T-Tops

[Chistopher]

Anyone here tried real T-Tops? I've always gotten the feel that they were originally under respected because they kinda lagged behind modern tastes, and the Super D and other aftermarket pickups were seen as the key to unlocking sounds hitherto unattainable.

In the modern era, they are still a black sheep. Very hard to find pickups that advertise as T-Tops. But then again, some people like them, and the real ones are getting expensive

 

[zionstrat]

I've replaced a whole bunch of them over the years and never had a customer ask for one

But like anything else, in the right guitar with the right rig and right circumstances I'm sure they could be great.

 

[hamerfan]

I am a sucker for Pagey’s 70ies sound. A PAF in the neck and T-Top in the bridge makes it.

 

[freefrog]

I love Patent Sticker T-Tops (late 60's) like in my Flying V or in a SG from the late 60's that I've periodically in maintenance (and whose bridge pickup has been repaired by the old freefrog, BTW): instant early Schenker or Angus Young tones but also gorgeous BB King vibes or clean sounds... Later iterations with engraved baseplates can be less exciting but gave me what I wanted during the early and mid 80's, in a Norlin "fretless wonder" 3PU's Custom with ebony fretboard.

For the record, Duncan Jazz / SH2's are really not far to be T-Tops with long magnets, neck/bridge variations and wax potting. Reminder about a topic that I have devoted to this question here: https://forum.seymourduncan.com/thr...utes-to-gibson-patent-sticker-t-tops.6255977/

Last but not least, I don't think T-Tops are "black sheeps". Gibson has released a "T-Type" supposed to clone them and various boutique winders had/have T-Tops style PU's in their catalog : see the multiple Jimi Page sets containing a bridge T-Top copy + a P.A.F. clone for neck position (by ReWind Electric, for instance) but also Manlius or the humbuckers sold by "Solodallas"...

 

[Mincer]

What years were the T-Tops around?

 

[hamerfan]

The T-Tops started in mid 1967 to 1975. Then decals with the Pat. No. changed to an impressed Pat. No. in 1976. From 1977 on they carried a rubber stamped date. In 1981 Shaw took over and brought his PAF like bobbins. Some rare examples had one T-Top bobbin and one new in mid 1980. From June 1980 they became Shaws with the new bobbins, new magnet, new rubberstamp system and plain enamel wire. Just the baseplate, the slugs and the screws remained unchanged.

 

[Mincer]

On my 1980 Gibson HR Fusion, there was a tarback, and a Shaw. I don't have much experience with T-tops though.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

I like T-tops in neck position, had one at the neck on my main gigging Floydcaster throughout the 80s, and on quite a few Gibsons over the years.
They are fairly well-balanced and polite, crisp without being overly harsh. And don't impose a lot of their own personality on a guitar's sound.

It's a low output pickup, though; I prefer something a little more muscular at the bridge. Have traditionally swapped out T-top bridges since I use several guitars during a show and need them in the same ballpark outputwise.

Still, if you're only using one guitar and can dial your rig to suit them, they can be great.

I find it funny that they're being appreciated again - for many years you literally couldn't give them away.
Back in the 70s when people replaced them, they'd just toss them in the trash 'cause nobody wanted 'em.

BTW, T-tops are not the same as the Shaws, which were intended as a reissue of a good example of the notoriously inconsistent classic PAF. Tim's design used different bobbins, different wire, different wind, and different spacers. Can't say for sure, but I've been told Gibson didn't stick with Tim's specs very long, and that some later Shaws aren't the same as the earlier date-stamped ones.

I love the vintagey sound & dynamic of Shaws. Had to replace 'em in a number of my working guitars back in the day, though; they squealed badly at 1980s stage volumes.

 

[beaubrummels]

When T-Tops were stock pickups, amps didn't have the gain for them to sound good. Now you can get any level of gain you want with amps or modeling. so T-Tops are a good option for certain sounds and playing.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

I used to have a guitar teacher who had a 70's LPC that was a boat anchor, barely had any frets, and had microphonic and weak and thin-sounding pickups. Maybe under another context, I would've liked them, but I was EMG's or die back then. Still don't feel like they'd be my thing today, probably.

 

[Mincer]

BTW, T-tops are not the same as the Shaws, which were intended as a reissue of a good example of the notoriously inconsistent classic PAF. Tim's design used different bobbins, different wire, different wind, and different spacers. Can't say for sure, but I've been told Gibson didn't stick with Tim's specs very long, and that some later Shaws aren't the same as the earlier date-stamped ones.

