Why the dislike for volutes?

[Broyale]

I understand they were disliked enough for Gibson to stop using them, but why were they unpopular?

[Tom Karol]

Dunno - I like them!

[vinlander]

Probably because they are associated with Norlin era also not popular...
Also the fact they were not really strenghtening the most sensitive part of the neck where breaking occurs

[docbop]

I thought they were there to indicate end of neck via feel like upright bass or violin neck.

[Patrick2]

I thought they were there to indicate end of neck via feel like upright bass or violin neck.

??????????????? lololol

[Jabberwocky]

The volute took away the Gibson Mojo...

It was associated with Norlin and most fellows felt that it called too much attention to itself unlike the discreet Martin scarf joint. Most all, it was because Gibson nutjobs (of whom I am one myself) saw it as an unnecessary "upgrade", like thicker tops and stronger bracing. Many felt it made the neck chunky. Real or imagined, when it's there you just know that it's there.

Anything that was associated with Norlin was decried.

Ibanez makes the Norlin Gibson neck volute on its archtops. I can't say I like it at all.

[Franz 1997]

It's ugly, and I don't much like it either. But I can understand the idea; behind the nut on Gibsons of that era, the truss rod nut cavity gouges out the wood for around a third of the width of the neck, and to quite a depth, so it must weaken that area considerably. The Norlin volute gives a lot more wood in that area - although whether it helps prevent breaks is another matter. Maybe PTC will advise..

I have a 175 with that huge Norlin volute, but I can't say it interferes with playing in any way ( not being prone to playing behind the nut..)

Guitars with more modern truss rods tend to have much thinner adjustment slots

[Woody Sound]

??????????????? lololol

That's not really an unreasonable supposition.

[Para]

I always thought a volute was a scroll.

[Greentone]

First one I remember seeing was on a Citation--in the shop ad that the Gibson dealers got for their displays around...'71?. I wanted it badly--still do. Those first, varnished Citations are exquisite looking. Anybody played one?

First run of Kalamazoo Awards was the closest I ever got. Zavarella's Music in Crystal City, VA, had a blonde one that I made a successful offer on and _almost_ bought. I chickened out. Buck! It was the best acoustic guitar I ever played. The pickup was _not_ the best.

I have found Norlin-era Gibsons to be both good and meh, with some of them to be outstanding. Honestly, I have never played a turkey. Some Les Pauls are great. Some 335s are great. Most of the archtops are very good to great--though plain. Standouts, for me, have been the ES-175CC models (although they do not sound like the original run of CC pickups, to my ear).

The volutes simply have not entered my mind as a significant variable, one way or the other. It comes down to sound and feel. Some Norlins have great necks (as players) and sound tremendous. Others, not so much. Again, no dogs in the bunch.

[Patrick2]

That's not really an unreasonable supposition.

My apologies . . but, I though it was . . or that you were joking. Brail on an arch top? If a player needs to feel a volute to know he's at the bottom end of the neck . . that player has issues.

[Tom Karol]

Here's one I used to have (on a Crafter SEG-480):

[feral guitar]

i like the word volute a lot

[Woody Sound]

Yeah, those volutes really suck

[disco~juice]

What is a volute?

[SamBooka]

My apologies . . but, I though it was . . or that you were joking. Brail on an arch top? If a player needs to feel a volute to know he's at the bottom end of the neck . . that player has issues.

I may have issues but the first time I played a Steinberger bass I tried to jump from D to low F and my hand flew off the neck.. if the bass had a volute I would never have embarrassed myself.

[entresz]

I like them. It's the norlin era connection which tends to give them a bad rap- often from people who think a 1959 Les Paul is the best guitar made in the history of guitars, and refuse to listen to anything other than Led Zeppelin.

:P

I'm yet to play a Norlin era Gibson that I haven't liked -- I've played several new Gibsons that were very poor in terms of fit and finish. My 1977 L6-S is one of the best sounding guitars I've had, and it practically plays itself. It has a volute, and it doesn't get in the way.

[3625]

The '79 Howard Roberts I used to play had a volute. From a playing perspective I had no issues with it. Aesthetically on that particular guitar I thought it looked pretty good - but the HR is kind of a one off in terms of it's design.

