# Visual evidence Tung-Sol 5998 = Western Electric 421



## hodgjy

I was cruising eBay, and I came across this.  This has been debated a lot here, and hopefully this settles it for good.
   
  http://cgi.ebay.com/Western-Electric-5998-421A-vacuum-electron-Tube-/310238096979?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
   
  Now, there is no longer any evidence for people to deny the WE 421 was not made by Tung-Sol.  There's no need to dish out $300 on a WE 421 in hopes that it is more magical than a regular 5998


----------



## Skylab

I wasn't aware there was even any debate on this topic.  There shouldn't have been!  *ONLY* Tung-Sol *EVER* made the 5998, and the 421A is just a WE rebrand, pure and simple.  Any difference in sound between a 5998 and a 421A is purely due to the age/condition of the tube.


----------



## hodgjy

I agree, there shouldn't have ever been a debate. But, there are several posts floating around there (by owners of the 421s, no less) that claim the two tubes are different.  Perhaps they're just trying to justify the money they payed on it.


----------



## Skylab

Probably right! I could never figure out why 421A's went for so much, even when it was clear that the tube is Tung-Sol made. But the fabled WE brand does carry a lot of mystique, even it it's JUST the brand


----------



## jhljhl

There are rare JAN Tung Sol 5998 tubes with O getters.


----------



## Dubstep Girl

Lol omg people still think the 421A is better, maybe, just maybe by like 1% (u know, the cherry picked pairs that measure better, if they even did that). i had 421a and 2399/5998 pairs and they sounded the same to me, i tried really hard to find a difference and nothing..

edit: aww just realized thread got rebumped by someone and its 5'yrs old, noo!


----------



## jhljhl

dubstep girl said:


> Lol omg people still think the 421A is better, maybe, just maybe by like 1% (u know, the cherry picked pairs that measure better, if they even did that). i had 421a and 2399/5998 pairs and they sounded the same to me, i tried really hard to find a difference and nothing..
> 
> edit: aww just realized thread got rebumped by someone and its 5'yrs old, noo!


 

 Still relevant. 421a go for a large premium over 5998.


----------



## hdtv00

What was the evidence, the link is dead. I thinking about an unbranded 421a from talked about store on here for $180. But if its unmarked and they are the same internals how then can it be even claimed as a WE 421a...


----------



## hdtv00

This is what vacuumtubes.net had to say when I asked how they can tell its a 421a and not just a 5998.
 "Tung-Sol (and their subsidiary brand Chatham) was the only company to ever produce the 5998 (both the top and bottom getter variants).  You'll see them branded with GE, Sylvania, RCA and every other smaller name out there- but they are all Tung-Sol.
 The WE421a is rather similar to the TS bottom-getter 5998.  They sound similar, they look alike, and they have rather close operating specs.  However, the 421a is a vastly superior tube, but considering it's scarcity most people end up with 5998s because collecting a quad of matched 421a is somewhere between unlikely and impossible, and the 'close enough' factor applies."
 There was more about history of Western Electric and what not. He didn't answer directly I guess the question but seems to know what they're talking about I guess. I said go ahead and invoice me for it. Time will tell I guess.
 They emailed back and explained much further and in detail.
 " I'm glad that our reputation proceeds us, but I still like to make sure that we're always known to be on the level.  There is one easy way to identify the 421a over the 5998.  The top mica and support column has three evenly spaced separators in a triangle.
  
 (((Sorry for the poor photo.  We really need a better camera in the office...)))
  
 The 5998 just has 2.  Beyond etching, printing, boxes and labels- the internal construction can't be faked.  Most of the "421a" tubes on eBay are actually bottom getter 5998s (or sometimes they're even trying to pass top getter variants!).  Ask them for a photo of the top of the tube and most of them just don't answer.
  
 The 421a comes with two types of printing:
 The first is the well-known heavy yellow paint.  It was an early form of thermographics, and the lettering is raised.  Not just raised a little- but often enough to tell what the characters are without looking at the tube.
 The other is blank.  These were left unbranded for commercial sales to radio and industrial manufacturers.  Not flat printing, not printing on the glass, not white lettering on the top of the glass...  they were heavy yellow or blank.  Everything else is rolled on after production.
  
   When you're looking at audio tubes, and especially expensive tubes, you have more than a right to ask about its authenticity.  If it is a tube I can't prove I'll give you my reasoning as to why I feel one way or another, and we can compare notes and research.  We would rather pass on a sale of an iffy than risk that hard-built reputation."


----------



## hodgjy

I don't trust the guys at vacuumtubes.net. They have misled me several times. Of course they'll say the 421 is the better tube. They can charge more for it.


----------



## hdtv00

Hey sent this pic along. But I just looked at my two Tung Sol 5998's and they have those three plates not two.


----------



## hdtv00

So I backed out of that deal and asked for refund which they gave. Notice the top Mica plates, they're rectangle , on every labeled 421A I've seen they are oblong in shape not rectangle. I don't believe they are the same either as this thread implies.

  
 This is THE one I really find curious though check it out labeled both 5998/421A..Notice it has the rectangle mica supports, yet labeled as both.


  
 But every 421A I've seen looks like this ..Oblong supports.


 They can also have round. D shape or I think rectangle getters at the bottom too on 421A's.


----------



## jhljhl

The bottom photo looks like a 5998.


----------



## hdtv00

Of course it does, they are almost identical near as I can tell. But the mica at top has oblong shape on 421 on every one I've seen. 5998's do not, they are rectangle. It's that middle pic that is so crazy, it's labeled at BOTH. Which is beyond bizarre. Oh damn it there is another difference too I seen listed somewhere about some part being twisted or something but now I forget.


----------



## jhljhl

I have 5998s with oblong mica supports.  They look identical in that regard.


----------



## hdtv00

Can I trouble you for some pics. I totally believe you I just want to gather more facts, I got nothing else to do but get to the bottom of this. I just won an auction for a legit 421A for $190 so soon enough I'll have one on hand and not just mass amount of pics. Please post pics in here, it will really help others not waste $200+ on 421A's if it's the same as 5998's.


----------



## jhljhl

This is a 5998.


----------



## jhljhl

I saw this on ebay.  It is a Tung Sol 421a.


----------



## hdtv00

*II.a.ii) [RARE]* *$80 (NOS) Tung Sol 421A [Dual D getter]*:
  
Basically it's a Tung Sol 5998 labelled "421A" and has the black 5998 plates. Do not have one myself but pretty sure it's either the same tube as the 5998 with different getters or a 5998 with 421A specifications without the WE 421A construction differences.
  
 As I was directed to here for tubes of this nature.
 http://the-key.enix.org/~krystal/review-tube-bottlehead.html


----------



## Franatic

First of all let me state that I respect the opinion of everyone who has submitted to this thread. I've owned all the better power tubes for my Woo WA2 amp. I own or have owned The Tung sol 7236, the RCA 6AS7g, the Gec 6080 and Gec 6AS7G, I've owned both 5998s and 421As. The 421A is a much superior tube, IMHO. It has this amazing ability to give "air" to the system. It gives the soundstage lift and separates the instruments in layers with superior imaging and details. When I first heard it I was taken aback as it is not a quality possessed by any other power tube. 
  
 I have two different manufactured pairs. The Western Electric 421A which has bottom getters and National Electronic 421As which have top getters. The Nationals have more Air , the Westerns better bass. Both brands are sensational and sounded much better than the 2 Tung Sol 5998 pairs I had (now sold).
  
 Let the debate continue, my ears convinced me. Nothing else but SQ matters to me. The 421A is king......followed by the GEC 6AS7G.


----------



## leftside

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I recently obtained a second pair of WE 421A. The construction is a little different to the other pair of WE 421A. I also have a pair of Tung-Sol 5998 and the construction of these is exactly the same as the latter WE 421A I mentioned. Perhaps this could explain the differences people have heard? I'm going to give all 3 pairs a good listening session this weekend, but for the time being here are pictures of the different WE 421A's. The biggest difference being the chrome top, the lettering and most importantly the construction at the bottom of the tube. They are quite different and most noticeable are the two circular pieces of wire.


----------



## Franatic

The pieces of wire you are referring to are called the getters. I have 2 pairs of 421as. One pair from the early '60s has "D" getters on the bottom. The latter pair from '78 has a "O" getters on the bottom. Both pairs have charcoal plates but the older pair also is a bit taller with slightly larger plates. So as far as I can tell that is the pattern, earlier 421As "D" getters, latter ones "O" getters.
  
 I formerly had 2 pairs of TS 5998s and both had the shiny black plates that definitely look different than the plates on the 421as. I sold those off.
  
 Do a sound test. I found the 421As superior........by a good margin. Larger soundstage, layers of air, increased dynamics and imaging, but yet an amazing delicacy that made its sound signature irresistable and the top power tube I tested, surpassing even the very excellent GEC 6AS7G.
  
 **Edit note: Despite the difference in construction, I found both the early '60s tubes and the '78 pair had practically identical sound signatures.


----------



## leftside

I'd say the plate sizes on mine are the same. If I shine a flash light into the chrome top one I can indeed just about make out the D shaped getter you mention. There are other subtle differences in the construction as well.

I will certainly listen to all 3 pairs this weekend.


