Jump to content

70th Anniversary Limited Edition La Scala and Cornwalls (COMING SOON)


Chad
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
16 hours ago, Khornukopia said:

Now that jimjimbo has pointed it out, it appears the images in that 1980's brochure picture were cut and pasted. The specs for the years of those speakers pictured indicate the La Scala is 35 1/4" tall, the Belle is 35 5/8" and the Cornwall is 35 3/4". The Klipschorn style B is 52" tall.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I was kind of shocked, not surprised, when Klipsch went from Baltic Birch to MDF.  I know it works just fine, but it that crap gets well, you find out real fast that MDF is simply thick paper.  Then, to charge the absurd price of $14,000, silly as hell.  Simply follows the Greater Fool theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jujubee said:

I was kind of shocked, not surprised, when Klipsch went from Baltic Birch to MDF.  I know it works just fine, but it that crap gets well, you find out real fast that MDF is simply thick paper.  Then, to charge the absurd price of $14,000, silly as hell.  Simply follows the Greater Fool theory.

You need to learn a little bit about engineered MDF...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/2/2017 at 9:54 AM, Khornukopia said:

Now that jimjimbo has pointed it out, it appears the images in that 1980's brochure picture were cut and pasted. The specs for the years of those speakers pictured indicate the La Scala is 35 1/4" tall, the Belle is 35 5/8" and the Cornwall is 35 3/4". The Klipschorn style B is 52" tall.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got this wrong... But, starting with v1.5, wasn't the CW available from the factory with an optional riser? That might account for the difference in height. The photo might be accurate (?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to make a big deal out of it, or anything; but, considering printing technology of the time (printers were using negatives and stat cameras, waxing type to paste-boards, etc.) I would say the image, as presented, is likely authentic. I did graphics in a print shop back then: As I look at the secondary and tertiary lighting, shadows, reflections... It would have been next to impossible to pull that off (no Photoshop)--and even if you did a great job--you still couldn't avoid 'leaving tracks in the snow' with that arrangement of objects in those lighting conditions...

 

In addition, it seems out-of-character for PWK. Its hard to imagine him tolerating less-than-accurate marketing and not being embarrassed by it. Its a matter of integrity. Just my 2 cents. Who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chad unpinned this topic
  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...