Experience w/ Oversized Crash Bell?

Peedy

Senior Member
I just received an 18in A. Zildjian c.1954-57. It weighs in at 1265g (thin) and sports an unexpected feature. . . the bell is nearly .75in wider than I thought it would be. The whole thing appears to be around 20% larger by volume compared to my other two 18in crashes or 20in crash/ride, all of similar age. The top portion of the bell is flatter as well, increasing the volume even more.

Sadly, I’ll have to wait to hear it. Got small room practice on Wednesday and band practice on Saturday. SIGH.

Benefits of a large bell?

I’ll put up a pic or two tomorrow when I have time for Photoshop.

Pete
 
Last edited:

Stroman

Platinum Member
Pics, man, pics! lol

I am not sure how different bells compare, but I do know that the bell on my regular old A Zildjian 18" crash from the early 80s was big. It was bigger in size and apparent proportion when compared to my 16", bought at the same time. It was also bigger than the bell on my Istanbul Agop crash, but those cymbals are so different anyway, it's hard to isolate what difference the bell alone makes.
 

Peedy

Senior Member
First three pics are of the new to me one. Opening from where the bell starts is 5.7 inches. Second three pics are of my old tried and true (see specs on both) whose bell is spot on at 5.0 inches. They're generally really close spec wise except for that bell. Also seems like the new to me one is a much faster crash when I tap it out. Should also mention that the edge is quite a bit thinner on the 1955 crash, .035 versus .040 on the 1965.

(1st three pics) c.1955 Zildjian 18in crash - 1265g.
(2nd three pics) c.1965 Zildjian 18in crash - 1285g.

I sealed off the holes on both and filled them with measured water and then weighed the water for a volume comparison. 1955 holds 170g of water while my 1965 holds 136g. So basically the bell on the 1955 I just got is 25% larger by volume. Should also mention that the bell on my 2050g 20in and 1550g 18in crashes also hold 136g of water so the new to me one is an odd man out.

EDIT - I changed all the "1958"s to "1955" after I checked the mounting hole size. 7/16 so it can't be a 1958. My bad.


1265-1.jpg1265-2.jpg

1265-3.jpg1285-1.jpg1285-2.jpg1285-3.jpg
 
Last edited:

Peedy

Senior Member
While I've yet to actually hit the cymbal, I did some research on a few cymbal nerd pages and dug up a couple of interesting items.

The larger bell was a thing on some mid 1950s Zildjian crash and crash/ride cymbals. Seems like a response to new styles of music (Elvis etc) that were becoming popular. They're supposed to speak out more quickly while the bell should be more forceful. I'll know a bit more when I ride and crash it tonight.
 

Peedy

Senior Member
This is actually tough to express my feelings between these two cymbals. The one on the left is the mid 1950s 18in thin crash. Larger bell, 1265g. I really like the way the bell sounds and it has a kind of "bell like" crash that's appealing sometimes. The one on the right is the mid 1960s 18in thin crash. Standard bell, 1285g. I prefer that one for riding it's bow and that its a more traditional sounding crash. To be honest, I don't feel like I'm an experienced enough drummer to really define what circumstances each would be best at. I'm gonna have to play with them over the next few months. Good problem to have I suppose. I'm guessing this is a typical quandary for a drummer to have. Do you all have an unending search for the perfect ride or crash?

Pete

18s.jpg
 
Top