----------



## Krutsch

franatic said:


> The pieces of wire you are referring to are called the getters. I have 2 pairs of 421as. One pair from the early '60s has "D" getters on the bottom. The latter pair from '78 has a "O" getters on the bottom. Both pairs have charcoal plates but the older pair also is a bit taller with slightly larger plates. So as far as I can tell that is the pattern, earlier 421As "D" getters, latter ones "O" getters.
> 
> I formerly had 2 pairs of TS 5998s and both had the shiny black plates that definitely look different than the plates on the 421as. I sold those off.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've never seen the later models. I have five 421a tubes from an estate sale from a former Wisconsin Bell telephone employee (the tube dealer in WI had a case of them, along with a bunch of 422, which I am sorry I didn't buy). They all have the bottom 'D' getters and charcoal plates. I also have a collection of TS 5998 tubes, none of which look like my Westys.
  
 And I will attest to your findings on sound. No comparison. The 5998 tubes (at least mine, anyway) have a nice bump in power, but have a lot of upper bass bloom - so much so, they never get used.
  
 I also have a pair of GEC 6AS7g "Brown Base" tubes; and, yes, they do sound excellent. I rotated between the two in my WA3 for about 3 months, really acclimating to their lush sound, but I popped a 421a back in this week and was pleasantly surprised at the clarity and tone, as well as the imaging characteristics you describe above. Really, they are in class by themselves.
  
 That said, it's not a stretch to imagine that at some point, WE had to purchase/re-brand a bunch of TS-5998 tubes to fill a large order. Other tube companies did this when they didn't have the stock on hand, when needed. I have a pair of Telefunken E288CC tubes and I've been told that they are really Siemens tubes and TK never made a 288.


----------



## leftside

Mine have "O" getters on the bottom and the others have the "D" getters on the chrome top (as do the Tung-Sol's).


----------



## Franatic

leftside said:


> Mine have "O" getters on the bottom and the others have the "D" getters on the chrome top (as to the Tung-Sol's).


 
 Oh, you have the "D" getters on top, as I can see now on my big monitor. Interesting, let us know how they sound.
  
 I have a pair of National Electric 421As, that have the getters on top. They are great sounding tubes also, but a slight notch below the Westerns in refinement. I tried to verify who actually made them. I was told they were made for Western by National, but someone else said the opposite. Either way they are a great pair for the $160 I spent on them.....and better than their 5998A cousins.


----------



## leftside

No real surprise, but I found the TS 5998 and the WE 421A's with upper D getter to sound very similar. Perhaps a little more detail with the 421A's. Their construction is exactly the same so I wasn't expecting too many differences. I did notice quite a few differences with the lower O getter WE 421A's. Details that I had to concentrate to hear properly with the other tubes came easily with the lower O getters. These tubes are from 1953.


----------



## leftside

Correction: After speaking with a couple of dealers I know, it appears the "lower O getters" are from 1985 and the "upper D getters" are from 1958.
  
 It is believed that the earlier tube from 1958 is a rebranded Tung Sol (which would explain the identical construction), but the later tube from 1985 is Western Electric.


----------



## Skylab

1985? Huh. Well for sure if there were 421a tubes being made in 1985, it wasn't Tung Sol making them, as Tung Sol was long gone by then. Cetron, who bought Tung Sol, continued to make some of Tung Sol's tubes like the 6336, sold under the Cetron name, for some time, maybe even as late as the 1980's. But not the 5998, I don't believe. So perhaps WE had to start making the 421a, and thus the slight design change.


----------



## leftside

Yes, I was also very surprised at the late date. Confirmed for me though that these are genuine WE, and not Tung Sol, and could very well explain the differences people have reported. Construction is totally different to the earlier tubes, and there is a noticeable difference in sound quality (rare in this particular case that the later tubes sound better). This information came from Brent Jesse. He is one of the most helpful sellers I've dealt with.


----------



## DecentLevi

Hello guys, I'm an Elise tube amp owner in California looking to get the most out of my tube amp. I'm keen on getting a pair of authentic Western Electric 421A tubes soon (or at least the ones that are purported to sound better). If any of you have an extra 1-2 of these you are willing to part with, *please PM me* because I am ready to buy right away.
  
 Also if you would advise me on which, if any of the below photos are a genuine WE 421A, that would be very helpful:
  

 This one seems genuine because, although it doesn't show the bottom getters, has the lower shiny section and the wiring indicating it would have either D or O getters at bottom
  

 This one seems questionable to me


----------



## hdtv00

Yea I would not pay the $250 they're asking for the questionable one, no way. I don't think it's fake it's just rebranded 5998 if you ask me.


----------



## DecentLevi

yup, thanks for your help. I've already ordered the first one shown, and am looking to complete the pair of these gems


----------



## JKDJedi

Copy and Pasted from Tube Maze.. 


tubemaze on August 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM said:


"This tube is end of the road for people that have amps that use 6as7 or 5998. There are a lot of discussions on the web about this tube and that it’s just a re-brand of Tung-Sol 5998. I have to state with absolute certainty that this is not a re-brand, but a very unique tube. It has a few similarities with 5998, for example plate structure looks the same, but there are a lot of things that are quite different. First, getter is located on the bottom for WE where Tung-sol has the getter on the top (this might seem as a small thing, but it is actually quite important since getter material, despite third mica gets all over the place during application and since Barium is a metal, it reduces tube performance). Second, plate color is different with WE having carbon black plates instead of shiny black like Tung-sol. Thirst and the most important, the sound is different. The general sonic signature is similar, but WE exhibits better bass response and overall dynamics and adds much more air and layers of details to the sound. These are getting very rare by minute and becoming extremely expensive. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED".

Anyway I didn't know this was a highly debated topic..lol, have one coming in Wednesday and hope all the good reviews holds true. Amazing how these sill go for the same asking price as from when this thread started!


----------



## spiderking31

Hey guys, 

Came across this thread, and I own the Woo Audio WA3, and just ordered the Tung Sol 5998 NOS! Ironically I ordered the tube from Woo Audio, for $300! I’m hoping it’s a genuine Tung Sol!! Especially for the price I paid!!! The tube is being delivered tomorrow via USPS...I’ll plug it in, and share my thoughts with you guys...also I have my Focal Utopia’s plugged into the WA3...it won’t get anymore reference than this! I’ll share my thoughts tomorrow after I put a couple of hours on them (2 SACD albums)


----------



## JKDJedi

spiderking31 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Came across this thread, and I own the Woo Audio WA3, and just ordered the Tung Sol 5998 NOS! Ironically I ordered the tube from Woo Audio, for $300! I’m hoping it’s a genuine Tung Sol!! Especially for the price I paid!!! The tube is being delivered tomorrow via USPS...I’ll plug it in, and share my thoughts with you guys...also I have my Focal Utopia’s plugged into the WA3...it won’t get anymore reference than this! I’ll share my thoughts tomorrow after I put a couple of hours on them (2 SACD albums)


If it's for a pair then yeah, good deal. You can get them for about $150 to $200 a piece if you do some looking.


----------



## spiderking31

Understand completely...thanks!


----------



## JKDJedi (Jun 18, 2019)

The Western Electric 421A appears to be a juiced-up 5998 built especially for WE by TS/Chatham. One major difference is the WE has a transconductance figure of 20,000 micromohs, 1.5 times that of the 5998, at 14,000 micromohs. The amplificatino factor is also a bit higher than the 5998, 6.1 compared to 5.5.

 (Western Electric 421a (left) pictured with Tung Sol 7236 (centered) and Mullard/Philips 6080 )

The 7236 has a slightly lower transconductance than the 5998, 12,5000 micromohs. And the amplification factor is a bit less than the 5998, 4.8 compared to 5.5. So maybe one could consider it to be a scaled down version of the 5998?


----------



## attmci

Tung Sol 5998 NOS! Ironically I ordered the tube from Woo Audio, for $300


----------



## JKDJedi

attmci said:


> Tung Sol 5998 NOS! Ironically I ordered the tube from Woo Audio, for $300


For a pair right?


----------



## hdtv00

JKDJedi said:


> For a pair right?



Nope that's per tube there.
https://wooaudio.com/tubes/tungsol-5998-each


----------



## JKDJedi (Sep 18, 2019)

hdtv00 said:


> Nope that's per tube there.
> https://wooaudio.com/tubes/tungsol-5998-each


You could find a pair for $300...that is nuts, $300 for one!? SMH. eBay is your friend. Here's one tube for $150 https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/372768522740

Another one for $150

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/183927058880


----------



## OctavianH (Nov 9, 2019)

jhljhl said:


> There are rare JAN Tung Sol 5998 tubes with O getters.



I found this old thread while trying to understand how many Tung Sol 5998 variations exist. I have 3 pairs, one of them being a top and side O-getter:






Does anyone know what is the story of this tube? My other 2 pairs are chrome tops top D getters.


----------



## JKDJedi

OctavianH said:


> I found this old thread while trying to understand how many Tung Sol 5998 variations exist. I have 3 pairs, one of them being a top and side O-getter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what year was that tube made?


----------



## OctavianH (Nov 10, 2019)

The tube has no date code on the base or on the glass (maybe it was deleted?). All I can see is:






Besides that only TUNG SOL / Made in USA. It came in generic boxes, so no information on them either.

A similar construction I've found here, on a tube labeled as Tung Sol 421A:
https://www.ukaudiomart.com/details/649372022-tungsol-421a5998-power-tubevalve/images/1612914/

However, soundwise, the tube sounds to me similar to a 5998, and not as WE 421A (yep, I own both and I hear clearly differences between them). So it is a tube sounding as 5998, labeled sometimes as Tung Sol 421A and it has top and side O-getter. But regarding the sound I would need more time since I only had a few hours on them.

