Any Rotomatic love ?

[PiedmontPicker]

I picked up my first Gibson a couple of months ago, a 2013 Hummingbird Modern Classic. It is lovely beyond words, a keeper and lifelong companion. I just put it down after playing it a while and had a couple of thoughts:

 

1- My HB still maintains that wonderful intoxicating new wood smell. I feel as if I'm smelling Montana ! As you can see by my signature, I've got a few other guitars, none of which still has that sweet sweet smell. I do understand that the fading smell signifies my HB is dehydrating, therefore, sounding better and better. However, that smell totally floats my boat. This may sound silly, is there a product on the market that duplicates the new guitar smell ? A spray ? Drops of fragrant oil ? A flake ? Anything ?

 

2- My mindset was to swap out the Grover Rotomatics for some classic ivory "tulip" tuners ( perhaps Tone Pros ). Rotomatics never seem to get much love on any guitar board. While just now playing I realized that I really dig the large, chunky, industrial looking often criticized Rotomatics. I have them on my Taylor 410 and they have performed admirally for well over a decade. I admire both the way they look on my HB and how they perform. I may eventually swap them out, who knows, but for now, I'm digging the Rotomatics. Any love out there for the big clunky chunky Grover Rotomatics ??

[Boyd]

I changed them on my 2008 J-50. They worked fine, but just too big, shiny and ugly for my taste. Nothing wrong if you like them though. :)

 

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/111365-ntd-new-tuners-day/page__p__1505571__fromsearch__1#entry1505571

[duluthdan]

PP - I have long wondered at why no one has ever swept the floor at the Gibson plant, stuffed the detris into sachet bags, and sold the aromatic delight. Would make a great little business for the local Junior Achievement group, if there is one, at the Bozeman High school. Imagine being able to stuff a small bag of this stuff into your guitar case to duplicate that new guitar smell. There is a small fortune to be made...

[Slinky1]

Seem to work fine. Just too ugly for me.

[mountainpicker]

I don't mind the look of Rotomatics so much as I always notice how heavy they are. They seem to unbalance the guitar towards the headstock end. But if you dig them go with what floats your boat.

[zombywoof]

I think they work great but just do not look right. With individual tuners I prefer the Grover G-98 style.

[CAMELEYE]

I swapped the Grovers from my '13 J-45 Standard for white button three in line Klusons. A more traditional look for those fixated on Gibsons that were bought in the early '60s.

[62burst]

Mmm, G-98's...

 

 

 

But, really, funny how something like the green tulips have become so iconic to the look of the Hummingbird:

 

 

The weight difference is considerable. On a tuner swap, throw the Roto's and bushings/hardware into a bag & heft it for kicks. Just seems wrong to unnecessarily have that extra poundage at the headstock. 'Guess someone could do an experiment & stick an 8 inch ball of clay up there to see if the sound changes : 0! ? While more vibrations getting down to the bridge would be a good thing, what MtnPkr was saying about the balance of things is possibly also a consideration.

 

 

... Weekend GAS attack (getting harder to resist as these are becoming available at lower $): eBay TVbird link

 

 

Must resist the hummingbird, must resist the hummingbird, must resist the hummingbird, must resist the hummingbird, must resist the hummingbird, must resist the hummingbird...

[vacamartin]

My 2002 L-130 had them....I say "had" because they're off. I opted for a set of custom Gotoh w/ivoroid buttons...and 18:1 ! Much better product for my use.

[philfish]

Back in the day I changed the tuners on my Guild D40 to the state of the art rotomatics.

They still work fine after 40 years, Going to change them soon to Stay Tites.

While looking on Amozon for Bodeva humidifier pouch's I saw pouch's of Spaniard Cedar you can put in your guitar or case

[ksdaddy]

Coming of age in the 70s I have ingrained in my mind the notion that Grovers were typically (#1) associated with "better" guitars, i.e. NOT a Silvertone, and (#2) the presence of Grovers on the aforementioned Silvertone represented a vast improvement over stock, so therefore I'm cool with Grovers. I'm a little disgruntled that production moved to Korea some years back.

