"M" was also applied to mahogany shells meant for a stained finish

I will take a closer look at my kit when I get to the house, maybe I have a "stray P" shell mixed in with the "M`s"

Well, I took a look at my Walnut lacquered Slingy kit and this is the "poop". My 12" tom has a "M" stamp, my 13" tom has a "M" stamp, the 22" base has a "M" stamp and my 16" floor has a "P" stamp. The serial numbers are consecutive,632-633-634. So the "P= pearl / "M" = maple (no wrap) would not apply to this kit.

I think the ply layup also comes into question here.Being that those drums have a pretty light finish,the outer ply could not be mahogany.So I remember reading that Ludwig and Slingerland used mahogany for the outer ply on wrapped drums because of the porus grain held the glue better than maple.The same with stained drums where the outer ply was to be stained,maple would be the outer ply because of the light color and the tightness of the grain.So the question is,if this is true in all cases,then the interior ply must be mahogany....which it is not,or that is the lightest mahogany on the planet.So the inner plys may have been maple or poplar as may be the case with hawghunter's drums.now we have different ply layup besides maple/poplar/mahogany.We have mahogany/poplar/maple,maple/maple/maple,maple/poplar/maple(which is more likley) and possibly maple/mahogany/poplar,and lastly maple/poplar/poplar.

But the grommets are still sticking up too high on those drums.

Steve B

The one one the left is a "P" shell with mahogany outer ply, had a wrap on it, the one on the right is a "P" shell original to the kit, 3 ply with rings. Can you see a difference in the grain?

It could be the camera angle, but I can see a difference. The one on the right is flamier, the one on the left is good enough to be finish grade, but could easily be one that needs to be covered. Just my observation...

Slingerland had many different 3-ply combinations.

Poplar was always in the middle, never an interior.

Dr Wenk's article covers it really well.

link

My 70's Slingerlands were mahogany finish and had the same "grain" to the finish. To me it's more of the wood grain showing through the finish rather than orange peel. I was 15 at the time and even thought then the finish would be smoother but they had a cool natural look and most important they sounded great. No super smooth high gloss luster by any means.

Mahogany does NOT fill well, and older grain fillers sink. Look at a 30 year old Les Paul.

If I were to do a natural finish on a mahogany guitar or drum, I would use epoxy and spread it with a credit card. Epoxy will fill the grain well and probably not sink.

I still, however, feel dubious about the origins of the drums in question...

Just to add on finish and wood grains when I bought my set it was from PPC in NYC from Frank Ippolito. I was lead to a room upstairs which had stacks of stained finish Slingys in all sizes. You could clearly see the grain and finish on some drums slightly differed drum to drum. And we picked the best matches possible out of them both gloss and color wise. None of the bass drums and mounted toms were drilled as they did whatever mounts you wanted. I wanted Rogers tom mounts but they did not carry them. So I took the stock Slingerland tom mount. They almost talked me into Pearl tom mounts. I should have took them I never was a big fan of the Slingerland tom mount after having a set of Rogers. Loved those Rogers tom mounts. I guess my point is they were a full out custom shop for drummers and the best around the tri state area back then. They would do just about anything you wanted within the realm of drums and parts they could get. They even did custom colors if you wanted ($$$) them. Yes I asked. This guy might have wanted Newport Green stain? While it may not be original possibly custom shop material?