Because it is different than everything I've seen I try to find out its story.


----------



## attmci (Nov 28, 2019)

OctavianH said:


> The tube has no date code on the base or on the glass (maybe it was deleted?). All I can see is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All 421A has bottom getters, and clear-top. If you can find some 5998 like those, grab it.

For manufacture date, does the 322xxxx ring a bell?


----------



## JKDJedi

attmci said:


> All 421A has bottom getters, and clear-top. If you can find some 5998 like those, grab it.
> 
> For manufacture date, does the 322xxxx ring a bell?


It's Tung Sol EIA code (322), my guess is the tube is 1968 34th week...


----------



## OctavianH (Nov 28, 2019)

attmci said:


> All 421A has bottom getters, and clear-top. If you can find some 5998 like those, grab it.
> 
> For manufacture date, does the 322xxxx ring a bell?



It does indeed ring a bell, but then I have the following question:

The third tube from left here has the code 3226731 which you said it means 1967 the 31th week. However above the 5998 logo we see the 5711 which I thought it means 1957 11th week. Well, which is the date code?


----------



## attmci

OctavianH said:


> It does indeed ring a bell, but then I have the following question:
> 
> The third tube from left here has the code 3226731 which you said it means 1967 the 31th week. However above the 5998 logo we see the 5711 which I thought it means 1957 11th week. Well, which is the date code?


1967 sounds more likely to be the manufacture date for the green labeled tube.


----------



## JKDJedi (Nov 28, 2019)

attmci said:


> 1967 sounds more likely to be the manufacture date for the green labeled tube.


I concur, the 5711 is nowhere near the 322, I know, wishful thinking to have a 50' 5998, you might have to grab a JAN 5998 for a 1950's, nice collection by the way.


----------



## OctavianH

JKDJedi said:


> I concur, the 5711 is nowhere near the 322, I know, wishful thinking to have a 50' 5998, you might have to grab a JAN 5998 for a 1950's, nice collection by the way.



Honestly I do not care in which year they are manufactured, I just wanted to understand which is the date code since 5711 was possible to be read as a date YYWW. Thanks for help, everyone!


----------



## JKDJedi (Aug 18, 2020)

Skylab said:


> 1985? Huh. Well for sure if there were 421a tubes being made in 1985, it wasn't Tung Sol making them, as Tung Sol was long gone by then. Cetron, who bought Tung Sol, continued to make some of Tung Sol's tubes like the 6336, sold under the Cetron name, for some time, maybe even as late as the 1980's. But not the 5998, I don't believe. So perhaps WE had to start making the 421a, and thus the slight design change.


There's discussion that it was Western Electric who initially sent a formal request (1950) to the RTMA (Radio-Television Manufacturers Association) for a special purpose code be assigned to the 421a, that code assigned by the RTMA was *5998.  421a began it's use in 1948 prior to the request, 421a was before the 5998, and it still continued after the 5998... so ...

What's also interesting is if you go to Radio Museum website... they list the Developer of the 5998 as who..you guessed it...Western Electric.

https://www.radiomuseum.org/tubes/tube_5998.html


----------



## cddc (Aug 21, 2020)

Radiomuseum.org is nothing but a forum, most info on radiomuseum.org was uploaded by individual members, so mostly correct, but definitely not 100% correct, as far as I know.

That said, there is nothing wrong with WE being the developer of 5998/421A tubes. It's indeed WE who designed / developed 5998 and 421A, but as far as I know it was Tung Sol who manufactured these tubes.


----------



## cddc

I find an interesting trend, owners, especially tube vendors like to stress 421A sounds much better than the seemingly identical 5998. Vendors of course hope to reap more $$$ for any possible cause, even if the cause can be fake. Users on the other hand are often biased towards higher-price tubes or tubes they own - this can be straightened out by blind test.

But I trust opinions from senior members like @gibosi, @Skylab , @Dubstep Girl , etc.

Some people think WE 421A is different than Tung So 5998 because they have different transconductances (on paper WE 421A has 20,000 uMhos, and 5998 has 14,000 uMhos). But I also read that the higher transconductance of WE 421A  was caused by using higher testing plate and grid voltage. I think whether WE 421A and 5998 have different transconductances or not can easily be verified by a tube tester, just use the same settings (i.e. same plate voltage and same grid voltage) to test both WE 421A and 5998. I noticed 2 cases recently, both tested WE 421A tubes using the 5998 settings, and the test results were around 14,000 uMhos (or 100% of NOS 5998) and 16,000 uMhos (or 114% of NOS 5998). From the 2 cases it seems WE 421A has similar measured transconductance as 5998's if it is tested under the same plate voltage and grid voltage as 5998's. We need more cases for certainty for sure.



Ref of two WE 421A measured under 5998 settings:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/darkvoice-336i-336se-tuberolling-partii.348833/post-15809681
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/price-drop-western-electric-421as-nos-nib.907974/


----------



## JKDJedi

cddc said:


> I find an interesting trend, owners, especially tube vendors like to stress 421A sounds much better than the seemingly identical 5998. Vendors of course hope to reap more $$$ for any possible cause, even if the cause can be fake. Users on the other hand are often biased towards higher-price tubes or tubes they own - this can be straightened out by blind test.
> 
> But I trust opinions from senior members like @gibosi, @Skylab , @Dubstep Girl , etc.
> 
> ...


Most of my info came from one of those senior members you mentioned above. 😁 I compared both data sheets closely yesterday. Very close, what's interesting is that they have variable data depending on current as you mentioned. The 5998 could be pushed near 421a specs if needed, thinking up to 17000, the 421a appear to better built as far as I can tell. A highly sought after tube.


----------



## leftside

cddc said:


> Radiomuseum.org is nothing but a forum, most info on radiomuseum.org was uploaded by individual members, so mostly correct, but definitely not 100% correct, as far as I know.
> 
> That said, there is nothing wrong with WE being the developer of 5998/421A tubes. It's indeed WE who designed / developed 5998 and 421A, but as far as I know it was Tung Sol who manufactured these tubes.


How could TungSol have manufactured these tubes in 1985? They no longer existed as a company. I have 421A tubes with a Western Electric 1985 date stamp.


----------



## cddc

leftside said:


> How could TungSol have manufactured these tubes in 1985? They no longer existed as a company. I have 421A tubes with a Western Electric 1985 date stamp.




I have no idea. Few tube manufacturers made into the 80's, most of them were gone by the late 70's I think. 

Two possibilities:
1. the date stamp could be wrong - WE was taken over by AT&T Technologies, Inc on January 1, 1984, not sure if WE branded tubes were still in production after that date; 
2. WE started to manufacture its own 421A after Tung Sol ceased operations.


----------



## leftside

cddc said:


> I have no idea. Few tube manufacturers made into the 80's, most of them were gone by the late 70's I think.
> 
> Two possibilities:
> 1. the date stamp could be wrong - WE was taken over by AT&T Technologies, Inc on January 1, 1984, not sure if WE branded tubes were still in production after that date;
> 2. WE started to manufacture its own 421A after Tung Sol ceased operations.


I think it's the latter. I have three pairs of WE 421A. From 1972, 1981 and 1985. Here is a photo of one from 1981 and another from 1985.


----------



## JKDJedi

leftside said:


> I think it's the latter. I have three pairs of WE 421A. From 1972, 1981 and 1985. Here is a photo of one from 1981 and another from 1985.





leftside said:


> I think it's the latter. I have three pairs of WE 421A. From 1972, 1981 and 1985. Here is a photo of one from 1981 and another from 1985.


Have one from 76' that looks a lot like the 85' there. Wondering what happened in 81' that had them going top getter vs bottom. 🤔


----------



## leftside

JKDJedi said:


> Have one from 76' that looks a lot like the 85' there. Wondering what happened in 81' that had them going top getter vs bottom. 🤔


Good spot. For that, I have no idea. The TungSol 5998 also has multiple different variations...


----------



## cddc (Aug 22, 2020)

Another possibility I just thought of:

3. After Tung Sol ceased its operations, the companies that bought Tung Sol (like Cetron) continued to produce certain types of tubes. For example, after acquiring the Tung Sol, Cetron continued to manufacture 7236 tubes, and just re-labelled them from Tung Sol 7236 to Cetron 7236. Maybe Tung Sol and Western Electric had a long-term contract on 421A tubes, and Cetron inherited the obligations when it acquired Tung Sol, and continued to manufacture 421A tubes for Western Electric.


----------



## cddc

And the 3rd possibility could explain the similarity between the 76's and 85's.

Essentially, I think it would be the same company that produced these tubes, otherwise, it would be too costly to set up a new assembly line for them. Also, if a new assembly line was set up for them, normally there would be significant changes in tube constructions.


----------



## JKDJedi

cddc said:


> Another possibility I just thought of:
> 
> 3. After Tung Sol ceased its operations, the companies that bought Tung Sol (like Cetron) continued to produce certain types of tubes. For example, after acquiring the Tung Sol, Cetron continued to manufacture 7236 tubes, and just re-labelled them from Tung Sol 7236 to Cetron 7236. Maybe Tung Sol and Western Electric had a long-term contact on 421A tubes, and Cetron inherited the obligations when it acquired Tung Sol, and continued to manufacture 421A tubes for Western Electric.


🤔 That would be a huge trip if that were true. Cetron did make 7236 but labeled them as Cetron. Wish I had one to compare it to the Tung Sol 7236. Looking into the history a little of Western Electric and during the early 50's 90% of their production was for the Government.


