POLL: The most accurate PAF replica...

[TheRedDevil]

Well, those are certainly good pickups, but... that's actually what I'm going to replace. Been through 3 sets, both with and without the Plus, and they're just not doing it for me.

Then you don't need PAFs but something different.

https://paf.gitec-forum.eu/

 

[SpudMan]

You could do a lot worse than the Mules. I might recommend the Riff Raffs from BKP as a little closer to the Kossoff tones, though. It's a little brighter and not quite as mid-focused as the Mules, but just as powerful. Either are great sets, though, and should be the same price. For that matter, I think the Duncan Antiquity gets close to that tone. I'd guess their Seth Lovers do, too, but haven't personally tried them.

Short legs really don't affect the sound much if at all. Vintage Gibsons had fairly deep routes and made their pickups with long legs accordingly. Those were difficult to fit into a Strat body (at least one theory), so aftermarket pickups started coming with shorter legs. While anything that changes the magnetic field could change the sound, a quarter inch of extra leg on each side isn't going to change much (it's down and away from the strings anyway), and the change probably isn't audible.

As for potting, I can definitely hear the difference and none of the original Gibson PAFs came potted from the factory. However, if you play very loudly, they are prone to squealing a little more than potted pups are. Since you say you're not into metal, you'll likely be just fine going with an unpotted set... and unpotted sets can be potted later, but it's an irreversible process without basically a rewind (e.g. not worth it).

I know you've been looking at the Throbak Koss-301 set... can't say I've seen anything that is more true to spec, but I have seen several other winders with sets geared toward Paul Kossoff. Those really were some glorious sounds! The Antiquities and Lovers are real close to vintage spec from what I can tell, probably only the carbon content of the steel parts is really any different. I believe Duncan has one of the old Gibson winding machines, too (Leesona 102B, I think), too. I'll keep an eye out and if I come across anything that is aimed at this tone, I'll send you a link.

Thanks, I see that the same place that has the Mules on sale also has the ThroBak SLE-101 on sale. 20% off with free shipping. The ThroBak Kossof's like nice, but honestly that isn't the only tone I am looking for. I do particularly like the warm tone and sustain of Kossof, but really there are many factors involved in trying to work towards that type of tone. IMHO the real secret behind his tone, or anyones tone for that matter, is head, heart and fingers.
As to Duncan, I know they are very popular and lots of people love them. For no good reason, I just have a negative bias regarding their pickups. They are just to commonly used.

 

[Churchhill]

Thanks, I see that the same place that has the Mules on sale also has the ThroBak SLE-101 on sale. 20% off with free shipping. The ThroBak Kossof's like nice, but honestly that isn't the only tone I am looking for. I do particularly like the warm tone and sustain of Kossof, but really there are many factors involved in trying to work towards that type of tone. IMHO the real secret behind his tone, or anyones tone for that matter, is head, heart and fingers.
As to Duncan, I know they are very popular and lots of people love them. For no good reason, I just have a negative bias regarding their pickups. They are just to commonly used.

I know exactly what you mean. Duncan is so prolific that it's almost become generic, which is the opposite of what I'm looking for and sounds like what you're looking for, too.

Wish there was a good comparison of the Throbak models...

 

[Rex]

Duncan is so prolific that it's almost become generic, which is the opposite of what I'm looking for ...

The word “generic” means “typical of a genre.” When you’re searching for a PAF tone or any other specific and popular tone, your goal is a generic tone, by definition. Embrace that fact, and your world will open up.

You can’t get very far saying, “I want an accurate PAF tone, but I want it different.

 

[Churchhill]

The word “generic” means “typical of a genre.” When you’re searching for a PAF tone or any other specific and popular tone, your goal is a generic tone, by definition. Embrace that fact, and your world will open up.

You can’t get very far saying, “I want an accurate PAF tone, but I want it different.

Well, the term PAF is a generic term to begin with, as you pointed out, and I was referring to Duncan, in general, being so widely used that their sound has become typical of replacement pickups of any style (not just PAFs). In this sense, typical of a genre is another way of saying industry standard.

