Gibson SGs are the ****.

[PonyKiller]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

As I said in my post above, I'm pretty sure the guitars above are early prototypes rather than later ones. Les Paul and Mary Ford divorced in 1961 and Les Paul ended his endorsement deal with Gibson at the same time. He later resumed as a solo endorsee in 1966.

That's what seems odd to me. That picture was most likely taken on or before '61 but those SG, in particular the place where the neck is set, looks to me like the construction of the '70s SG. Again, hard to tell from a photo.

Maybe that's how Les Paul intended the SG to be but Gibson changed it? Like the story (read it around the internet, dunno if its true) of how he wanted the original Les Paul to be neck-thru and Gibson dropped the idea. Hahaha, don't mind me, just speculating...

 

[Hellion]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

I like SGs a lot. My first serious guitar (and still my "wife" guitar) was a Standard. They're perfect guitars for a power trio, because they allow the bass to have the majority of the lower mid and bass frequencies, and there's still plenty of room for them to cut through the mix. I've never had a "neck heavy" problem with them, but I know how to fix it if I do.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

SGs are cool, but I wouldn't get one for a couple of functional reasons: front mounted jack, bunched up controls, flimsier neck than other axes. I prefer old Juniors somewhat more in this respect, as they have a longer neck tenon than the other models. I think it's also a bummer that the 60s Standards didn't come with a factory stop tail; and too many modern SGs I've seen have a horrendous neck angle, so the bridge pu is practically maxed out in height.

A friend of mine has an original '61 that's seen better days (Grovered, Nashvilled, cracked neck joint), but it's a fair mojo guitar and would be pretty sweet if fixed up. Neck isn't too skinny either like on many '61s.

That's what seems odd to me. That picture was most likely taken on or before '61 but those SG, in particular the place where the neck is set, looks to me like the construction of the '70s SG. Again, hard to tell from a photo.

Maybe that's how Les Paul intended the SG to be but Gibson changed it? Like the story (read it around the internet, dunno if its true) of how he wanted the original Les Paul to be neck-thru and Gibson dropped the idea. Hahaha, don't mind me, just speculating...

The photo of Les and Mary shows some protos, which are probably 1960. Neck joint seems consistent with early ones. Interesting also that the bridge pu is also closer to the bridge.

There are a few examples of 1960 SGs out there, which are distinguished by an ink stamped serial number and numbering system of 50s guitars, and PAFs. Apart from that, the guitars are the same spec as '61-'63 models. So, I guess Les and Mary's ones are either earlier or just personal spec, even after the production model was finalized.

I think it was the SG Les wanted as a neck through but G overruled him, just like they did with the way strings wrapped around the trapeze on '52/'53 LPs.

 

[The Owl]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

SGs are cool, but I wouldn't get one for a couple of functional reasons: front mounted jack, bunched up controls, flimsier neck than other axes. I prefer old Juniors somewhat more in this respect, as they have a longer neck tenon than the other models. I think it's also a bummer that the 60s Standards didn't come with a factory stop tail; and too many modern SGs I've seen have a horrendous neck angle, so the bridge pu is practically maxed out in height. -------

----I think it was the SG Les wanted as a neck through but G overruled him, just like they did with the way strings wrapped around the trapeze on '52/'53 LPs.

I'm with you there. I've had 2 SG's in my life (a heavily modified '64 SG Junior and an Epi SG), LOVED the sound and physical feel of the guitar, but the spongy neck joint was its downfall. If I ever get one again, I would rather have a solid neck-thru clone built for me with a full 24-fret neck. Gibson should've listened to Les.

 

[LtKojak]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

I wouldn't get one for a couple of functional reasons: front mounted jack,

What's the problem with a front-mounted jack...?

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

What's the problem with a front-mounted jack...?

When you step on the cord too many times it can cause the wood around the jack to break... Now of you course you could just wrap your cable through your guitar strap so if you step on it it yanks down on the strap button but no thats too difficult. :grumble:

 

[papersoul]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Gibson SG with Rio Grande BBQ set is UNREAL!

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Gibson SG with Rio Grande BBQ set is UNREAL!

+1!!! :friday: Its one of my all time favorite combos.

 

[uncleerniebs]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

I have a Zoot Suit with the stock 496R and 500T and I've used it on two recording gigs and it plays and sounds great. My Mesa Boogie Stiletto Ace combo helps of course

 

[papersoul]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

+1!!! :friday: Its one of my all time favorite combos.

Yep, GREAT! I actually think I like an SG with Gibson Circuit board pickups - Bill Lawrence designed HB-L and HB-R even more.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

If I ever get one again, I would rather have a solid neck-thru clone built for me with a full 24-fret neck. Gibson should've listened to Les.

Yep, I'd go for the same spec. 22 frets are totally wasted on an SG.

They do sound great though - one of my favourite tones is Cream's 'Crossroads', showcasing the Fool SG.

When you step on the cord too many times it can cause the wood around the jack to break... Now of you course you could just wrap your cable through your guitar strap so if you step on it it yanks down on the strap button but no thats too difficult. :grumble:

Well, I don't step on the lead when unplugging but yeah, there's not a lot of wood holding that jack. I'd rather have it side mounted on a metal plate.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

It's also why he signed them with a nail.

Wait what? I havent heard this before? He signed them with a nail? :?:

 

[theboatcandream]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Wait what? I havent heard this before? He signed them with a nail? :?:

Maybe just the 1961 les paul jrs if it wasn't SGs? A friend of mine plays one and it has Les Paul's signature scratched into it that way.

I wasn't aware of Les Paul physically signing any production guitars unless someone brought one to him and asked him to personally..

Correct.

 

[sosomething]

Maybe just the 1961 les paul jrs if it wasn't SGs? A friend of mine plays one and it has Les Paul's signature scratched into it that way.

I wasn't aware of Les Paul physically signing any production guitars unless someone brought one to him and asked him to personally..

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

^^ Yeah...

For '61-'63 guitars: Juniors are the only ones that have the gold silk screened 'Les Paul' logo on the headstock, with 'Junior' in subscript. Standards had 'Les Paul' on the truss rod cover; Customs on the plate between the neck pu and fretboard; Specials had nothing.

 

[The Owl]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Some odd SG variations:

The SG Pro (circa early 70's)

The SG Deluxe

The SG I

The SG II

The SG III

The SG 100

SG 200/250

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

^^ Ugh. I think SGs suffered the most under Norlin.

 

[Diego]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Yikes... The SG II and SG III maybe, but the others? Ugly things.

 

[PonyKiller]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Gibson was so cheap on the '70s. Front loaded electronics? Hahaha. Most of those were budget models. Only the deluxe was a higher end model and was really short lived.

Other thing I dislike about the Norlin SG's is the almost slab body. They got lazy on the contours.

 

[The Owl]

Re: Gibson SGs are the ****.

Gibson was so cheap on the '70s. Front loaded electronics? Hahaha. Most of those were budget models. Only the deluxe was a higher end model and was really short lived.

Other thing I dislike about the Norlin SG's is the almost slab body. They got lazy on the contours.

Definitely agree with you there, although I have to admit I kinda like the SG II and SG Deluxe. Norlin was pretty lazy with that series though I do agree, I much prefer the nice beveling of the 60's SG's.