Marshall have reissued the silver jubilee

matt1973

Ahh. Was going off the USA list price. That seems more like it.

ICBM

robdynamite said:

I've always fancied a 2555, cannot stand the silver tolex/panel, shame they just don't make them in black. 
But as already stated in this thread, the price is out of my league.

They did make them in black, and as matt1973 said they sell for less than the silver ones. They're not that rare, although surprisingly don't seem to be any more common than the silver ones despite being made (or at least in the range, they may not have sold very well) for twice as long.

There's also the Slash model which is identical electrically, although the Slash thing would prevent me from owning one too...

ThePrettyDamned

Didn't @darcym want a Blues/heavy rock amp? If so, this is your amp!

matt1973

I think what anyone should bear in mind when buying a Jube is the importance of a clean tone as, in short, you won't have one!

Whilst being excellent, the lead tone won't want to clean up with the volume pot and the clean 'channel' is as dull as dishwater.

External clean preamps aren't much of an option either as the fx loop comes before the EQ. 

If you look at established Jubilee users, you may find they are also estblished multiple-amp users also or unashamed filth-mongers.

John_P

I've gigged mine using a clean sound and pedals for drive.   Sounded great imo.    I would agree that using a pedal for drive when the amp gives such a great overdrive tone is a sin but I needed a lot of flexibilty and quick switch options at the time.

ICBM

John_P said:

I've gigged mine using a clean sound and pedals for drive.   Sounded great imo.    I would agree that using a pedal for drive when the amp gives such a great overdrive tone is a sin but I needed a lot of flexibilty and quick switch options at the time.

Not really, considering that the lead channel is basically a pedal circuit anyway :-P.

It does have a footswitch for the channel too!

I know, it's not strictly fair to say that a valve gain stage with a diode clipping network is a 'pedal circuit' - but that's really all the lead channel is! Just one extra valve stage and an asymetric clipping network using LEDs and diodes. Amazing, given how highly-regarded the distortion on these amps is, and totally gives the lie to the idea that "all valve" is at all necessary for a great tone. It's actually the *clean* channel - without the 'Pull Clip' engaged - that's all-valve...

matt1973

Same thinking as with the later JCM800s? Seems strange these are seen as poor relatives of their earlier counterparts yet the Jube is a classic.

I like em both as dirty amps.

Gassage

I hope they reissue the combo too!

ICBM

matt1973 said:

Same thinking as with the later JCM800s? Seems strange these are seen as poor relatives of their earlier counterparts yet the Jube is a classic.

Yes, similar. Although I do think the Jubilees sound better than all bar the first version ('82'84) Split-Channel 800s. One problem with those is that there are three versions which look identical from the outside but are quite different circuit-wise, the first one particularly, so it's not always easy to know what you're getting.

Danny1969

I brought the originals when they came out. Head was £340, cab was £240 from Nevada Music

That Jem was made by B grade parts from the Ibanez factory and cost a mere £230 to put together 

ICBM

1987!!!!!!!!

John_P

Danny1969 said:

I brought the originals when they came out. Head was £340, cab was £240 from Nevada Music

That Jem was made by B grade parts from the Ibanez factory and cost a mere £230 to put together 

That was a great deal - I'm sure I paid more than that for the combo (but it was a long time ago).  

Danny1969

ICBM said:

1987!!!!!!!!

87 or 88, yeah I think so although that picture is from around 91 

In the early nineties there was a new wave of amps coming through like Gallien Kruger, rack mount Boggies, Kitty Hawks etc and Marshalls were really unfashionable so my Marshall was sold and replaced by a Fender (shudder) Princeton Chorus which has about the worse drive sound ever 

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

87 or 88, yeah I think so although that picture is from around 91 

You were still using a Spandex Pink guitar as late as '91? Have you no shame?! I hope it's from '91 and not '92 .

Danny1969 said:

In the early nineties there was a new wave of amps coming through like Gallien Kruger, rack mount Boggies, Kitty Hawks etc and Marshalls were really unfashionable so my Marshall was sold and replaced by a Fender (shudder) Princeton Chorus which has about the worse drive sound ever

But amazingly, I got about the best low-volume overdrive tone I've ever had out of one.

…using a Mesa V-1 pedal through the clean channel .

Dave_Mc

ICBM said:

To be honest, the Jet City stuff looks awful with that '333' logo (what actually does that mean?) confusing the brand identity, and the blue/black styling which doesn't quite go. I also think they're actually *too* cheap to be taken seriously, possibly.

Oh yeah they look meh at best ) I've certainly never said the cosmetics were any good. Also I think you might be right about the price, as well. I know on the Ultimate Guitar forum (where we get a lot more "advise me what to buy" type posts, generally from newer players too) there have been several occasions where the threadstarter has been put off the Jet Cities and ended up buying something which is (in my opinion) much worse, because "the Jet City couldn't be any good at that price, could it? This more expensive amp is probably an upgrade compared to it!"...

jeztone2

I had a 2553 50 watt combo. I have fond memories of that amp. But what amazed me is that as much as people slag off modern Marshalls. My JCM2000 tsl60 was way more reliable as a gigging amp, Aside from the cruddy footswitch.

ICBM

jeztone2 said:

I had a 2553 50 watt combo. I have fond memories of that amp. But what amazed me is that as much as people slag off modern Marshalls. My JCM2000 tsl60 was way more reliable as a gigging amp, Aside from the cruddy footswitch.

That is astonishing! Jubilees are well-made and usually reliable. The TSL60 is the worst-made modern Marshall valve amp I know of, although I think the DSL/TSL100 might be even less reliable. Just luck of the draw I think.

fastboy

ICBM said:

jeztone2 said:

I had a 2553 50 watt combo. I have fond memories of that amp. But what amazed me is that as much as people slag off modern Marshalls. My JCM2000 tsl60 was way more reliable as a gigging amp, Aside from the cruddy footswitch.

That is astonishing! Jubilees are well-made and usually reliable. The TSL60 is the worst-made modern Marshall valve amp I know of, although I think the DSL/TSL100 might be even less reliable. Just luck of the draw I think.

I was always lucky with TSL's and I had a few several years ago. Only item that went was a power valve. A few friends of mine had them and weren't so lucky. A tech mate of mine used to refer to DSL and TSL's as his pension fund. If the problem wasn't valve related it just meant get straight on the blower to Marshall and order a new PCB as he said you just couldn't work on them. 

Back to the jubilee. I thought the original dagnall transformers weren't available even by the time the Slash amp came out? I'm guessing that the 2nd hand market is going to take a drop then if the the new ones are being knocked out for £1199. Over the years I've watched jubilee prices get silly and I've owned a few and never paid more then £650 for one (apart from the Slash ones).