Kamaka tenor: 2002 versus 2012

bearbike137

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
513
Reaction score
19
Location
Chicago, IL
I recently picked up a used 2002 Kamaka tenor that I really like. First, it is amazing how great a "broken in" uke sounds. From the marks on it, my used Kamaka was obviously played a lot and, man, it sounds like it. When I played in next to the 2012 Kamaka I had on trial, there was no comparison. While the new one was picked for me as the "best" among a half dozen that a dealer had in stock, it paled in comparison to the used uke. The 2002 was way more open and full-sounding, and louder. The 2012 was still very nice, however.

However, I also was surprised by how different the body shapes were for two Kamaka tenors made ten years apart. The lower bout and the bottom of the 2012 Kamaka is much rounder (and larger?) than the 2002 Kamaka. In fact, the 2012 version could not fit into the 2002 case - it wasn't even close. The 2012 neck is significantly beefier, too. Photos below (top: 2002, bottom: 2012. By the way, the photo of 2012 uke is NOT the one I had on trial.)

180U-1556_body-front.jpg

artisan_01_78431_8trt5baukpgcscwks80c8c0wk_1n4kr7rgh18gs08gcg0csw4kg_th.jpg


As Kamaka is the grandaddy of uke makers, so to speak, this surprised me a bit. It strikes me the same as if Martin changed the specs on their classic dreadnought design. I am not saying it is a bad thing or good thing - but I am curious if anyone knows when this change occurred and why? I know makers "tweak" their designs over the years, but this appears to be much more than a tweak.
 
Last edited:
I'm certain the luthiers that frequent this board will have much more learned responses, but I would venture a guess that part of the redesign of the Kamaka to a wider lower bout is to increase volume and perhaps some clarity among the lower notes.

It seems that so many uker buyers now place a premium on volume and projection. The Kanile'a tenor has a really stout okole, so maybe Kamaka had to put more into their badonk to keep up?

What's more telling, though, is how you noticed that the sound of the '02 is so much richer, fuller, and developed than the '12. There definitely is something to the idea that over time an instrument that is played will shift from the tightness of it's birth into a nice, open comfort of maturity,

So the bigger question is, will you keep your '12 or just stick with the '02?
 
What's more telling, though, is how you noticed that the sound of the '02 is so much richer, fuller, and developed than the '12. There definitely is something to the idea that over time an instrument that is played will shift from the tightness of it's birth into a nice, open comfort of maturity,

So the bigger question is, will you keep your '12 or just stick with the '02?

The 2012 is back hanging in the store and the 2002 is here to stay! :)
 
I love my 2003 soprano. But I do wonder what strings the 2012 had on it. Did it have the Kamaka stock strings on it? I personally dislike the Kamaka strings and that could make a big difference in how it sounded to you.
 
When I toured the Kamaka factory in 2011, Fred Kamaka showed me both the old side-bending machines they'd been using and the new side-bending machines that were about to replace the old ones. As you can see in the photo (click to enlarge), the old side-bending machines (on the right) had a fixed shape that could not be changed. The new machines are computerized and might permit Kamaka to experiment with different curves in bending the sides. I wonder if it's possible that the new machines bend the sides differently (either because Kamaka wants them to or because they just do).


_img_0261.jpg

I agree that it's possible the that the difference in sound you experienced may be attributable to the strings on the ukuleles you were comparing. I have a 2010 Kamaka tenor I bought new and a 2005 Kamaka tenor I bought used. The 2005 tenor sounds better to me, but it has Worth strings while the 2010 tenor has the factory strings (which I'm about to swap out for fluorocarbon strings). My 2010 tenor was built using the old side-bending machines. I don't have them in the same location at the moment, but when I have a chance I'll compare them to see if the bodies are the same shape.
 
I love my 2003 soprano. But I do wonder what strings the 2012 had on it. Did it have the Kamaka stock strings on it? I personally dislike the Kamaka strings and that could make a big difference in how it sounded to you.
I definately agree with roxhum, I sent my gold label pineapple to Kamaka for some repairs and it came back with the Kamaka strings on it and they are rather lifeless sounding to me. I bought a set of Worths to try on it but haven't gotten around to changing them.
 
I love my 2003 soprano. But I do wonder what strings the 2012 had on it. Did it have the Kamaka stock strings on it? I personally dislike the Kamaka strings and that could make a big difference in how it sounded to you.

Yeah, the new Kamaka had factory strings on it, but the used Kamaka had strings on it that were decrepid and it still sounded better. Don't get me wrong, the new Kamaka sounded very nice - I almost kept it. That said, all things being equal, a uke that has been played regularly for ten years SHOULD sound better than one that just left the factory. That is the nature of tonewoods and properly built instruments.
 
Last edited:
I think I waylaid my own thread by my comments on the sound of the used Kamaka versus the new Kamaka. Actually, I was most interested in anything anyone might know about the change in body shape in the Kamaka tenor that appears to have taken place this year. Photos of a 2002 Kamaka tenor and a 2012 Kamaka tenor are below. According to MDS725, they have new side bending machines in their shop, but I am a bit surprised that the grandaddy of uke makers would change Coke's formula...:) As I mentioned, the 2012 can't even begin to fit in the 2002 case.

