Despite the round lugs, I believe Hayman were going down the Ludwig sort of direction with the build and sound.

I alternate gigs with a late 60's Camco walnut lacquer kit and a late 60's re-wrapped Hayman kit. Both kits have the same sizes and head setup, but are entirely different in attack and tone.

Hayman drums utilized Carlton shells with a thick polyurethane "Vibrasonic" paint on shell interiors to increase volume and projection. They were also the first English drums supplied with stamped rather than cast hoops. The Haymans are brighter overall. Oddly enough, the Camco bass drum is louder and, of course, fuller and warmer.

If you want a "vintage" sound from a new DW get the Mahogany/Maple/Mahogany shells... Walking

I've got to say, from what I've heard they are meant to be fantastic drums. I've seen YT clips of them and in all of them they sound incredible.

I had a kit made back in 2005 by Greg Ga ylord using 5ply mahogany Keller shells. They sound very vintage like. Plus the tuning range on those shells is much wider than that of maple, something I didn't know until I got the kit and started tuning her up.

By the WAY i had to spell it Ga ylord with a space or the auto program kicks in and blocks it to look like this ***lord.

Didn't DW also change the bearing edge profile from what Camco was doing?

I think I remember reading that somewhere,but I can't seem to find the article.

Steve B

Yes in some area's I would have to agree. I love DW hardware and the STMs work flawlessly holding the lugs but not touching the shell and the design even looks good. The Collectors Series Maple are the closest they came to anything Camco and that would be the L.A. era. I would have to say that in my opinion the L.A. era Camco were actually made better than the DW Collectors Series, not only in tone but in build quality as well. The L.A. era Camco's had much thicker Lacquer Finishes and 3 coats of paint including the base coat. The shells were also thicker (5/16", which was the same shell thickness as the 3 ply WFLs) and don't over resonate in the larger sizes as some have complained about the ultra thin Collectors Series. The interiors of the Camco's were all hand sanded and lacquered with the custom bearing edges that were steeple sharp and centered on the the shell to allow an extremely low tuning range. Although the tension rods didn't have the DW finer threads for better/easier tuning, they had far more chrome verses threads which at least they looked better. Lol.. Also the L.A. era Camco's from 1975 on, all had threaded lug screw holes in the shells, and began using aircraft grade aluminum alloy lug mounting screws. I can only assume that was to reduce weight, and rust or corrosion prevention in damp climates. The downside of the L.A. era Camco's were the tom mounting brackets that didn't hold well at all. The second issue was projection and volume, they are flat out "LOUD" and for some, they take some getting used to...Love them or hate them kind of drums...For me, I see why Keltner and Porcaro chose them over anything else available at the time..

Yes, from their very first shells, which also had a slightly smaller outside diameter as well. About the only thing DW shells had in common with Camco was the use of reinforcement rings, which nobody was using at the time.

FYI

Did you try TurdBurglarLord?

DOH

So the first Camcos were 1961 correct? Before that it was George Way and when did DW/tama take over, mid 70s right? so the last Camco was mid 70s?