New guy here with possible mark 2 c +

[Lmy68s]

Hello every one !

I discovered this forum while researching the boogie I bought this past Monday.

First off, I knew very little about boogies until know. The only boogie I've ever owned before the one in question was a maverick.

So while searching the local classifieds I saw a listing titled mesa boogie mark 3. The seller provided 3 blurry photos, front back and top. Asking price was 1500.00 I could see it had the wood cabinet,reverb,cooling fan, graphic eq, 4 power tubes and the flight case with casters. I went over to eBay and reverb to check prices for the mark 3. I could tell 1500 was a good price.
While looking at clear photos of the mark 3 on other listings I started to see differences from the amp I was considering. The most obvious was the lack of the pull pot on the middle control. So I texted the seller and got a message back that I texted a land line. Explains the blurry photos.

So I called him, I could tell the guy was probably in his 70s by his voice.

I asked him when he bought the amp and he said late 70,s early 80s. So, at this point I'm thinking it's not a mark 3 and I'm disappointed.

While searching the internet and comparing photos of his listing to boogies without the middle pull pot, I realize I'm looking at a mark 2. Then I saw the prices of the 2 c and called the owner emediatly. He told me he was getting tons of calls about the amp. I told him if he can deliver the amp I would throw in an extra 20.00. He said let me talk to my wife and I'll call you back.
A couple long hours went by and I figured someone else bought it...Then he called asking if I really want the amp. Yes !

So ..I haven't played it yet but I have the chassis out looking for broken solder joints and cleaning the pots ect...

The amp has the pull deap on master 1, it does not have the plus above the power cord it has a dot.

In black marker by the preamp tubes it has a date of 2/84

So I'm thinking it's just a c not a c+ I haven't done the loop test as it's scattered all over the living room.

The only reason I know the little I know is because I read the c+ guide for dummies on this forum. I think I've read it 10 times by now.
The serial # is 1234? I left the last number off on purpose.

Hears the wierd part...while inspecting the circuit I found c+ on the power tube board. If I'm standing behind the amp looking down it's on the top left corner just above an orange drop almost under the filter cap board.

It's in the same writing as the other writhing on the board such as ...mesa p w r 701. So it's part of the board like the traces. Right under p w r 701 is a plus written in marker.

 

[rarebitusa]

Sounds like fun. Post a few pics of the guts and for sure the folks here can weigh in. Contacting Rich at Mesa directly with the serial number you can find out if it has ever been back there for service and/or get historical input on it.

 

[Lmy68s]

I just got it back together .

I managed to break one of the two braided shielding wires that are stapled to top inside of the cabinet.

I spent a couple of hours trying to re solder it flat enough to fit under the chassis mounting cup. What a p.i.n.a. that was.

I briefly played through it....omg, this thing can get loud.

I'm two exhausted after futzing with it all day to do the the loop test.

Do I have to use the footswitch for that test ? Or can I do it without ?

Thank you for the response.

I have no intention of selling this amp if anyone thinks I am.

I love the clean tone.

I'm going to have a ton of questions when I wake up tomorrow.

 

[rarebitusa]

Cool

No footswitch needed, "2) Switch to lead mode" ... just engage the lead chan by pulling the Lead Drive knob out.

Hopefully you took pics when the chassis was out. On the side of the chassis there should be 2 or 3 large letters written in black sharpie. Those are pretty informative as to the model specifics.

 

[Lmy68s]

Thank you for that info. The sides of the chassis have 1 D R G written in marker. What does d stand for?

 

[rarebitusa]

So that should indicate the following

DRG- Simul-EQ-Reverb

The loop test should confirm the "+" status. 8)

 

[Lmy68s]

It didn't pass the loop test.

So it's a fully optioned c with the 100 p.t and the rp11a board. Wierd that it has c+ etched into the board .

 

[Lmy68s]

I'm sure I won't have a problem getting my 1500.00 back

If I'm correct only 1400 of these amps were made and most were converted to c+

This amp is a late c...So the conversion should be easy.

I tend to hang on to things for a while...So maybe a stock c unmodified will be sought after. Who knows. Lol

It does have a nice clean tone. I'm not a heavy metal guy by the way. I bought this amp because I always loved the look of the wicker grill and the dark wood cab. The first time I saw one of these was in the late eighties. I was blown away by the sight of 4 6l6 tubes in such a tiny package.

