Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How many original C12's exist?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 10:12:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just curious how many of these wonderful mics are still out there.
Perhaps 2000? How about Elam 251's?

More about : original c12 exist

Anonymous
August 24, 2004 11:44:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I know AKG didn't keep count. I think 2000 is a good guess. I've seen
a picture of serial number 1, and if I remember right I used one in
the 1900 range. Anyone out there have one over 2000?
I am under the impression that they didn't skip numbers in production,
but it's just a guess.
I think there were significantly less E lam 250-251's, based on there
going price.

see12mic

hellenason7@aol.com (Hellenason7) wrote in message news:<20040824021233.04872.00001772@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> Just curious how many of these wonderful mics are still out there.
> Perhaps 2000? How about Elam 251's?
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 2:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<see12mic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I know AKG didn't keep count. I think 2000 is a good guess. I've seen
>a picture of serial number 1, and if I remember right I used one in
>the 1900 range. Anyone out there have one over 2000?
>I am under the impression that they didn't skip numbers in production,
>but it's just a guess.
>I think there were significantly less E lam 250-251's, based on there
>going price.

There were certainly fewer than 500 of the 251s made... and there are
probably fewer than a thousand in mike cabinets today.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 7:08:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20040824021233.04872.00001772@mb-m12.aol.com>,
hellenason7@aol.com (Hellenason7) wrote:

> Just curious how many of these wonderful mics are still out there.
> Perhaps 2000? How about Elam 251's?

Don't know how many still exist, but in doing research for a book I
found out that AKG made made about 3000 C12's for Telefunken between
1964 and 69. The original 250, and later the 251, was made from 1953 to
63.

All that being said, I gotta say that the Soundelux E-251 sounds as good
as the finest vintage 251 for a lot less money.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:53:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:cgfkhq$gar$1@panix2.panix.com:

> There were certainly fewer than 500 of the 251s made... and there are
> probably fewer than a thousand in mike cabinets today.

In which half is the typo?
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:53:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
>news:cgfkhq$gar$1@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> There were certainly fewer than 500 of the 251s made... and there are
>> probably fewer than a thousand in mike cabinets today.
>
>In which half is the typo?

Neither one. There are a _lot_ of "Telefunken" microphones out there
cobbled together from spare parts, bits and pieces, and aftermarket
material of doubtful originality.

That is why I am so delighted to see the number of people reissuing
or making quality replicas of these microphones. If you buy a reissue
that sounds like the original, you at least know what you are getting.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 10:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns954F8D782875Agulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.154.206> gulfjoe@hotmail.com writes:

> > There were certainly fewer than 500 of the 251s made... and there are
> > probably fewer than a thousand in mike cabinets today.
>
> In which half is the typo?

There are many more Gibson 5-string Mastertone banjos out there than
Gibson ever made - put together from parts, hand-made neck on a shell
that came from a 4-string banjo, whole new construction with
"copyright infringement" pearl inlay (nobody ever called it that back
then). People who restore microphones cobble together "almost
original" mics from parts.

And then there are the new ones that Telefunken USA is building -
nearly indistinguishable from the original other than lacking a layer
of dirt.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 11:56:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-8B9393.08074024082004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <20040824021233.04872.00001772@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> hellenason7@aol.com (Hellenason7) wrote:
>
> > Just curious how many of these wonderful mics are still out
there.
> > Perhaps 2000? How about Elam 251's?
>
> Don't know how many still exist, but in doing research for a book I
> found out that AKG made made about 3000 C12's for Telefunken between
> 1964 and 69. The original 250, and later the 251, was made from 1953 to
> 63.
>
> All that being said, I gotta say that the Soundelux E-251 sounds as good
> as the finest vintage 251 for a lot less money.

I'll chime in to say that the Soundelux E-251 is a very nice sounding mic. I
don't know if I've ever heard a real representative of a good Ela M 251,
but the E-251 sounds good on it's own.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 3:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

There are quite a few fake Lloyd Loar mandolins and 50s Les Paul
sunbursts out there too. When an instrument becomes worth $40-150k it
then becomes worthwhile to make perfect forgeries. Even if it takes a
year or two to make one, it's still profitable.

Al

On 24 Aug 2004 18:09:29 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <Xns954F8D782875Agulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.154.206> gulfjoe@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> > There were certainly fewer than 500 of the 251s made... and there are
>> > probably fewer than a thousand in mike cabinets today.
>>
>> In which half is the typo?
>
>There are many more Gibson 5-string Mastertone banjos out there than
>Gibson ever made - put together from parts, hand-made neck on a shell
>that came from a 4-string banjo, whole new construction with
>"copyright infringement" pearl inlay (nobody ever called it that back
>then). People who restore microphones cobble together "almost
>original" mics from parts.
>
>And then there are the new ones that Telefunken USA is building -
>nearly indistinguishable from the original other than lacking a layer
>of dirt.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 3:19:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. After listening to
several real 251's and a couple of the Soundelux E-251's, I found a
huge difference that was immediately apparent. The best way to
describe it is the soundelux sounded like someone added the "cool
engineer guy hi & lo boost eq" to a good mic. The real 251 just
sounds glorious, with incredible sensitivity. Of course, the quality
of original 251's varies from mic to mic, so it's possible the
soundelux has outperformed 251's you've listened to.