----------



## cddc

I guess the difference between Tung Sol (double D-getter) 7236 and Cetron 7236 (double halo-getter) would be just like an earlier D-getter 6SN7 GT vs a latter O-getter 6SN7 GTB...LOL


----------



## JKDJedi

cddc said:


> I guess the difference between Tung Sol (double D-getter) 7236 and Cetron 7236 (double halo-getter) would be just like an earlier D-getter 6SN7 GT vs a latter O-getter 6SN7 GTB...LOL


If only they had double getters like they're big brothers 🤣 Can you imagine that, two getters on a 6SN7 tube?


----------



## cddc

Single, double, or triple, the number of getters really doesn't matter. It's the era that's determined by the shape of getters that really matters.

The trend is "the earlier, the better" in a tube world


----------



## cddc

Some earlier bottom-getter 6SN7 GT tubes might have double D-getters, coz some tubes seem to have getter flash evenly spread around their bases. If it's single or one-sided getter, the getter flash wouldn't spread so evenly on the glass, I guess.


----------



## JKDJedi (Aug 22, 2020)

cddc said:


> Single, double, or triple, the number of getters really doesn't matter. It's the era that's determined by the shape of getters that really matters.
> 
> The trend is "the earlier, the better" in a tube world


I concur, seems like the earlier the better is the normal. Especially the wartime era. Better construction and materials to withstand possible battlefield use is my thinking.  Specifically the 6SN7. The 5998 was introduced sometime after the war. That one is hard to say which one is best. The double D getters (421a) to me are more attractive. From other forums out there...they can't tell the difference between (421a) O or D getter types. ( it seems like the 5998 were all built with one getter vs the 421a dual getter design).


----------



## CaptainFantastic

JKDJedi said:


> I concur, seems like the earlier the better is the normal. Especially the wartime era. Better construction and materials to withstand possible battlefield use is my thinking.  Specifically the 6SN7. The 5998 was introduced sometime after the war. That one is hard to say which one is best. The double D getters (421a) to me are more attractive. From other forums out there...they can't tell the difference between (421a) O or D getter types. ( it seems like the 5998 were all built with one getter vs the 421a dual getter design).



Here is my (only) 421A. I guess it was manufactured in 1967, week 23 and, as you say above, it has the 421A double D getter. Only posting because this is all relatively new to me and looking forward to any comments, observations about this unit.


----------



## JKDJedi

CaptainFantastic said:


> Here is my (only) 421A. I guess it was manufactured in 1967, week 23 and, as you say above, it has the 421A double D getter. Only posting because this is all relatively new to me and looking forward to any comments, observations about this unit.


That appears to be in MINT condition and just drop dead GORGEOUS! Nice Grab!!


----------



## CaptainFantastic (Aug 22, 2020)

JKDJedi said:


> That appears to be in MINT condition and just drop dead GORGEOUS! Nice Grab!!



Thanks. I actually found it here (www.head-fi.org/threads/price-drop-western-electric-421as-nos-nib.907974/#post-15063367). I read about the 421A and did a search. Luckily the seller still had one of the five available and I grabbed it.

How hard are they to find these days? And is 250 USD/EUR pretty much the expected price for an NOS specimen?


----------



## JKDJedi

CaptainFantastic said:


> Thanks. I actually found it here (www.head-fi.org/threads/price-drop-western-electric-421as-nos-nib.907974/#post-15063367). I read about the 421A and did a search. Luckily the seller still had one of the five available and I grabbed it.
> 
> How hard are they to find these days? And is $/€250 pretty much the expected price for an NOS specimen?


For something that clean you got a deal... check out this one..not so clean and going up fast in the price bidding.. crazy. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Western-Electric-5998-421A-Vacuum-Tube-Tested/224121970211


----------



## leftside

CaptainFantastic said:


> Thanks. I actually found it here (www.head-fi.org/threads/price-drop-western-electric-421as-nos-nib.907974/#post-15063367). I read about the 421A and did a search. Luckily the seller still had one of the five available and I grabbed it.
> 
> How hard are they to find these days? And is 250 USD/EUR pretty much the expected price for an NOS specimen?


They are hard to find. That price (as of today) is a fair price, but I only see the price going higher.


----------



## leftside

JKDJedi said:


> ( it seems like the 5998 were all built with one getter vs the 421a dual getter design).


Nope. Multiple variations of the 5998's. Bottom getters, top getters, single getters, dual getters....


----------



## CaptainFantastic

JKDJedi said:


> For something that clean you got a deal... check out this one..not so clean and going up fast in the price bidding.. crazy. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Western-Electric-5998-421A-Vacuum-Tube-Tested/224121970211



Yes, it looks like it will go on to a high price. What does this description mean, 48/44, and why does it speak in the plural for one tube "each tube"? It's not NOS, but are these readings "NOS-like" or much below?

"Western Electric 5998/421A Vacuum Tube Tested.   Each tube exceeded the minimum value listed in the Department of the Army technical bulletin. Triode 1/Triode 2 tested values: 48/44.  All tubes were tested on TV-7D/U."


----------



## JKDJedi (Aug 22, 2020)

CaptainFantastic said:


> Yes, it looks like it will go on to a high price. What does this description mean, 48/44, and why does it speak in the plural for one tube "each tube"? It's not NOS, but are these readings "NOS-like" or much below?
> 
> "Western Electric 5998/421A Vacuum Tube Tested.   Each tube exceeded the minimum value listed in the Department of the Army technical bulletin. Triode 1/Triode 2 tested values: 48/44.  All tubes were tested on TV-7D/U."


It has dual triodes (which is normal for 6sn7, 6as7g, etc) meaning one triode will pull left and the other triode right channel duties. Versus that rare tube (like the 6J5) which only has one triode. You'd need two of those tubes, one for left and another for right. Speaking of that listing I posted..50 is considered a low number and anything above 70 is considered NOS. So this is a very weak tube. HOWEVER. That's just test numbers. imo you can still get some enjoyment off tubes tested this low. How bad you want a tube determines it's worth. Is a low tested tube worth the asking price? All subjective.


----------



## CaptainFantastic

Has anyone seen a Western Electric with this type of font on it? It seems to be from 1981. Someone posted in this thread a picture of a tube marked 81.. and it had the usual WE font we see on all tubes. What could this be about?


----------



## CaptainFantastic

When I run HifiShark.com on Western Electric 421A there are some Japanese auction listings open and even more closed. It's only in these that some of the tubes have this different yellow font. Any thoughts from the community if these are indeed true WE 421As?


----------



## JKDJedi

CaptainFantastic said:


> When I run HifiShark.com on Western Electric 421A there are some Japanese auction listings open and even more closed. It's only in these that some of the tubes have this different yellow font. Any thoughts from the community if these are indeed true WE 421As?


The one pictured there above seems to be the real deal, domino plates and thick getter wires. These tubes have slight variations from decade to decade. Me personally, wouldn't grab anything from a Japanese auction. Those guys are expert counterfeit artists. They'll sell you a foton and say it's a Brimar.


----------



## CaptainFantastic

JKDJedi said:


> The one pictured there above seems to be the real deal, domino plates and thick getter wires. These tubes have slight variations from decade to decade. Me personally, wouldn't grab anything from a Japanese auction. Those guys are expert counterfeit artists. They'll sell you a foton and say it's a Brimar.



Thanks!

No, this one is not from one of the Japanese auctions. It's from an audiophile in Italy, an older gentleman with a large collection of tubes who has started selling. He says it was brought to him some twenty years ago by Bé Yamamura, who was a friend. So there is the Japan connection that way, it came from Japan, but apparently from an unimpeachable source.


----------



## JKDJedi

CaptainFantastic said:


> Thanks!
> 
> No, this one is not from one of the Japanese auctions. It's from an audiophile in Italy, an older gentleman with a large collection of tubes who has started selling. He says it was brought to him some twenty years ago by Bé Yamamura, who was a friend. So there is the Japan connection that way, it came from Japan, but apparently from an unimpeachable source.


lol..How many of these are you grabbing..you have like 6 already!  I was bidding on one couple weeks ago and lost out. Have to pace myself here, easy to get lost just buying and collecting.. (speaking about myself) time to enjoy some of these. Let us know how that works out please, would love to hear your impressions on the tube.


----------



## CaptainFantastic

JKDJedi said:


> lol..How many of these are you grabbing..you have like 6 already!  I was bidding on one couple weeks ago and lost out. Have to pace myself here, easy to get lost just buying and collecting.. (speaking about myself) time to enjoy some of these. Let us know how that works out please, would love to hear your impressions on the tube.



Yes, it will be time to stop soon, very soon.  I actually have only one WE 421A so far, but I do have a bunch of 5998s.

By the way, the 6520 that came yesterday went in for a trial run. It lights up brighter than the 5998s, that was my initial observation. It's perfectly quiet, really seems to be in pefect shape. I really, really, enjoyed the sound. Then when I was done with the tube amp, as I always do, I stopped the sound, lowered the volume on the amp, and unplugged the headphones. I plugged them in to the RME directly and continued the same track. I was surprised how much brighter the sound was. Normally going from tube amp with 5998s or 421A the change is a loss of soundstage and "life" to the sound. This time it also seemed brighter. Which leads me to a very preliminary conclusion that the 6520 has quite a warm sound, pushes the vocals back a bit and everything sounds smooth and relaxing. I have to do more testing. It wouldn't be a negative. I do want the best out of my tracks with vocals, but this seems to be a nice addition to the collection, one that provides a different sound.