Right now it's been on for two hours ....no red plating, no wierd noises, in fact that fan keeps it cooler than normal.


In all honesty, I knew very little about mesa before the purchase of this amp. This forum helped imensly.

Thank you guys for taking the time to respond.

 

[rarebitusa]

Based on the serial number, yes it is a very late IIC.

Ordered my IIC in late 83 and didn't convert it to a "+" until 2017. I feel familiar enough with both configurations to comment. Of course much of the attention and hype is on the "+" lead chan and rightly so. But the lead chan on the IIC is quite unique itself and while not as gainy, it's less harsh and has a smoother tone. There are times I do miss the old Ch2, but for me the conversion was the right move. Now whether it's a "+" or not... Ch1 is amazing. In fact I have come to appreciate it's tonal versatility, pedal affinity and headroom much more since the conversion.

MikeB I believe is still doing conversions, you may want to ping Mesa. It's an investment to consider.

The one detail that gets overlooked in the "+" conversion is the "effects loop" upgrade. The original IIC loop implementation is pretty much unusable and IMHO fixing this was almost as important as the lead chan mod itself. :shock:

 

[Lmy68s]

Thanks for the response.

Curious to know what that mod cost, it should be easy on a late c. I would dread shipping it but if it increases the value enough I would be motivated enough to do so.
The clean tone of this amp sounds great. The over drive is a bit strident for my taste. Could be because of the tiny cabinet,the power and high powered speaker.
Can I run this into my 16 ohm greenback loaded 1960a 4x12 without damage to the amp ? The boogie only has 4 and 8 ohm options.

 

[xdg999]

I don't think Mike B. is doing mods and upgrades at the moment. The last DRG Mike upgraded for me cost $700 if I remember correctly. Mike's upgraded 6 IIc's for me. They all become so much better after the upgrade.

 

[rarebitusa]

Thanks for the response.

Curious to know what that mod cost, it should be easy on a late c. I would dread shipping it but if it increases the value enough I would be motivated enough to do so.
The clean tone of this amp sounds great. The over drive is a bit strident for my taste. Could be because of the tiny cabinet,the power and high powered speaker.
Can I run this into my 16 ohm greenback loaded 1960a 4x12 without damage to the amp ? The boogie only has 4 and 8 ohm options.

Oh it would increase the value over what you paid for it. No doubt. Yea I get what you're saying about the Lead Chan. I would typically run a dist pedal with no drive to soften it up a bit. WRT to the cab you can safely run it off of the 8 ohm output.

xdg999 may indeed be correct about MikeB, but there's no harm in inquiring at Mesa. I'm not sure if the RP11 is an easier upgrade job. I know the RP10 s were pretty involved to do.

 

[Lmy68s]

I had a little bit of time today to look over the amp.
The outside pair of power tubes are Sylvania 415 and the. Inside pair are mesa/Svetlana 454 maroon base.

The speaker is a ev force 12. Not sure if it's original to the amp.

A question on the speaker wiring.....The white lead of the speaker wire goes to the black terminal of the speaker and the black lead is on the red terminal. Does that sound right ?

Just want to say thank you to those who are taking the time to educate me on the amp.

 

[dodger916]

The Force 12 is not an original speaker. They typically came with Eminence MS-12s or an EVM 12-L "upgrade", both of which sound great with Mark series amps. I run my C+ with an MS-12 in a Mesa 1/2 back cab on top of an EVM 12-L in a Mesa Thiele cab.

Not sure if you saw this thread started by Boogiebabies (Ed Morgan), but it is a must read for any C+ owner:

https://boogieforum.com/threads/mark-iic-guide-for-dummies.18184/
He is THE C+ authority on this board, and we still keep in touch from time to time. He blueprinted my C+, which he considers one of the best he's ever played. The thread is 15 years old. The Board was far more active back then. Last time we chatted it seems we've both become big fans and owners of vintage Marshall JCM800s. Still have my C+, but my JCM is now my number 1. There's something about the simple signal chain that just sounds right.