For instance, the "Marshall" sound is fairly generic at this point and can be approximated by any number of amps (e.g. Friedman, Bogner, and several hundred more), including some incredible versions in FAS. There are enough variables there that we can still get a unique take on a generic tone. 2-3 gain stages into a cathode-driven tone stack and 2-4 EL34s biased cold enough to introduce some cross-over distortion will get into the ballpark, but refining that generic template will yield different enough results to support a number of companies each with their own take and usually some shared traits between all of their models. Bogners, to me, all sound like Bogners whether its a Barcelona or an Ecstasy, in the same manner that Duncans all sound like Duncans, to me, whether it's a Saturday Night Special or an Invader, even though they are very different amps and very different pickups.

It's like saying Kleenex when you really want a tissue of any kind. Understanding that I want 2-plys at 12"x9" but without lotion is going to get me closer to being satisfied with the end result.

You're absolutely correct that just saying "I want a PAF" isn't going to get me far. If that was all I was looking for, I'm sure I would be happy with almost any pickup that falls into that category. If I sent that description to any of the winders mentioned here, they would either just laugh or just throw me whatever they had laying around and call it good enough. If my goals weren't clearly defined, I would have no way of judging whether they'd been met.

So, for me, here's a little more detailed description of what I'm looking for, which is a period-correct replica of a set of humbuckers as produced by Gibson during the 1957-1959 era (intentionally leaving out 1960 and later).

• 42 AWG PE wire
• slight offset between coils (<2%)
  • based on previous experience
• series resistance of 7.5k to 8.2k
  • average to slightly underwound, plenty of push without losing headroom
• neck and bridge pickup within 500 ohms or less (closely matched)
  • this helps with the middle position tone I'm looking for
• A2, A4 (maybe), or long unoriented A5 (haven't nailed this down yet), but of the same alloys and casting methods used in the originals
• no potting of any kind
• "period correct" details
  • low-carbon baseplate, keeper, slugs, and pole screws
  • maple spacer
  • threaded-baseplates
  • nickel plated without using a copper base-plate
  • brass bobbin screws
  • butyrate bobbins matching vintage dimension
  • low-carbon steel components of the same alloys as used in the originals
  • machine wound with scatter matching the winding machines in use at Gibson from 1957-1959
    • based on examples from available demos
    • prefer Geo-Stevens
    • prefer Leesona 102 over 102B
    • Meteor is ok, but prefer the other two

And yeah, none of those things are about sound. Rather, they are about trying to recreate an era of manufacturing that led to the general aural qualities that I am looking for. In other words, I want a recreation, a replica, not of a specific pickup, but of a specific era of manufacturing that includes all the possible variations that resulted in the pickups manufactured by Gibson during that period. What I want is something that is as close as physically possible as to walking into the Kalamazoo plant in 1958 (give or take a year) and randomly picking a set of humbuckers to purchase. I want the warts, the variables, the non-linearities, and all the rest of the things that go along with them.

But... would I be happy with the sound? Probably, but there are things that I prefer in that area, too, that ultimately will help when I do start working with a winder to determine which of their models will better suit me. Sound is more difficult to define because it's subjective, so here is my attempt to describe what I'm looking for sound-wise...

• hollow "quack" in middle position (probably the most important characteristic for me)
• obvious "double tones"
• being able to hear the wood of the guitar
• enough high-end definition from the neck to reasonably use it for rhythm playing
  • I like Slash's neck sound, but I've got that covered and am looking for something else, almost the opposite of that
• enough compression that notes are "easy" but not so much as to lose dynamics
  • A2 has worked well for me in the past
  • A5 is usually a little too strident for me
• well defined attack, or "chirp"
• great string-to-string definition
• vocal ("hollow") mid-range, not scooped, but not overwhelming either
• present highs without being sharp, bright without being too "hi-fi", vintage character probably with a fair roll-off
• warm low-mids without being muddy
• strong but not stiff lows (A2 has worked well for me in the past)
• sound like the pickup is much higher output than it really is

While examples help to describe, it's difficult to come up with even a few because, again, I'm not looking for a copy of a specific sound but rather capturing the essence of an era. Here are some examples of pickups that have a similar tone. I am looking for similar sounds, but something that is not the same because variety is important to me (I want more colors in my palette of sounds).

