Marshall "1962" from 1993

Are the handles not working then ? Presumably, if they are, and have been fixed like it for 14 years, then there are no good reasons that I can see, for changing the mounting method.

Personally, as far as the caps go, I'd invoke that good old maxim "If it ain't broke, don't fix it ! ". Just relieve the owner of a suitable amount of money for sorting his pot problem, and move on to the next one. It's called having a commercial business model, and is what's needed to ensure that you can pay your bills, and get away for a rest a couple of times a year ...

Arfa

You mean pukka actually.

Pucker is what you do with your lips.

Graham

some

just

My brief was for the pot and bias adj, and any potential safety or reliability problems. He uses a number of Marshalls but this one, recently aquired, came with no known history so safety was the main concern. The screws that hold the main lifting handles have very jagged exposed head-slots as though the windy driver( or bad human) slipped on driving each one, so I will replace with bolts for that reason alone. Owner is in the habit of going around with switch cleaner for the jack sockets so I will beef up the contact closing force on all those. Finally there is the ridiculous system of casters on these sort of Marshall cabs. It is quite possible for all 4 casters to end up pointing inwards so the slightest of tugs on a guitar lead will pull the cab over. A 9 inch deep cab is then relying on just a 4 inch wide wobbly footprint but still 26 inches high. Especially if used on a carpet.

Anyone tried canting over each of the casters by replacing 2 srews of the 4, with longer ones and a spacer under the caster mount for those 2.? Jacking up the innermost edge of each caster which will also reduce the gap under the cab. So the self weight should bias the casters to pointing outwards when at rest , for maximum stability. For normal in line carriage then the change of orientation , via the cant, would have to lift the cab and hopefully that self weight at rest would return the casters to outwards position. To turn inwards would mean itself, unassisted, increasing the height of the cab at that corner so unlikely. Or will normal pushing motion become uncontrollable? i will see tomorrow with a rejig and test run

-- Diverse Devices, Southampton, England electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on

Dent "pulling" with a couple of Jubilee clips does work to a large extent but not total and you need to wrap a piece of thin sleel plate around the leather. Both leaving a gap to see the dent. The steel to cover the area where the clip ring enters into the clasp and contracts on tightening or the aluminium can will be deformed inwards at that point as the leather will not slip over the can.

The canted casters work well. They are not the original , part recessed ones, presumbly busted off years ago and replaced with standard hardware store ones.

Propping up on one edge with doubled up rubber feet used for kit, so 4 to each caster. Uncompressed feet stand off height 13mm . Original gap between base of cab and floor of 169mm and still that with feet pointing outwards and 183mm if both pointing inwards. The action to get all 4 feet pointing outwards couild not be easier. Run the cab on all 4 casters in the longways sense of the cab , go 4 inches further than required and pull back 4 inches. The transporting action is worse, in the wayward supermarket trolley sense, a mind of its own, so perhaps only one rubber foot per standoff rather than

2 or transport using 2 casters and one of the main lifting handles rather than the top movement handle.

-- Diverse Devices, Southampton, England electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on

That should have been reference to 69mm and 83mm not 169mm and 183mm

the

not

feet

inches

sense,

than