BEWARE OF THIS SELLER...

[NewWorldMan]

Someone just mentioned a Mark IIC++ in an email... Is this thing real?

Yeah, there is a "IIC++" mod that exists. I've never played one, though. The basics to my understanding was more gain in the lead channel, but I don't know what changes it has from there.

 

[Valtiel]

This is kinda like when two people stumble into a room full of people throwing punches at each other, no one really knows whats going on. All I know is that there is a Brenda and someone fucked with a bull that may or may not be wearing Doc Marten boots.

I think someone jerked off a bull jizzed it in a pair of Doc Martens, and Brenda sold the Doc Martens to a Newworld Man from Columbia, who in turn was transformed into a 105 year old Elephant God from New Deli?

And i think somebody somewhere is mad about an amp or something?

But the burning question remains, who jerked off the bull?

 

[NewWorldMan]

But the burning question remains, who jerked off the bull?

This whole thing reeks of bull if you ask me...

Want to see some more lying? From The Boogie Board:

"sh!t! I just remembered... Hey SW! You also stated free shipping with BIN - but yet you charged me $75.00 shipping? You then told me you were going to refund the shipping charge. Well - where's the refund? Wait! Let me guess... Since you didn't actually PROMISE to refund the shipping charge - you never really said it. Am I close?"

To which I replied:

I didn't charge you $75 shipping, and I didn't say free shipping with "Buy it Now." I charged you a $90 flat rate per the auction, then dropped $120 to have it professionally packed and shipped to you. You must have me confused with one of the other 4-5 items that you purchased then decided you didn't want in the last couple months.

 

[druckpig]

I purchased what was advertised as a Mark IIC+ on ebay last month. He stated that it was a Mark IIC, with a Mark IIC+ PCB installed into it. After trying to sell it, I had people asking me to check the transformer numbers, and the letter coding... I pulled the chassis out, to find that the amps letter code "DRG" was changed to "HRG"! I then began a numbers search on the OT coding... What I found out was that the seller (calls himself "Silverwulf" on The Boogie Board. He is "new-world-man 2112" on ebay) had the amp converted from a Simul-Class Mark IIC, to a 60/100 watt - with a MESA MARK III OUTPUT TRANSFORMER! Also - I spoke with Mike B. at MESA, and he said that there's NO WAY that the amp had a Mark IIC+ PCB installed! All reverb equipped Mark IIC amps had a "C+ modded" Mark IIC PCB. Nice... After asking him why he wasn't truthful about the amps history - he said; "You didn't ask"! I requested a refund on the amp, and he refused. I even have his email where he admits that he knew about the OT swap! Here is his ebay listing:
https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 500wt_1182

Here is his ebay reply after I requested a refund... He admits to knowing about the OT swap also:
Hey man! It's easiest to just email me directly, I can respond quicker during the day that way (silverwulf2@yahoo.com). I have no clue what OT it has, I just know it has the 105 PT. Even if it has a 562100, it's the exact same spec as the IIC 100W transformer. In fact, Hetfield has had a 562100 in his IIC+ "Crunch Berries" since the latter part of the "Justice" tour because he blew out the original (Kirk has one in one of his IIC+ also). The amp was an upgrade done by Mike B who replaced the board. It started life as a IIC, Simul and was converted to a IIC+, 100W. The conversion to 100W required Mike to swap the OT, which I assumed was the IIC+ tranny. The chassis markings would be changed accordingly. Even if it does have a 562100, it's the same thing, different part #. No one worked on that amp other than Mesa, and Mike B in particular. It's a IIC+ through and through.
- new-world-man-2112

This guy is as bad as a gear thief! All you need to do, is to take one look at the listing, and then read his email... No mention of any OT swap at all! No mention of it originally being a Simul-Class either. Plus, he lied about the "C+ PCB upgrade"! I paid $2,300.00 for this amp - and the seller thinks I'm the asshole? I would NEVER had paid $2,300.00 for this amp - no way! I would have purchased a Mark IIC Simul-Class for around $1,600.00 and then had Mike B. do a C+ upgrade.

something doesent add up here ...

Hmmm... I just reread the thread I see your point...