Also it was my impression that approximately 2000 251's were produced.
Half were the E export version w/6072, the other half were ac701.

DS


Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<polymedia-8B9393.08074024082004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
> In article <20040824021233.04872.00001772@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> hellenason7@aol.com (Hellenason7) wrote:
>
> > Just curious how many of these wonderful mics are still out there.
> > Perhaps 2000? How about Elam 251's?
>
> Don't know how many still exist, but in doing research for a book I
> found out that AKG made made about 3000 C12's for Telefunken between
> 1964 and 69. The original 250, and later the 251, was made from 1953 to
> 63.
>
> All that being said, I gotta say that the Soundelux E-251 sounds as good
> as the finest vintage 251 for a lot less money.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 3:21:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. After listening to
several real 251's and a couple of the Soundelux E-251's, I found a
huge difference that was immediately apparent. The best way to
describe it is the soundelux sounded like someone added the "cool
engineer guy hi & lo boost eq" to a good mic. The real 251 just
sounds glorious, with incredible sensitivity. Of course, the quality
of original 251's varies from mic to mic, so it's possible the
soundelux has outperformed 251's you've listened to.

Also it was my impression that approximately 2000 251's were produced.
Half were the E export version w/6072, the other half were ac701.

DS


Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<polymedia-8B9393.08074024082004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
> In article <20040824021233.04872.00001772@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> hellenason7@aol.com (Hellenason7) wrote:
>
> > Just curious how many of these wonderful mics are still out there.
> > Perhaps 2000? How about Elam 251's?
>
> Don't know how many still exist, but in doing research for a book I
> found out that AKG made made about 3000 C12's for Telefunken between
> 1964 and 69. The original 250, and later the 251, was made from 1953 to
> 63.
>
> All that being said, I gotta say that the Soundelux E-251 sounds as good
> as the finest vintage 251 for a lot less money.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 6:39:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Smith: >I'll chime in to say that the Soundelux E-251 is a very nice
sounding mic. I
>don't know if I've ever heard a real representative of a good Ela M 251,
>but the E-251 sounds good on it's own.

I'll second that and add that it is far more than just a vocal mic.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 7:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In a review I wrote for the ELUX-251 in October '01...

http://www.proaudioreview.com/par/october01/Soundelux.s...

....there was also a sidebar ("The Making Of A Classic") that apperared only in
the ink-and-paper magazine. It was a brief history of the ELAM 251, based on
interviews I had with David Bock, the designer of all the Soundelux mics, and
to a much larger extent with Oliver Archut, an expert on Telefunken history. He
also runs Tab-Funkenwerk, a company that makes Telefunken mic preamp
recreations.

According to Oliver, the ELAM 251 was created as a response to Neumann's
termination of Telefunken's role in U47 production in 1963. Neumann had always
built the all U47s, but had a subcontract with Telefunken allowing them to to
sell the mics badged with their name outside of Germany until that time.

They turned to AKG for a replacement. AKG built the ELAM 251 for Telefunken to
sell under its name as Neumann had with the U47, but this time there was no
exact AKG equivalent (Nemann and Telefunken U47s were identical in every way
except the name plate). The 251 was loosely based on AKG's C12, but enough
changes were made for it to be fairly considered its own thing.

The subcontract between Telefunken and AKG ended in 1969 with the 251 being
pretty much a flop in the marketplace through the time, largely because its
strong, extended HF response was too much for most 60's era electronics to pass
cleanly. The far mellower U67s were much more popular then.

According to Archut, only about 3000 250/251s were manufactured worldwide. They
were so undesireable that by the early 80's they could be bought used in
Germany for about $100! Perception of the mic gradually started changing not
too long after that.

Just a bit... : )


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 7:40:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Aug 2004 15:40:05 GMT, prestokid@aol.com (Ted Spencer) wrote:

>The subcontract between Telefunken and AKG ended in 1969 with the 251 being
>pretty much a flop in the marketplace through the time, largely because its
>strong, extended HF response was too much for most 60's era electronics to pass
>cleanly. The far mellower U67s were much more popular then.

This seems surprisingly counter-intuitive to me? I would have thought
that a mic with extended high end would have been helpful with analog
recording.

Al
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 10:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <86381fc2.0408251019.18ddcec4@posting.google.com> am864u@hotmail.com writes:

> I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. After listening to
> several real 251's and a couple of the Soundelux E-251's, I found a
> huge difference that was immediately apparent.