 

Having said that, I do like the looks of tulip tuners on a Gibson.

 

And I very much like the looks of regular Schallers on just about anything. Schallers just look..."finished" if you dig.

 

Bottom line, any 'good' tuner makes me happy and beyond that, it's cosmetics.

[bobouz]

Standard Grover tuners are fine by me, but I particularly like nickel or chrome tulip Grovers, as often seen on '70s Gibsons.

 

I also prefer the extra weight & have long thought that it may enhance tone.

 

One of my least favorite buttons is the green tulip, but a more ivory colored tulip looks great, imho.

 

Therefore, I was very pleased when my 2012 J-185 came with Grover Rotomatics. In particular on that guitar, the typical tulip button seems to stick out a mile & looks all wrong to my eye.

[GuitarLight]

Honestly, I think it's just great that so many Gibson customers are so eager and willing to tear their Gibson rotomatic tuners off, and then pay to replace them with the tuners Gibson should have put on in the first place! It must be a great help for the Gibson profit margin! ...Oh yes I know. Gibson still does put those nice original tulip tuners and ivory button tuners on their guitars...the higher priced models which they charge well above the $2000 and $3000 for.

 

My Gibson 2013 Hummingbird standard for $3100 came compliments of Gibson, with those ugly, thick, heavy rotomatic tuners that look like they were torn from a Mack truck engine. ...Yet coincidentally, had I just paid $3300 to $3800, for a true vintage..or new vintage hummingbird...(instead of the mere $3100 for the standard HB)...suddenly those nice tulip tuners appear once more.

[PiedmontPicker]

I love all of the comments and passion for tuners !! "They look like they were torn from a mack truck" ! Exactly, yes they do, one of the reasons I like them. Rotomatics are not very elegant for sure, but neither am I. I drive a jeep wrangler, not very elegant either. They are, however, beefy, functional, utilitarian and rugged. I do love the look of the vintage ivory tulip tuners( nickel not gold for me ) and may well go that way in the future. I just feel the Rotomatics deserve a little more respect !!

[zombywoof]

Here are the earlier version of the Grover G-98s.

 

[62burst]

Here are the earlier version of the Grover G-98s.

 

image

 

Wow, Kay Kraft headstock; eat your heart out, Epiphonists. Non-bent tab (are those peened/riveted, G tuner different?), as seen on old Martins, and many more.

 

Back to OP's 2nd topic: First attempt at getting "that smell" I wanted to drown in at the Martin factory tour: bought a chunk of rosewood, thinking I'd whittle me a pile of rosewood shavings to put in a case. That was a real lesson on the nature of rosewood. Hard like ebony, resinous like, uh,.. resin. Hard time even drilling the stuff. Then, 'tried putting a Nation bag of cedar chips in the case pocket of a new case once. Smelled more like a hamster cage. You're right, they should just bottle that guitar factory aroma.

[fortyearspickn]

Honestly, I think it's just great that so many Gibson customers are so eager and willing to tear their Gibson rotomatic tuners off, and then pay to replace them with the tuners Gibson should have put on in the first place! It must be a great help for the Gibson profit margin! ...Oh yes I know. Gibson still does put those nice original tulip tuners and ivory button tuners on their guitars...the higher priced models which they charge well above the $2000 and $3000 for.

 

My Gibson 2013 Hummingbird standard for $3100 came compliments of Gibson, with those ugly, thick, heavy rotomatic tuners that look like they were torn from a Mack truck engine. ...Yet coincidentally, had I just paid $3300 to $3800, for a true vintage..or new vintage hummingbird...(instead of the mere $3100 for the standard HB)...suddenly those nice tulip tuners appear once more.

 

GL, you had the same exact complaint with the bridge pins on your new Gibson H'bird. You should try to accept the fact that most folks here do not see these 'flaws' as greediness on the part of Gibson trying to sneak in sub-standard materials. Your H'bird needs to "Feel The Love".

[Smurfbird]

Yep, I replaced the gold rotos on the J-200 Standard with tulips. Much lighter and prettier now.

 

Yet, the 1958 Martin D-28 came with Rotos and I would never change them, since it would only lower the value of the guitar. They're originals and they work fine.

 

 

I keep the gold rotos in a bag in case I sell the J-200 to someone who wants the originals.

[GuitarLight]

GL, you had the same exact complaint with the bridge pins on your new Gibson H'bird. You should try to accept the fact that most folks here do not see these 'flaws' as greediness on the part of Gibson trying to sneak in sub-standard materials. Your H'bird needs to "Feel The Love".

 

 

...fortyearspickn, are you referring to the cheap 3 cent plastic pins I replaced with ebony on my Hummingbird, or the clunky metal rotomatic tuners that look like they were taken from a Mack truck engine?....Or are you just trolling again?

[uh66]

 

I also prefer the extra weight & have long thought that it may enhance tone.

 

 

I also think they do. At least to my ears.

After two months with beautiful ivory-coloured tulips, little washers etc., I was trying to convince myself that these are "the" HB look, I put the original Nickel Rotomatics and their 290grams back on. The sound and tone why I bought the guitar are back. I accept the guitar in its factory condition now, and for some reason I start to like the shiny look as well.

 

BTW- funny thing... in those two months I installed the Gibsons vintage-looking nickel rotomatics on my Martin D-28 for some weeks, instead of its chrome rotomatics. Of course there was no sound change, but I noticed that the shafts of the "gibson Grovers" are considerably shorter, changing the angle of the strings to the post. Also the D-28 looked wrong... this guitar needs chrome. Well, lesson learned. : -)

[Anthony Buckeridge]

As a Lover of Musical Instruments.

 

Hunting for Great Instruments and Keeping them Stock is Important to me.

 

It also Significantly Increases the Innate Value of the Musical Instruments, by a Tremendously Large Margin.

 

So the idea of Purchasing a New Guitar and immediately Swapping Out, Perfectly Good, Working Machineheads, never made any sense to me.

 

It Devalues the Instrument, and more often than not, Defaces the Rear of the Headstock leaving Open Screw Holes, whilst the Front of the Headstock often also gets Damaged in the Process too.

 

Because this work by Tradition is not actually enacted by Luthiers with the right set of Hand Skills, Quality Tools and Extensive Experience, but by Guitar Owners lacking all of these Absolutely Necessary, Desirable Perquisites.

 

Furthermore, although today, it is easily possible to obtain from Manufacturers Websites, extremely precise technical drawings, for a Wide Range of High Quality, Replacement Components; and with Highly Exacting, Precision Measurement Tools readily available at reasonable prices.

 

Decades ago, this simply wasn't the case at all. Indeed, in many parts of the World, a Set of Grover Replacements of any type, would have been a preciously rare find. Even if ordered in especially for a Customer. It was often the case that in many respects, the New Replacements, Significantly Differed in their Design and Fitting Characteristics from the Stock Machineheads that they were being bought to Replace.

 

Clearly, right from the off then in such circumstances, the Rare, Hard to Obtain and Prohibitively Expensive, One Third Tax and Twenty Percent Custom Addition Attracting, Replacement Machineheads, would usually never be a Direct, Exact Fit, and it was common place for Barrel Holes to be Re-drilled, Screw Holes to be left Open, and Machinehead String Slot Holes in the Barrel Posts to be Far Too High for the Instrument that they were fitted to. As a result, the String Break Angle over the Headstock was Significantly Reduced, resulting in a Playing Tension Change, and a Subsequent Differential in Sound, for those of us with more Sensitive Ears.

 

 

 

And all this, on a Perfectly Good, Brand New Instrument!

 

 

 

With all due respect to absolutely everyone.

 

To me and all of my Colleagues in the Music Industry at the time, it seemed utterly crazy.

 

Privately we would laugh about it between ourselves, even though we would take it seriously whenever a Guitarist, wanted to go down that Route.