 

[Nick Athanasatos]

No one prefers the sound of the IIC as it was made ?
I spoke to one guy who is a collector of these amps and he thought I should consider
keeping my IIC as it is.
The Mesa Boogie that made me sell my other amp and buy a Mesa Boogie was a IIB.
I loved the sound of that IIB at the Studio we rented..
I ordered my Amp while they were making the IIC+..
it arrived with my name on the chassis as they did then but looked a little different and it
didn't have the strong Reverb sound of the IIB I had played.
I called and they said they upgraded the Mk series and sent me a MKIII instead of a IIC+
No one told me anything..they should have called to tell or ask me..everything back then
was a direct bespoke purchase from them they had my number. It had almost no reverb that MkIII.
I sent it back to them and they upgraded the Reverb and it sounded almost the same.
In the Catalog it said "drenching Reverb" but was almost non existent reverb.
I eventually sold that amp with the help of Doug West got a MkIV which I liked better.
But still not what I heard in that studio that day.

 

[James]

No one prefers the sound of the IIC as it was made ?
I spoke to one guy who is a collector of these amps and he thought I should consider
keeping my IIC as it is.
The Mesa Boogie that made me sell my other amp and buy a Mesa Boogie was a IIB.
I loved the sound of that IIB at the Studio we rented..
I ordered my Amp while they were making the IIC+..
it arrived with my name on the chassis as they did then but looked a little different and it
didn't have the strong Reverb sound of the IIB I had played.
I called and they said they upgraded the Mk series and sent me a MKIII instead of a IIC+
No one told me anything..they should have called to tell or ask me..everything back then
was a direct bespoke purchase from them they had my number. It had almost no reverb that MkIII.
I sent it back to them and they upgraded the Reverb and it sounded almost the same.
In the Catalog it said "drenching Reverb" but was almost non existent reverb.
I eventually sold that amp with the help of Doug West got a MkIV which I liked better.
But still not what I heard in that studio that day.

I considered keeping my IIC stock, just because so many have been upgraded now.

But I wasn't happy with the sound - the drive channel was pretty underwhelming and very weak sounding. It likely wasn't performing its best (due to age) but the modification made a significant improvement.

On the other hand, if you're happy with how the amp sounds, I wouldn't bother. I don't think Mike B is currently offering any mods, but I might be wrong.

 

[Nick Athanasatos]

I haven't played it since I auditioned it at the original owners house 5 years ago and I didn't like it then.
He had replaced the original Sylvania Tubes with new Boogie Tubes without any bias or service..I thought this might be the reason but just guessing.I thought to put the original tubes back in and see if sounds better.
It was a choice of servicing it as it is and maybe getting a new old stock of Sylvania 6L6 or sending to California on other end of the country to have it made + with a new set of Sylvania 6L6.
Did you up grade with new tubes or old ones ? Thanks

 

[James]

I haven't played it since I auditioned it at the original owners house 5 years ago and I didn't like it then.
He had replaced the original Sylvania Tubes with new Boogie Tubes without any bias or service..I thought this might be the reason but just guessing.I thought to put the original tubes back in and see if sounds better.
It was a choice of servicing it as it is and maybe getting a new old stock of Sylvania 6L6 or sending to California on other end of the country to have it made + with a new set of Sylvania 6L6.
Did you up grade with new tubes or old ones ? Thanks

I installed new tubes (modern Chinese) when I bought the amp, so it had the same tubes before and after the modification.

I do think just having it serviced (even without the mod) would have made a big improvement in sound. I've sent a few different Mesas from the 70s/80s for servicing, and they've always come back sounding a lot better. Surprisingly quiet on idle as well. If there's anyone who knows how these amps should sound when they are performing their best, it's Mike B.

If the replacement tubes are from Mesa, they will likely be in the correct bias range. I do know that certain amps like the Simul-Class IIC+ need a specific grade/color code, but generally it's not an issue.

 

[woodbutcher65]

It's pretty well established that the + mod to the Mark IIC makes the amp so much better, that we refer to a IIC without the + mod as a Mark IIC Minus.

Literally there is no demand at all to leave a IIC in its original form. If you sell it to me in that form, I'll be glad to buy it cheap, and as soon as I get it, off it goes to Mesa to get the + mod. Anybody, and everybody, will do the same thing.

 

[meesa_jarjar]

It's pretty well established that the + mod to the Mark IIC makes the amp so much better, that we refer to a IIC without the + mod as a Mark IIC Minus.

Literally there is no demand at all to leave a IIC in its original form. If you sell it to me in that form, I'll be glad to buy it cheap, and as soon as I get it, off it goes to Mesa to get the + mod. Anybody, and everybody, will do the same thing.

Mesa is no longer doing mods on any amps, thank you Gibson. It would have to be done by a 3rd party.

I agree that there is no added value in keeping it merely a IIC.