I missed the part re the ot being swapped out
although I gotta say the ebay listing does mention the amp is a factory upgrade, thats tricky

basically it was upgraded to c+ which WAS mentioned and changed to 100 ot configuration instead of simul class ot which WASNT mentioned.

reading the ebay listing I dont think the amp was depicted as an original mkIIc+ but.... if I bought it I would feel not mentioning the change of ot was VERY misleading THE SELLERS RESPONSE TO YOU THAT YOU DIDNT ASK RE THE OT SWAP IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE EBAY PRACTICE and if the replacement output tranny date code DOESENT match the date code of the other tranny or amp chassis date then the replacement ot would DEFINATELY devalue the amp considerably and make resale to anyone for your purchase price almost immpossible if all the changes WERE mentioned when reauctioned
so...

although the way you have handled this issue is somewhat lacking in diplomacy and has also contributed most likely to readers missing vital points , now Ive reread it .. I do think you are definitely in the right

I for one wouldnt be happy at all if I had bought the amp
and just because you were happy with the way the amp sounds and it took you awhile to realise there were changes to components that werent mentioned doesent mean the seller has any less responsibility to you

I would like to know both sets of codes for both mains tranny and output tranny and chassis date and the amp serial number if you could please

I do think its unlikely the seller intentionally tried to stitch you up, BUT I still think you had a raw deal
I think you should try to reapproach this in a calm and more reasonable manner with the seller, you get more with sugar than vinegar..

Bottom line is this.. even if the 562100 ot IS right for that amp BUT if the amp lets say dates to 1983 and the replacement ot dates to lets say 1989 then for $2300 dollars you had a shitty deal , end of...

 

[NewWorldMan]

something doesent add up here ...

Hmmm... I just reread the thread I see your point...

I missed the part re the ot being swapped out
although I gotta say the ebay listing does mention the amp is a factory upgrade, thats tricky

basically it was upgraded to c+ which WAS mentioned and changed to 100 ot configuration instead of simul class ot which WASNT mentioned.

reading the ebay listing I dont think the amp was depicted as an original mkIIc+ but.... if I bought it I would feel not mentioning the change of ot was VERY misleading THE SELLERS RESPONSE TO YOU THAT YOU DIDNT ASK RE THE OT SWAP IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE EBAY PRACTICE and if the replacement output tranny date code DOESENT match the date code of the other tranny or amp chassis date then the replacement ot would DEFINATELY devalue the amp considerably and make resale to anyone for your purchase price almost immpossible if all the changes WERE mentioned when reauctioned
so...

although the way you have handled this issue is somewhat lacking in diplomacy and has also contributed most likely to readers missing vital points , now Ive reread it .. I do think you are definitely in the right

I for one wouldnt be happy at all if I had bought the amp
and just because you were happy with the way the amp sounds and it took you awhile to realise there were changes to components that werent mentioned doesent mean the seller has any less responsibility to you

I would like to know both sets of codes for both mains tranny and output tranny and chassis date and the amp serial number if you could please

I do think its unlikely the seller intentionally tried to stitch you up, BUT I still think you had a raw deal
I think you should try to reapproach this in a calm and more reasonable manner with the seller, you get more with sugar than vinegar..

Bottom line is this.. even if the 562100 ot IS right for that amp BUT if the amp lets say dates to 1983 and the replacement ot dates to lets say 1989 then for $2300 dollars you had a shitty deal , end of...

There is not a single thing in that auction that is not 100% the truth. You can view the auction and then TBB thread to see phone messages from Mesa along with actual gut shots of the amp with in-depth technical data that validates everything I said. TGD didn't even realize he was looking at pics of his amp and what very little data he thought he had came from the same guy who already told him he wouldn't know what he was talking about if it jumped up and bit him.

This is of course in addition to him being caught lying - twice - once of which he admitted to it.

 

[druckpig]

something doesent add up here ...

Hmmm... I just reread the thread I see your point...

I missed the part re the ot being swapped out
although I gotta say the ebay listing does mention the amp is a factory upgrade, thats tricky

basically it was upgraded to c+ which WAS mentioned and changed to 100 ot configuration instead of simul class ot which WASNT mentioned.

reading the ebay listing I dont think the amp was depicted as an original mkIIc+ but.... if I bought it I would feel not mentioning the change of ot was VERY misleading THE SELLERS RESPONSE TO YOU THAT YOU DIDNT ASK RE THE OT SWAP IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE EBAY PRACTICE and if the replacement output tranny date code DOESENT match the date code of the other tranny or amp chassis date then the replacement ot would DEFINATELY devalue the amp considerably and make resale to anyone for your purchase price almost immpossible if all the changes WERE mentioned when reauctioned
so...

although the way you have handled this issue is somewhat lacking in diplomacy and has also contributed most likely to readers missing vital points , now Ive reread it .. I do think you are definitely in the right

I for one wouldnt be happy at all if I had bought the amp
and just because you were happy with the way the amp sounds and it took you awhile to realise there were changes to components that werent mentioned doesent mean the seller has any less responsibility to you

I would like to know both sets of codes for both mains tranny and output tranny and chassis date and the amp serial number if you could please

I do think its unlikely the seller intentionally tried to stitch you up, BUT I still think you had a raw deal
I think you should try to reapproach this in a calm and more reasonable manner with the seller, you get more with sugar than vinegar..

Bottom line is this.. even if the 562100 ot IS right for that amp BUT if the amp lets say dates to 1983 and the replacement ot dates to lets say 1989 then for $2300 dollars you had a shitty deal , end of...

There is not a single thing in that auction that is not 100% the truth. You can view the auction and then TBB thread to see phone messages from Mesa along with actual gut shots of the amp with in-depth technical data that validates everything I said. TGD didn't even realize he was looking at pics of his amp and what very little data he thought he had came from the same guy who already told him he wouldn't know what he was talking about if it jumped up and bit him.

This is of course in addition to him being caught lying - twice - once of which he admitted to it.

WHERE IN THE LISTING DOES IT SAY THE OUTPUT TRANSORMER IS A REPLACEMENT, I CANT SEE IT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE LISTING

 

[NewWorldMan]

WHERE IN THE LISTING DOES IT SAY THE OUTPUT TRANSORMER IS A REPLACEMENT, I CANT SEE IT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE LISTING

It's not "a replacement," it's the appropriate transformer for a 100/60 amp. That amp was never portrayed to be a Simul amp, so why would anyone expect a Simul OT to be in it?

 

[druckpig]

WHERE IN THE LISTING DOES IT SAY THE OUTPUT TRANSORMER IS A REPLACEMENT, I CANT SEE IT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE LISTING

It's not "a replacement," it's the appropriate transformer for a 100/60 amp. That amp was never portrayed to be a Simul amp, so why would anyone expect a Simul OT to be in it?

was the amp converted from simul class to 60/100

 

[thiswaythatway]

WHERE IN THE LISTING DOES IT SAY THE OUTPUT TRANSORMER IS A REPLACEMENT, I CANT SEE IT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE LISTING

It's not "a replacement," it's the appropriate transformer for a 100/60 amp. That amp was never portrayed to be a Simul amp, so why would anyone expect a Simul OT to be in it?

God Forbid that Mesa would taint the Holy Legacy of the fabled IIC+ by using parts used in the IIC's in Mark III's. How dare they!!!!!!!! Fucking liars and thiefs they are.

 

[NewWorldMan]

God Forbid that Mesa would taint the Holy Legacy of the fabled IIC+ by using parts used in the IIC's in Mark III's. How dare they!!!!!!!! Fucking liars and thiefs they are.

That's the funniest thing through it all. Not only was the 562100 used in the IIC+ prior to being used in the III, but it's also the same exact transformer as the 152019B, just with a different part number.

 

[NewWorldMan]

was the amp converted from simul class to 60/100

Doesn't matter. If you buy a 100/60 IIC+ amp, there's only 2 transformers you should expect to see in there from the factory assuming you have a shred of a clue what you're talking about - a 562100 or a 152019B. If you see something other than one of those, then it's a "replacement."

 

[druckpig]

was the amp converted from simul class to 60/100

Doesn't matter. If you buy a 100/60 IIC+ amp, there's only 2 transformers you should expect to see in there from the factory assuming you have a shred of a clue what you're talking about - a 562100 or a 152019B. If you see something other than one of those, then it's a "replacement."

Thats not answering the question is it, was the amp converted from simul to 60/100

 

[NewWorldMan]

Thats not answering the question is it, was the amp converted from simul to 60/100

Again, it doesn't matter. You're not asking anything that's relevant, so I'm not going to let this devolve into side bars and have conversations that detract from his complaint and the whole point of the thread. I'm also not talking about whether it was painted blue, what I wearing when I sold it, if the knobs and sliders are original, etc. You may as well be asking me about the knobs, it it has the original bolts in the chassis, etc.