• Gibson MHS (first version)
• Gibson Burstbucker (2003 Custom Shop version)
• Gibson Custombucker
• BKP Stormy Monday
• BKP The Mule
  
  
• Led Zeppelin "Tea for One" (example of middle position sound)
• suitable for blues to classic rock more so than more aggressive hard rock
• "gritty," "round," "warm," "clear," and "strong" are some words that come to mind

Anyway, I think that the above is a decent description of what exactly I'm looking for. @Rex I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, too. How I can further refine this? In any case, I doubt I would have ended up being able to be this specific without the discussion that we've been having here, so to EVERYONE involved so far... THANK YOU!!!

 

[Budda]

Email ReWind, Vineham and a winder in the middle that lovely write-up. Return the sets you dont love.

 

[Churchhill]

Email ReWind, Vineham and a winder in the middle that lovely write-up. Return the sets you dont love.

That's precisely my plan... Vineham, ReWind, Throbak, and maybe one or two others, thinking about Wolfetone. And I've got three potential homes for these, so may just keep them all!

 

[Budda]

That's precisely my plan... Vineham, ReWind, Throbak, and maybe one or two others, thinking about Wolfetone. And I've got three potential homes for these, so may just keep them all!

Havent tried wolfetone but another good option from everything I have read.

 

[Rex]

I followed you right up until this...

I want a recreation, a replica, not of a specific pickup, but of a specific era of manufacturing that includes all the possible variations that resulted in the pickups manufactured by Gibson during that period.

To get that, you'll need to buy a few dozen pickups. No one pickup can ever provide more than a snapshot. You won't get any variation.

What I want is something that is as close as physically possible as to walking into the Kalamazoo plant in 1958 (give or take a year) and randomly picking a set of humbuckers to purchase. I want the warts, the variables, the non-linearities, and all the rest of the things that go along with them.

That's the equivalent of...

...just throw me whatever they had laying around and call it good enough.

It's great that you have specific requirements. That'll really help you hone in on what you want. But that's at odds with what you wrote above. With such a broad target, there are gobs of stuff that would fit the bill.

 

[Churchhill]

It's great that you have specific requirements. That'll really help you hone in on what you want. But that's at odds with what you wrote above. With such a broad target, there are gobs of stuff that would fit the bill.

You're right, there are a number of things that would fit the bill, at least sound-wise. I've got about 12 sets now that are within the realm of "PAF," 9 of which I really like and am, on one hand, looking for something else that's similar. I've found at least 24 sets that are interesting to me enough that I'd probably really like them, too. But, I don't need 24 new sets (or I need a lot of new guitars). So, I'm looking for others' advice on what has worked for them and I've gotten some great input in that regard.

OTHO, this is similar to when I bought my first Tele about 23 years ago. Wasn't sure if I'd like it or not, so I got a MIM Fender. Turns out, I really do like Teles. So, I decided to get a "better" one. I defined that by looking at where they started, what were the specs in 1950. I realized that there were others that had improved on the original design, but I wanted to know where it started, including the things that weren't quite "perfect" (however that is defined). I'm not really into the "relic" thing, so I decided to go with a Fender American Vintage '52. Sure, the neck's a little bigger than my ideal, 21 frets, 7.5" radius, not my first choices, but... I LOVE the thing and I still love it now. I have a tendency to like the first versions of many things, not just Teles or PAFs. Not sure I can explain why, but I've always been that way.

So, what really differentiates things for me is how close the construction of the thing is to the originals, because there are a number of pickups that can get that sound. And from what I've seen, that narrows down the selection quite a bit, basically Throbak and ReWind. To be fair, there are a few others that claim to use "custom" components, but I'm not aware of any others that have gone to the lengths those two companies have gone to replicate that level of detail (maybe Stephens Design). Of those two, one has winding machines that were used in Kalamazoo and the other uses a CNC winder to replicate those winders.

Like I asked in the title, what is "the most accurate PAF (generic type) replica (specifically as close as possible physical recreation)?" I used the word "replica" on purpose because that's what I wanted, not the sound, the recreation. That was an honest question because I wanted to know if there were any others beside the choices I listed in the poll that even came close. But, based on my criteria, what I've learned from the discussion, all the websites I've visited, and unless I'm missing something, that's really come down to one company. So, all that's left at this point is to take my list of sound criteria to them and figure out which of their models most closely matches the sounds I like.

Another example would be an RCA 44 or a Neumann U47. Lots of companies make mics that look and sound like those, but there are only a few, maybe one of each, that make as close a museum quality replica as is currently available. That's a whole other topic though, but a similar concept.

I think the target is a very specific thing: which is the closest replica, in every way, to include materials and construction? It really is an honest question. If it was just the sound, I've already got a number that scratch that itch, and any of a number of companies would fit that bill.

I hope this makes more sense!

 

[Dave Merrill]

You're right, there are a number of things that would fit the bill, at least sound-wise. I've got about 12 sets now that are within the realm of "PAF," 9 of which I really like and am, on one hand, looking for something else that's similar. I've found at least 24 sets that are interesting to me enough that I'd probably really like them, too. But, I don't need 24 new sets (or I need a lot of new guitars). So, I'm looking for others' advice on what has worked for them and I've gotten some great input in that regard.

OTHO, this is similar to when I bought my first Tele about 23 years ago. Wasn't sure if I'd like it or not, so I got a MIM Fender. Turns out, I really do like Teles. So, I decided to get a "better" one. I defined that by looking at where they started, what were the specs in 1950. I realized that there were others that had improved on the original design, but I wanted to know where it started, including the things that weren't quite "perfect" (however that is defined). I'm not really into the "relic" thing, so I decided to go with a Fender American Vintage '52. Sure, the neck's a little bigger than my ideal, 21 frets, 7.5" radius, not my first choices, but... I LOVE the thing and I still love it now. I have a tendency to like the first versions of many things, not just Teles or PAFs. Not sure I can explain why, but I've always been that way.

So, what really differentiates things for me is how close the construction of the thing is to the originals, because there are a number of pickups that can get that sound. And from what I've seen, that narrows down the selection quite a bit, basically Throbak and ReWind. To be fair, there are a few others that claim to use "custom" components, but I'm not aware of any others that have gone to the lengths those two companies have gone to replicate that level of detail (maybe Stephens Design). Of those two, one has winding machines that were used in Kalamazoo and the other uses a CNC winder to replicate those winders.

Like I asked in the title, what is "the most accurate PAF (generic type) replica (specifically as close as possible physical recreation)?" I used the word "replica" on purpose because that's what I wanted, not the sound, the recreation. That was an honest question because I wanted to know if there were any others beside the choices I listed in the poll that even came close. But, based on my criteria, what I've learned from the discussion, all the websites I've visited, and unless I'm missing something, that's really come down to one company. So, all that's left at this point is to take my list of sound criteria to them and figure out which of their models most closely matches the sounds I like.

Another example would be an RCA 44 or a Neumann U47. Lots of companies make mics that look and sound like those, but there are only a few, maybe one of each, that make as close a museum quality replica as is currently available. That's a whole other topic though, but a similar concept.

I think the target is a very specific thing: which is the closest replica, in every way, to include materials and construction? It really is an honest question. If it was just the sound, I've already got a number that scratch that itch, and any of a number of companies would fit that bill.

I hope this makes more sense!

Have you gotten your hands on a comparable Vineham set? I don't remember.

They're attractive to me because small builder, and price, so o6f they do the thing, they'd be worth as look in my book.

 

[Rex]

You're right, there are a number of things that would fit the bill, at least sound-wise. I've got about 12 sets now that are within the realm of "PAF," 9 of which I really like and am, on one hand, looking for something else that's similar. I've found at least 24 sets that are interesting to me enough that I'd probably really like them, too. But, I don't need 24 new sets (or I need a lot of new guitars). So, I'm looking for others' advice on what has worked for them and I've gotten some great input in that regard.

OTHO, this is similar to when I bought my first Tele about 23 years ago. Wasn't sure if I'd like it or not, so I got a MIM Fender. Turns out, I really do like Teles. So, I decided to get a "better" one. I defined that by looking at where they started, what were the specs in 1950. I realized that there were others that had improved on the original design, but I wanted to know where it started, including the things that weren't quite "perfect" (however that is defined). I'm not really into the "relic" thing, so I decided to go with a Fender American Vintage '52. Sure, the neck's a little bigger than my ideal, 21 frets, 7.5" radius, not my first choices, but... I LOVE the thing and I still love it now. I have a tendency to like the first versions of many things, not just Teles or PAFs. Not sure I can explain why, but I've always been that way.

So, what really differentiates things for me is how close the construction of the thing is to the originals, because there are a number of pickups that can get that sound. And from what I've seen, that narrows down the selection quite a bit, basically Throbak and ReWind. To be fair, there are a few others that claim to use "custom" components, but I'm not aware of any others that have gone to the lengths those two companies have gone to replicate that level of detail (maybe Stephens Design). Of those two, one has winding machines that were used in Kalamazoo and the other uses a CNC winder to replicate those winders.

Like I asked in the title, what is "the most accurate PAF (generic type) replica (specifically as close as possible physical recreation)?" I used the word "replica" on purpose because that's what I wanted, not the sound, the recreation. That was an honest question because I wanted to know if there were any others beside the choices I listed in the poll that even came close. But, based on my criteria, what I've learned from the discussion, all the websites I've visited, and unless I'm missing something, that's really come down to one company. So, all that's left at this point is to take my list of sound criteria to them and figure out which of their models most closely matches the sounds I like.

Another example would be an RCA 44 or a Neumann U47. Lots of companies make mics that look and sound like those, but there are only a few, maybe one of each, that make as close a museum quality replica as is currently available. That's a whole other topic though, but a similar concept.

I think the target is a very specific thing: which is the closest replica, in every way, to include materials and construction? It really is an honest question. If it was just the sound, I've already got a number that scratch that itch, and any of a number of companies would fit that bill.

I hope this makes more sense!

Understood. I’m not impugning your wish or your questions. I’m just a bit befuddled by the dichotomy of it all. Either way, follow your heart and it will all be good.

 

[Churchhill]

Have you gotten your hands on a comparable Vineham set? I don't remember.

They're attractive to me because small builder, and price, so o6f they do the thing, they'd be worth as look in my book.

Not yet, but I'm planning on reaching out to them, too. The price is right and their reputation is stellar!

 

[Churchhill]

Understood. I’m not impugning your wish or your questions. I’m just a bit befuddled by the dichotomy of it all. Either way, follow your heart and it will all be good.

Hey, no worries! I honestly appreciate the discussion because it really is helping me understand exactly what I am looking for. And you've raised some really valid points!

Thought of something else... I really like cars, specifically Ferraris, but I know I'll never be able to afford one unless I win the lottery (I'd have to start playing first, though). So, I'm kinda asking which kit-car is the closest to the real thing, knowing that it won't be the real thing and that part of it is psychological, anyway, and there are plenty of options. In that case, I decided on another route that I could afford, but... IDK, it's still a nice dream and dreams are a good thing to have, I think.

And, importantly, if nothing else, it's made me really go through what I do have and I appreciate it even more! I started playing music because it's fun (I was young enough to not have any other concerns at the time) and it still is fun! Even if my obsessions sometimes take me deep down rabbit holes and lead to dichotomies, it's all about discovering where I am and where I want to go, and a little bit of remembering where I've been. Heck, when I first started, I was lucky to see a Duncan or DiMarzio and I think EMGs had just come out, but that was it if you didn't like what you had. If I knew then what I know now... (isn't there a song about that??)... I passed up a ton of cheap Fenders, Gibsons, Marshalls, Voxes, real PAFs, and who knows how many other things. Oh, well... LOL!!

In all seriousness, thank you for helping me along on this latest exploration!

Edit: typo

 

[Budda]

one of the things I appreciate about this discussion is that if someone asks the OP a question, they give it serious thought and write a proper answer. Its not one sentence snippets that barely provide an answer. And that has helped OP and those offering help.

I wish more threads were like it.

Edit: @Churchhill this may be of interest:

https://www.mylespaul.com/threads/different-magnets-different-sources.487040/#post-10775270

 

[SpudMan]

The ReWind pickups look really interesting. For me the JPPre72 or Greeny seem closest to what I am looking for. But given that they are the same cost, or slightly more, than ThroBak's, are they more desireable than the ThroBak's? Not sure, but other than their business model which is: Pay up front, wait months or more with no status updates, receive (hopefully!) pickups, there could be risk in ordering. Not risk in terms of whether the builder intends to deliver, but as it is relying on an individual, things can happen in their personal life that result in no delivery. Not likely, but it is a risk. So the question is whether they are worth the risk over the ThroBak's? Again, not sure. I do like that ReWind does not outsource any of their components. That part of their business model appeals to me a lot.
For me it is a bit different decision criteria than @Churchhill. I am interested in sound first, and then given the sound, that they are build with the most authentic and quality components.

 

[skolacki]

The Duncan Seth Lover was developed by Seymour with Seth Lover who invented the PAF. Wound on the original winders, bobbin molds from the original factory etc. If the goal is accuracy I would think it would be in contention but what I’m seeing here is that it’s dismissed because they’re too popular. They’re also inexpensive, so is that viewed as a negative too? Just curious because I don’t get it.

 

[SpudMan]

The Duncan Seth Lover was developed by Seymour with Seth Lover who invented the PAF. Wound on the original winders, bobbin molds from the original factory etc. If the goal is accuracy I would think it would be in contention but what I’m seeing here is that it’s dismissed because they’re too popular. They’re also inexpensive, so is that viewed as a negative too? Just curious because I don’t get it.

Not sure if it is me or @Churchill, or both, you are asking. But from my perspective, I am more than happy to pay less. My gauge is quality, and quality is not based on price. So there can be something really expensive that isn't special or high quality, but just has good PR. IMHO the best value (quality/price) is often something less hyped and more difficult to find information on, or to find a place to purchase. Since these days the internet is unreliable at best, it is difficult to find the hidden gems, and it just seems that they tend to be more expensive, partially due to having a smaller audience/market.
I am sure Duncan pickups are just fine. To explain why I am not interested in them, I just don't think they are appealing enough to me for this particular build. As mentioned above, my other guitars all have Fralin pickups. I am very happy with Fralin, but looking for something different. I am likely wrong, but I don't feel Duncan would deliver that, and I just don't feel they are what I want/need for this particular build.
As to price, the Wolfetones look interesting, and they are inexpensive. Also the Vinehams's. So it isn't that Duncan's aren't expensive enough.
Hopefully this helps. And if I sound confused, I confess 100%, I am confused given so many options. Like Churchill, I appreciate the discussion.

 

[Churchhill]

one of the things I appreciate about this discussion is that if someone asks the OP a question, they give it serious thought and write a proper answer. Its not one sentence snippets that barely provide an answer. And that has helped OP and those offering help.

I wish more threads were like it.

Edit: @Churchhill this may be of interest:

https://www.mylespaul.com/threads/different-magnets-different-sources.487040/#post-10775270

Thank you! And yeah, it's definitely helped me. I'm only going to get out of this what I put into it, I think. And I really appreciate this forum in general because there isn't a lot of the, well, general tom-foolery that goes on in some other forums. I've only ever actively participated in three other forums going back 25 years for that very reason, which is also why I finally joined this one. Great people and great info!

That is an interesting link, and the related topic on the magnet rabbit-hole. This is something I've thought about a lot. Throbak sells 8 different magents and may stock more (IDK); James from ReWind was talking about stocking 5 different types of just A5. I do know that there is a lot of variation in the composition of what is being sold as identical grades (A2 for instance, but all of the alnicos). I also know that just swapping magnets can drastically change the sound of a pickup. I've done that more than a few times, sometimes with great results, but enough to know that I can't just swap any old A5 into a Duncan Distortion and turn it into a Duncan Distortion (supposedly the same coils), among others.

