Is this inductor worth salvaging?

[Effectsiation]

Thanks for that info Joe! Much appreciated! In 91-93, it would have said Original Crybaby on the front then, right?

[joegagan]

thanks!
i haven't been keeping track of the front logos as much, but yes, that would be the era, sort of a wave logo.
it is interesting to watch how dunlop progressed after they bought the crybaby brand.
a few fun facts, along with some conjecture:

in '81, jim dunlop bought the company from whirlpool. whirlpool had acquired thomas organ in a stock purchase of warwick electronics ( owner of thomas organ ) in 1966. who knew that all those crybabies we used from the 60s and 70s were essentially whirlpool appliances?

for the first few years, the dunlop crybabies were built from leftover thomas parts, best of which were the 03 inductors. previously, the majority of crybabies had TDKs with a random smattering of 03 inductors. for this 80s period, every crybaby had an 03 inductor. even the PCB was the thomas part. the first real change was the logo plate on the front. initially, dunlop was smart, they left the supplier chain intact, evidence suggests that subcontractors of thomas became suppliers to dunlop.

changes showed up as the board was redesigned to use the terminal clip wiring harness. these boards say JD DUNLOP on them and possibly made by the same company that made the thomas boards.

next set of changes were the worst era of crybabies in history. dunlop enacted cost cutting that nearly ruined the reputation of the venerable crybaby forever. features included: crappy caps, horrible inductor ( small black cylinder , 3/8" diameter,  half inch tall), crappy plastic frame jacks, etc etc.  this era saw the first dunlop branded hotpotz1 clarostat pot. supposedly rated for one million cycles ( a joke ), the cost cutting also included a short shaft and bushing, later changed to a longer shaft and bushing in around '92. it should be noted that dunlop stayed with the same basic pot supplier that thomas had used, clarostat had bought the potentiometer division of allen bradley. dunlop retained the same pot taper of the long standing crybaby specification. there was also a brief period where they used a bourns-made cermet (i think) pot. these are a small blue square body and have horrible durability.

slightly later, this era saw the introduction of the 1/8" power supply jack, while the earlier version of this crappy board did not have the power jack. the enclosure now had new longer reinforced areas where a future power jack would be added.

also during this era, dunlop dabbled in inductor suppliers. for a while they even used the same inductor as morley, and the board design was changed to accommodate the super wide pin spacing of it, while including multi-pinouts for various inductors. board quality at this point was at a low as well. thin boards with thin traces and small pads, a shift from the quality of the thomas style boards.

the one-piece 'rev E' board with the now famous layout came in the early 90s, and signalled the long road back to wah quality. better inductors were used, leading to the n30 version of the small toroid, which possibly was a result of the dunlop agreement to build the budda wahs since the budda company ( reportedly ) preferred the n30 magnet material. these n30 inductors show up in non-budda dunlop wahs, and i suspect that it is possible that all inductors of the mid 90s may have been made with this material , while some are not marked as such. just a theory. also during this early REV E period , the board quality was spotty, it seems they were experimenting with various suppliers.

the decision in REV E  to add a buffer and leave the wah non-tru-bypass is interesting. is this telling me that all the components and complexity of a third transistor stage is cheaper than the added cost of a dpdt vs a spdt and one added wire? i guess so. they may have actually liked the buffer as a way to add consistency to the sound of the wah , allowing looser tolerances in parts while still getting a 'passable' wah tone. the buffer does 'level the playing field' so to speak.

don't forget, dunlop also made the vox wahs for 25  years or so, ending around 5 to 7 years ago. dunlop-made vox wahs retained the old 2 trans, non-buffered circuit for much longer, eventually giving way to using the same 3trans board of the gcb95.

rev f, g, and h all were small refinements to the rev E formula. mid 90s saw the introduction of the hotpotz2, a very durable wah pot for the first time in history. same taper as hotpotz1, but usually a slightly lower overall value , avg 96k vs a little over 100k for the hotpotz1. hotpotz2 has plastic element, and several vintage wah experts have reported liking the actual sound of the old carbon trace hotpotz1 better. for a while, mid-90s, hotpotz1 and 2 seem to have been used concurrently. hotpotz2s have been made in 20k , 100k, 250k ( for volume pedals) and 470k.

Rev I is the first major layout change for the dunlop wah PCB. the inductor is turned 90 degrees from the previous iterations. i have a theory that this was done to make the fasel look more 'centered' rather than sideways in the fasel versions.

of course, the many offshoots ( as far back as mid 90s) , gcb95Q, dimebag, mister crybaby super, and other versions had very complicated boards not similar to the basic gcb95 style wah. however, even some of the recent signature wahs have the gcb95 as their core.

[Effectsiation]

Thanks so much for all of that great info Joe!