The bottom line is this: He complained the amp was significantly not as described. The amp was sold as a IIC converted to a IIC+...check. It had a 105 PT in it...check. It was loaded with Mesa 415's...check. It was in near flawless condition...check. It was described exactly as it was, the complaint was saying it wasn't as described. End of story.

 

[druckpig]

Thats not answering the question is it, was the amp converted from simul to 60/100

Again, it doesn't matter. You're not asking anything that's relevant, so I'm not going to let this devolve into side bars and have conversations that detract from his complaint and the whole point of the thread. I'm also not talking about whether it was painted blue, what I wearing when I sold it, if the knobs and sliders are original, etc. You may as well be asking me about the knobs, it it has the original bolts in the chassis, etc.

The bottom line is this: He complained the amp was significantly not as described. The amp was sold as a IIC converted to a IIC+...check. It had a 105 PT in it...check. It was loaded with Mesa 415's...check. It was in near flawless condition...check. It was described exactly as it was, the complaint was saying it wasn't as described. End of story.

sounds like you are avoiding the question im not asking what the mains tranny is or the + conversion..

was it converted and if so was there a change of output transformer

regardless of whether the ot was the right spec Im interested to know if the ot date code matches the rest of the codes chassis mains etc...

 

[NewWorldMan]

sounds like you are avoiding the question im not asking what the mains tranny is or the + conversion..

was it converted and if so was there a change of output transformer

regardless of whether the ot was the right spec Im interested to know if the ot date code matches the rest of the codes chassis mains etc...

I'm not avoiding any question. Everything you're asking about has been discussed on The Boogie Board. I'm not going to start rehashing that thread here. I'm sticking to the topic at hand. If you want to know technical data about the amp, please refer to that thread. I'm not going to chase down every stray thread this troll spammer starts and keep reposting the same data over and over again.

 

[druckpig]

sounds like you are avoiding the question im not asking what the mains tranny is or the + conversion..

was it converted and if so was there a change of output transformer

regardless of whether the ot was the right spec Im interested to know if the ot date code matches the rest of the codes chassis mains etc...

I'm not avoiding any question. Everything you're asking about has been discussed on The Boogie Board. I'm not going to start rehashing that thread here. I'm sticking to the topic at hand. If you want to know technical data about the amp, please refer to that thread.

you havent answered a straightforward question , which Ive asked repeatedly

WAS IT CONVERTED AND WAS THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMER REPLACED, YES OR NO...

 

[NewWorldMan]

you havent answered a straightforward question , which Ive asked repeatedly

WAS IT CONVERTED AND WAS THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMER REPLACED, YES OR NO...

It's answered in the thread, I suggest you read it.

 

[Motorpud]

you havent answered a straightforward question , which Ive asked repeatedly

WAS IT CONVERTED AND WAS THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMER REPLACED, YES OR NO...

It's answered in the thread, I suggest you read it.

It clearly has been, otherwise he would just say no. It seems like it would be a lot easier to type 2 or 3 letters (i.e. "yes" or "no") than to type out a whole sentence deflecting questions onto another forum. It's starting to seem like there might be a little sidestepping of the question here.

 

[NewWorldMan]

It clearly has been, otherwise he would just say no.

It has nothing to do with that. I'm just not going to answer the same question in the 7658765 threads that troll spammer likes to start. If it started as a Simul and was made a 100/60, then obviously it can't use the same transformer and Mesa had to put in the correct one. So yes, the appropriate transformer was put it in...unless you wanted to use a Simul OT and blow up your amp.

 

[druckpig]

It clearly has been, otherwise he would just say no.

It has nothing to do with that. I'm just not going to answer the same question in the 7658765 threads that troll spammer likes to start. If it started as a Simul and was made a 100/60, then obviously it can't use the same transformer and Mesa had to put in the correct one. So yes, the appropriate transformer was put it in...unless you wanted to use a Simul OT and blow up your amp.

thank you.... so clearly from reading your ebay listing you were FAR FROM 100% ACCURATE IN YOUR DESCRIPTION AS THE REPLACEMENT OUTPUT TRANSFORMER ISNT MENTIONED

IT HAS A REPLACED OUTPUT TRANSFORMER , WHICH DATES FROM WHEN ?????