Gilkes Laskey

D
dukesboneman
Posts: 935
Joined: Apr 02, 2018

by dukesboneman » (edited 2024-11-11 11:41 a.m.)

Has anyone tried this piece yet? Looks to be a little shallower than the Shires by the specs
F
Fidbone
Posts: 383
Joined: Apr 24, 2018

by Fidbone »

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>
B
Bleek
Posts: 64
Joined: Aug 02, 2022

by Bleek »

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.
H
hiktro
Posts: 257
Joined: Jan 09, 2022

by hiktro »

It may be difficult to see in this photo, but the inside of the cup is gouged to increase the space.