-
The online blurbs are somewhat contradictory and the manufacturer's blurb was probably written by someone who had never seen the guitar. (That's actually not uncommon when a large manufacturer introduces a new line.)
Originally Posted by rNeil
The original Gibson writeup focuses on the back, sides and neck. The back and sides are pressed, presumably while steamed, from flat pieces. The neck has a scarf-joint and a glued-on heel.
Later Gibson materials say that the top was pressed too:
The factory spec-sheet said 24.75" scale. Archtop.com says this one is 25.5"
It is factual to note that this model was built with smaller, less-expensive pieces of wood. You can get 3-5 flatop / pressable blanks out of one archtop-size piece and the cost is roughly proportional. Same goes when comparing a 1" neck-blank for a glued-on heel and peghead to a longer 4" neck-blank for a one-piece unit. Gibson also went with simple, less-expensive fingerboard inlays and trim. As for labor, pressing a top or back requires a machine operator; carving a top or back in a modern factory generally means roughing-out on a CNC machine and finishing by a human.
Back when Gibson tried out the SF thing folks here expressed frustration that they built a model with less-costly materials, less human attention and less bling-y trim, then sold it for a fairly bling-y price. I said that the work of an experienced craftsman to maximize the potential of each individual top and back will result in more 'better' guitars per batch. Even so, I'm sorry Gibson didn't stick with the concept for long enough to fully develop it. If they had then maybe Gibson would be building archtops today and we would be complaining about them here on JG.be.
None of that matters if you love the way it feels and sounds. Joe D dug his. ESport is a mighty happy owner. Play on and help people feel the music!
-
05-27-2021 08:48 AM
-
Thomastik-Infeld Jazz Swing 12's, with the Vinny Mod.. (Stainless B and E string swap).. Originally Posted by Marty Grass
-
Absolutely ! If only they'd have put a HB or P-90 version in it ! Or put either in the Bozeman R/I's. Originally Posted by Marty Grass
And that's exactly how I've come to feel most about my own and all the other '50's L-7's............Damn.......
-
A P-90 equipped version of this guit would be the business. Originally Posted by Dennis D
-
..........How exactly are the tops braced ? Originally Posted by Sam Sherry
The online blurbs are somewhat contradictory and the manufacturer's blurb was probably written by someone who had never seen the guitar. (That's actually not uncommon when a large manufacturer introduces a new line.)
The original Gibson writeup focuses on the back, sides and neck. The back and sides are pressed, presumably while steamed, from flat pieces. The neck has a scarf-joint and a glued-on heel.
Later Gibson materials say that the top was pressed too:
The factory spec-sheet said 24.75" scale. Archtop.com says this one is 25.5"
It is factual to note that this model was built with smaller, less-expensive pieces of wood. You can get 3-5 flatop / pressable blanks out of one archtop-size piece and the cost is roughly proportional. Same goes when comparing a 1" neck-blank for a glued-on heel and peghead to a longer 4" neck-blank for a one-piece unit. Gibson also went with simple, less-expensive fingerboard inlays and trim. As for labor, pressing a top or back requires a machine operator; carving a top or back in a modern factory generally means roughing-out on a CNC machine and finishing by a human.
Back when Gibson tried out the SF thing folks here expressed frustration that they built a model with less-costly materials, less human attention and less bling-y trim, then sold it for a fairly bling-y price. I said that the work of an experienced craftsman to maximize the potential of each individual top and back will result in more 'better' guitars per batch. Even so, I'm sorry Gibson didn't stick with the concept for long enough to fully develop it. If they had then maybe Gibson would be building archtops today and we would be complaining about them here on JG.be.
None of that matters if you love the way it feels and sounds. Joe D dug his. ESport is a mighty happy owner. Play on and help people feel the music!
-
I can look inside when I get home. I don’t know, honestly. Originally Posted by Dennis D
-
Originally Posted by Esport
I was probably more curious whether they'd braced it at all....I'd have to bet it isn't x-braced, so that'd leave parallel, or not at all...
And, had anyone ever gotten a weight for one ?
In any case enjoy the heck out of it !!
-
@Esport...Not sure if you've already seen the original Gibson introduction and spec page for your Solid Formed Archtop, but here it is. Originally Posted by Esport
Gibson does not mention top bracing, but every other detail is there for your reference. Enjoy that beautiful archtop!