Hmmmm . . . shades of the discussion about vintage guitars that
drifted off the U87 discussion here. I suspect this is a result of the
Soundelux being modeled after certain mics. Compare yours to the ones
David used to model his E251 and they'll probably sound different,
too.

I'd expect that of any 30+ year old electromechanical device.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 12:40:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I would have thought
>that a mic with extended high end would have been helpful with analog
>recording.
>
>Al

Not when what you're using it with converts the extended high end into harmonic
distortion, as was the case with many signal chains at the time.

Most gear was vastly lower in performance back then (paricularly in headroom
terms) compared to what we're used to now. Those were the early days of solid
state pro audio gear, much of which was truly awful, and mercifully has not
gained "vintage" status in modern times, but rather has been relegated to the
pro audio scrap heap where it belongs. It was also the later days of all-tube
gear dominance, much of which was also pretty bad by contemporary standards.
Only a small percentage of what was made in the 60s has gained "cool vintage"
status now, and most of the pieces that have are better used for color and
character than cleanness and fidelity.

Few people to this day would want to use even one of the best mid-60s era mic
pres with an ELAM-251 for a vocal. More likely at least a 70s era API or Neve
or something much newer like an Avalon, Millenia, Great River or what have you.

Nonetheless it is pretty incredible that such a remarkable piece as an ELAM 251
was initially so widely ignored. Same thing happened to Fairchild 670 limiters,
which were literally being discarded by many studios in the 70s (and I mean
literally, like thrown into dumpsters). Nice ones are in the $20 grand range
now...


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 12:50:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. After listening to
>several real 251's and a couple of the Soundelux E-251's, I found a
>huge difference that was immediately apparent. The best way to
>describe it is the soundelux sounded like someone added the "cool
>engineer guy hi & lo boost eq" to a good mic.

You're right. I noticed that exact difference in my PAR magazine review of the
ELUX-251, and asked David Bock about it, who confirmed that it was a conscious
chioce to alter that aspect of the mic's character. He felt that doing so
prevented "midrange buildup" in successive passes of stacked vocal tracks and
the like. It's a choice he made which one can like or dislike. I think the ELUX
is a superb mic regardless, but you're right in that it does differ
significantly from the ELAM in that way.

The scooped midrange (or hyped ends as you put it) are also characteristic of
some other Soundelux mics I've heard. I also asked David about the E47 with
respect to that, and he told me he chose not to scoop the mids on it. I haven't
heard the E47 myself though, so I can't comment on how that ultimately played
out.



Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 1:26:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Aug 2004 20:40:17 GMT, prestokid@aol.com (Ted Spencer) wrote:

>Most gear was vastly lower in performance back then (paricularly in headroom
>terms) compared to what we're used to now. Those were the early days of solid
>state pro audio gear, much of which was truly awful, and mercifully has not
>gained "vintage" status in modern times, but rather has been relegated to the
>pro audio scrap heap where it belongs.

I remember reading a quote from a guy that worked for Motown (the name
escapes me, sorry) saying that when the Motown engineers heard their
first solid state console they "wanted to slit their wrists" because
it sounded so bad compared to the tube gear they were accustomed to.

Al
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 4:43:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ted Spencer" <prestokid@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040825164017.06859.00003651@mb-m13.aol.com...
> Same thing happened to Fairchild 670 limiters,
> which were literally being discarded by many studios in the 70s (and I
mean
> literally, like thrown into dumpsters). Nice ones are in the $20 grand
range
> now...

I'd say if you can find one for $20k, BUY IT... you could turn around &
sell it instantly for $5k profit & still be $4k-$5k under the avg. market
price!

No doubt William would find that an offensive capitalist move :) 
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 1:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ggpqi0devrua0qcfcb63chl03o8g8qg78m@4ax.com>,
playon <playonATcomcast.net> wrote:
>On 25 Aug 2004 20:40:17 GMT, prestokid@aol.com (Ted Spencer) wrote:
>
>>Most gear was vastly lower in performance back then (paricularly in headroom
>>terms) compared to what we're used to now. Those were the early days of solid
>>state pro audio gear, much of which was truly awful, and mercifully has not
>>gained "vintage" status in modern times, but rather has been relegated to the
>>pro audio scrap heap where it belongs.
>
>I remember reading a quote from a guy that worked for Motown (the name
>escapes me, sorry) saying that when the Motown engineers heard their
>first solid state console they "wanted to slit their wrists" because
>it sounded so bad compared to the tube gear they were accustomed to.

True, but that early solid state stuff sounds pretty bad by any standard....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 4:38:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Evidently there are a few who think they can get good money for it.... a
little creative writing will do wonders....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...


