Gibson Super 400 - Is thick thick top around neck pickup (1cm/0,39in) normal?

[tomassplatch]

Hello, I am currently checking a 1980 Gibson Super 400 (made a thread about it here). While taking off the pickups, I noticed that the top is very thick around the neck pickup.

Bridge pickup: 0,45cm/0,18in (about the same as the thickness around the f holes)


Neck pickup : 1cm/0,39in, which is double the thickness:

Is this normal for this guitar ? Or could this possible be some kind of Norlin-era cost-cutting measure ? I was pretty shocked, I didn't expect the top to be this thick, but maybe it is normal, to structurally support the 18 inch size. This is the first time I see the inside of a Gibson CES Archtop...

[wintermoon]

Normal, don't forget electric L-5's, Super 400's etc have thickly built tops and heavier bracing resulting in a darker tone, more feedback resistance and support for all that hardware.

[tomassplatch]

Normal, don't forget electric L-5's, Super 400's etc have thickly built tops and heavier bracing resulting in a darker tone, more feedback resistance and support for all that hardware.

Thank you so much, this is reassuring. I read that that tops were thick, just didn't expect this much thickness

[Chris236]

Thank you so much, this is reassuring. I read that that tops were thick, just didn't expect this much thickness

thicker tops are why Gibson archtops largely sound better than custom builders examples….in an effort to meet some imagined standard in acoustic value, they produce and reproduce anemic instruments completely oblivious to the fact that thicker tops largely work better for the guitar (IMHO)!

[tomassplatch]

Updated my post with correctly uploaded photos, because before I did not do it correctly, sorry! The difference in thickness of the top between the bridge pickup and the neck pickup is quite striking.

[Tal_175]

It looks like another piece of wood was glued under the carved top. Like a thick brace in the area where the pickups are mounted or something. It does seem a bit odd. My Byrdland doesn't have that.

It might be helpful to take a picture from under the top with a mirror.

[tomassplatch]

It looks like another piece of wood was glued under the carved top. Like a thick brace in the area where the pickups are mounted or something. It does seem a bit odd. My Byrdland doesn't look that.

It might be helpful to take a picture from under the top with a mirror.

Thank you, I will try to post photos from inside when I completely remove the strings. However, I closely inspected the wood in the cut and I can see no traces of a piece of wood glued - it seems to be one piece of wood, just a very thick soundboard in this area.

[bluenote61]

In the bridge pu cavity close to the edge of the hole there is a small flat bracing visible which runs between the main braces. This is normal and quite often made not only in Gibson guitars.
In the neck pu cavity there is no such bracing due to the thick top in that area.
In general, it looks like a typical Gibson Archtop built for electrical amplified use.

[gitman]

This is nothing out of the ordinary and the top on my '63 Super-CES is just as thick.
The considerable amount of solid wood, the pickups, pots, massive tuners and the heavy tailpiece all add up to make the Super400 a heavy guitar which has a higher feedback threshold than smaller, less rigid guitars. It's certainly not for everybody and truly not the most comfortable of archtop guitars but for me personally it's worth every penny I spent on it.

[Dennis D]

........And sorry if these ol' eyes of mine missed the photo, or explanation, but is that top bookmatched ? Or, were they / are they always working with a single piece of solid spruce, reinforced down the center ?

And then, how are the tops tapered to the f-holes ? ( are they carved ? ) The f-holes are what, 3/8 in. at the opening right ?

Is that 1/4 inch amount of stock to be removed common ? It makes it interesting to learn how large a piece of spruce they'd have to source.

Thanks.

[tomassplatch]

Some more photos from the inside of the guitar, where you can see the difference in thickness of the top, as well as the heavy bracing and the inside job.
From the photos it seems that the top is bookmatched and hand-carved.

[Tal_175]

Wow, I'm surprised how thick the top is in the lower bout section. My Byrdland seems to be carved more thinly. But I guess the much bigger chamber volume of Super 400 require different feedback fighting measures.

[himself]

Forgive me being not serious, but I've got the same rag from IKEA bedding

[tomassplatch]

Forgive me being not serious, but I've got the same rag from IKEA bedding

Excellent! After careful experimentation I found that rags from IKEA bedding are preferable for cleaning pickups on carved tops, because they give them more articulation. For pickups on plywood guitars, I prefer using microfiber rags from DM because in my experience it mellows their sound quite a bit.

Greetings from fellow Czechoslovak !

[PDeville]

thicker tops are why Gibson archtops largely sound better than custom builders examples….in an effort to meet some imagined standard in acoustic value, they produce and reproduce anemic instruments completely oblivious to the fact that thicker tops largely work better for the guitar (IMHO)!

Yes! You are right. And I have had many of the custom builder examples to prove it to myself. Sigh....Oh well, you can always make more money!

To get the classic L5 electric sound, the instrument must be built as an electric arch top like those 60s Gibsons.

[tomassplatch]

I realized there was a loose brace, as you can see in the photos. The bracing seems to hold well on other places, there is just one brace that peels off on one end, which is accessible through the pickup holes. So back to luthier it goes. Did anyone have experience with this ? How serious it is?

[Cunamara]

A loose brace is not terribly uncommon. In this case, looks pretty easy to address: work some hot hide glue in there, clamp, let set, done.

Thanks for sharing this, it is really interesting to see just how thick the tops are carved in that area of those instruments. I've read about that many times but have never actually seen it. Historically, there have been reasons given for this including feedback rejection, history of collapsing tops resulting in warranty work, etc., which Gibson tried to address by using thicker tops (they partly created their own problem by using kerfed braces, but they carried on with that for years while just carving the tops thicker. Yours has solid braces.). My guess is your guitar probably sounds great plugged in and maybe sounds pretty good acoustically, given the large body. I wonder if the wider top (18") also needs a little bit thicker carve, particularly in the middle, to support the string tension even as an acoustic instrument.

I remember hearing or reading an interview with Tal Farlow who commented that, as far as amplified archtop guitars go, what's good for acoustic tone tends to be bad for electric tone and vice versa. Hence Gibson's electric solid top guitars tend to have thickly carved tops and that creates one iconic electric jazz sound (L5, Super 400); their other iconic electric jazz sound is laminated tops (ES-175, etc.). Taking that a step further are semihollows like the ES-335 lineage and solidbodies like the Les Paul.

[burchyk]

Thanks for sharing! And I thought my H-575 was overbuilt... If the L5s have similarly thick tops, you've cured me of some major GAS.

[Chris236]

Thanks for sharing! And I thought my H-575 was overbuilt... If the L5s have similarly thick tops, you've cured me of some major GAS.

underbuilt is a bigger problem by far.

[Chris236]

A loose brace is not terribly uncommon. In this case, looks pretty easy to address: work some hot hide glue in there, clamp, let set, done.

Thanks for sharing this, it is really interesting to see just how thick the tops are carved in that area of those instruments. I've read about that many times but have never actually seen it. Historically, there have been reasons given for this including feedback rejection, history of collapsing tops resulting in warranty work, etc., which Gibson tried to address by using thicker tops (they partly created their own problem by using kerfed braces, but they carried on with that for years while just carving the tops thicker. Yours has solid braces.). My guess is your guitar probably sounds great plugged in and maybe sounds pretty good acoustically, given the large body. I wonder if the wider top (18") also needs a little bit thicker carve, particularly in the middle, to support the string tension even as an acoustic instrument.

I remember hearing or reading an interview with Tal Farlow who commented that, as far as amplified archtop guitars go, what's good for acoustic tone tends to be bad for electric tone and vice versa. Hence Gibson's electric solid top guitars tend to have thickly carved tops and that creates one iconic electric jazz sound (L5, Super 400); their other iconic electric jazz sound is laminated tops (ES-175, etc.). Taking that a step further are semihollows like the ES-335 lineage and solidbodies like the Les Paul.

take that with a grain of salt. 10 times out of 10 the I’ll like the acoustic sound of an electric that I like…. Not just archtops but solid bodies as well. At some point thin top became synonymous with ‘acoustic’. That’s silly imo.

[coyote-1]

take that with a grain of salt. 10 times out of 10 the I’ll like the acoustic sound of an electric that I like…. Not just archtops but solid bodies as well. At some point thin top became synonymous with ‘acoustic’. That’s silly imo.

I’ve played many ‘classical’ guitars with solid thin tops, and laminate tops uniformly are brighter with a tad more sustain. As long as there’s also plenty of ‘body’ in the sound, I prefer these laminates for exactly that characteristic.

I presume the same applies to archtops. That said, after many years with laminate archtops I’ve found myself longing for a less bright attack combined with more depth in the sound.

[Tal_175]

I’ve played many ‘classical’ guitars with solid thin tops, and laminate tops uniformly are brighter with a tad more sustain. As long as there’s also plenty of ‘body’ in the sound, I prefer these laminates for exactly that characteristic.

My experience has been the opposite. I find that solid tops sound more open, with more highs and more lows. They are crisper and boomier at the same time with more overtones. That to me makes them sound brighter and at times thinner on the high notes. Laminate tops sound more compressed with a mid focus. But I guess different people can perceive different characteristics as "bright".