2002:
180U-1556_body-front.jpg


2012:
artisan_01_78431_8trt5baukpgcscwks80c8c0wk_1n4kr7rgh18gs08gcg0csw4kg_th.jpg
 
Last edited:
Even though I don't like speculation as much as proof...

So much has happened in the ukulele industry in the last ten years. Heck, when the older Kamaka was made there really wasn't a ukulele industry.

Here's a price list of all the ukuleles carried by Elderly back then (well, Nov. 2001 actually).

Yes, Kamaka is the grandaddy, but how often do grandads and inflexible people get left behind as the world is moving ahead? Have you ever seen my grandad try to browse the internet? Kamaka went from being the clear favorite for many years when shopping for a quality factory-made uke, to being one of 50 or 60 rapidly growing ukulele manufacturers supplying the whole world. As the industry grew and the prices drove lower and lower as better imports came in, they needed to make some changes to remain competitive.

They probably needed to tweak things to attract some of the younger generation that was coming to the forefront right around the time your uke was made. I don't think Jake signed on with Kamaka until 2006-7 (? correct me if I'm wrong), and before that he was playing a Ko'olau. He did have a custom made HF-3 before 2006, but that was also prior to the redesign of the factory instruments. Maybe Casey Kamaka preferred the sound coming from Jake's custom and decided to implement those changes to the rest of the line??

Again, this is just some speculating on my part. You should watch this video to get more info on Kamaka's history and designs: http://video.pbs.org/video/1480799425
 
Last edited:
By the way - my comments about the change in the shape of the Kamaka Tenor are not meant to be pejorative - I am mostly just curious what, if anything, anyone knows about the thinking/motivation for the changes. I love Kamaka ukes. I have owned 3 of them. Thanks.
 
I think Kamaka has made a number of changes over the years to their designs. At least with sopranos they changed over the years. I hope the links work...

Here is a 1918 soprano style 3 http://unofficialkamakaukulele.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1918style3soprano1.jpg
Here is a 1972 soprano: http://www.denverfolklore.com/images/instruments/Kamaka_uke_1972/Kamaka_uke_fr_opt.jpg
And a brand new one: http://www.acousticvibesmusic.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=1290

I have a feeling as molds and forms wore out they're replace them with new ones that might have been a little different, or they may have just free handed a lot of stuff (like old Kumalae ukes). They might not have had any grand thought or design scheme just upgraded tools that did things a little different. I guess you could always call them and ask about it. We'd all love to hear anything they have to say on the topic I'm sure.
 
Maybe my reaction is overly influenced by my lifelong guitar habit. Certain shapes and specs are dogma in the guitar world: Gibson Historics attempt to recreate the Bursts; Martin has made their dreadnoughts to the same specs for nearly ninety years; Don Grosh, who I think made the best Strat style guitar out there, recently released an exact Strat copy due to customer demand; LsL/Nash/GVCG try to replicate the blackguard Tele and such. The uke world appears to be a lot more fluid!
 
Like any other products, manufactures will continuing upgrading them....kamaka is no different through the years... besides there may other reasons besides yours for the sound difference
as no ukulele sounds alike...they all have their won voice due to the many variances in the building process..
 
I don't think Jake signed on with Kamaka until 2006-7 (? correct me if I'm wrong), and before that he was playing a Ko'olau.

Jake has played a Kamaka since he was four years old - he has said this in many interviews.
 
Jake has played a Kamaka since he was four years old - he has said this in many interviews.

Right, I knew that...I don't think he was actually actively sponsored by them until 06-07. He's probably played every K brand at some point, but I do know that he was playing Ko'olau until some point after Dragon. I don't know that he was sponsored by them, though. I was talking about actual sponsorship, which is a big decision for the player and the factory because they're tied to one another for a period of time, and tied to each other's reputation as well. Getting Jake to play a custom Kamaka day in and day out couldn't have been too hard for a luthier like Casey Kamaka, and I just thought that because that body shape was so different compared to the factory models, they might have tried to make their line more like the custom that Jake played.

I could also be completely wrong!! I wish one of the Kamaka bros was on UU.
 
but I do know that he was playing Ko'olau until some point after Dragon.

I don't think he has ever played a Ko'olau except maybe in passing - it has always been Kamaka. From the Kamaka site Fun FAQs.... "Ukulele extraordinaire Jake Shimabukuro began playing a Kamaka standard when he was 4. He later progressed to a Kamaka concert, and then a Kamaka 6-string. He settled with a Kamaka tenor, which he plays today."

Sorry for the hijack - back to the program....
 
I don't think he has ever played a Ko'olau except maybe in passing - it has always been Kamaka. From the Kamaka site Fun FAQs.... "Ukulele extraordinaire Jake Shimabukuro began playing a Kamaka standard when he was 4. He later progressed to a Kamaka concert, and then a Kamaka 6-string. He settled with a Kamaka tenor, which he plays today."

Sorry for the hijack - back to the program....

You're absolutely right, I'm sorry. Shows you what I know about Jake I guess! I always thought this was a Ko'olau:

1294320035_51814sqctol._.jpg


The logo on it is throwing me off...I guess it is a Kamaka with a different logo, but I've never seen one of their ukes without the KK logo.

Anyways, yes I agree, back to the topic...sorry for the sidetrack...
 
Top Bottom