software

SOMEONE please give me the FULL differences between the three. I know they are all great and are all PAFish, but what are the true tonal differences. Im looking for information, but also suggestions for which set would sound best for Phish-ish stuff. Im thinking Seths? Im not sure. From what I've gathered, 59s are great but still just production models, Seths have a little less bite and a little more mojo, and that Antiquities are top notch and the smoothest of the three (and has most mojo). What else is true? Thanks!

Mr Rat Farts...do a search on the forum. A few months ago there were several very useful threads on 59 vs Antiquity vs Seth Lover vs Pearly Gates vs Alnico II Pro, all these threads had great info by guys with great ears...good luck!

You pretty much nailed the basics in your question, but I'll answer the best I can. I own both 59's and Seth's, and have played Antiquities.

59's - Definately the tightest of the 3. Tight crisp lows, crisp highs. Some hear these as mid scooped, but it's really just that the lows and highs are crisp...the mids are not boosted and not scooped. Think of a quot;Vquot; shape on an eq. These are the most agressive of the 3, but still very vintage. In an already bright guitar these can sometimes be a bit harsh, and I sometimes feel the neck is boomy in the lows. I prefer an A2 neck bucker.

Seths - Definately smoother than the 59's. They have an open quality to them, a bit more of a honk in the midrange. I love the bridge, although I did have to pot it to use with my Marshall. The lows are looser, but not in a bad way, and the highs are sweeter. The mids are also more prominent, but not boosted. These are more blanced. I have had the Seths in several guitars, and in two of them I had a hard time getting the clarity I wanted out of the neck position. It always had just a bit of a raw quality that I couldn't dial out. I like that in the bridge, but not in the neck. They are a perfect pair in my 57 RI Goldtop.

Antiquities - Definately the sweetest of the 3 pups. Less honk in the midrange...more sweetness. The bridge still rocks well, and has nice crunch, but in a more polite way. It will handle a bunch of gain, and still stay articulate. I didn't get to spend a bunch of time with the neck pickup, but it reminded me a lot of an Alnico II Pro neck bucker, but with a more airy and open tone. Really nice.

Don't be afraid to mix and match the pups. If you want a really tight, crunchy bridge pup, put in the 59' and mate it with a Seth or Antiquity. What kind of guitar are you going to put these pups in, and what kind of inherent tone does it have? That would make all the difference in my final recommendation.

Which wire gauge do the Seths, Ants and 59 use? I've heard conflicting reports.


Originally Posted by FaradayWhich wire gauge do the Seths, Ants and 59 use? I've heard conflicting reports.

I think I remember Evan saying they all use the 42 guage plain enamal wire in the factory tour, but I won't swear to that.


Originally Posted by Jeff_HYou pretty much nailed the basics in your question, but I'll answer the best I can. I own both 59's and Seth's, and have played Antiquities.

59's - Definately the tightest of the 3. Tight crisp lows, crisp highs. Some hear these as mid scooped, but it's really just that the lows and highs are crisp...the mids are not boosted and not scooped. Think of a quot;Vquot; shape on an eq. These are the most agressive of the 3, but still very vintage. In an already bright guitar these can sometimes be a bit harsh, and I sometimes feel the neck is boomy in the lows. I prefer an A2 neck bucker.

Seths - Definately smoother than the 59's. They have an open quality to them, a bit more of a honk in the midrange. I love the bridge, although I did have to pot it to use with my Marshall. The lows are looser, but not in a bad way, and the highs are sweeter. The mids are also more prominent, but not boosted. These are more blanced. I have had the Seths in several guitars, and in two of them I had a hard time getting the clarity I wanted out of the neck position. It always had just a bit of a raw quality that I couldn't dial out. I like that in the bridge, but not in the neck. They are a perfect pair in my 57 RI Goldtop.

Antiquities - Definately the sweetest of the 3 pups. Less honk in the midrange...more sweetness. The bridge still rocks well, and has nice crunch, but in a more polite way. It will handle a bunch of gain, and still stay articulate. I didn't get to spend a bunch of time with the neck pickup, but it reminded me a lot of an Alnico II Pro neck bucker, but with a more airy and open tone. Really nice.

Don't be afraid to mix and match the pups. If you want a really tight, crunchy bridge pup, put in the 59' and mate it with a Seth or Antiquity. What kind of guitar are you going to put these pups in, and what kind of inherent tone does it have? That would make all the difference in my final recommendation.

I've played all three in Les Pauls and I agree totally with what Jeff says here. I've never needed to pot a Seth, but then I don't drive my Marshall with a pedal as I believe Jeff does some of the time.

You might find this review useful too: from : localhost/www.legendarytones.com/humbpus1.htm


Originally Posted by Simon_FI've played all three in Les Pauls and I agree totally with what Jeff says here. I've never needed to pot a Seth, but then I don't drive my Marshall with a pedal as I believe Jeff does some of the time.

Actually, squeel with no pedal. Of course my Marshall is modded, so that may have some effect. I would generally start getting squeel on the drive channel with the MV a noon, Channel Volume at 11:00 and Gain set at noon or higher.

I think I may have just received one of the few that have problems. I have very rarely heard reports of microphonics on Seths, and would not hesitate to order annother one.

Antiquity's are noted for having airy highs and complex mids. A lot more dimensional than the average PAF clone. I like mine a lot. The '59 is a really good one, and like the fellow above says, its quot;tight amp; brightquot; compared to the Antiquity. I have heard that the Seth is similar to the Ant., but somewhat thicker, more solid in the mids.