Rgds:
Eric


"Ted Spencer" <prestokid@aol.com> wrote in message

"Those were the early days of solid state pro audio gear, much of which was
truly awful, and mercifully has not gained "vintage" status in modern times,
but rather has been relegated to the pro audio scrap heap where it belongs.
Ted Spencer, NYC"
>
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ggpqi0devrua0qcfcb63chl03o8g8qg78m@4ax.com...
> On 25 Aug 2004 20:40:17 GMT, prestokid@aol.com (Ted Spencer) wrote:
>
> >Most gear was vastly lower in performance back then (paricularly in
headroom
> >terms) compared to what we're used to now. Those were the early days of
solid
> >state pro audio gear, much of which was truly awful, and mercifully has
not
> >gained "vintage" status in modern times, but rather has been relegated
to the
> >pro audio scrap heap where it belongs.
>
> I remember reading a quote from a guy that worked for Motown (the name
> escapes me, sorry) saying that when the Motown engineers heard their
> first solid state console they "wanted to slit their wrists" because
> it sounded so bad compared to the tube gear they were accustomed to.

ISTR that was Bob O. - who said it right here on this group, in fact.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 9:46:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ggpqi0devrua0qcfcb63chl03o8g8qg78m@4ax.com...
> I remember reading a quote from a guy that worked for Motown (the name
> escapes me, sorry) saying that when the Motown engineers heard their
> first solid state console they "wanted to slit their wrists" because
> it sounded so bad compared to the tube gear they were accustomed to.

I posted it. I was quoting Doug Botnick who was telling me about his first
experience using a new solid state console at Sunset Sound.

We had both kinds at Motown and I got to compare the difference every day.
It took another 10 or 15 years for solid state gear to become available with
as wide of a "sweet spot" and that was outboard mike preamps as opposed to
consoles.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 11:37:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> In article <Xns954F8D782875Agulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.154.206> gulfjoe@hotmail.com writes:

>> > There were certainly fewer than 500 of the 251s made... and there are
>> > probably fewer than a thousand in mike cabinets today.
>>
>> In which half is the typo?

> There are many more Gibson 5-string Mastertone banjos out there than
> Gibson ever made - put together from parts, hand-made neck on a shell
> that came from a 4-string banjo, whole new construction with
> "copyright infringement" pearl inlay (nobody ever called it that back
> then). People who restore microphones cobble together "almost
> original" mics from parts.

Just like all the Neve mic preamps out there that are cobbled together
from talkbackmodules, line amps, and distribution amps.

Rob R.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 12:54:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cgle5v$u8i$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca> reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca writes:

> Just like all the Neve mic preamps out there that are cobbled together
> from talkbackmodules, line amps, and distribution amps.

And then there are the "Ampex tube mic preamps" that are actually tape
electronics.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 8:25:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

am864u@hotmail.com (The Federal) wrote in message news:<86381fc2.0408251021.1f76e9da@posting.google.com>...
> I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. After listening to
> several real 251's and a couple of the Soundelux E-251's, I found a
> huge difference that was immediately apparent. The best way to
> describe it is the soundelux sounded like someone added the "cool
> engineer guy hi & lo boost eq" to a good mic. The real 251 just
> sounds glorious, with incredible sensitivity. Of course, the quality
> of original 251's varies from mic to mic, so it's possible the
> soundelux has outperformed 251's you've listened to.
>
> Also it was my impression that approximately 2000 251's were produced.
> Half were the E export version w/6072, the other half were ac701.
>
> DS

How many of you have tried the (new) Telefunken USA version of the
'251.
It edges out any other vocal mic (u87ai/RCA 77/Manley/etc.) I've tried
out on my voice so far.

But...

A Shure 548, 545, or SM7 with a good mic pre/EQ on me comes mighty
close! <g>

Chris
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 1:18:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Del Faro <cdelfaro@homesoc.com> wrote:
>
>How many of you have tried the (new) Telefunken USA version of the
>'251.
>It edges out any other vocal mic (u87ai/RCA 77/Manley/etc.) I've tried
>out on my voice so far.

They got most of the things right in their reproduction. There were a
couple really important things that they didn't get right, but which can
probably be tweaked after the fact by an expert mike tech.

>A Shure 548, 545, or SM7 with a good mic pre/EQ on me comes mighty
>close! <g>

The SM7 and RE-20 are honestly my favorite vocal mikes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 2:24:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<cgomh3$c8n$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> The SM7 and RE-20 are honestly my favorite vocal mikes.
> --scott

Scott, as you may recall, I have the EV 666 which IMHO is terrific for
crooner style vocals as it's very smooooth also like those two.
It sounds somewhat similar to a RCA 77 ribbon I think, and has some
more top end compared to my RE15-although that's a fine vocal mic too.

Nice if the 666's were still able to be fully repaired, as needed, by
EV or
whomever...

Chris
!