----------



## JKDJedi

CaptainFantastic said:


> Yes, it will be time to stop soon, very soon.  I actually have only one WE 421A so far, but I do have a bunch of 5998s.
> 
> By the way, the 6520 that came yesterday went in for a trial run. It lights up brighter than the 5998s, that was my initial observation. It's perfectly quiet, really seems to be in pefect shape. I really, really, enjoyed the sound. Then when I was done with the tube amp, as I always do, I stopped the sound, lowered the volume on the amp, and unplugged the headphones. I plugged them in to the RME directly and continued the same track. I was surprised how much brighter the sound was. Normally going from tube amp with 5998s or 421A the change is a loss of soundstage and "life" to the sound. This time it also seemed brighter. Which leads me to a very preliminary conclusion that the 6520 has quite a warm sound, pushes the vocals back a bit and everything sounds smooth and relaxing. I have to do more testing. It wouldn't be a negative. I do want the best out of my tracks with vocals, but this seems to be a nice addition to the collection, one that provides a different sound.


I really love the sound of the 6520. and yes, a little warmer than the 5998. My 6520 has the domino plates as I suspect yours has, I actually prefer the 6520 over the 5998. A highly musical tube.


----------



## CaptainFantastic

JKDJedi said:


> I really love the sound of the 6520. and yes, a little warmer than the 5998. My 6520 has the domino plates as I suspect yours has, I actually prefer the 6520 over the 5998. A highly musical tube.



Ah, good to hear your impressions of it. Yes, it does seem to be highly musical.

Yes, mine has the domino plates as well. As posted in the other thread:


----------



## CaptainFantastic

Oh, I just realized that you are the one who wanted this tube but then asked us to grab it before you.  Thanks and SORRY at the same time...


----------



## JKDJedi

CaptainFantastic said:


> Oh, I just realized that you are the one who wanted this tube but then asked us to grab it before you.  Thanks and SORRY at the same time...


You Grabbed it...L M F A O... Nice!! and thanks!!    Soon as I saw the Motorola my head started working (IS that the tube I wanted?/)    ...very nice.. small world.. I don't get all the updates to all the threads here from some weird reason..I'm probably following to many.. all good.... And please let us know how that 421a deal goes.


----------



## CaptainFantastic (Sep 6, 2020)

JKDJedi said:


> And please let us know how that 421a deal goes.



It went well. I am the owner of an additional four 421A NOS tubes, a matched quartet. This is it, I am done buying 5998 and 421A tubes. 

I will post visual evidence once they get here.


----------



## JKDJedi (Sep 22, 2020)

Here are some interesting numbers from the data sheets... the ones listed here are where these tubes differ.




*Plate Current Per Section   -                      421A *125 milliamperes   *               5998   *140 milliamperes

*Transconductance per Section*   -             *421A *  20000 Micromhos               *5998*   14000 Micromhos

*Plate Voltage       *    -                                  *421A*   250 volts                            * 5998*   275 volts

*Plate Dissipation  * -                                    *421A *  13 watts                              *5998*   15 watts

*Heater-Cathode Voltage   *  -                       *421A *   150 volts                            *5998*    100 volts    _(heater current same on both)   2.4 amps_

*Amplification Factor   -                               421A    *5.9-6.1                              * 5998*  4.8-6.2

*Transconductance    -                                 421A *18000-20000                        *5998* 11000-17000

"Also there's discussion that  *421A have tighter tolerances*. manufacturers were required to match the sections within a certain % whereas a regular 6AS7G may be allowed up to 20%. so for computer or military use, the higher tolerances are typically required before they can sell to the gov".

*5998 - medium gain at 5, full-bodied sound, same current load as 6AS7

421A - same as 5998 but with matched plates/sections* <--------- Tighter tolerances = BETER TUBE?

" if the 5998 is tested and the plates measure very closely, then they would perform just like a 421A. the 421A may be inherently superior out the gate, but remember that they are 50+ years old now..... how they were stored and how they were used prior would affect how they measure now". - *anonymous*


----------



## Krutsch

JKDJedi said:


> I really love the sound of the 6520. and yes, a little warmer than the 5998. My 6520 has the domino plates as I suspect yours has, I actually prefer the 6520 over the 5998. A highly musical tube.



I have three of these and, yes, they are great tubes.


----------



## Wid

Just read through the thread, very interesting. Anyone have an idea on the date of this 5998 ?


----------



## Roasty

CaptainFantastic said:


> Thanks. I actually found it here (www.head-fi.org/threads/price-drop-western-electric-421as-nos-nib.907974/#post-15063367). I read about the 421A and did a search. Luckily the seller still had one of the five available and I grabbed it.
> 
> How hard are they to find these days? And is 250 USD/EUR pretty much the expected price for an NOS specimen?



The other 4 tubes are with me


----------



## JKDJedi

Wid said:


> Just read through the thread, very interesting. Anyone have an idea on the date of this 5998 ?


What's up @Wid I think I answered that for ya on the Facebook thread, the 3002 is probably an early code used by Tung Sol, it was later changed to 322... https://www.tubemuseum.org/SearchResults.asp?Cat=30


----------



## Wid

JKDJedi said:


> What's up @Wid I think I answered that for ya on the Facebook thread, the 3002 is probably an early code used by Tung Sol, it was later changed to 322... https://www.tubemuseum.org/SearchResults.asp?Cat=30



Just double checking lol.


----------



## JKDJedi

Power supply unit for telephone terminal carrier system AN/TCC-7. Signal Corps US Army. Mainly made by *Western Electric*. (two *5998* in there)


----------



## JKDJedi (Oct 5, 2020)

Wid said:


> Just read through the thread, very interesting. Anyone have an idea on the date of this 5998 ?


Are there any other numbers on the base of the tube? that long string of numbers could be just an inventory code.https://tubedatabase.co/tubes/tung-sol-jan-ctl-5998


----------



## Wid

JKDJedi said:


> Are there any other numbers on the base of the tube? that long string of numbers could be just an inventory code.https://tubedatabase.co/tubes/tung-sol-jan-ctl-5998


----------



## JKDJedi

That's crazy... Is that your tube on the link? I'd read that as 1957... 24week maybe someone will chime in and confirm.


----------



## Wid

JKDJedi said:


> That's crazy... Is that your tube on the link? I'd read that as 1957... 24week maybe someone will chime in and confirm.



Not that I’m aware of. I just got this tube last week. I noticed it is exactly like the one in the link.


----------



## Vitor Valeri

I am looking for a Western Electric 421A for my Woo Audio WA3. If anyone knows of a good sale offer or wants to sell yours, send me a PM.


----------



## Vitor Valeri

Nobody knows anyone who is selling or wants to sell Western Electric 421A?? I'm still on the hunt!


----------



## JTbbb

attmci said:


> All 421A has bottom getters, and clear-top. If you can find some 5998 like those, grab it.



After reading through this thread it really does show you what a black art/impossibility it is to correctly identify some tubes. I wonder what the best guess is that I have here? They are labelled as Chatham 5998 with code 708J and 718J? Both clear tops with bottom double D getters. Now if they were labelled Western Electric 421a, would there be any argument? So my question is, are they 421a’s or are they upgraded 5998’s?


----------



## JKDJedi (Feb 1, 2021)

JTbbb said:


> After reading through this thread it really does show you what a black art/impossibility it is to correctly identify some tubes. I wonder what the best guess is that I have here? They are labelled as Chatham 5998 with code 708J and 718J? Both clear tops with bottom double D getters. Now if they were labelled Western Electric 421a, would there be any argument? So my question is, are they 421a’s or are they upgraded 5998’s?


those are 5998, Western Electric were built on stricter standards. I have a Chatham 5998 and a Western Electric 421a and a 6520...all sound different. Coming out of the gate NOS, Western Electric still remains supreme. With milage and use... you could find pairing of both that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. What you got there is nice pair. In my opinion lower getter 5998 are a step above the rest of the 5998...just not to the 421a output.


----------



## HPAholic

What is the story on the WE 5998/421A Grey-Plate with Date Code: 326 - 1953 of Q2 "April, May, June" ...


----------



## JKDJedi

JTbbb said:


> After reading through this thread it really does show you what a black art/impossibility it is to correctly identify some tubes. I wonder what the best guess is that I have here? They are labelled as Chatham 5998 with code 708J and 718J? Both clear tops with bottom double D getters. Now if they were labelled Western Electric 421a, would there be any argument? So my question is, are they 421a’s or are they upgraded 5998’s?


these are early 5998, nice grab.


----------



## JKDJedi

Vitor Valeri said:


> Nobody knows anyone who is selling or wants to sell Western Electric 421A?? I'm still on the hunt!


selling mine for $200... PM me if interested.


----------



## Vitor Valeri

JKDJedi said:


> selling mine for $200... PM me if interested.



Sending PM.


----------



## JKDJedi

Vitor Valeri said:


> Sending PM.


got it


----------



## JKDJedi

I also have GEC 6as7G (two of them) and one never used Chatham 6as7g (in it's original box) up for sale


----------



## Vitor Valeri

Nobody knows anyone who is selling or wants to sell Western Electric 421A? Unfortunately I couldn't do business with @JKDJedi . I tried so hard... But I'm still on the hunt!


----------



## toddc2

Need some help with TS 5998 measurements. The seller had a pair tested today for me on a Hickok and reported Tube 1: 10000/10000 and Tube 2 10500/10500 with no comment on MIN/MAX values.

