diafebus said:one thing,
can anybody take high definition pics of mark ii c+ grapphich eq section?
i need to read the capacitors values to, so need high definition...
thanks
Boogiebabies said:WOW, that's interesting. It's a first as well.
Thanks JB.
Boogiebabies said:Five years in, can some one find me a week 1 and a week 52 or higher?
gts said:But this add one more discrepency, or maybe it's worth taking another look at build time.
A member posted a 3/84 IIC+. With a two month build time, the order would have possibly been placed in 1/84.
Did you ever find out if the chasis on this has a 1?
If 12,399 and 12,400 have Final Tech dates of 2/84 and both were started week 5 as indicated by the 5 on the chasis (Jan 30-Feb 3rd) they were completed in 4 weeks or less.
Another claricfication please. Does the Final Tech date mean the chasis was done, tested and ready to go into a cab/ headshell?
If so then at some time later it'd be installed in the cab or headshell, and lastly a serial number added perhaps just before shipment?
gts said:That's very interesting info never heard the "IIC I" story before.
It certainly makes sense that Mesa would/ could pump out an amp in 30 days.
I think if there is anything odd about 12,400's it's due to someone screwing around with it over it's lifetime. The guy I got it from said something about his tech wanting to add a bias pot. Maybe this tech had been in there already, thus the odd black wire. Btw It's on it's way back to Mesa for general maintenance. It'll be interesting to hear Mike B's take on it. A previous call to Mesa showed no record of it having ever been back for any work.
An interesting fact (which may be common or uncommon to C+'s) Jays 12,399 which has the same config as 12,400 (HG week 5 Tech 2/84) has a "+" on the top of the chasis just over the EQ toggle. 12,400 has this very same "+" mark (both sort of looks like an "x" as the mark is not perpendicular to the chasis edge). If this is not a common mark on C+'s it may be an early C+ chasis marking, done while being built to help distinguish it from the C's in production during the same timeframe. I'm not sure if this mark was visible in any of the pics you saw.
:lol: Hmmm, How many do you suppose just rushed out to Borders to pre-order? I look forward to it's release.and will be in my book available soon at Borders for $ 126.99
diafebus said:one thing,
can anybody take high definition pics of mark ii c+ grapphich eq section?
i need to read the capacitors values to, so need high definition...
thanks
Boogiebabies said:fpoon said:What the hell are you guys talking about :?:
With the advent of seeing a MK III from 5/14/85 # 15114 and a production week of 13, I am trying to prove that the IIC+ production ended in 4/85 and the serial sequence was below 14400 because I have never seen one over 14367. The production overlaps in 3/85.
We know that the # 15,000 exists, thanks to Ian, but between 14367/400 to 14,999 don't seem to exist. Even at 12,500 to 14,367, you have 1867 IIC+'s.
So, here's where I am at.
I just worked on a DRG 6 from 6/84. This puts the start to 4/84. We have 14367 from 4/85, which overlaps with the MK III starting in 3/85. I'm thinking the IIC+ was finished in 4/85. It lasted one calender year as the finalized circuit. We all know about the early 12,400's have a mix, some odd or almost to the C+ circuit, but they are not necessary in the dead stock numbers produced.
Enter your email address to join: