I don’t think I’ve written in this thread, although i’ve read a decent chunk of it. The level of detail goes well beyond my fairly superficial interest level in Cobain’s gear, and I admire the research work that has gone into it. A true labour of love - well done.
Regarding the topic of misinformation, i recently heard Rick Beato use the term ‘repeaters’ to describe forum folks who repost info they have read, without any awareness of its correctness. (By the way, I have mixed feelings about Beato, and maybe he got the word from somewhere else. Also, i realise the irony of me repeating the term repeater!)
In the context of correcting the poor information being circulated (for over 30 years) about Cobain’s guitars, don’t give up hope. Slowly more and more people will read this thread and the info will seep into other forums. It will take time, of course.
I believe we are now in an age where more people are keen to challenge internet ‘myths’, and search for information that can be verified, either by properly controlled experiments, or by seeking out original certified documentation.
For example, in the pedal world for many years the repeaters said that true bypass was always best because it didn’t ‘suck your tone’. More recently there has been a growing number of people accepting that buffered is often as good, and sometimes better (admittedly pedal technology has also changed during this time).
On guitars, for years the repeaters talked about nitro paint being better for a guitar’s tone because it ‘let the wood breathe’, and now this has been debunked.
The myths surrounding particular musician’s equipment are a lot more specialised, and tend to be gripped with passion in many cases. Especially when the musician is dead. But that’s not to say they can’t be corrected with good research such as contained in this thread.
What i have just said is not news to people on OSG, who tend to be more investigative and open minded than most, but i think it is worth, errr….repeating.