging an alu chassis with a small ozone generator will probably create that patina within a reasonable time frame

Yes, I don't think it's a good idea to point out every detail thats wrong with it. Tempting as it might be. Don't let these assholes know where they are going wrong so they can keep refining the process until they get it completely right.