Gibson.com: Solid Formed 17" Hollowbody Venetian
-
Thank you sir! Originally Posted by Gitfiddler
-
The run of Solid Formed Venetian guitars were X-braced. They also all had 25.5” scale lengths. The blurb was just incorrect.
-
This may be a little trite or inconsequential in the scope of things, but I was curious about the provenance of this particular guitar and can’t find much. Anybody have any info about the origin? Just curious about who built it and why the production run went in a different direction.
-
I can’t tell you about your particular guitar, specifically, but there were several solid formed prototypes completed around 2014, yours being one of them. They were each made with somewhat different specs. The style for the production run was simply the variation that was picked. I don’t know why.
Bruce Kunkel was the lead builder for the production run, so one might surmise that he was heavily involved in the prototypes, but I don’t know if any documentation of that.
Gibson had these guitars in Nashville for years before Dave was finally able to convince Gibson to sell them to him.
-
I have one of the production run guitars, and also find this thread very interesting. Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
I had a quick look at the Bruce Kunkel site, there is some information about the solid formed process.
"Bruce developed a guitar building process he dubbed, “Solid Formed” which were solid top and back arched guitars that were steamed and formed in molds. They used about one third as much wood as a carved top instrument. The necks were built up with a dovetail joint heel block and utilized a dual action truss rod, something never done a Gibson."
I wonder if Bruce would give us some more information if we got in touch with him. Does anyone here know him personally?
I had a look inside my guitar and found this sticker, I suspect the same sticker was used on all the "Solid Formed"
-
It’s strange that on Dave’s site it was listed as a ‘19 and on the paperwork I received it states the same. Maybe that’s when it came into Dave’s possession.
-
That’s when Dave got them. Out of curiosity, is the paperwork just from Dave, or is there paperwork from Gibson. Either way, 2019 is when they were issued for sale. For that reason they could still be called a “2019 model”, even if they were built years before. Originally Posted by Esport
-
Originally Posted by andyb
I have one of the production run guitars, and also find this thread very interesting.
I had a quick look at the Bruce Kunkel site, there is some information about the solid formed process.
"Bruce developed a guitar building process he dubbed, “Solid Formed” which were solid top and back arched guitars that were steamed and formed in molds. They used about one third as much wood as a carved top instrument. The necks were built up with a dovetail joint heel block and utilized a dual action truss rod, something never done a Gibson."
I wonder if Bruce would give us some more information if we got in touch with him. Does anyone here know him personally?
I had a look inside my guitar and found this sticker, I suspect the same sticker was used on all the "Solid Formed"
Thanks for the tip! Mine was indeed a Bruce model. Didn’t even think to look on the other side!
-
My sticker is a bit different than yours, Andy. Instead of saying Solid Formed Tademark it says Gibson Custom. Due to it being pre-production, obviously.
-
It has paperwork from Gibson as well as the Gibson custom shop COA. Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
-
I have had a better look at the website now, and the "Shark Nouveau Noir" looks to be the forerunner of both of our guitars. Originally Posted by Esport
The black finish is very similar to my guitar.
-
I decided to reach out to Bruce Kunkel, if you don't know, he is the mastermind behind the solid formed guitars in this thread.
He worked at Gibson Custom Devision as a master luthier/designer and creator of art guitars. Here is a LINK to his website
He has very kindly shared some details of the process and some thoughts about the Solid Formed Guitar.
Bruce told me:
"I wrote this information concerning the history of the SOLID-FORMED guitars. I hope you find this helpful and that you would share it with other people who have an interest in this guitar. I get this question occasionally so I wanted to make this information available to the guitar world."
Here is a link to a new thread about this.
Andyb
-
Despite what a few people are commenting about the process of the solid formed technique, I’d recommend trying one out before suggesting that it’s an inferior construction. Mine is just lovely. Sure, that’s a personal statement but I’ve really been impressed with the SF. Best archtop I’ve owned.
Last edited by Esport; 07-14-2021 at 06:44 AM.
-
The Epiphone Emperor Regent has a pressed solid top, not carved. Similar to the Gibson, it is 17 inch and has a floating pickup and controls on the pickguard. It also uses a glued on heel and spliced on peghead. So, this technique is nothing new as my Epi Regent is now 25 years old. Back in the day, Martin, Harmony, and Kay all made pressed solid top archtop guitars with varied results. Note: most of the Harmony, Kay, and Silvertone archies were laminated pressed tops, but a few were solid pressed/steamed, and some were also machine carved. I own one Kay laminated top which has fantastic tone, but it is the exception, not the rule for Kays.
The main difference between a carved top and a pressed solid top is the carved top is graduated in thickness and has more stiffness towards the middle where the braces are, and thinner near the edges to allow the top to move. The pressed solid tops are the same thickness throughout, so they require thicker braces so the top will not collapse under the string pressure. This is not to say this makes the sound better, or worse, but undoubtedly it will be different in character than a solid carved top in some respects.
The only thing I have seen with older pressed solid top guitars is that some have a tendency to collapse or change shape over time. This can be due to several factors including the quality and thickness of the top, how it was formed, how it was stored and exposed to the elements, and the gauge of strings used.
Like a guitars solid sides, the top is press formed after being soaked in an amoniated solution which softens the wood fibers so it can be steam or heat pressed into shape. What is happening is essentially a controlled process of warping the wood as opposed to shaping it by carving.
Each method has it's pros and cons, and traditionalists tend to favor carved tops due to them being "traditional" , but there is always room for improvements and innovations in any process or method of musical instrument design and manufacturing.
FYI: Taylor Guitars get their volume and tone by using a thinner top and bracing and 13s. They also have bolt on necks that canned be shimmed to deal with any movement of the top.
-
After nearly five months with the SF I have to say that it’s a crying shame that Gibson didn’t succeed with their attempt at marketing this guitar to the right audience. Had they priced it in the $2k range, they’d have hit it over the train tracks.
What a great guitar.
It’s acoustically so alive. Comfortable for such a big box. The neck is wonderful. To my eye, it’s a beautiful instrument. Not overly appointed but classically screams jazz guitar.
Of course this one has a different pu so not a fair comparison but even the stock floater sounds great on most vids I’ve watched ( especially the ones Joe D posted).
It’s a shame that there’s a hole in the Gibson archive for these lovely guitars. I think it’s a multi-pronged problem that’s relegated them to obscurity. Marketing snafus and elevated pricing hurt the potential desirability, IMO. A missed opportunity. Mine is just an absolute sweetheart of an archtop. Best I’ve ever tried.
-
I agree it’s a shame that it was bumbled like it was, but I’m not sure what the correct price strategy would be. They might have a pressed top and back, but the solid formed guitars ARE Custom Shop guitars and the two I’ve had were very well made and appeared to be a result of tight QC. They currently ask $4500 for a Custom Shop Les Paul Special and that’s just a neck glued to a slab. $2000 might have sold them, but it seems like a money loser at that price point. They are certainly worth more than that based on my experience.
Last edited by ThatRhythmMan; 10-16-2021 at 08:47 AM.
-
$2k may be a bit on the low side but given the prestige of a Custom Shop Gibson at a slightly elevated price compared to an Eastman, for example, may have had enough of an impact on sales volume to encourage further development. I’m not disparaging Eastman or other modestly-priced instruments…the 803ce I had was beautifully made, just not my cup of tea. I only say this in wondering if Gibson would trade a little exorbitant profit for a wider net-casting. I’m not sure what the profit margins are with something like the SF but I’m guessing it’s way more than anything with a carved top. Instead of extolling a bunch of jargon on the benefits of the construction process, they could’ve promoted it as an easier and cheaper process and reflected that in the price. Could’ve gotten more people into a reasonably-priced GREAT archtop. Instead, they killed it, almost from the jump, because they put out of reach for most. I feel fortunate to have mine but it’s not built better than my 803 or the Godin Jazz I had for awhile. I got the Godin for $600 in a steal and traded it straight up for the 803. But, the SF has the sound and feel that suits me so I’m keeping it, just for those reasons. Is it worth $1400 more? Probably. Would I say it’s worth nearly $4k more? Probably not. I’m a piano player who’s a hack at guitar, anyway. Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
Reply With Quote
It all begins with “Preparations”
Today, 06:49 PM in Improvisation