Gettin ready to pull the trigger on a IIC+...but

[Finnster]

I found a MINT, never out of the house Simul IIC+....black tolex head.
My problem is that it is way more than a MKIV and I was set on a MKIV until I got caught up in all the IIC+ hype. I blame all of you "pushers" out there :twisted: :twisted:

I guess the IIC+ is going to be more "valuable" over time and the MKIV will drop a bit unless I buy a used head for about 1K. I could always unload the IIC+ if push came to shove. What are the pros/cons of each? Is the MKIV really that much more versatile of an amp?

Anyone have both that can help me?

Thanks

 

[sundaypunch]

I think the choice depends on how much they want for the IIC+. Not that they are everywhere, but it's easy enough to find one if you are going to pay the going rate. If it's a bargain there is no downside.

 

[Platypus]

It's a tough one, in your shoes I'd still get the Mark IV. I've never played the IIC+ before but since the EQ is shared you don't have as much variation or control like you do on the Mark IV. I really want to get a IIC+ one day, but I'd use it for 'the IIC+ sound' and use a different amp for whatever else.

hard call.. having never played a IIC+ I don't think I could make the call but the Mark IV is a lot more amplifier for a lot less money.

 

[Finnster]

I'm leaning toward the IV because of cost and versatility. Just need to decide if I want a head(medium or short) or combo. I may even buy a new one in a nice maple finish. I am guessing that I will have it for a long time.

The IIC+ isnt cheap......it is 3K :shock: :shock:

This helps my decision.

 

[jerseydrew]

If you decide to not buy the MKIIC+, let us know. Perhaps someone here will want it.

 

[ursinus]

Get the MKIV! I had a 1996 MKIVa in Flame Maple and I ended up selling for %50 more than I bought it for. I hated to sell that amp, but i was in between work and it was either lose the house or sell the amp.......

 

[Boogiebabies]

I found a MINT, never out of the house Simul IIC+....black tolex head.
My problem is that it is way more than a MKIV and I was set on a MKIV until I got caught up in all the IIC+ hype. I blame all of you "pushers" out there :twisted: :twisted:

I guess the IIC+ is going to be more "valuable" over time and the MKIV will drop a bit unless I buy a used head for about 1K. I could always unload the IIC+ if push came to shove. What are the pros/cons of each? Is the MKIV really that much more versatile of an amp?

Anyone have both that can help me?

Thanks

Pusher !!!

Give me your home address so I can hold a bazooka to your head and force you to buy a C+.

 

[JOEY B.]

If I may add my opinion here. The C+ is a very versatile amp, just not as "gig friendly" if you will. There is NOT a reason to buy this high dollar collector amp to only use it for the Metallica sound. I found out the other day, when I was A/B-ing my C+ amps that I could set one on the rhythm channel and one on the lead and cover any tone that I wanted. With simple guitar voulme knob and pick attack variances, I could get a "warm" clean all the way to "singing" lead. The C+ does not footswitch as well between "optimum" rhythm and lead tones, thus with a single C+ amp there will be more compromises in tones. If that "mint" C+ head was around the 2k price, it would make the decision much harder.

"The Pusher Man"

 

[Finnster]

Pusher !!!

Give me your home address so I can hold a bazooka to your head and force you to buy a C+.

Lol...and I found a mid to late 70's Ibanez Destroyer I may pick up too! I will post a pick for you if I grab it. Maybe you want it..???

 

[Elpelotero]

if the amp in question has everything on it, I'd buy it if you have the money. If it doesn't work for you, keep the box and in less than a month you will break evern easily.

 

[Finnster]

pretty sure i know the iic+ head you are talking about. it's simul but has no eq. and it's on the east coast. sort of mid coast.

This one the EQ.

 

[Elpelotero]

then the question is what are you waiting for???!!

 

[guitarsawicki]

Don't blame me! I don't care about Mark IIC+. I can't live without R2 channel so I need Mark III. I just played Mark IV 1995 but in my opinion the R2 channel of Mark III is better! I tested it with my usual setup. Clean Channel of Mark IV was better. Lead channel? Well it wasn't the same but it's hard to say which one is better. Maybe Mark IV was better for riffs but Mark III was better for solos.

 

[Shep]

IF you play gigs that require a 3 channel amp and only want to take one amp to a gig.. clean rhy lead then the C+ isn't for you..I play ALOT and i am a lead guitarist,I could go and sell my mk IV and buy a C+ that is for sale not to far from where i live but i would see that as a down grade as i wouldn't have the flexabilty that the mk IV has any more..I am very sure that the C+ would have a killer tone but how much better can it be from the mk IV tone's I get..And the fact that these tone are all coming from the one amp seem to be such a amazing thing for any amp to achieve... so imo the mk IV really is a muso's amp.. and the C+ is also a muso's amp but you will need to get 3 of them to have the Clean,Rhy and Lead..


So flexabilty vs quaitly in tone...

And by no way am i saying that the mk IV doesn't have tone..It's a Tone moster..

And by no way am i saying that the mk IIc+ is a bad amp..

Think about what would be good for and what you will use it for..

 

[Restless Rocks]

I agree a lot with Shep, I'm also play regular performances where the versatility and footswitchable three channels is a must to cover a lot of different styles. If I could only keep one amp the crtiteria would be what am I using it for. If most all my playing were home and studio stuff then the C+ would be a great investment and a sonic gem. But for am amp to take out regularly and subject to the bumps and grind of giging the MkIV or III would be my choice.

Here's the other scenario. I would never take out say a vintage Les Paul or Strat to a gig or a small C+ head because of the risk of theft. And this does happen and has happened to me. A MkIV can easily be replaced, in lue of the funds of course but a vintage collectors item is hard to come by regardless of your bank account.

 

[Boogiebabies]

Pusher !!!

Give me your home address so I can hold a bazooka to your head and force you to buy a C+.

Lol...and I found a mid to late 70's Ibanez Destroyer I may pick up too! I will post a pick for you if I grab it. Maybe you want it..???

Tease.

 

[Shep]

I agree a lot with Shep, I'm also play regular performances where the versatility and footswitchable three channels is a must to cover a lot of different styles. If I could only keep one amp the crtiteria would be what am I using it for. If most all my playing were home and studio stuff then the C+ would be a great investment and a sonic gem. But for am amp to take out regularly and subject to the bumps and grind of giging the MkIV or III would be my choice.

Here's the other scenario. I would never take out say a vintage Les Paul or Strat to a gig or a small C+ head because of the risk of theft. And this does happen and has happened to me. A MkIV can easily be replaced, in lue of the funds of course but a vintage collectors item is hard to come by regardless of your bank account.

I road case all my gear it's the only way to make sure it's safe.. In Austraila a new MkIV from here could buy you a fully loaded C+ in a wood cab plus shipping from the US..and you would have alittle change...so taking my mk IV giging for me is no different to a C+ for you guy's. I have a mk III with has it's own road box.. both amp's are equal tools...i think the fact that there arent to many C+ left still wouldn't stop me from giging with it..