What Makes A Great Pick Great? Is It Science or Smoke & Mirrors?

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by CaineIsCarter

To the OP: you state in your post title that you are not trying to pitch your own product, but I am afraid that is transparently what you are doing, and that is all you are doing. There is precisely nothing to be found anywhere in this thread to scientifically verify or disprove anything.

Caine, I've gone out of my way to endorse a half dozen other companies who make products this way. I don't care who anyone buys from, or doesn't.

Here is a spec sheet on Ultem followed by a spec sheet on DuPont Vespel. Maybe the data explains why players say BC's outperform Dunlop Ultex.

http://www.sdplastics.com/ensinger/ultem.pdf

http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/du...1-00-B0614.pdf

Does anyone market finger picks in this material?

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by A-Mac

Does anyone market finger picks in this material?

Extrapolating the cost of a single miracle flatpick, a thumb pick plus three fingers would run you around $200.

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by Pine

Hi Scott. I’m just responding to the aspect of your post that implies “scientific proof” of your assertion.

“It is not fairy dust, or myth-making, or a magic wand, or unusual mushrooms. It's hard science, folks.”

All of the evidence you cite is anecdotal, not scientific at all. You did not tie injection vs. sheet to any measures of pick quality. Nor did you prove to me that sheet built picks are superior to injection molded picks.

On the other hand, while I have a whole box of a wide variety of picks, I only use a Blue Chip TPR-35. Why? Because I think it sounds best, and produces less string click. Or maybe because I spent $35 bucks, and I darn well better use it. 

There is a long thread going on over in “open mike” titled: Fact or Opinion. I would put your assertion under the “Opinion” heading, although presented as "Fact".

I do agree though that the Blue Chip picks sound great. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV.

Anecdotal is a good word. I haven't taken these materials into a lab and am not a researcher. That's why I state that your experience is your experience.

However, as I stated above, Pine, the numbers (I just posted here elsewhere) show why and how they materials are used in jet fighters and heavy industry for very strenuous mechanical applications. That's hard data. Again, you cannot use celluloid or nylon or even Ultem in these environments; they won't hold up. My subtitle is "Science or Smoke & Mirrors?" Does the science explain why it makes a better pick. I dunno.

The psychological approach is of course a possibility too, indeed, Pine.

But let me posit a question: Do you think Red Bear could have a thriving business for twenty years, or Blue Chip for ten, if they were selling snake oil, merely snake oil? Anecdotal, yes. Do you think someone like Ricky Skaggs or Chris Thile would sign on as a sponsored player with BC merely for cash and free picks? From the kind of man I know Ricky to be, I say no. But I could be wrong.

I would submit that this two wonderful companies, BC and RB, have built businesses on products that people value for their performance.

I appreciate your honesty in stating you love your BC. You might do a blind "drop" test I mentioned to see the difference in the "ping" of the BC vs the others.

Thanks!
Scott

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I use the P2; my original P1 fell apart after nearly 10 years' use. The nice guy at G7th sent me a free replacement after reading my post here about it self-destructing. I preferred the 'heft' of the P1, although it functioned no better that the P2-for me anyway.

Andrew, there was a poll done on here about the P1 vs the P2 that showed a clear 2-to-1 preference for the P2 over the P1. I'm in the minority. I like old school overbuilt things. But I found when they reversed the direction of the release button it drove me crazy. Did that bother you? I'm certain this was because of customer feedback, but I find I have nowhere to "anchor" my hand to get leverage to release the thing on the new model.

Have you seen this strange, Bird-of-Paradise capo? I saw Jackson Browne use one recently:

https://www.elderly.com/bird-of-para...-blackbird.htm

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Extrapolating the cost of a single miracle flatpick, a thumb pick plus three fingers would run you around $200.

I'm fine with brass

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

Andrew, there was a poll done on here about the P1 vs the P2 that showed a clear 2-to-1 preference for the P2 over the P1. I'm in the minority. I like old school overbuilt things. But I found when they reversed the direction of the release button it drove me crazy. Did that bother you? I'm certain this was because of customer feedback, but I find I have nowhere to "anchor" my hand to get leverage to release the thing on the new model.

Have you seen this strange, Bird-of-Paradise capo? I saw Jackson Browne use one recently:

https://www.elderly.com/bird-of-para...-blackbird.htm

I liked the P1 for the same reason I like valve (tube) radios, vintage 35mm Canon cameras and steam locomotives; they're built to last; my Grundig 2035/W3D set sounds as good today as it did in 1956!

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by A-Mac

I'm fine with brass

A-Mac, if you're referring to the thumbpick itself, I've never put a pencil to it, but you're looking at at least $100 retail for that, exclusive of the fingerpicks.

I don't use metal fingerpicks anymore, but my experience as a player is the moldability of the metal fingerpicks, their flex, allows you to really form them to your fingertips. The best application of these engineering plastics is a flat surface to a flat surface. Since a "flat" pick is mostly flat, that might explain why some players claim these mechanical properties make for a better pick. Again, speculation.

scott

[Pine]

“It is not fairy dust, or myth-making, or a magic wand, or unusual mushrooms. It's hard science, folks.”