However, I don't think I'd like a 175 with one - you get so used to a particular vibe, and that would just feel kinda weird. Volutes on a Johnny Smith/D'Angelico style guitar work for me though.

[3625]

What is a volute?

It's a lumpy bit. Here's 2 - one more pronounced than the other:

[PTChristopher2]

So the question is, "Why the dislike for volutes?"

In my opinion, the dislike offers a seemingly effort-free opportunity to render judgement on something and find it decidedly wanting from one's high perspective. This holds remarkable appeal in guitardom.

My seemingly effort-free derivative question is, "Why call it a volute?" It does not resemble the "scroll" on an Ionic column (or for that matter, a violin head) that might inspire the term.

The volute certainly adds some wood behind the structural gap in the truss rod nut area, and in principle that must add some strength. But it adds wood that only bridges the gap for a short distance. So while in maple it provides notable strength, in open/splintery grained mahogany, it would not do very much at all.

I have repaired what seems to me to be a large pile of broken headstocks. Some were volute-i-fied, many were not. In my opinion the ratio is inconclusive (oh no, insert pseudo engineering and pseudo logic from a super member here,...).

I think they look just fine, which matters not.

I did lots of warranty work in the Norlin era. All in all, the general quality level was about the same as today. Somewhat different specific issues, but no dramatic overall difference.

Chris

[PTChristopher2]

Using 3625's pic above with the two volutes, you can imagine a drawn line to show the location of a classic broken headstock along the grain and see that the volute really will not do all that much to help.

Hilariously, a scarf joint would do a very great deal to improve survivability in the case of a fall off a stand, or the in-case face-plant (which accounts for MANY headstock breaks.)

So in the "lord what fools these mortals be" department, the dislike of scarf joints far exceeds the dislike of volutes.

In my opinion, subject to foolish prejudice.

Chris

[no disclaimer]

Hey Woody Sound that citation you posted belongs to a friend of mine. I checked it out a couple of weeks ago it's in mint condition. That is a spectacular guitar and I like the volute it enhances the look of the back of the headstock and makes the binding look cohesive. Right now I'm begging him to cut me a sweet deal on that guitar it would be a NGD that would surpass any I've ever had.

[Tom Painter]

A backstrap would be a better idea structurally than a volute....but hardly anyone does it...until they break a headstock!

[PTChristopher2]

Indeed on the backstrap. The common headstock break is for the guitar to fall forward and hit something hard - the floor does nicely. The guitar stops, but the headstock keeps going, aided by the string tension. The split is then along the shorter grain lines once the headstock starts to tilt back at the nut.

The backstrap does two fine things:

- It crosses the end grain exposed on the back of the headstock.

- It provides tensile strength, directly along the veneer grain, on the backside of the whole mess where the force is the greatest in a would-be disaster.

A simple veneer on the back of the headstock (even one as shown on the back of a volute-in-ated Citation headstock) would not do the same thing. In my opinion, you would have to get down past the nut as illustrated.

Great point Tom.

[Danny W.]

I posted this recently in another thread:

"Because a volute does nothing to strengthen the headstock, adds weight and can interfere with the left hand. Otherwise, it's perfectly fine."

I've owned a bunch of guitars with volutes. During most of the '70's my most-used stage guitar for non-jazz gigs was this '71 ES-355:



During most of the '80's it was this ES-355:



These were both fine guitars for the time and I liked both quite a bit. I preferred the newer one because it had a wider and shallower neck, but both had volutes.

In the '90's I mostly played this one for that type of gig:



The main reason I preferred it to either of the earlier ones was that it didn't have a volute. This just made the neck feel much nicer to me. As soon as I found newer guitars that I liked as much as the voluted ones I switched to those and soon sold the earlier ones.

I still have a few guitars with volutes. As discussed in other threads, the volute on a Citation is a thing of beauty, but when I play mine, I don't enjoy the neck as much as on my similar guitars that don't have one. I have rejected some really nice guitars over the years simply because they had a volute, since there are lots of really nice guitars without one.

Danny W.