Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

[WDeeGee]

Hi

I bought a used guitar from 10-15 years ago that has a '59 reissue in the neck. It sounds like a great '59 alright, very nice with this guitar.

So I wonder what the difference is between '59 reissue and regular '59 ? Other magnet or something?

Thx

 

[JB6464]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I think the old 59's had a rough cast A5 , the newer ones have he polished A5 mags .

 

[jeremy]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

there has never been a duncan pup called the 59 reissue as far as i know, although ive seen guitar manufacturers say that before. its just a 59.

 

[dystrust]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I think the old 59's had a rough cast A5 , the newer ones have he polished A5 mags .

In case it wasn't clear for the OP, '59s haven't used roughcast magnets since the early 1980s.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

Those old ones with the black magnets are great. Not that there's anything wrong with the more recent 59s.
I think the older ones are just a bit sweeter. Of course, age alone might factor into it after 30 years.

 

[JB6464]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

SD needs to add an Antiquity 59 set to their list .
Unpotted , roughcast A5 degaussed and aged .
Guaranteed it will sell like hotcakes .

 

[Mincer]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

SD needs to add an Antiquity 59 set to their list .
Unpotted , roughcast A5 degaussed and aged .
Guaranteed it will sell like hotcakes .

They will build that if you want it!

 

[BeKindRewind]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

there has never been a duncan pup called the 59 reissue as far as i know, although ive seen guitar manufacturers say that before. its just a 59.

That's what it seems like to me. What they're trying to say is it's Seymour Duncan's reissue of a 59 Les Paul pickup. Aka the 59

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

There are, however, 59 "replicas," counterfeit Duncans coming out of China, complete with fake logos and carefully copied packaging.
Some have commented the Chinese seem to be paying more attention to the packaging than they to to the pickups themselves.
I saw a "59" set on eBay which spec'd the bridge pickup at 14K+. Be wary.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

Sheesh - here w go again!

Now IMO, if you change the magnet in a pickup, it is a different pickup! How different depends on a lot. Still...

Roughcast to smooth? yeah - that's a thing.

So how many of those type of things are there out there???

 

[freefrog]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

Those old ones with the black magnets are great. Not that there's anything wrong with the more recent 59s.
I think the older ones are just a bit sweeter. Of course, age alone might factor into it after 30 years.

The vintage Duncan 59's that I have owned and/or still own (with a paper sticker saying SH1 and an oval "Seymourized" label like in my avatar) don't differ only by their age or dark RC mags. They have also...

-threaded baseplates. In newer iterations, screw poles are just threaded in their bobbin (it avoids squealing under high gain and probably makes easier to build each PU);
-soft butyrate bobbins with cleverly designed "redans" to avoid bending due to wire pressure (vs stiffer polycarbonate bobbins in recent ones);
-different screw poles, slugs and keeper bars (albeit not the same pole shoes than in P.A.F.'s: Seymour had already his own recipe the first days);
-unpotted coils, clearly wound with less tension than the potted coils of modern ones.

They have not quite the same DCR / inductance / resonant peaks / Q factor than current production and... sound different: I'd describe them as "syrupy" sounding.

FWIW, I've tried several mags in two of these vintage PU's: it has changed their overall EQing but didn't alter their basic character.

I've frequency charts about all that stuff somewhere in my archives...

FWIW : an honest testimonial, although words are always a limitation when it comes to sum up a personal experience...

 

[WDeeGee]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

Thanks, great post!

 

[freefrog]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

The pleasure is mine. Always glad to share.

 

[Clint 55]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

Those old ones with the black magnets are great. Not that there's anything wrong with the more recent 59s.
I think the older ones are just a bit sweeter. Of course, age alone might factor into it after 30 years.

I'm wondering if I should get one since the 59 is my favorite jazz pup. I'd probably end up liking it cuz I do like that aged sweetness. Just wondering if it's as fat or thinner than the new ones or if the difference would be worth it.

 

[freefrog]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I'm wondering if I should get one since the 59 is my favorite jazz pup. I'd probably end up liking it cuz I do like that aged sweetness. Just wondering if it's as fat or thinner than the new ones or if the difference would be worth it.

I'm not eclecticsynergy but I'll add something to my contribution: vintage ones can be frail because unpotted wire wound on soft plastic tends to move. I had to repar two of them because of that (reason why I know these pickups "intimately").

Regarding your question: in my experience & understanding, very early 59's are not quite the same pickups than recent SH1's although they bear the same name. Not sure that a love for the last ones would find full satisfaction with the fist ones.

YMMV, do what you want and be happy, etc.

 

[SirJackdeFuzz II]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

SD needs to add an Antiquity 59 set to their list .
Unpotted , roughcast A5 degaussed and aged .
Guaranteed it will sell like hotcakes .

I deff second the '59 Ant idea !!!

 

[Clint 55]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I'm not eclecticsynergy but I'll add something to my contribution: vintage ones can be frail because unpotted wire wound on soft plastic tends to move. I had to repar two of them because of that (reason why I know these pickups "intimately").

Regarding your question: in my experience & understanding, very early 59's are not quite the same pickups than recent SH1's although they bear the same name. Not sure that a love for the last ones would find full satisfaction with the fist ones.

YMMV, do what you want and be happy, etc.

Thx that's been my limited experience with vintage pups. I think I could find a use for it but I already have a Seth for a thinner, tastier sound than the fat production 59.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I wonder how different an Antiquity 59 would be from a regular Antiquity? Not so much construction, but tone.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I'm surprised they don't use the butyrate bobbins anymore. That used to be one of the selling points.

I don't feel the old ones were necessarily thinner, just a little sweeter in the top end. Perhaps a tad less scooped.
Syrupy is a good description. My oldest 59s aren't necessarily first generation; got my first set around 1981 as I remember.

Full disclosure: I've never A/B'd newer versus older versions in the same guitar. Also, my newest 59 is more than ten years old now.

 

[Clint 55]

Re: Difference between '59 reissue and regular '59 ?

I don't feel the old ones were necessarily thinner, just a little sweeter in the top end. Perhaps a tad less scooped.

Woohoo. I got it. Fav jazz neck pup. Had to get it.