-
Is it me or is the back plate join, off centre?
Originally Posted by FourOnSix
-
02-10-2015 09:28 PM
-
Dunno. I'll have to look at it when I get home. It's certainly not something that jumped out at me or that I will lose sleep over. Are you trying to rain on my parade? Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
-
Originally Posted by FourOnSix
No, I'm sure its a good guitar. I may be opinionated about guitars but I would never rain on someones NGD. That wouldn't be cool at all.
I just noticed it from the picture. It will make no obvious difference to the playability of course.
-
Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
I think the wood is fine.
It's the strap holder that is off.
Probably put on by a previous owner.
-
the strap pin is dead center of the heel cap.
the center seam is off center, but it's only cosmetic.
-
Sorry, the parade comment was tongue in cheek, but I didn't give any indication of such. My bad.
In any event, I've looked at the guitar and the join is dead center. The fact that it looks otherwise is an illusion created by the bookmatching pattern and by the fact that the strap pin is slightly to the left of center (although the pin kinda looks dead center in the photo) to avoid drilling into the seam.
I just saw Wintermoon's comment below. With guitar in hand, I can tell you that's not true.
-
This statement from Peter Wagoner is pretty hard to accept at face value. Which luthiers of the '70s told him that? Gibson luthiers? How many of them? Who were they? There are far too many variables in tone wood for any credible luthier to be able to make such a claim. I'm still in touch with Jim Deurloo and Marv Lamb, current owners of Heritage Guitar Co.. They were luthiers at Gibson from the '70s . . as well as the '50s, '60s, '80s . . and still active on a day to day basis at Heritage since 1985, building arch tops. JP Moates, also an owner at Heritage, retired . . was chiefly responsible for procuring tone woods for both Gibson during those same decades . . and Heritage up until his retirement a few years ago. Aaron Cowles, now deceased . . former master luthier at Gibson as well. They've all told me that there is plain unfigured maple that will sound better than figured . . and there is also flamed/figured maple . . even dramatically flamed maple that will sound better than the plain stuff. I don't know of anyone who was, or is more tuned in to the musicality of tone wood than Bob Benedetto. Bob uses AAAA (master grade) maple exclusively for his top level guitars. Master grade is without a doubt the most highly figured of any maple tone wood. Jimmy D'Aquisto was another at Bob Benedetto's level of understanding the musicality of tone wood. Ever see a plain Benedetto or D'Aquisto? I haven't. Ever seen a plain maple back on a Stradivarius violin? On a Guarneri? On an Amati? NO ONE has! Originally Posted by jads57
I think Peter Wagoner is way off the mark on this one . . and I'd be very surprised if anyone of credibility ever actually told him that.Last edited by Patrick2; 02-11-2015 at 12:13 AM.
-
Great looking book matched AAA or AAAA wood there. Not sure about that strap button placement though. Not a big deal in the end I guess.... Originally Posted by FourOnSix
-
yeah, and Bob uses "aged and seasoned" Euro woods, so figuring is only part of it right? Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
Originally Posted by FourOnSix
no offense intended, must be an optical illusion.
would be strange though, never seen that before.
-
There are just so many things that come into play as it relates to tone woods. Any broad statement like plain maple results in bettr tone than figured maple is nothing more than pie in the sky conjecture. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Figuring has nothing to do with tone.
Luthiers use figured wood because it is pretty and they can charge more money for it.
There is no other reason for its use.
When Gibson made the switch to quartersawn maple back plates, they started out with very plain plates for the most part, and eventually moved to more figured quartersawn maple back plates because … it's prettier.Last edited by Hammertone; 02-11-2015 at 01:11 AM.
-
in Uber scientific terms sure figured wood has different density and strength compared to non figured, that could effect sound but trust me, no will ever be able to tell, especially the person owning the guitar.
We're getting into the myths of sound/wood territory there.