Again Scott, the statement above is what I was disagreeing with. I just feel you are making the jump from science used in one application to saying that if A + B is true, that A + C must therefore be true.

"However, as I stated above, Pine, the numbers (I just posted here elsewhere) show why and how they materials are used in jet fighters and heavy industry for very strenuous mechanical applications. That's hard data."

Then would it not also be true that folks that want superior results from their guitars should dump the old technology wooden things, and get on the Carbon Fiber bandwagon? After all, you don't see wood in the construction of modern fighter jets. Only on the old WWI stuff. You wood guys are playing the equivalent of Sopwith Camels, while we CF guys are playing with F22's.

"But let me posit a question: Do you think Red Bear could have a thriving business for twenty years, or Blue Chip for ten, if they were selling snake oil, merely snake oil?"

Would Zager still be in business?

[CaineIsCarter]

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

Caine, I've gone out of my way to endorse a half dozen other companies who make products this way. I don't care who anyone buys from, or doesn't.

Here is a spec sheet on Ultem followed by a spec sheet on DuPont Vespel. Maybe the data explains why players say BC's outperform Dunlop Ultex.

http://www.sdplastics.com/ensinger/ultem.pdf

http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/du...1-00-B0614.pdf

Are you seriously suggesting I sit and read a "spec sheet on DuPont Vespel"? How tragic do you suppose my life must be?

My objection to your post lies in your assertion of scientific validation, when in truth you have simply generated a thread about your commercial offering.

I have no experience of your picks, so I cannot comment on them. But I think you are taking the members for fools.

[ALBD]

I have a couple of BC and CL picks. They are good, mellow picks. But I'm confused as to the purpose of this if it is not to shill expensive picks. Every pick thread seems to find its way to CL. Maybe its just me but "you protest too much" comes to mind. No offense

[00-28]

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

Interestingly, on the density thing: We do a simple sonic test where we drop a pick onto a circular pizza stone. You can actually "hear" the difference in density from this simple experiment.

sm

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

I appreciate your honesty in stating you love your BC. You might do a blind "drop" test I mentioned to see the difference in the "ping" of the BC vs the others.

Thanks!
Scott

This is the only scientific data needed to determine the best material for guitar picks. I suggest that you don't do this over 3 feet above the stone if the wind is blowing.
......Mike

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

A-Mac, if you're referring to the thumbpick itself, I've never put a pencil to it, but you're looking at at least $100 retail for that, exclusive of the fingerpicks.

OK. I was primarily interested in finger picks, but since you brought up thumb picks, I looked at the Blue Chip site and I see thumb picks for forty bucks. So . . . . . . ?

[JeffreyAK]

Originally Posted by 00-28

This is the only scientific data needed to determine the best material for guitar picks.
......Mike

I hope that was dry sarcasm, because if it was it's priceless.

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by Pine

“It is not fairy dust, or myth-making, or a magic wand, or unusual mushrooms. It's hard science, folks.”

Again Scott, the statement above is what I was disagreeing with. I just feel you are making the jump from science used in one application to saying that if A + B is true, that A + C must therefore be true.

"However, as I stated above, Pine, the numbers (I just posted here elsewhere) show why and how they materials are used in jet fighters and heavy industry for very strenuous mechanical applications. That's hard data."

Then would it not also be true that folks that want superior results from their guitars should dump the old technology wooden things, and get on the Carbon Fiber bandwagon? After all, you don't see wood in the construction of modern fighter jets. Only on the old WWI stuff. You wood guys are playing the equivalent of Sopwith Camels, while we CF guys are playing with F22's.

"But let me posit a question: Do you think Red Bear could have a thriving business for twenty years, or Blue Chip for ten, if they were selling snake oil, merely snake oil?"

Would Zager still be in business?

Pine, I've gone ahead and removed the first statement you quoted here. On second glance it strikes me as straight argument without foundation.

On the second point: I'm a wood guy myself, but I do believe in twenty years the acoustic guitar market will show a lot more composites and compounds, including Martin, Taylor, Yamaha and Gibson. Speculation? Yes. A guess?> Yes. But I'd say an educated guess. They've already banned Brazilian rosewood, and I've heard recently that Indian is going on the CITES list (does anyone know the latest on this?). As stated earlier, it was an ACCIDENT that some companies discovered that engineering plastics might make a good pick. They were not designed for that, but some have entertained speculation that those mechanical properties replicate the mechanical properties of genuine TS.

#3: Zager: I had to look them up. No awareness. How long have they been around? Yes, there are gimmicks everywhere in our industry, but Zager is not viewed by hardly anyone serious about guitars as equivalent to any of the serious makers. Many players put the pick brands I mentioned in my original post on the same footing as Fender, Dunlop, etc. Smoke and mirrors? Mass delusion? Could be.

Let me ask you a question: You say you like your BC best? Do you think it's possible that there is some scientific explanation related to the molecular structure of that compound that might explain why it's your go-to pick over the hundreds of others you own? From a purely technical perspective, why do you like it best? If you played it blindfolded and people handed you six or so different picks, do you think you could pick it out? You strike me as a very analytical, data-driven guy, so I'm curious.

sm