Identification guide for Tim Shaw PAF reissues,

HOT-BRIT

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
20,979
Reaction score
16,563
There is a lot of confusion and misrepresentation when it comes to Tim Shaw PAF reissue humbuckers, I often see pickups being advertised for sale as Shaws that clearly are not Shaws, so I have put together some identification pointers for Tim Shaw PAF reissues, I hope this will help guide you with the identification Tim Shaw PAF reissues humbuckers..

Shaw's have white plastic spacers,

a rough cast U O A 5 magnet,

bobbins without the "T" that had been used for more than a decade on theT-top humbuckers and the correct square hole in the bobbin

penny copper colored wire on the bobbins,

black and white lead wires coming from the bobbins,

the resistance will measure close to 7.5 Ohms when checked with a meter,

they have base plates embossed with patent number same as the later T-tops,

some Shaw's also have an ink stamp on the base plate, but the later ones don't have the ink stamp.
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,435
Reaction score
12,371
Two more things to add.
1. The earliest Shaws had a date stamp, much like very late T-Tops had.
2. Not all pickups with the ink codes are Shaws. Some Dirty Fingers, Super Humbucking, P490s and Velvet Bricks had ink codes too.

Certain codes applied to certain pickups.
 

LtKojak

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
4,158
Reaction score
3,003
you can only see that it is a full size rough cast magnet by looking
Ok. However, it doesn't answer the question.

So, how do YOU (you, personally) know it's an UOA5 mag?

Inquiring minds would like to know. :cool:
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,435
Reaction score
12,371
Ok. However, it doesn't answer the question.

So, how do YOU (you, personally) know it's an UOA5 mag?

Inquiring minds would like to know. :cool:
I was going to answer that question before, then I thought what Brit thought, that your question was "How can a person tell by looking that it is a UOA5 magnet?" Now I realize my assumption was right, you are asking "Hey, how do YOU know Shaw used UOA5 magnets?"

It has been written a Gibson Article "Keeping The Flame Alive" that Shaw experimented with A2, A5 and UOA5 magnets. He finally settled on UOA5 magnets.

There are other sources, but I do not remember at the moment.

Shaw magnets can be identified by their thickness. They are thicker than the other magnets Gibson was using at the time.

It is interesting, he chose the weaker UOA5 over the A5 the T-Tops were using, but wanted a thicker magnet to make them stronger. I guess he was going for a certain tone. The Shaws are very sweet in the neck and thin and hollow in the bridge. I quite like theim.
 

LtKojak

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
4,158
Reaction score
3,003
It has been written in Tony Bacon's books and also a Gibson Article "Keeping The Flame Alive" that Shaw experimented with A2, A5 and UOA5 magnets. He finally settled on UOA5 magnets.
Ok. That's what I wanted to know.

Thank you, Rod. YOU ROCK! :dude: :headbanger:

EDIT: I've inspected only two sets of Shaws, and from the gaussmeter readings I'm pretty sure they were A5s. Polished A5s. I'm now thinking they weren't unmolested after all... or, that they werent' Shaws after all either... dang!

Note to self: You ... need... to... buy... more... books... :confused:
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,435
Reaction score
12,371
If they were polished, they were not Shaws. Remember Gibson also had its regular P490s (the part number that pertained to the PAFs, T-Tops, and all their standard humbuckers right up to their current 490R/490T) along with the Shaw PAF reissues, as well has the Dirty Fingers, the Super Humbucking, the Velvet Bricks and the Jazz in the 80's. The Shaw was replaced by "The Original HB" in 1988 (circuit board from Lawrence) and that was in turn replaced by the Holmes developed 57 Classic.
 

bp-plickner

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
244
Reaction score
142
The 7.5k Ohm range is important since in the early 80's gibson was using humbuckers that had all of the Shaw attributes except the ohm readings are in the 8k range. I pulled a pair out of my early 80's gibson/ epi spirit that did not sound good at all. I tried those pickups in my R7 and R9 and they did not sounded equally not good. i put a pair of MHD soggy bottoms in my Spirit and they really brought that guitar to life. With all of the great pickups available by contemporary winders I have no idea why any one would spend there money on a "Shaw" :hmm:






Happy New Year

Peace
 

BuzzHaze

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
16,435
To add to this thread, here is a few pics from my 1980 Standard, which features T-Shaws, dated May 1 & May 6th 1980. A combination of both TTops (bobbins) and shaw spacers and wiring. These pickups sound very sweet, especially combined with the laminated maple neck. The guitar is brighter than my 2001 Standard, and seems to sparkle and sustain better. I love these pickups and can't wait to record something with both my Les Pauls so I can compare. I also like the idea of having a unique Les Paul :)











 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,435
Reaction score
12,371
I have even seen Shaws with Schaller bobbins. (the textured ones) I guess Gibson was bobbin poor in the 79-80 period.
 

socialhero

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
5,539
Might these be Shaws? I'm debating picking them up - the owner says they came out of an 80s LP. These are the only pics I have right now.

I looked up all the stamp codes but can't find a record of 378 / 384. The font looks different than the Shaw photos I've seen so I'm thinking they are a different model. I'm hoping to get some more info from the owner on readings and what model guitar they came out of.



 

Oranjeaap

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
8,496
Reaction score
4,201
I believe that those codes mean they are tim shaws, the codes have a meaning but I forgot.
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,435
Reaction score
12,371
And here is proof that just because a pickup has ink codes, doesn't mean they are Shaws, these are 1981 Diryt Fingers:


 

sixstring531

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
666
Reaction score
111
I've owned two sets and loved them both (except the second pair had been potted via third party, killing some mojo). I had Brandonwound wind me a bridge (which reads 7.8k) to the written Shaw specs of the 7.4-7.9 (though I don't think any were 7.9, I just asked for something with possibly more guts), un-potted, polycoated wire, white spacer, and rough cast UOA5. It has everything I asked for minus the age -- which we all know adds more tone. :)
 

JP1978

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi All- Im new to the forum and just wanted to ask if these pups could be Tim Shaw's or other? Either way they sound great, just curious to know what I got. The guitar is a 1982 Les Paul Standard from the Nashville plant. (Ink Stamp on neck: 498/582)
(Bridge: 499/782).
Thanks, I appreciate it!
 

Attachments

sixstring531

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
666
Reaction score
111
If they're low output and very similar in output, more than likely - yes. 100% surety comes with removing the covers and checking what has already been presented.
 

Oranjeaap

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
8,496
Reaction score
4,201
So whats the difference between shaws and t-tops?
Is it just the T on the bobbin? Because im holding a T-top thats matching every part of the description in the OP apart from the T bobbins.

Date stamped Oct. 1978
 


My Les Paul Classifieds



Top