Original G12-65 Speakers. Variations Through The Years And Clones.

Discussion in 'Cabinets & Speakers' started by Trapland, Apr 14, 2016.

  1. Trapland

    Trapland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Is love to see your 212. Photos?
     
  2. JCarno

    JCarno Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    581
    Location:
    Finger Lakes
    I don't have time right now but there is a thread somewhere on here about Marshall 212s. I have a bunch of pics in there. Have a search and you'll find it.
     
  3. GIBSON67

    GIBSON67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4,783
    Location:
    Lakeland, TN
    T3120's should have 1777 cones and be Marshall labeled, and not 444 cones...from what I have seen.
    Of course, weirder things have happened with Celestions and Marshalls. Your pics are G12-65's and
    black stampings are usually found around that period, so I doubt they are recones.

    I found the G12-65 are the best tube combo speaker, period. I had a quad from 1983, and currently I have 1x12 T3120.
     
    Trapland likes this.
  4. JCarno

    JCarno Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    581
    Location:
    Finger Lakes
    Unfortunately my posts only go back 10 pages so I wasn't able to find the it. It was called something like "Odd 212" or something like that because I guess it's some kind of rare one. Sorry. If I get some time this weekend I'll snap a couple for ya.
     
  5. Trapland

    Trapland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    I found it. Its the same cab I have, looks like a 1936 but made of wood, I think most call it a late JMP / early jcm800 era 2045.


    Do you have a source that says that T3120s only have 1777 cones? I found a source that states they are a Marshall labeled G12-65, but nothing about cones. Since they were made for
    Marshall exclusively, Marshall probably knew which ones to put in a lead cab and which for bass and/or keyboards by cone number. Or maybe someone made a mistake.

    As far as the stamp color, I bet whatever ink pad was handy was the color. Saying that mine look like someone stamped a 4 digit long number in white, smeared it then restamped over the white smear with a black 444. As if someone building cone kits accidently stamped some with the wrong number then corrected it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2016
  6. GIBSON67

    GIBSON67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4,783
    Location:
    Lakeland, TN
    I have yet to see a T3120 with a 444 cone, so give us some pics of the cone numbers. And check all the speakers if possible.

    From BYGONETONES website:
    T2839 G12-65 8 Ohm cone stamp - 444
    T2840 G12-65 8 Ohm cone stamp - 1777, ali dustcap
    T2868 G12-65 15 Ohm cone stamp - 1777
    T3053 G12-65 8 Ohm cone stamp - 1777, 85 c/s (as T3054 but 8 Ohm) - Also Heritage G12-65
    T3054 G12-65 15 Ohm cone stamp - 1777, 85 c/s. Also Heritage G12-65
    T3062 G12-65 8 Ohm twin cone
    T3063 G12-65 16 Ohm twin cone
    T3101 G12-65 15 Ohm cone stamp - 444
    T3120 G12-65 15 Ohm cone stamp - 1777, marshall label
    T3227 G12-65 8 Ohm cone stamp - 1777

    From what I've seen selling on EBAY:
    Celestion Cones
    Model
    Codes Date Ohms Cones Year
    G12-65 T3053 KL13 8 1777 1978
    G12-65 T3054 KL30 16 1777 1978
    G12-65 T3053 LM29 8 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 DM17 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 DM20 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 GM13 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 JM11 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 LM12 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 LM13 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3120 GM2 16 1777 1979
    G12-65 T3054 MN10 16 1777 1980
    G12-65 T3053 KP20 8 1777 1981
    G12-65 T3054 AP6 16 1777 1981
    G12-65 T3054 HP20 16 1777 1981
    G12-65 T3054 JP18 16 1777 1981
    G12-65 T3054 LP20 16 1777 1981
    G12-65 T3054 KP21 16 1777 1981
    G12-65 T3063 LP16 16 3609 1981
    G12-65 T3101 JP15 16 444 1981
    G12-65 T3053 LQ15 8 1777 1982
    G12-65 T3054 HQ24 16 1777 1982
    G12-65 T3054 KQ26 16 1777 1982
    G12-65 T3053 DR20 8 1777 1983
    G12-65 T3054 BR14 16 1777 1983
    G12-65 T3054 CR14 16 1777 1983
    G12-65 T3101 BR10 16 444 1983
    G12-65 T3053 28LW 8 18 1777 2011
     
    ljs and SG~GUY like this.
  7. Trapland

    Trapland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    [​IMG]

    Here's the cone number. You'll have to take my word for it that they are the same, I'm not going to spend the time, and I've put quite a bit of effort into this thread already. They all look like this with the black over white.

    Since bygone tones does not list another Marshall labeled T number with either cone type or impedence, I find it more likely they just had one number for all Marshall labeled 65s. Its entirely likely Bygone just hasn't seen an example like this, just like they don't list lots of years or impedences. I doubt they intended that list to be all inclusive.

    The story on this cab was that I bought it on ebay in the mid 90s. It was alleged to be owned by the Robert Palmer band. Who knows, I didn't pay any premium. I remember the cab didnt get here soon,,apparently the seller sent it by freight best cheapest route and it took months. It absolutely had original untouched wiring.

    I have owned this cab longer than any previous owner. Its entirely possible it was a bass cab. Marshall played pretty fast and loose with dress up and parts from 76-81.
     
  8. GIBSON67

    GIBSON67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4,783
    Location:
    Lakeland, TN
    Very blurry so it's hard to tell, but I can't remember seeing any cones marked like that...not that I've seen them all, though, ha!

    And yes, we all know that MArshalls and Celestions have done completely crazy stuff in the past.
    But if you have the cab still open, then look closer for a black 1777, maybe it had douple printing on them...IDK.

    And I absolutely love my Marshall labeled G12-80's with 444 cones, so that's all that matters is if you like them!
     
  9. BygoneTones

    BygoneTones Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    742
    Well Gibson67 contributed a large portion of that T-number list on my website. His record keeping is insane. 99% of the speakers on that list are speakers I never buy, so the information is mainly just grabbed from books and around the web and from Gibson67's lists, not from personal experience. Its a shame Celestion themselves havent published their own list.

    Back to the G12-65's, so long as they have the same T-number they should in theory be the same speakers and sound the same (through the late 70's/early 80's anyway). The labels and colour of the cone stamp are irrelevant to the sound of the speaker. Any tonal differences within the same T-number must be down to the cab, and/or down to the different history and ageing process of the speaker cones. eg used by touring bands in smoky bars for 30 years vs used by bedroom player at TV volume once a month.

    Although saying that, I have definitely found two different cone types on the T3120's in the late 70's. Most commonly they are stamped 1777, these are the cones people say are made by Kurt Mueller (I dont know where the evidence for that is), but there are also some others cones that do not have stamps and look darker in appearance with more pronounced ribs. I have found a few of these in different cabs, so am fairly certain they are not recones. The Muellers are the better sounding of the two, these must have been a backup cone supplier. Some pics for comparison:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
    GIBSON67 likes this.
  10. Trapland

    Trapland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    The bottom one definitely looks more like what I have. I noticed tha ribs looked slightly different. I think the more pronounced ribs change the tone considerably, adding high end somewhat like wonder cones would.

    I'm not sure what contributes to the deeper lies and reduced kids but mine definitely are more scooped and sound as if they have a lower resonant point.

    Personally I much prefer a rounder more pronounce middle with chime on top and a pretty significant roll off of lows. The 1777 cones are my style and I like all ive heard. I do hear changes from set to set but they all have the same overall character at least amongst those I've heard.

    However if I was a midscooped loving modern metal guy, I would go crazy for these t3120 444s. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 1777s sound better, maybe are more popular? There are definitely fans of the lower rez cones.

    Let me just mention that I reference your list often. Thank you for keeping history alive.
     
  11. Trapland

    Trapland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    I'm 100% with you there! And it's not a matter of taste, we're right.:fever:

    I wonder, I've never heard the new reissue G12-65 not seen any comparison video. They are mighty expensive too. Are they the closest thing to the originals? Have you heard the reissue? Or how about you Bygone Tones?
     
    GIBSON67 likes this.
  12. GIBSON67

    GIBSON67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4,783
    Location:
    Lakeland, TN
    I usually don't go for reissues because you can find vintage Celestions cheaper, typically. I do like the reissue Greenbacks, quite a bit.
    Currently, my 425A has 2x Vintage Pulsonic GBs and 2x reissues...sounds effing great!
     
  13. GIBSON67

    GIBSON67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4,783
    Location:
    Lakeland, TN
    Oh, and I went home to make sure my T3120 had a cone stamp,
    and it does have the black 1777 stamped in a very hard to find spot...right behind the terminal lugs.
     
  14. proxy

    proxy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    288
    That mix cover all the frequencies i think ....
     
    SG~GUY likes this.
  15. Kamanda~SD

    Kamanda~SD Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    43
    Great thread. Too bad so many of the pictures are being held hostage. Would love to have more info on identifying the various g12-65 labels. Been gassing for these for YEARS.
     
    SG~GUY likes this.
  16. soundboy57

    soundboy57 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    2,299
    Location:
    Oregon
    My two cents....I have had several of these in 2x12 and 4x12 cabs over the years. The Marshall labeled ones from 1979
    sounded killer. Some silver label ones from 1980 sounded harsh. Other silver labeled ones from 1982 and 1983 sounded killer.
    Bottom line, they seem to sound quite different throughout the period.
     
    Trapland, JCarno and SG~GUY like this.
  17. SG~GUY

    SG~GUY Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    3,533
    Likes Received:
    1,867

    -makes it hard to define anything as simply better, best or worst! like saying "get a 1980 Marshall JCM800 2203" or "1977 black backs", so many variables, part of the fun I guess
     
    Kris Ford and soundboy57 like this.
  18. Kris Ford

    Kris Ford Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    793
    Location:
    Detroit FTW
    ..better yet..if it were THESE instead of the G12T75s...they'd be dissed the same.

    LOL..people....


    Lest we forget, the first T75s were an IMPROVED version of the 65.
     
    SG~GUY likes this.
  19. SG~GUY

    SG~GUY Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    3,533
    Likes Received:
    1,867

    -the vented 75's just might of been better than the 65's, I remember my uncle hating the new, high wattage greenback's-(65's)-because they were "too smooth" good thing he had a closet full of green/black/tan/greybacks to replace them with,

    -why did CELESTION/MARSHALL go away from the vented 75's?
     
    Kris Ford likes this.
  20. Kris Ford

    Kris Ford Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    793
    Location:
    Detroit FTW
    Dunno..but they didn't last long..

    Maybe improved voice coil material with better heat transfer?
     

Share This Page