I saw the TS 5998 spec with Gm ranging from 11000-17000 so I believe these tubes are testing low. Can someone confirm?


----------



## Vitor Valeri

I finally got my Western Electric 421A! Sensational sound quality compared to the Tung-Sol.


----------



## Electron Mitigator

I am posting this to help future readers with disinformation.  It is going to take a bit of my time and effort to get this typed out so please take it with a grain of salt as I don't have a lot of time to come back and reply.  AT&T was always the parent company of Western Electric.  In the late 1800's Bell Systems was their parent company and shortly after AT&T was Bell Systems parent company.  They are one of three companies I like to call the electric god, AT&T (came from the great Alexander Graham Bell), General Electric (came from the great Thomas Edison) and Westinghouse (had greats such as Nikola Tesla).  Prior to the 1900's these companies would get in huge legal battles losing massive amounts of money to the lawyers.  To rectify this they started to work together.  In 1904 Fleming ( Marconi Company ) invents the first electron tube, the diode. The electric god quickly gobbled this new technology up and within 15 years they are now the tube god.  In 1919 they create RCA from Marconi assets and patents. During the 1920's they gobble up or control the small companies and pretty much dominate everything.  In the early 1930's the US government files an antitrust suit against them. They are forced into letting RCA become its own entity.  I am sure they found ways to keep their control, however, and I am sure they had their fingers in all the companies of the time.  I see this when I look at my old tube books.  Newly listed tubes from companies like Tung Sol and Amperex being produced at the same time by Westinghouse, GE and WE and vice versa.  They are all cross licensed within the tube god.  This brings me to the 5998/421a tube.  It is a given that the tube god wasn't going to waste money, so the internal parts were all produced at the same place.  It would have been nonsensical to have each companies high paid engineers designing and building the parts with the tooling etc. involved, and why would the parts be identical?  The only real difference between the 5998 and the 421a, besides a wire or mount here or there, is the getters.  The reason I think they have this difference is because Tung Sol had pretty much moved to top and side getters on their octal tubes like most companies during this time and Western Electric, who I think first produced the 421a in 1948, was still using bottom getters on all their octal tubes.  The reason early tubes had their getters at the bottom was because they had a plate cap at the top.  The bottom getter design was, for the most part, being faded out during the 50's.  Top and side getters pretty much became the norm.  It was also found that their was an issue the bottom getter design had that the top and side getters did not.  Being that most tubes are run upright particulates from the surfaces of the tube components as well as strontium and other particulates created by the getters themselves fall downward on top of the getter and getter flashing, rendering it less effective.  One possible reason that Western Electric never changed to a top or side getter is because these tubes were used as voltage regulators and they might have thought they would reach end of life long before these effects became a problem.  Most likely, though, it was because they didn't want to waste money on changing procedures, training and tooling.  The 5998/421a tube is basically a 6AS7G tube with a few different characteristics.  The plates for one look totally different.  The reason I am mentioning this is because it leads to a version of the 6AS7G tube that is very desirable.  It is called the 6520.  The following is a little blurb from one of my tube data books:  "The 6520 tube is used when utmost reliability is required in respect to triode balance, absence of excessive plate current drift and grid to plate insulation. In addition to the standard 6AS7G characteristics, the 6520 features a 600V potential insulation between grid and plate and a combined cathode and fixed bias test to guarantee reliable performance without excessive triode unbalance or plate current drift."  Now, 6520's that most people have seen will look like 6AS7G tubes, but several years ago I saw a sleeve of 5 Westinghouse 6520's with domino plates.  In other words a 5998/421a type tube that can handle heavier abuse, hence a longer life, that has undergone a lengthy burn in time followed by stringent screening for perfectly balanced triodes that have a transconductance that falls within a certain range most suited to the 5998/421a requirements.  That sleeve also had two stickers on it.  One that said "Matched Set" and another that said "Premium Replacement For All 5998 & 421a Type Tubes".  I have read that the 5998/421a tube has been found to be the most musical tube available in headphone amps, which many people believe are the ultimate in music enjoyment, so if you happen to have any of those domino plate 6520's and decide to sell them you will be a very popular person on ebay and make a small fortune.


----------



## leftside

Electron Mitigator said:


> I am posting this to help future readers with disinformation.  It is going to take a bit of my time and effort to get this typed out so please take it with a grain of salt as I don't have a lot of time to come back and reply.  AT&T was always the parent company of Western Electric.  In the late 1800's Bell Systems was their parent company and shortly after AT&T was Bell Systems parent company.  They are one of three companies I like to call the electric god, AT&T (came from the great Alexander Graham Bell), General Electric (came from the great Thomas Edison) and Westinghouse (had greats such as Nikola Tesla).  Prior to the 1900's these companies would get in huge legal battles losing massive amounts of money to the lawyers.  To rectify this they started to work together.  In 1904 Fleming ( Marconi Company ) invents the first electron tube, the diode. The electric god quickly gobbled this new technology up and within 15 years they are now the tube god.  In 1919 they create RCA from Marconi assets and patents. During the 1920's they gobble up or control the small companies and pretty much dominate everything.  In the early 1930's the US government files an antitrust suit against them. They are forced into letting RCA become its own entity.  I am sure they found ways to keep their control, however, and I am sure they had their fingers in all the companies of the time.  I see this when I look at my old tube books.  Newly listed tubes from companies like Tung Sol and Amperex being produced at the same time by Westinghouse, GE and WE and vice versa.  They are all cross licensed within the tube god.  This brings me to the 5998/421a tube.  It is a given that the tube god wasn't going to waste money, so the internal parts were all produced at the same place.  It would have been nonsensical to have each companies high paid engineers designing and building the parts with the tooling etc. involved, and why would the parts be identical?  The only real difference between the 5998 and the 421a, besides a wire or mount here or there, is the getters.  The reason I think they have this difference is because Tung Sol had pretty much moved to top and side getters on their octal tubes like most companies during this time and Western Electric, who I think first produced the 421a in 1948, was still using bottom getters on all their octal tubes.  The reason early tubes had their getters at the bottom was because they had a plate cap at the top.  The bottom getter design was, for the most part, being faded out during the 50's.  Top and side getters pretty much became the norm.  It was also found that their was an issue the bottom getter design had that the top and side getters did not.  Being that most tubes are run upright particulates from the surfaces of the tube components as well as strontium and other particulates created by the getters themselves fall downward on top of the getter and getter flashing, rendering it less effective.  One possible reason that Western Electric never changed to a top or side getter is because these tubes were used as voltage regulators and they might have thought they would reach end of life long before these effects became a problem.  Most likely, though, it was because they didn't want to waste money on changing procedures, training and tooling.  The 5998/421a tube is basically a 6AS7G tube with a few different characteristics.  The plates for one look totally different.  The reason I am mentioning this is because it leads to a version of the 6AS7G tube that is very desirable.  It is called the 6520.  The following is a little blurb from one of my tube data books:  "The 6520 tube is used when utmost reliability is required in respect to triode balance, absence of excessive plate current drift and grid to plate insulation. In addition to the standard 6AS7G characteristics, the 6520 features a 600V potential insulation between grid and plate and a combined cathode and fixed bias test to guarantee reliable performance without excessive triode unbalance or plate current drift."  Now, 6520's that most people have seen will look like 6AS7G tubes, but several years ago I saw a sleeve of 5 Westinghouse 6520's with domino plates.  In other words a 5998/421a type tube that can handle heavier abuse, hence a longer life, that has undergone a lengthy burn in time followed by stringent screening for perfectly balanced triodes that have a transconductance that falls within a certain range most suited to the 5998/421a requirements.  That sleeve also had two stickers on it.  One that said "Matched Set" and another that said "Premium Replacement For All 5998 & 421a Type Tubes".  I have read that the 5998/421a tube has been found to be the most musical tube available in headphone amps, which many people believe are the ultimate in music enjoyment, so if you happen to have any of those domino plate 6520's and decide to sell them you will be a very popular person on ebay and make a small fortune.


Some good info there. I checked my TS 6520 but they just have the regular plates 

You mention the earlier tubes having bottom getters. I have a few pairs of the Western Electric 421A from the 1980's - some with bottom getters and some with top getters. Also, I don't think TungSol as a company existed in the 1980's?


