Gilkes Laskey
- dukesboneman
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Apr 02, 2018
Has anyone tried this piece yet? Looks to be a little shallower than the Shires by the specs
- Fidbone
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Apr 24, 2018
Who’s Gilles?
You might get more traffic if to change that to Gilkes <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f923" tseq="1f923">🤣</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f44d-1f3fc" tseq="1f44d-1f3fc">👍🏼</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1fae3" tseq="1fae3">🫣</EMOJI>
You might get more traffic if to change that to Gilkes <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f923" tseq="1f923">🤣</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f44d-1f3fc" tseq="1f44d-1f3fc">👍🏼</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1fae3" tseq="1fae3">🫣</EMOJI>
- Bleek
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Aug 02, 2022
I’ve been playing this for about a month and previously had played the Shires/Pickett version a lot. For me it’s not a massive difference, but there are differences. Either the throat or backbore seem slightly smaller and the rim seems more rounded giving a feeling of being slightly wider to me. I think it’s just that the high point of the rim circumference feels further out than the flatter old version. Again, for me, the result is the sound is a tad clearer and more focused, a bit more life in the sound. I like it and it’s replaced the old version :)
I play it with the #3 Shires lead pipe and it's a great match. To my knowledge that's what Marshall uses, so what it was probably designed with. For lead/pop stuff the Laskey Gilkes doesn't work for me though, I'll go to a different setup.
I play it with the #3 Shires lead pipe and it's a great match. To my knowledge that's what Marshall uses, so what it was probably designed with. For lead/pop stuff the Laskey Gilkes doesn't work for me though, I'll go to a different setup.