Also when someone is trying to sell you something thats figuratively 'less' you need to come up with a good excuse right ;-)
-
[QUOTE=ArchtopHeaven;501495]in Uber scientific terms sure figured wood has different density and strength compared to non figured, that could effect sound but trust me, no will ever be able to tell, especially the person owning the guitar.
We're getting into the myths of sound/wood territory there.
Yeah . . and I think that's what this Mr. Peter Wagoner's statement was all about.Also when someone is trying to sell you something thats figuratively 'less' you need to come up with a good excuse right ;-)
The other thing that people never seem to take into consideration, is that more often than not various expert luthiers will hear the tonal response from a knuckle tap on a plank before carving it, hearing it in different ways with perhaps each unique to their own perceptions. Some will rap a plank with their knuckle and here a certain quality that others may not. Luthiers like Benedetto, Campellone, Monteleone, Lacey, Comins, Manzer . . and others of their high level of skills and talents . . they have the option of rejecting a certain plank if it doesn't ring out just the way they want to when they knuckle tap it. But, the craftspeople in companies like Gibson, Guild, Heritage and others don't have such a choice. Those companies buy these planks in bulk. They are required to use and just make the best of what they have. Their choices are limited to selecting the best of what they receive in bulk and designating that for their higher end models . . . and use the planks they believe to be a bit inferior [for what ever reason] for their lower end models.
During much of the Norlin era, Gibson craftspeople had no such choice. When Gibson took JP Moates out of the position of sourcing, buying and managing the incoming raw materials and replaced him with a sub novice buyer. The new buyer was a total rookie in both buying procedures as well as understanding the wood. His focus was on reducing costs of raw materials. Unfigured wood is considerably less expensive than highly figured wood.
The *kid* didn't last too long in that position before JP Moates was brought back in.
JP and I rummaged all through every bit of spruce and maple that Heritage had in stock when I commissioned my very first Golden Eagle back in 1994. I believe JP is largely responsible for my #1 go to arch top guitar, being the guitar that it is today.
-
Don't forget in the end, wood doesn't really matter that much when you get in to the finite end or even the most basic.
The difference between amplified and non is important but in reality a good luthier could make any piece of wood sound good, once its paired with sides, backs, necks, strings of different gauges, bridges of different makups, braces etc.
You disagree?
Go argue with Bob, I'm just repeating what he said :-)
This goes on to another topic I'm interested in. How come you never see a re-curve on a Gibson, Guild or Heritage? I agree with Patrick, these guys have to deal with what they got but last time I saw a D'aquisasto (real one), you could see the re-curve. On most high end luthier guitars, you can see the re-cuvre. Never seen one on a massed produced high end guitar.
I susspct even at the high end mass produced range, we are still buying tops that haven't really been worked, more just carved to look right, braced to sound ok and then put out the door. Heritage and Gibson both refrain from carving the top properly to the cutaway (this is not a bash) as thats they way they decided to do it. A high end luthier wouldn't do this, the whole point of carving ht stop down in that area is to make it flexible and thus a better soundboard. So theres an example already of very expensive carved tops that aren't engineered for best performance. Again not saying thats a bad thing.
Im not keen on overly engineered acoustic archtops for Jazz, well not the the Be-bop I play but I think we are all kidding ourselves if we thing Gibson, Heritage, Guild etc carve the top with the same level of skill and time/dedication as Bob or Mark would (for example).
Again not a bad thing. Archtops are a funny beast and some sound best when they are quite dead or at least missing that more, gypsy jazz type of attack.
I think L5's sound great but technically they are not on the same level as Bob or Mark (ex) due to the carving. They use the same woods after all.Last edited by Archie; 02-11-2015 at 02:04 PM.
-
I would agree with your quote from Bob . . but only to a certain degree . . as arrogant as that may sound given Bob's expertise and my lack there of. The reason I would agree is because Bob tactfully used the term "good" and opposed to great. Guys with Bob's skills and talents could probably disassemble a shipping pallet and build a fairly good sounding guitar out of it. But, a remarkably great sounding stringed instrument requires remarkably great sounding tone wood. There's just no getting around that.