----------



## JKDJedi

Electron Mitigator said:


> I am posting this to help future readers with disinformation.  It is going to take a bit of my time and effort to get this typed out so please take it with a grain of salt as I don't have a lot of time to come back and reply.  AT&T was always the parent company of Western Electric.  In the late 1800's Bell Systems was their parent company and shortly after AT&T was Bell Systems parent company.  They are one of three companies I like to call the electric god, AT&T (came from the great Alexander Graham Bell), General Electric (came from the great Thomas Edison) and Westinghouse (had greats such as Nikola Tesla).  Prior to the 1900's these companies would get in huge legal battles losing massive amounts of money to the lawyers.  To rectify this they started to work together.  In 1904 Fleming ( Marconi Company ) invents the first electron tube, the diode. The electric god quickly gobbled this new technology up and within 15 years they are now the tube god.  In 1919 they create RCA from Marconi assets and patents. During the 1920's they gobble up or control the small companies and pretty much dominate everything.  In the early 1930's the US government files an antitrust suit against them. They are forced into letting RCA become its own entity.  I am sure they found ways to keep their control, however, and I am sure they had their fingers in all the companies of the time.  I see this when I look at my old tube books.  Newly listed tubes from companies like Tung Sol and Amperex being produced at the same time by Westinghouse, GE and WE and vice versa.  They are all cross licensed within the tube god.  This brings me to the 5998/421a tube.  It is a given that the tube god wasn't going to waste money, so the internal parts were all produced at the same place.  It would have been nonsensical to have each companies high paid engineers designing and building the parts with the tooling etc. involved, and why would the parts be identical?  The only real difference between the 5998 and the 421a, besides a wire or mount here or there, is the getters.  The reason I think they have this difference is because Tung Sol had pretty much moved to top and side getters on their octal tubes like most companies during this time and Western Electric, who I think first produced the 421a in 1948, was still using bottom getters on all their octal tubes.  The reason early tubes had their getters at the bottom was because they had a plate cap at the top.  The bottom getter design was, for the most part, being faded out during the 50's.  Top and side getters pretty much became the norm.  It was also found that their was an issue the bottom getter design had that the top and side getters did not.  Being that most tubes are run upright particulates from the surfaces of the tube components as well as strontium and other particulates created by the getters themselves fall downward on top of the getter and getter flashing, rendering it less effective.  One possible reason that Western Electric never changed to a top or side getter is because these tubes were used as voltage regulators and they might have thought they would reach end of life long before these effects became a problem.  Most likely, though, it was because they didn't want to waste money on changing procedures, training and tooling.  The 5998/421a tube is basically a 6AS7G tube with a few different characteristics.  The plates for one look totally different.  The reason I am mentioning this is because it leads to a version of the 6AS7G tube that is very desirable.  It is called the 6520.  The following is a little blurb from one of my tube data books:  "The 6520 tube is used when utmost reliability is required in respect to triode balance, absence of excessive plate current drift and grid to plate insulation. In addition to the standard 6AS7G characteristics, the 6520 features a 600V potential insulation between grid and plate and a combined cathode and fixed bias test to guarantee reliable performance without excessive triode unbalance or plate current drift."  Now, 6520's that most people have seen will look like 6AS7G tubes, but several years ago I saw a sleeve of 5 Westinghouse 6520's with domino plates.  In other words a 5998/421a type tube that can handle heavier abuse, hence a longer life, that has undergone a lengthy burn in time followed by stringent screening for perfectly balanced triodes that have a transconductance that falls within a certain range most suited to the 5998/421a requirements.  That sleeve also had two stickers on it.  One that said "Matched Set" and another that said "Premium Replacement For All 5998 & 421a Type Tubes".  I have read that the 5998/421a tube has been found to be the most musical tube available in headphone amps, which many people believe are the ultimate in music enjoyment, so if you happen to have any of those domino plate 6520's and decide to sell them you will be a very popular person on ebay and make a small fortune.


They do sound great. (6520)


----------



## JKDJedi (Dec 8, 2022)

leftside said:


> Some good info there. I checked my TS 6520 but they just have the regular plates
> 
> You mention the earlier tubes having bottom getters. I have a few pairs of the Western Electric 421A from the 1980's - some with bottom getters and some with top getters. Also, I don't think TungSol as a company existed in the 1980's?


It was my understanding that the 421a had the higher tolerance vs the Tung Sol 5998. You can check the stat sheets. Now if it's true the domino plated 6520 are even higher.... (kicking myself for letting that one go)


----------



## Electron Mitigator

I am not sure exactly what is being asked by tolerance, but I have a few minutes so hopefully I can help further explain things.  I have tube tester data that does show a slightly higher transconductance for the 421a vs the 5998, but that doesn't really mean anything.  I have many tube testers and they can show a wide range of optimal transconductance for identical tubes.  That said higher transconductance doesn't mean a tube is built better or a better design, it generally can just supply more power. Higher transconductance is achieved via the grid of a tube.  The grid controls the flow of electrons from the cathode to the anode.  In most tubes you can't see the grid.  It is a finely wound wire wrapped around two posts.  It is also commonly called a grid frame.  Generally the finer the wire is, the more closely that wire is spaced and the closer the grid is placed into relation of the plates (anode) the higher the transconductance of the tube will be.  The problem is that this finer wire and closer spacing gives way to a greater chance for problems.  Before I go further I will explain what is happening within a triode in layman's terms.  Think of the grid as the low level signal from your cd or record player controlling the high power flow of electrons from the anode to the cathode of the tube.  Basically taking the low power signal and turning it into a high power signal required by your speakers.  I won't get to heavily into the chemistry of things, but as the grid degrades or becomes compromised by other particles bonding to its surface it stops doing its job as effectively.  It doesn't take much either, if you have a grid with a little problem and multiply it thousand fold you have a big problem.  The grid frame is usually made out of gold coated molybdenum wire wrapped around two copper posts.  Gold is used because it is a very unreactive metal.  The thicker the gold the less chance of degradation.  Problem is gold is expensive.  So to wrap this part up, the grid with the thickest gold, the most accurately wrapped wire and the most accurately placed grid in relation to the the plate is the best.  By best I mean last the longest and operate the most correctly.  I will explain why this is so very important in a 5998/421a tube which is a twin triode.  We are going to start with a tube that doesn't have the best grids and one grid has degraded worse than the other.  It could also be a tube that didn't have accurately matched grids in the first place.  My tube data for the 5998 and the 421a doesn't say "when utmost reliability in respect to triode balance is required" as the 6520 does.  In a one tube single ended stereo amp using one grid as Left and one grid as Right this can create a host of problems. You can get unwanted noise in one channel or one channel can become louder than the other, which is not true stereo to me.  This can create other problems, too, over time as electrons generally like to take the easiest path.  Same thing goes for a push/pull design using more than one tube.  This is the "Plate Current Drift" in the quote from my tube book above. These tubes are very desirable and probably went up in cost in just the few minutes I have been writing this so if it was me I would only want the best.  That said, even a 6520 tube can get damaged from very excessive shock or a spike over 600V (lightning).  If you want to really understand tubes look at old tube data.  You can do this online by googling "frank's tube data".  The data will out!


----------



## Electron Mitigator

leftside said:


> Some good info there. I checked my TS 6520 but they just have the regular plates
> 
> You mention the earlier tubes having bottom getters. I have a few pairs of the Western Electric 421A from the 1980's - some with bottom getters and some with top getters. Also, I don't think TungSol as a company existed in the 1980's?


AT&T always was the parent company of Western Electric.  In all essence it wasn't sold to AT&T Technologies in the 80's, it was a name change.  Although not at the same level they still supplied tubes.  Also, old stock lasted a long time at this point and was branded or rebranded as needed.  I imagine some tubes might have still been available up until the late 90's when Lucent Technologies bought all their assets.  The are later in the game, however, as one has a top getter and the other round bottom getters.  If I had to guess I would say that the tube with the top getter was one of the last made by Western Electric in the early 80's and the one with the bottom getters branded or rebranded from 70's stock.


----------



## JKDJedi

Electron Mitigator said:


> I am not sure exactly what is being asked by tolerance, but I have a few minutes so hopefully I can help further explain things.  I have tube tester data that does show a slightly higher transconductance for the 421a vs the 5998, but that doesn't really mean anything.  I have many tube testers and they can show a wide range of optimal transconductance for identical tubes.  That said higher transconductance doesn't mean a tube is built better or a better design, it generally can just supply more power. Higher transconductance is achieved via the grid of a tube.  The grid controls the flow of electrons from the cathode to the anode.  In most tubes you can't see the grid.  It is a finely wound wire wrapped around two posts.  It is also commonly called a grid frame.  Generally the finer the wire is, the more closely that wire is spaced and the closer the grid is placed into relation of the plates (anode) the higher the transconductance of the tube will be.  The problem is that this finer wire and closer spacing gives way to a greater chance for problems.  Before I go further I will explain what is happening within a triode in layman's terms.  Think of the grid as the low level signal from your cd or record player controlling the high power flow of electrons from the anode to the cathode of the tube.  Basically taking the low power signal and turning it into a high power signal required by your speakers.  I won't get to heavily into the chemistry of things, but as the grid degrades or becomes compromised by other particles bonding to its surface it stops doing its job as effectively.  It doesn't take much either, if you have a grid with a little problem and multiply it thousand fold you have a big problem.  The grid frame is usually made out of gold coated molybdenum wire wrapped around two copper posts.  Gold is used because it is a very unreactive metal.  The thicker the gold the less chance of degradation.  Problem is gold is expensive.  So to wrap this part up, the grid with the thickest gold, the most accurately wrapped wire and the most accurately placed grid in relation to the the plate is the best.  By best I mean last the longest and operate the most correctly.  I will explain why this is so very important in a 5998/421a tube which is a twin triode.  We are going to start with a tube that doesn't have the best grids and one grid has degraded worse than the other.  It could also be a tube that didn't have accurately matched grids in the first place.  My tube data for the 5998 and the 421a doesn't say "when utmost reliability in respect to triode balance is required" as the 6520 does.  In a one tube single ended stereo amp using one grid as Left and one grid as Right this can create a host of problems. You can get unwanted noise in one channel or one channel can become louder than the other, which is not true stereo to me.  This can create other problems, too, over time as electrons generally like to take the easiest path.  Same thing goes for a push/pull design using more than one tube.  This is the "Plate Current Drift" in the quote from my tube book above. These tubes are very desirable and probably went up in cost in just the few minutes I have been writing this so if it was me I would only want the best.  That said, even a 6520 tube can get damaged from very excessive shock or a spike over 600V (lightning).  If you want to really understand tubes look at old tube data.  You can do this online by googling "frank's tube data".  The data will out!