This is one of those things that I'm putting some weight behind because of my own experiences. Not many winders say much more than, well, it's an A2 or an A4. Some will mention that they're using American-made magnets, which at least says they're paying attention to how the magnet is made (I'm quite sure that other countries are more than capable of making quality magnets, so this isn't an America vs ??? statement, at least on my end). A few will go into detail about how they've analyzed old magnets, researched old records, even contacted the companies that made magnets for Gibson in the '50s. That is the kind of attention to detail that I've looking for. To me, where the magnet is made isn't nearly as important as what it's made from, how it's made, and how it's charged (not just how much it's charged, but how that charge was applied). I want those things to be as close as possible to the original.

Does it make a difference? I think anything that changes the magnetic field around a pickup makes a difference and the magnet is the source of that field. I think the magnet, along with how the coil is wound, are quite possibly the two most significant details that contribute to the final result. I know it has made a difference in every pickup I've ever swapped magnets in (whether that was a good thing or a bad thing varied, but it was always a thing).

Actually, the thought of changing the magnets in some of the pickups that I already have has crossed my mind and I may actually do that at some points. The reason I'm not looking at this as a potential solution is that all the pickups I'm looking to replace are potted. While that doesn't make it impossible to swap magnets (well, not sure it doesn't in the Gibson Tarbacks I have, don't think I'll try those), potting is also influential on the final result and I'm looking for unpotted pickups.

 

[Churchhill]

The ReWind pickups look really interesting. For me the JPPre72 or Greeny seem closest to what I am looking for. But given that they are the same cost, or slightly more, than ThroBak's, are they more desireable than the ThroBak's? Not sure, but other than their business model which is: Pay up front, wait months or more with no status updates, receive (hopefully!) pickups, there could be risk in ordering. Not risk in terms of whether the builder intends to deliver, but as it is relying on an individual, things can happen in their personal life that result in no delivery. Not likely, but it is a risk. So the question is whether they are worth the risk over the ThroBak's? Again, not sure. I do like that ReWind does not outsource any of their components. That part of their business model appeals to me a lot.
For me it is a bit different decision criteria than @Churchhill. I am interested in sound first, and then given the sound, that they are build with the most authentic and quality components.

ReWinds do look very interesting and James Finnerty seems to know his stuff. Unless I missed something (quite possible), he's a relative newcomer to this niche, at least compared to Throbak. That doesn't really mean much, I think, because everyone starts somewhere.

Have you read Finnerty's book that he co-wrote with Mario Milan? It's an interesting read and contains interviews with Jon Gundry (Throbak), Jason Lollar, Tim Mills (BKP), Wolfe Mcleod (Wolfetone), Dave Stephens, and a couple of other well-known winders. So, I think it's a fairly well-rounded compilation of research and, IMHO, doesn't come off as just an advertisement for ReWind. Milan wrote another book on pickups that I read a few years back, but thought you might be interested in this one because it goes into great detail about a lot of the stuff we've been talking about here.

It's called, "The Gibson "P.A.F." Humbucking Pickup: From Myth to Reality" ISBN-13 978-1574243642, and is available from Amazon for about $30, I think. Anyway...

I know what you mean about the wait, especially the part about "no status updates" (from ReWind's website). OTHO, with many "craft" builders in many trades, there are similar waits, kind of nature of the beast. I've heard that Ron Ellis and Tom Holmes had waiting periods of several years at one point (I don't even want to talk about the Analogman King of Tone waiting list... LOL).

Is it worth the risk? Good question. I've found no reason to believe that ReWind is anything other than an incredibly accurate recreation on the same level as Throbak. Then again, we've heard from several Throbak users here and ReWind has just recently come up. I was hoping to hear from a few more, but, given that they are not cheap and are relatively new (comparatively), there simply may not be as many users.