I wonder, how is the quality of old waverly arrowhead tuners compared to modern stew-mac ones? I've read some positive comments about modern waverlies ftom Chris Thile. Does it mean that he is using them on his Loar F5?
I wonder, how is the quality of old waverly arrowhead tuners compared to modern stew-mac ones? I've read some positive comments about modern waverlies ftom Chris Thile. Does it mean that he is using them on his Loar F5?
I know Waverly now cnc's the tuning machines so the quality isn't there as compared to the older ones where they were hand engraved, I don't know when they started cncing but were still hand engraving them in the mid 2000's. I use em and they work great, the tuner back plates are also wider and think they are heavier. I imagine Thile uses the original waverlies that came on his Loar?
I don't know anything about the older Waverlys, but I have no complaints about the current Stew-Mac version. I retrofitted them to my Lebeda F5 two years ago, and my Weber Yellowstone F OM a couple of months ago. They were a major step up from the original Schallers on those two instruments.
The engraving quality may not match when they were hand-engraved, but I don't care about that, as long as the mechanical fit and finish are excellent, and the operation is smooth. That certainly describes the ones I purchased.
I've got them both, old and new, but I don't find new Waverlies to work any better. And I believe Chris Thile still trusts the original vintage ones. On the other hand, at least Mike Marshall and John Reischman have modern Waverlies on their Loars, possibly because the old tuners didn't work properly anymore for some reason.
New Waverlies are heavier, the plates and gears thicker, the string posts longer (25.66 vs. 23 mms), the reason for the latter I'll never understand. Moreover, all modern tuners have those long string posts (to wind up the remaining 2 feet of string?).
There is an earlier version of modern Waverlies, I'd guess up until about 2005 with narrower (than vintage) plates and different engraving. Some early of the early ones had 14 mm diameter knobs (vs. 13 mm).
Modern Waverly are CNC machined to Close tolerances , for better or worse*.
I had a Mandolin with the peg head space drilling OFF. it damaged the Tuners *.
Looser tolerance tuners were more flexible in use.
* (Stew Mac Replaced them after their repair attempt Broke them*
writing about music
is like dancing,
about architecture
You can't quite generalize about the original the Loar F-5 Waverlys. There were 3 or maybe 4 different different versions. (Can't remember which number is correct.) I've always known there are 5 screw-per-plate versions and 3 screw-per-plate versions. But recently I learned that there are different post spacing versions also. Most of them function well, even 90+ years later, but apparently there are some that are just bad and the owners are glad to have modern Waverlys as a replacement.
Steve
Thanks guys, really helpful as always!
I'm thinking about buying old arrowhead tuners for possible conversion, that's why I needed this info.
Yep, the post spacing on Darryl Wolfes's and Kevin Lynch's (ex Joe Val's) F5s are definitely wider. Although they are both arrow end tuners, I don't know if the spacing is the same. (Wiggle end tuners may be again different anyway.)
For a short while Stewmac offered modern tuners with the wider spacing on Kevin's F5.
Are there any database/post exist with information about variations of different vintage waverly tuners? I've found that sometimes A2-Z have MOP tuners (and here's really nice thread related a bit to the topic)
To revive this thread a bit - does somebody know where to get / or have blueprints or dimensions for vintage waverly A arrowhead tuners (any version of it)? I'm thinking of getting a replica set but as you said here - dimensions are not the same as modern Waverlies
Bookmarks