The 421a I had did put out the most energy of any tube I've tried so far. (including the Bendix) Interesting info, thanks for sharing. I'd have to check the data sheets I have on file, it's been awhile since I really dug deep into these tubes, you've peaked my interest again. From memory this  "when utmost reliability in respect to triode balance is required" was in the 421a data sheet. 6520 tubes with domino plated are rare, you see the flat plates more often, Thanks again for the history lesson.


----------



## leftside

JKDJedi said:


> It was my understanding that the 421a had the higher tolerance vs the Tung Sol 5998. You can check the stat sheets. Now if it's true the domino plated 6520 are even higher.... (kicking myself for letting that one go)


Look at that. Very nice. My 6520 have the regular plates.


----------



## Electron Mitigator

I just wanted to add that Western Electric tube data is pretty rare.  Most of their work was for the government and bell systems.  I have never seen anything post 50's except for maybe a brochure about new equipment.  They weren't trying to sell tubes to the public so I doubt they would have boasted about perfectly matched triodes or having the highest transconductance, but anything is possible.  Think of things this way.  Most 60's RCA 12AX7's that I test are in the 1400 to 2000 MICROMHOS range per triode on my favorite tube tester.  Most 70's USA made Sylvania 12AX7 tubes (the ones with the non symmetrical plates) are in the 2000 to 2500 MICROMHOS range.  Both good tubes, one just has a higher transconductance.  There are other factors involved.  A 12AU7 has a higher transconductance than a 12AX7, but it would make a horrible substitute in a circuit designed for a 12AX7.


----------



## JKDJedi

Electron Mitigator said:


> I just wanted to add that Western Electric tube data is pretty rare.  Most of their work was for the government and bell systems.  I have never seen anything post 50's except for maybe a brochure about new equipment.  They weren't trying to sell tubes to the public so I doubt they would have boasted about perfectly matched triodes or having the highest transconductance, but anything is possible.  Think of things this way.  Most 60's RCA 12AX7's that I test are in the 1400 to 2000 MICROMHOS range per triode on my favorite tube tester.  Most 70's USA made Sylvania 12AX7 tubes (the ones with the non symmetrical plates) are in the 2000 to 2500 MICROMHOS range.  Both good tubes, one just has a higher transconductance.  There are other factors involved.  A 12AU7 has a higher transconductance than a 12AX7, but it would make a horrible substitute in a circuit designed for a 12AX7.


The one I have (just found it it) is 53' I'd have to find the info/article/website where I found the mention of this " utmost reliability in respect to triode balance is required" . when it was talking about the 421a. Got a dinner party soon so won't be till later. I'm surprised I still have the data sheet..lol, I deleted so many articles I had saved.


----------



## JKDJedi (Dec 18, 2022)

I thought I had lost my 6520's.. I did sell one, and thought the other got damaged on a botched sale (still confused on that whole thing, did it revive itself?). I haven't been rolling tubes for a bit. And for the longest perceived that I had my Chatham 5998 in my amp. Low and behold.... to my surprise.


----------



## Electron Mitigator

JKDJedi said:


> I thought I had lost my 6520's.. I did sell one, and thought the other got damaged on a botched sale (still confused on that whole thing, did it revive itself?). I haven't been rolling tubes for a bit. And for the longest perceived that I had my Chatham 5998 in my amp. Low and behold.... to my surprise.


Very Nice.  I contacted the person I know that had that sleeve of 5 and he still has them.  All 5 tubes are perfectly matched per side and to each other.  Only problem is he won't sell just one and want's quite a bit for the sleeve.  This thread has gotten me interested in building one of these for myself, but the two 5998 tubes I found in my stash don't have very well balanced halves.  They look heavily used and probably came out of something I worked on years ago.


----------



## JKDJedi

Electron Mitigator said:


> Has



Has me looking too, don't need 5 of them. I found one in China somewhere that looked suspicious, so passing on that one. I had a very strong 421a, let it go to early. Prices are insane right now. Another 6520 or 421a would be nice under the tree. 😁


----------



## Electron Mitigator

What are some of the favorite headphone being used on amps with these tubes?


----------



## JKDJedi

Electron Mitigator said:


> What are some of the favorite headphone being used on amps with these tubes?


Anything with 300 impedance and up, highly recommended. Having said that, I was surprised that my _Fedilio X2 _faired well. I'm not a clinical listener, that's for the recording studios. I'd rather enjoy my music after a drink or puff.


----------



## dpump

I have a pair of 5998 labeled JAN-CTL-5998. The only other number is 543. Trying to find out what the 543 means.


----------



## JKDJedi

dpump said:


> I have a pair of 5998 labeled JAN-CTL-5998. The only other number is 543. Trying to find out what the 543 means.


my guess 1953 (or 63) week 54


----------



## Electron Mitigator

I am selling 4 beautifully matched NOS Boxed Westinghouse 6520 Domino Plate tubes.  Anyone interested please contact me.


----------



## JKDJedi (Jan 4, 2023)

Electron Mitigator said:


> I am selling 4 beautifully matched NOS Boxed Westinghouse 6520 Domino Plate tubes.  Anyone interested please contact me.


PM Sent (and thinking no such thing as a Westinghouse 6520) oops...I stand corrected, there is a Westinghouse 6520..wow.. take a look guys these are legit!


----------



## Electron Mitigator

dpump said:


> I have a pair of 5998 labeled JAN-CTL-5998. The only other number is 543. Trying to find out what the 543 means.


Seeing the tube would be helpful.  Most JAN stuff is from the 50's.  It was a military term.  If your number is a date code 50's tubes usually are in the format YMM.  In the 60's it is YYMM.  If that number is a date code I would say the 43rd week of 1955.


----------



## Electron Mitigator

I should add that tubes weren't branded at the time of manufacture.  They were stored on shelves in very large lots and branded when branded stock ran low.  A specific tube, say 6L6GC, wasn't built daily.  It might have gotten built once a year or less depending on the tube, the demand and what decade.  Branded lots were done in large amounts too, as you wouldn't want to be changing silk screens, etc. after every tube.  In the 50's and 60's those dates could be close.  In the 70's and 80's there are tubes branded several years after they were built.  In the 70's and 80's you can even find close sub's branded as something else that a company needed at the time.  On the far side of that you can find tubes built in the 70's branded in the 80's and 90's as STR (Special Tube Reserves).  Not all STR tubes are of this ilk, however.  In more recent times companies have been using the STR moniker (Special Tube Request) on more recently built tubes.  This is a really good place to mention one more thing.  Over the last 30 years I have kept every faulty or unusable tube I have encountered.  Probably close to 300 tubes.  In that box only about 20 tubes are pre 1980 built.  With those stats a 60 year old tube has a 15 times greater chance of still being good today compared to a 15 year old tube.  Go figure.


----------



## JKDJedi

Electron Mitigator said:


> I should add that tubes weren't branded at the time of manufacture.  They were stored on shelves in very large lots and branded when branded stock ran low.  A specific tube, say 6L6GC, wasn't built daily.  It might have gotten built once a year or less depending on the tube, the demand and what decade.  Branded lots were done in large amounts too, as you wouldn't want to be changing silk screens, etc. after every tube.  In the 50's and 60's those dates could be close.  In the 70's and 80's there are tubes branded several years after they were built.  In the 70's and 80's you can even find close sub's branded as something else that a company needed at the time.  On the far side of that you can find tubes built in the 70's branded in the 80's and 90's as STR (Special Tube Reserves).  Not all STR tubes are of this ilk, however.  In more recent times companies have been using the STR moniker (Special Tube Request) on more recently built tubes.  This is a really good place to mention one more thing.  Over the last 30 years I have kept every faulty or unusable tube I have encountered.  Probably close to 300 tubes.  In that box only about 20 tubes are pre 1980 built.  With those stats a 60 year old tube has a 15 times greater chance of still being good today compared to a 15 year old tube.  Go figure.


They sure don't make them like they use too.


----------



## JTbbb

Hello there all,

Just what do I have here? Clear top, bottom D Getters and rectangular top mica supports. The rectangular supports I associate with earlier tubes?
I have seen identical tubes like this marked as ‘Chatham Electronics 5998’ ‘Western Electric 5998/421A’ and ‘Western Electric 421A’ and the internals are the same. And now ‘Chatham Electronics 2399’ with the code No 3002399, which I’m thinking should have the date code in it? Then there is also the number 743, which I take as week 43, 1957?

I am guessing we will never fully understand the why’s and wherefore’s of what manufacturer‘s got up to with markings back then. But any ideas on the pedigree of this tube? Thanks


----------



## JKDJedi

JTbbb said:


> Hello there all,
> 
> Just what do I have here? Clear top, bottom D Getters and rectangular top mica supports. The rectangular supports I associate with earlier tubes?
> I have seen identical tubes like this marked as ‘Chatham Electronics 5998’ ‘Western Electric 5998/421A’ and ‘Western Electric 421A’ and the internals are the same. And now ‘Chatham Electronics 2399’ with the code No 3002399, which I’m thinking should have the date code in it? Then there is also the number 743, which I take as week 43, 1957?
> ...


interesting, I'd have to check into this one.Looks almost carbon copy like the Chatham 5998.


----------



## JTbbb

JKDJedi said:


> interesting, I'd have to check into this one.Looks almost carbon copy like the Chatham 5998.


You did comment on these which I posted here early 2021.


----------