I will take issue with your referral to carving the top plate at the rim down further as being the proper way to do it. Who told you that one way is proper and the other is improper? It's different, to be sure. But, who's to say with any degree of certainty that one is proper and the other isn't. That portion of the top plate probably represents only 1% . . if that, of the top plate's outer circumference and overall mass. Would you really be led to believe that small an area can adversely affect a top plate's ability to move air? I wouldn't. Similarly with the re-curve of the top at the outer rim.
By the way, Campellone carves his tops almostly exactly the same way that Heritage does. They're not totally hand carved. They're done mostly on a pin router (panto) and finished by hand and slack belt sander. I've seen and playe several Campellone arch tops. There is no noticable re-curve.
It's true that factories that make guitars, whether it's a factory as small as Heritage or as large as Gibson, do not put as much work into carving their tops and backs as the best boutique builders do. But, they don't get nearly as much for their top level guitars as boutique builders get for theirs. Take Heritage's top dollar arch top guitar, the Super Kenny Burrell. It's a $9,000 retail priced guitar. With average discount structures to dealers being no secret, let's assume that a dealer would pay somewhere in the neighborhood of of $4,500. Now, deduct from that the cost of raw materials, electric components and hardware, man hours to build it, rep commission, overhead, Kenny's vig, cost of receivables (nobody pays on time anymore) . . and how much do you think the net profit is to Heritage on that $9,000 retail price tag? When you buy a guitar from a Benedetto type builder . . if his published price is $12,000 . . that's what he gets . . no dealer discounts. Of course those builders still have the other associated costs. But, they can easily afford to put 20 or 30 more hours into the build.Last edited by Patrick2; 02-11-2015 at 11:50 PM.
-
Top Carving: I'm not saying that carving down to the cutaway is the 'right' way but if you think about it, the top is supposed to be like a diaphragm, hence the re-curve. How can this act in that way if there is a part of the top, thats thicker than every other part? especially when its at the part that should be trying to move. Originally Posted by Patrick2
You could argue that the area there is already too tight for much movement anyway but still, all things being equal, the cutaway area should be trying to achieve the same function as the rest of the rim and should be a uniform thickness. Otherwise whats the point in tone tapping, when you cant get an even tone due to the excess thickness used to get to the cutaway.
Since Gibson and Heritage don't do recurves and things anyway, then it doesn't really matter. Guild do carve it 'right' (subjective) but again there is no real benefit because they rarely produce a carved top and when they do, again as you rightly said, they dont have the margins.
Heritage:
Right tbh I had non idea they could be bought that cheap. I also agree that it would be a budget constraint and not something I would expect them to do, along with Guild.
I dont know, kinda think Gibson should do it because they have bigger margins but its not the end of the world by any means.
Your also right, I was actually suspicious of myself when I mentioned Marks name. I think Marks work is good but would i be right in saying he makes slightly 'better' (subjective) versions of the mass produced models of Gibson. He doesn't need to go as far as Bob or Montelleone to achieve this.
ToneWoods: yes I do agree with you to a point.Last edited by Archie; 02-12-2015 at 12:31 AM.
-
What do you think about 1991?
Is it a good year?
-
Generally speaking, late '80s up to the mid and even late '90s was, for many, a good era for Gibson, at least for QC... Originally Posted by louisguitar
With that said, there is no absolute, there are duds and fabulous instruments in most era, it will come down to the specific instrument!
One thing I love about the '90s instruments is while they can't be considered vintage and don't command a premium, they will for the most part already have opened up and revealed their shortcoming if any!
-
91' yes, except don't they have that funky non L5ish tailpiece? Anyway, the mid 90's sunbursts are the bomb!
Reply With Quote
A really nice pickup in a cheap guitar
Today, 09:11 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos