I've come to an interesting conclusion about the MarkIIC+...

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

caphead

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
First off, I just want to say this is a great forum and I have found it to be an invaluable resource to all things Boogie. I am not technically the owner of anything Boogie at the moment, except for the entire set of internals to a Quad preamp. This was found many years ago at the practice spot of a band I just joined; they had no idea what it was (it was assumed that it was the circuit board to a PA mixer) and when they found out I built/worked on amps they said 'what can you do with this?' At first I had no idea what it was for either but I never refuse free components, especially all those nice orange drop caps! After I got it home and started cleaning the caked on dust off of it, I then realized 'Sweet Baby Jesus, it's a Mesa/Boogie!' Since then I had the intention of turning all those parts into something functional, most preferably a complete MarkIIC+; my dream amp practically from the time first I picked up a guitar. Time went on, and the drama of life made such ambitious ideas temporally obsolete until recently.

As a side note to this story, a little while before I joined that band I mentioned, I got the fantastic opportunity to work on a 1983 MarkIIC 100/60 watt 1x12 combo, serial number 11289; the guy was the original owner and loved the sound of it except for the reverb. My job with that amp was to change out the filter caps (all original) and tweak the reverb circuit a bit. When I got it home and plugged it in through my 4x12, I was absolutely floored, at that moment I officially fell in love with Boogie! In the process of working on that amp, I traced out a detailed schematic of it and documented everything, thus I became very familiar with the old Boogie's method of construction which has influenced me to this day as the PCB's I design share much in common with these early Boogies.

Back to more recently, I began to finally think more seriously about making good on my promise to make something of that disemboweled Quad preamp. My goal has been to as accurately as possible reproduce the chassis arrangement and PCB layouts. The research needed to do this has lead me to this forum as you guys have the highest quality of documentation and internal pictures. These pics have been invaluable towards this project as I have found a few things about the MarkIIC+ I never knew before and haven't seen documented anywhere.

As to the point of this thread............ In the numerous gut shots I have seen of nearly a dozen original factory MarkIIC+'s and my familiarity with the MarkIIC, I do believe I have reached an interesting conclusion (I'm sorry if this is already known information, but in my research nobody has yet said this explicitly)...........


That all MarkIIC+'s are modified MarkIIC's.


Looking at all these pictures of MarkIIC+ guts, the one occurring theme I've found is that circuit boards are not any different than that of the MarkIIC, and all the jumper wires and components that are attached off the board further prove this. This also explains in part why there were so few originals built (aside from the introduction of the MarkIII); the process was more labor intensive on top of the original method of PCB construction being a labor intensive process itself.

Sorry for the long thread, thanks for reading :wink:
 
caphead said:
First off, I just want to say this is a great forum and I have found it to be an invaluable resource to all things Boogie. I am not technically the owner of anything Boogie at the moment, except for the entire set of internals to a Quad preamp. This was found many years ago at the practice spot of a band I just joined; they had no idea what it was (it was assumed that it was the circuit board to a PA mixer) and when they found out I built/worked on amps they said 'what can you do with this?' At first I had no idea what it was for either but I never refuse free components, especially all those nice orange drop caps! After I got it home and started cleaning the caked on dust off of it, I then realized 'Sweet Baby Jesus, it's a Mesa/Boogie!' Since then I had the intention of turning all those parts into something functional, most preferably a complete MarkIIC+; my dream amp practically from the time first I picked up a guitar. Time went on, and the drama of life made such ambitious ideas temporally obsolete until recently.

As a side note to this story, a little while before I joined that band I mentioned, I got the fantastic opportunity to work on a 1983 MarkIIC 100/60 watt 1x12 combo, serial number 11289; the guy was the original owner and loved the sound of it except for the reverb. My job with that amp was to change out the filter caps (all original) and tweak the reverb circuit a bit. When I got it home and plugged it in through my 4x12, I was absolutely floored, at that moment I officially fell in love with Boogie! In the process of working on that amp, I traced out a detailed schematic of it and documented everything, thus I became very familiar with the old Boogie's method of construction which has influenced me to this day as the PCB's I design share much in common with these early Boogies.

Back to more recently, I began to finally think more seriously about making good on my promise to make something of that disemboweled Quad preamp. My goal has been to as accurately as possible reproduce the chassis arrangement and PCB layouts. The research needed to do this has lead me to this forum as you guys have the highest quality of documentation and internal pictures. These pics have been invaluable towards this project as I have found a few things about the MarkIIC+ I never knew before and haven't seen documented anywhere.

As to the point of this thread............ In the numerous gut shots I have seen of nearly a dozen original factory MarkIIC+'s and my familiarity with the MarkIIC, I do believe I have reached an interesting conclusion (I'm sorry if this is already known information, but in my research nobody has yet said this explicitly)...........


That all MarkIIC+'s are modified MarkIIC's.


Looking at all these pictures of MarkIIC+ guts, the one occurring theme I've found is that circuit boards are not any different than that of the MarkIIC, and all the jumper wires and components that are attached off the board further prove this. This also explains in part why there were so few originals built (aside from the introduction of the MarkIII); the process was more labor intensive on top of the original method of PCB construction being a labor intensive process itself.

Sorry for the long thread, thanks for reading :wink:

FWIW, there are approximately 2000+ factory Mark IIC+s made. Thanks!
 
Authorized Boogie said:
FWIW, there are approximately 2000+ factory Mark IIC+s made. Thanks!

That's still a drop in the bucket in comparison to all the other Marks I'm assuming? What I was saying is that by all indications it seems as those boards took a while to assemble, though you guys were seasoned vets even by that point so I'm sure it took less time than it will be for me to assemble mine. :wink:
 
In terms of numbers, there are so few IIC+ because they were not in production for very long. In terms of numbers, yes there are a couple thousand made over a couple of years. That might not sound like many amps, but Mesa was a boutique manufacturer back then...not at all like now.

For example, IIC+ are generally in the S/N range of 12XXX-13XXX. That means that they had only made ~13,000 amps at that point (all of the different models of Mark amps used the same line of serial numbers...not like now where some model lines use their own series of serial numbers). So, that 13,000 point (ie the IIC+ timeframe) was around ~1984. So, if Mesa started their serial numbers in the early 70s (I don't really know when), then they were apparently averaging only 1200-1300 amps per year. Small operation.

Then they made the Recto and all the 90s bands made great records with them. Everything changed.

Chip
 
chipaudette said:
In terms of numbers, there are so few IIC+ because they were not in production for very long. In terms of numbers, yes there are a couple thousand made over a couple of years. That might not sound like many amps, but Mesa was a boutique manufacturer back then...not at all like now.

For example, IIC+ are generally in the S/N range of 12XXX-13XXX. That means that they had only made ~13,000 amps at that point (all of the different models of Mark amps used the same line of serial numbers...not like now where some model lines use their own series of serial numbers). So, that 13,000 point (ie the IIC+ timeframe) was around ~1984. So, if Mesa started their serial numbers in the early 70s (I don't really know when), then they were apparently averaging only 1200-1300 amps per year. Small operation.

Then they made the Recto and all the 90s bands made great records with them. Everything changed.

Chip

Am I right in that the total number of MarkII's came to approximately 14500 ? Or does this include the Mark I serial numbers as well? Still, 2,000 in comparison to either is pretty small. Like you said chipaudette, Mesa was still very much a boutique company at this point; in fact with that MarkIIC I worked on, the guy gave me all the paperwork that came with it including the bill of sale, manual, 'catalog' for the new stuff coming out at the time (the big item of focus was the D-180) and another order form. It was all very interesting stuff! The part I found the most funny was in the suggested settings part of the manual; under 'for heavy metal' it showed the complete opposite setting on the graphic EQ than what would become the signature metal setting, a mid boost with low and high cut, lol! I guess we can all thank James Hetfield for changing that logic. :wink:

Anyways, the point I was trying to make originally was in response to what I have seen is that people are discounting the MarkIIC to C+ conversion as being inferior. Honestly until I looked into it, I did too. When I'd see on ebay for example someone selling a converted C+ for close to or the same price as a factory C+, I would scoff at the notion. But now after alot of research looking at the different PCBs, I know for a fact that the factory C+ was always a converted C. On top of that fact, not every C+ is exactly the same either in component placement or arrangement. Still no matter what, the factory C+'s will always be more valuable to those who are willing to pay extra for a serial number.

Here's another question that I think is relevant; how many regular C's were made? And how many of those have already been converted? Because technically if those number of original C's were all to be converted (as Mike Bendinelli has famously stated they should), then we're no longer talking about a limit of 2000 in the whole world but a much larger number. After this 'revelation' of mine, I'd be more than happy with a converted IIC without feeling as if I am missing out on anything. I just hope the average price of a IIC doesn't go up because of me saying something, lol!
 
Authorized Boogie said:
Mark I: 1 - 2999
Mark II: 3000 - 5574
Mark IIB: 5575 - 11000
Mark IIC: 11001 - 12499
Mark IIC+: 12500 - 14999

Mark III: 15000 - 28384

Thanks!

Awesome, thanks! So that potentially makes another 1500 IIC+'s out there... :wink: I aught to talk to the dude with the IIC I worked on and convince him to become one of the 'converted'. BTW, can this mod be done by just sending out the preamp PCB? Actually, I know it is possible to be done like this but rather would Mike B. accept just the PCB?
 
Authorized Boogie said:
Mark IIC+: 12500 - 14999

It's well documented that this range is incorrect.
Outside of one C+ with a serial number of 15000 (outside the above range as well)
and a few below 12,500 (5-6+-) and the highest serial number seen for a C+ was in the low 143xx range (I think it was ~14338)
So the actually numbers for number of C+'s made is below 2000, maybe in the 1800-1900 range.
 
