The point that is being overlooked is the shell thickness. When Rogers and Gretsch went from 3 to 5 or 6 ply, the overall thickness of the shell remained about the same. Contrarywise, when Ludwig went from 3 to 6 ply or Slingerland went from 3 to 5 ply, the shell thickness increased dramatically. That's what is being lost in translation between you guys. Hope this straightens it out a bit.

Spot on Michael...and todays' shells are thinner than the original Ludwig 6 ply, for instance.

One of my neighbors has a set of Star Classics, gorgeous, and nice, deep tone. They are 6 ply shells, but very thin at about 5-7 mm. In contrast, the early Ludwig 6 ply shells are something like 10-12 mm. I don't have the means to measure it accurately, but they are considerably thicker than the Monroe 4 ply shells. I also had a Monroe floor tom in the 4 ply Classic Maple shell from the late 80s/early 90s, that is how I know they are so different.

The whole cost issue changed significantly when shell making techniques changed. When Lud, for instance, went from the old hand made, steam bent, wrapping the wrap into to the scarf-joint then stuff it in the mold and inflate technique to placing the plies in the mold and using airbags to both assist in the gluing and rounding process, labor costs went down. No longer was it required to steam the wood, apply the glue and wrap, then bend all the plies around the template and then stuff it into the mold, it took out several steps and sped up production. Then along came the modern shell presses and they were able to use more plies and get them even more perfectly round. And still production capacity was up. I have a theory they went to the thicker shells in order to force endorsors to use the new stuff, rendering the thin shell "obsolete" long enough to market us into thinking "newer is better". Why, exactly, Ludwig went from the thin 3 ply to the thicker 6 ply is a mystery to me. As is already stated, I have an opinion that the thinner shells sound much better, to my old ears, because I love the deep resonance of thinner shells. Many people like the thicker shells for higher tones. I like steak, you like chops....

Interesting to note as well that Lud, Gretsch and many custom shops are offering the old style "vintage" 3ply shells...at a premium. The new Ludwig classic vintage kits are somewhere north of $3500. Is the high price because as they claim, new manufacturing technology to produce modern thin shells with (re-rings) has vastly improved over older manufacturing methods making the newer "vintage shells" superior to their predecessors? Or is the high price for newer thin shells an attempt to grab some cash and simply a reflection of manufacturing/marketing bulls***?

-kellyj

My answer to that would be that if the new "vintage" shells are "superior" to the originals, then doesn't it follow that they will fall short of achieving the original vintage sound? If shell building was so inferior in the past, then why do so many people crave vintage drums now?

I have priced out the cost to build a complete 4+ kit, excluding wrap, from the thinnest 5 ply maple shells Keller will sell me as an individual, using the maple shells, because they are indeed grabbing cash. The cost, including heads, is around 800-900, no labor. This is for bass, mounted tom, floor tom, snare and enough leftovers to build at least one to two more snares, and another mounted tom, 20-12-14-snare.

Do I think the technology is so far advanced as to warrant so much higher cost? Hell no. They are making far more shells today and wholesaling them to the builders, and I am almost certain Ludwig is buying some of their shells from Keller. The reason is there was a comment I read somewhere recently about the new maple/mahogany and poplar/maple shells that KELLER makes for the classic mahogany shelled Ludwigs. I cannot remember where I saw this reference, but once I read something, it usually locks in, almost like having a photographic memory.

I like the three ply but the best bass drum I ever played was a Ludwig 6 ply.