Also from a business standpoint why would Tama spend dollars to buy shells from Keller when they have the ability to make their own for pennies...Makes no sense, what so ever, Like Tamacam owners trying desperately to make the connection between Camco and their Tama's with the Camco name on it.[/QUOTE]

Because when a business is bought, left over assets often go with it. Early tama camcos had usa shells until they used them up.

Those early tama camco shells were indeed usa camcos with the re enforcement ring. After the leftover shells were used, tama shells took over and they are 100% different shells. They look like luan with the grain going vertical as in typical stencil kits of the day.

wikipedia quote

"Tama briefly used the Camco name in the late 1970s for so-called Tama/Camco drum kits which varied between US-made Camco shells and sometimes Japanese-made shells with a rounded lug similar, though not the same, as the Camco lugs.":

Anyway, the shell on Ebay didn't sell ... so the seller raised the price to $350. But ya never know. It looks like they sold an 8X12 shell for 300, but that requires less parts to get it up and running.

SC

The Hoshino-Camco and Tama-Camco drums have been subject of many lively debates on the forums.

The thing is that you won't find a lot of love for post-cloud-badge Camco Drums amongst the vintage drum enthusiast. A Japanese family using an established name, trying to gain a foothold on US soil. All this in a market that was struggling desperately against cheap import and nearly destroyed an entire industry,...

The shells we're talking about here, are the ones with the re-rigs. They could very well be be the first ones. If those are really left-overs from the Los Angeles factory, it would be fairly easy to check. This is why I posted exact measurements and close-up pictures of the bearing edges in the other thread.

About the shell-thicknesses and diameters, I tried to do some accurate measurements a while ago and compared the 1960's Jasper shells to the later Keller shells from the 1970's.

The 16” Jasper shell measures 15,89 inch and the 16” LA Keller shell is 15,87 inch.

You guys are awesome. And I have a few leads on a 16" tom. And I think I now know more about my drums! Thanks so much!!

Stu

Because when a business is bought, left over assets often go with it. Early tama camcos had usa shells until they used them up.

Those early tama camco shells were indeed usa camcos with the re enforcement ring. After the leftover shells were used, tama shells took over and they are 100% different shells. They look like luan with the grain going vertical as in typical stencil kits of the day.

wikipedia quote

"Tama briefly used the Camco name in the late 1970s for so-called Tama/Camco drum kits which varied between US-made Camco shells and sometimes Japanese-made shells with a rounded lug similar, though not the same, as the Camco lugs.":[/QUOTE]

This is exactly how the history starts getting muddy'd up!

You had better check your facts to what exactly Don Lombardi bought and what was purchased by Tama...

To set the record straight, the Tama corp. bought the Camco name and the rights to the design of the shells, only.

dw/Don Lombardi bought ALL the inventory, the hardware, the tooling and the rights to the lugs and lug design.

This along with the other thread regarding these drums has been an interesting read.

I have an old DW snare drum with re-rings and the shell is definitely undersized. Judging by the hole pattern, it looks like it originally had a Camco strainer and butt. It also has Camco lugs, although I've yet to remove a lug to check out the opposite side... I've been curious about this drum and its Camco connection. Perhaps the shell was part of the inventory that Don Lombardi purchased.

SC

Like I said before. I'm no expert. And you don't need to be rude by saying things like "Like Tamacam owners trying desperately to make the connection between Camco and their Tama's with the Camco name on it" and "You had better check your facts"... It seems to me lately everyone forgets their's another human in the conversation when they get behind a keyboard. There's much nicer ways to approaching each other.

I can see why it gets muddy. Theres a huge difference to tama shells and camco shells. And the idea that a fairly newer company such as tama at the time, taking the patent right but not the tooling seems ridiculous. That means they would have to do a whole lot of investing just to get tooled up to produce those shells. Shells that they only used for literally a year or two. Thats an extremely brave and risky business adventure for a young company. And I can't see tama doing all that to produce a professional shell, just to go back to that stencil shell design. That would also mean DW has the tooling, but can't do anything with it, because they don't have the patent right to produce the shells. Only the lugs. Talk about a waste of expenditure. The tooling would be useless. Also a risky chance for a new company... Someone is lying somewhere. If tama did in fact tool up for such a short period, BRAVO on them. Thats quite a success story. Thats overcoming some serious odds.

I'm getting in here late-did Camco actually make shells? I mean create wooden cylinders of their own manufacture, like Keller or Jasper? If so I was not aware of it.