SonVolt said:
You're correcting the company?

**** right he is. You guys are about five years late to this party and George knows his C+'s.

Old news, but knock yourselves out.

Owned 5 C+'s, had 15 on my bench and have documented gut shots of over 200 of them.
My first thought looking at this thread was," Oh no, not again". Within the last year I finally got the RP-11A
PCB out of my head so I could sleep at night.

A IIC+ is no more than a modified IIC. There is even a story told to me by Mike B. on how the evolution happened.
Please read the IIC+ for Dummies guide and save yourself 4 or more years of research.

If you want to really get involved, find out why the 120pf cap was removed from the effects loop grid to cathode after serial # 13,200 and why the faceplate was goofed requiring a wiring change for the EQ in/out and auto.

Good Luck.
 
kippiejr said:
I have played and have many C+'s in ever configuration you can think of, even a IIA-C+ that was done in 84. I have only found play feel differences in the tranny. 100, 101X, 105. I could play an upgrade and a factory and know one could tell the difference. Why.. They are as you stated.. The Same...Even the 60/100 to simul-class are hard to differ at stage levels. A simul-class clean is nice. But the lead channels are undistinguishable.
So those that want to pay for a factory C+,feel free, But coming from experience until you have a played both, You over paying. Here's some prospective for you from MB himself to think about. A factory C+ saw many up to 8 to 10 employees building the components and most where not RS or MB. When you get an Upgrade C+, MB is the only one that does it. Personal attention! Something factory C+ did not get. That alone verifies the author findings. Maybe I should not have typed this. I feel the upgrade going up. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Nonsense. Either way, upgrade or original they were a medusa of sloppy wiring that stays the same regardless of the amp being upgraded. If you want to be anal, KayDee was the cleanest assembly employee, ever.

Mike and RS did not build the amps. They did the final inspection and burn in as well as scoping. The hammer test as well.
As for RS, when Mike B. would go on vacation Randy would leave him a room of amps to finalize. I own an RCS initialed IIC+ and that is very, very uncommon. Today, Mike can do an upgrade in his sleep and you are not paying him to pretty up the wiring.
He's a no nonsense guy. Mod it, test it and get it out. God bless him.
 
Boogiebabies said:
If you want to really get involved, find out why the 120pf cap was removed from the effects loop grid to cathode after serial # 13,200 and why the faceplate was goofed requiring a wiring change for the EQ in/out and auto.

I didn't know that about the later ones. I also never really understood what that cap was doing. I went back and forth. One option was "it must be introducing a high-frequency roll-off", but if so, why not just send it to ground instead of to the cathode. I guess it could be a partial roll-off, but going to ground is still only a first order Low-pass filter. Then i thought that it must be some sort of positive-feedback thing to boost the treble...but that would likely make the amp unstable, which it isn't.

So, when the cap is there, what's its function?

Chip
 
kippiejr said:
When you get an Upgrade C+, MB is the only one that does it. Personal attention!

I have an IIC->IIC+ upgrade that was done by MB sometime around 2009-2010 (I can't remember...time passess so quickly). He seemed to be a pretty decent and direct guy. In addition to doing the usual IIC+ upgrade, he also suggested that my amp needed a fix/replacement of the reverb tank and that the power tubes needed to be replaced. OK, let's do it.

When I got the amp back, it worked great, but the power tubes that he sent were the stock Mesa 6L6s that they were selling at that time. In my opinion, those were the stiffest, ugliest sounding tubes I've ever heard. Up to that point, I wasn't really a believer in how important power tubes were to the sound of an amp. "Maybe they just need to burn in", I said.

Well a couple of months later, I bought some new-build Winged C (which were only slightly more expensive than the Mesa tubes at the time) and the amp felt so much better. To my ears, the difference was so dramatic that I couldn't believe that a presumed lover of this amp (ie, MB) would send out this amp from his shop equipped with those Mesa tubes. But, he did.

So, "personal attention", even of a long-time master like MB, doesn't necessarily equate to the best choices for users. There's must be still a lot of personal preference that goes into it.

Chip
 
kippiejr said:
Not an export. 100 tranny, smoothest C+ is have.
Huh?
dodger916 said:
Check out this thread; it's my C+ Boogiebabies is referring to.
Frank you forgot to include the link. ;-)
I have it bookmarked somewhere too but I'll let you post it. I don't want to search for it right now.
 
gts said:
kippiejr said:
Not an export. 100 tranny, smoothest C+ is have.
Huh?
dodger916 said:
Check out this thread; it's my C+ Boogiebabies is referring to.
Frank you forgot to include the link. ;-)
I have it bookmarked somewhere too but I'll let you post it. I don't want to search for it right now.

Doh! Thanks George. Earlier post corrected...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top