My Shaw is date stamped...with my 10th birthday.

 

[hamerfan]

He have one shaw and 3 different t-top, but all t-top are 2nd Generation from 1976 on. A lot of people say that the first Gen. with short magnets sound much fuller without giving up the crisp and well balanced sound. The 2nd Gen. is thinner sounding, which isn’t a bad thing in neck position of a Les Paul.

 

[freefrog]

FWIW, T-Tops have most often a low DCR and low inductance but these two specs were rather variable on the models that I've measured these last decades and all of them were certainly not so low output pickups.

Some late iterations had ceramic magnets, for the record... And even my Flying V with short A5 loaded Pat. Numb. from 1968 is anything but weak. As I said, instant Schenker tone, which should mean something if I explain that several sets were tried in this instrument with the (wrong) idea that it would sound better... it has hosted vintage P.A.F. replicas with long RC A5, Stephens Design VL1, Skatterbrane with various kinds of magnets... All sounded good but the guitar sounds right only with the first gen. T-Top recipe.

I'll repeat myself by stating that 300k pots and covers don't help with T-Tops. A while back, I've tweaked a 1976 LP with covered ones by changing its 300k neck tone pot in a no load control and the sound opened itself in a magnificent way.

 

[uOpt]

I have a 1970 LP Custom. I can't really judge the pickups since I don't want to disturb the original soldering. But it sounds good and has no problems such as being microphonic. Nice guitar overall and not too heavy either.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

I expect people are also more into old T-Tops these days because they're priced out of PAFs and Pat. Nos. .

As said above, we live in an age where you can have infinite gain and boost in amps and pedals, so a cleaner/lower output pu isn't seen as an hinderance, like it was in the old days, which led to thousands of Super D sales. Indeed, plenty of people may see an advantage of a pu with a T-Top like spec in a higher gain situation.

 

[jeremy]

i think the reason t-tops are so expensive is just that, pafs and pat # are expensive as hell. i dont really care for the pat # either, and some pafs arent as great as the hype. some do kick a lot of ass though

 

[Mincer]

45 year old pickups out of a legacy brand are going to draw attention, no matter what they sound like. While I never thought they were very special, the people who buy based on nostalgia or need to secure parts for a vintage instrument will pay a lot.

 

[STLMTLHD79]

Going against the grain on this one. I can't stand T-tops-I have them in a few 70s les pauls waiting to be pulled out-muddy, dark and all cocked-wah pedal mids to my ears.

 

[freefrog]

If I obtained muddy, dark and all cocked wah mids from a LP with any kind of passive humbuckers, I'd check the resistance of the pots*, the stray capacitance of the wiring harness** and the capacitance of the cable*** from guitar to first host (amp or pedal input)...
*It's possible to change 300k tone controls like those mounted in Norlin era LP's in no-load pots: it rises the resistive load of each pickup from 150k to 300k (which is more than the 250k due to two 500k pots) and helps to obtain more clarity, especially from pickups with weakened magnets and whose covers generate eddy currents...
**Any vintage wiring harness made of braided shielded wire, specifically, can also develop an enormous parasitic capacitance due to moisture contaminating the cotton insulation... It shifts down the resonant peak of pickups in a noticeable way, as illustrated by Pr Zollner from the Gitec (well, we've found the same thing here but we've not done a video on that like Zollner did)... A harness made of low capacitance Mogami cable should cure this issue if it's there.
***The cable from passive PU's to first pedal or amp input remains supremely important, of course. I've here a long straigth one exhibiting a capacitance of more than 4nF: it's as if there was a 3.9nF or 4.7nF cap from hot to ground. Cocked wah sound guaranteed! A shorter and/or low capacitance conductor should cure that too.
Actually, it's possible to obtain crystal clear sounds from most low DCR / low inductance passive humbuckers with a cocktail of high resistance pots, low capacitance wiring and low capacitance cables. It might even make the tone too bright and harsh, in fact.
FWIW : crucial factors about which I've shared for free. Better than to pay a guitar tech... ;-)

 

[hamerfan]

I was shocked everytime i checked a 70ies up to mid 80ies Gibson Les Paul. 300k vol pots, 150k tone pots were standard and even some of them even lower than spec‘d. The lowest was a 120kish tone pot.