Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Nagash

Nagash

New member
This is something I start wondering about... what do you think about binding ? IMO it looks cool, yeah, but I don't know what it's good for except the visual thing.

I've seen binding mostly on quality guitars, never on entry-level ones, but I've also seen high-q guitars without binding (like the Ibanez Steve Vai signature JEM7V for example).

Pros and cons (I think there's something with refretting or so), personal opinions, preferences ? What about you ?
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Ibanez have been putting binding on their lower end RG series guitars for quite a while now.
Binding is cool, but it doesn't make a guitar look better as such to me, just different really.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

i love the way Binding looks... but ya it costs more for refrets... but also even if it's a minor complaint on my part i don't like the way Gibson does their binding with it ground down around the fret ends... my 76 Les Paul i had refretted not long after i bought it around 1989 or so... the guy cut the fret tang and placed the frets to the edge of the binding... Loved it... when that guitar's neck joint failed i had to have it steamed apart and rebuilt with a new fingerboard... i had a choice between having the frets like a new Gibson with binding or right to the edge like i had before... i went with the frets to the edge...

some guitars just look better with Binding... Jacksons i prefer with binding... Gibsons look better with the binding
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Binding is a hangover from traditional flat- and arch-top acoustic guitar construction - where it is vital for fastening the soundboard and back to the sides.

From a purely functional perspective, on a solid body guitar, binding is entirely superfluous. On the other hand, it looks great. I would go so far as to say that, IMO, certain models of electric guitar look "naked" without binding.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Some guitars look better with it, some look fine without it. I don't miss it on my LP Studio, but some of those cheaper Jacksons just don't look right without the binding. They might have a really nice "eerie dess" swirl finish, but they still look cheap because they don't have the binding.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Binding to me always seems superfluous. Put that extra money into something else or leave it off and knock off a few bucks.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Binding on solid-body electrics is purely cosmetic and has nothing to do with the quality of the instrument. It shows up on a lot of mid-price guitars to give the appearance of being high-end and/or to mimic the look of a high-end instrument that it's copying.

That said (as others have observed):

Some guitars look killer with binding. That's their thing, and it's fine.
Some guitars could go either way. A stripped-down Gibson doesn't make sense with binding; a Studio/Faded/Special whatever is all about being a player. But on a regular Les Paul it looks great. Jacksons, too. On many guitars, I don't even notice, because I don't care.
Some guitars just look stupid with binding. Most Ibanez RG's with binding? No thanks.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

I've seen LOTS of cheap guitars with binding. Sometimes 5 layers of it, from tailpiece to headstock. It's really not that expensive for the manufacturers to do. It's really only a couple of big companies that withold binding as a sort of punishment for not spending enough.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Not really necessary for me, no pluses or minuses for me, if it has it and it's done well I am all for it
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Funkfingers said:
From a purely functional perspective, on a solid body guitar, binding is entirely superfluous. On the other hand, it looks great. I would go so far as to say that, IMO, certain models of electric guitar look "naked" without binding.
Click to expand...

Not true. The bindding, since it's made from thin plastics and thus, have a certain amout of elasticity to it, actually helps protecting the body edges from dings and dents.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

it's not something that'd make or break a guitar for me. It's nice, but by no means necessary
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

I dont like binding at all, & prefer not to have it on my guitars, but that is just me, it does not bother me on someone elses gtr.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

No, it robs your guitar of tone.




















spray_trollface_copy.png
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

It's true. Think about it. You're trapping all the tone inside with a layer of plastic. You hit a note and when the tone tries to escape the guitar, since everyone knows that the WOOD is how an electric guitar sends its signal to the amp, it hits the binding and, because the binding is somewhat elastic, gets absorbed. It's a well known fact that the addition of binding to a guitar equals a 35-45% reduction in tone.

TheLivingDead said:
No, it robs your guitar of tone.




















spray_trollface_copy.png
Click to expand...
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

St_Genesius said:
I've seen LOTS of cheap guitars with binding. Sometimes 5 layers of it, from tailpiece to headstock. It's really not that expensive for the manufacturers to do. It's really only a couple of big companies that withold binding as a sort of punishment for not spending enough.
Click to expand...

This is of course, assuming that everyone wants binding, on all their guitars, and the only time they don't get it is when they're being "punished".

On the other hand, it could be that stripped-down guitars have a certain aesthetic appeal to some players. But this is only speculation; I haven't done enough double-blind tests to know if anyone really thinks those guitars look cool, or if some people will just say they think a guitar without binding looks cool because it's all they can afford.
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

St_Genesius said:
It's true. Think about it. You're trapping all the tone inside with a layer of plastic. You hit a note and when the tone tries to escape the guitar, since everyone knows that the WOOD is how an electric guitar sends its signal to the amp, it hits the binding and, because the binding is somewhat elastic, gets absorbed. It's a well known fact that the addition of binding to a guitar equals a 35-45% reduction in tone.
Click to expand...

:stooges:
 
Re: Is Binding a must-have on quality guitars ?

Fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest that everyone always wants binding, but I DO think that for certain companies it's a business decision on their part to withhold binding from their less expensive models in order to provide a visual differentiation from the more expensive models. Because while claims of "better wood," "better pickups," and "better electronics" are difficult to define/defend, aesthetic differences are easy to point to and say "THIS is a real and undeniable difference and if you want one that looks like the ones your heros played, pony up another $2K."





Jessie's ghost said:
This is of course, assuming that everyone wants binding, on all their guitars, and the only time they don't get it is when they're being "punished".

.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top