Gibson 1961 - 62

[GoMano]

Hey folks -

Which of Seymour's pickups approximates (or even matches) the Gibson PAF's (or whatever) that were in 1962, 62, and even later Les Paul SG's - "Antiquities", "59" or "Seth Lover's"?

Thanks!

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

I'll try my best to do this...this is my take on the whole thing...

Gibson was not very picky about somethings in the old days...pickups were one of them. This means that ALL PAF's sound different from another...I have heard that both alnico II and V magnets were used in PAF's as well as Alnico III magnets in a few pair...BTW Seymour Did a great article for Vintage Guitar a few years ago aobut PAF's...if you can, I recomend reading it.

On to the pickups...

A 59 is made just like Gibson made the earliest humbucking pickups...they sound like it too. The enameled wire, nickel-plated studs, balanced coil windings are all things that the late 50's PAF pickups had in common.

A Seth Lover pickup is made almost exactly like Mr. Lovers original drawings showed...this changes the tone just a bit...slightly less output (I mean SLIGHTLY), a tiny bit more midrange. Nickel silver bottom plate, butyrate plastic bobbins; plain enamel wire, an Alnico bar magnet, and a nickel silver cover instead of brass (which magnetically eliminates too much of the pickup's natural high-end tone) are things that make up this pickups sound.
Both the 59 and Seth have a killer PAF tone and vibe, I have found the Seth to bit a bit more mellow, thats not saying that a 59 is not a very smooth sound. Both of these pickups are great and for most applications, either would do the same great job a real set of PAF's would do...for a LOT less money!

Antiquity's

This is what a set of 50's PAF will sound like TODAY, after they are 50 years old...Very mellow, very warm, they are hand made by Seymour and MJ (which IMO opinion adds to the mojo...not to mention the tone!). They also look 50 years old.

If you were going for killer rock-n-roll, I'd suggest a set of 59's, if you wanted a great smooth clean tone that would fair very well in crunch situations, get a set of Seth's, if you have the extra money to spend and want the tone that a 59 Les Paul is gonna give you TODAY...not the sound it would have given you in 1959, get a set of Antiquity's.

I hope this helped a little bit.

The guy who invented fire

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

BTW...by 1961 and 1962 the pickups Gibson were using were NOT PAF's they were Pat. # pickups...some say that there is no difference, the truth is by that time they were using Alnico V magnets all the time, these pickups are a little more agressive that a late 50's PAF...if you want the tone that comes with early 60's SG/Les Pauls...I'd get a set of 59's and call it a day! These really are killer pickups.

Mike Einziger
Jimmy Page
Steve Stevens
Charles Benante
Paul Crook
Gilby Clarke\
Nick Hexum
Stephen Carpenter
****ey Betts
Rob Brewer
Mike Chlasciak
Lenny Kravitz

Lese folks and many others use 59's

Good luck
Robben Ford
Dimebag Darrell

[mrfjones]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

i will skip my explaination, get a set of 59's.

I may have a set for sale next week, once i get my antiquities in my bluesbird

[Simon_F]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

I'd vote for '59s too.

guy who invented - Good post!

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

Thanks so much

[dr.barlo]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

Hot 59's, better yet a hot set of antiquities with a5 magnets.

B

[GoMano]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

Invented: I appreciate so very much the time you took in explaining all this to me. 59's it shall be!

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

cool man...I love them!!!

[jeremy]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

yea for a 60's gibson tone i think 59s are the way to go. think claptons cream era tone

[bryvincent]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

also note starting '61, patent#/PAF HBs have shorter magnets

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

Jeremy naild it...

59's ar more Cream Era Clapton while Ant's or Seth's would be more Bluesbreaker tone!

[theboatcandream]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

I've heard some scary things about the 59 and the Seth though. That the 59 lacks mids, and that the Seth is muddy. Does this mean that the 59 is geared more towards a mahogany / Gibson style guitar, and taht the Seth is geared more towards a maple-ash/alder / Fender style guitar?



EDIT: I also read an interesting article that someone linked to on this site a week or two ago, it was by some guys who used the same rig to compare the Seth Lover, Antiquities, 59, 57 Classic, and BurstBuckers. They weren't too keen on the BurstBuckers, but they said that the 57 Classic has a lot in common with the 59 and both are great for rock but not exactly their idea of PAF. The Antiquities and Seth both came out on top, they had a number of nice things to say about the sound of the Antiquities which weren't in the Seth. I wish I had the link.


EDIT II: What do you guys make of this?

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

I would disagree with BOTH of the statements...I find the Seth Lover very warm...maybe with enough gain someone thought this was a muddy sound, and as for the 59's lacking mids...I would say that a 59 has a very good top end, and once again maybe someone heard that as lacking mids...I really think that a 59 is a killer all around pup, it can do everything...it sounds just like a early 60's Gibson Humbucker, and a Seth nails the late 50's PAF...something about the Seth's, if you remove the cover it makes a hugh difference, it makes a difference on any bucker but because the covers are different on a Seth it makes a bigger difference...I won't say if it's "better" bu tit is different.

[theboatcandream]

Re: Gibson 1961 - 62

I would disagree with BOTH of the statements...I find the Seth Lover very warm...maybe with enough gain someone thought this was a muddy sound, and as for the 59's lacking mids...I would say that a 59 has a very good top end, and once again maybe someone heard that as lacking mids...I really think that a 59 is a killer all around pup, it can do everything...it sounds just like a early 60's Gibson Humbucker, and a Seth nails the late 50's PAF...something about the Seth's, if you remove the cover it makes a hugh difference, it makes a difference on any bucker but because the covers are different on a Seth it makes a bigger difference...I won't say if it's "better" bu tit is different.

How is it different? I hear people say how the unwaxed cover adds some kind of woodiness or airiness or other kind of resonance... but removing the cover versus having it wax potted as a custom floor model?