 

But you have to understand, the large number of Cheap Screwdriver Slips encountered from Amateur Enthusiasts, we saw deeply gouged into the Finish of Truly Great Instruments.

 

And it was usually the case that a Fine Instrument was Desecrated with Fine Marks and Clear Scratches, as well as the Open Screw Holes that Oil and Grease would get into and the Ill Fit of the New, Improved, Machinheads.

 

 

 

And all of these Instruments, would be Highly Sought After, Expensive, Classic Instruments Today.

 

What would their additional value be Today, had they been left Stock? And given the choice as a Purchaser Today, which would You, Choose to Own?

 

 

 

In addition.

 

Although, many people today, buy Instruments with Upgrading in Mind.

 

I honestly don't believe it's the right way, or the best way to Purchase New Musical Instruments of Quality.

 

What they are doing in reality, is buying an Instrument, that they already have an Inbuilt Personal Dissatisfaction Towards, from the Moment they Own It.

 

Ask Yourself. Whether they are Likely to Perform and Play at Their Best. On an Instrument, that they know they need to Deeply Work On, to Transform to Get it How they Like? I just don't see this as the best way to Purchase Musical Instruments.

 

For people that want to Change Out Grover Machineheads, stating that they are Far Too Heavy for the Instruments Playing Balance, how come they didn't notice this Vitally Important Aspect of Instrument Balance, at the Time they were Trying the Instrument Out, Prior to Purchase?

 

 

 

 

In reality.

 

I believe that a great deal of the Issues such Individuals Cite.

 

Are Home Grown Neuroticism, the result of Incorrect, Common Knowledge, (there's nothing at all Common about Real Knowledge).

 

And the Psychological Displacement and Projection onto a Perfectly Good, Musical Instrument, of Deep Personal Insecurities relating to their own Limitations as a Musician.

 

 

 

 

Although I began as a Lead Guitarist.

 

Later, I hired Many Lead Guitarists for Musical Productions.

 

And many, many Decades Ago, it was very common to see Grover's replacing Kluson's.

 

Personally, I have never had any problems whatever from Kluson, Grover, Musicman or Schaller Machneheads.

 

Li'l Jim certainly had done this to his Les Paul, and another Guitarist I hired a lot, had done it to his ES-345 along with others. et al.

 

And they would Proudly Explain their Upgrades as Something with which to Impress Me. To be honest, in the Studio I never argued with them.

 

You see, I could understand a Working Session Player, Upgrading a Second Hand Instrument with a New, Reliably Superior, Set of High Quality Machine Heads.

 

But Today, we have Inexperienced Non-Professionals, Changing Out, High Quality, Stock Machine Heads, that Jim would have given his Eye Teeth to have Owned, back in the Day.

 

 

 

 

Changed.

 

For Neurotic Reasons.

 

They have Learned from the Inexperienced.

 

If the Instrument was Good Enough to Buy New with Quality Grover's.

 

Try Playing it with Enthusiasm, and if they were Good Enough for Li'l Jimmy, they'll probably do for you too.

 

 

 

 

If your Sound is No Good.

 

It's probably NOT your Gibson or Martin Guitar.

 

Nor even the Machineheads, that they have fitted, that are at Fault.

 

The Real Problem, lies Elsewhere, far Closer to Home, involving Far More Time, and much Harder to Fix.

[blindboygrunt]

Yeah !

[j45nick]

 

If your Sound is No Good.

 

It's probably NOT your Gibson or Martin Guitar.

 

Nor even the Machineheads, that they have fitted, that are at Fault.

 

The Real Problem, lies Elsewhere, far Closer to Home, involving Far More Time, and much Harder to Fix.

 

 

Hey Anthony, did it ever occur to you that most people change tuners not because they think they impact on sound, but because they might like the look of something else, or for some other aesthetic or practical reason, such as the weight of the parts or their gear ratio?

 

Holy cow, talk about over-analyzing things! It's just a freakin' guitar!

[Slinky1]

OMG!!! Little Jimmy can do what ever he likes with his stuff. If changing my tuners is good enough for me, maybe little Jim might like to try it. Dang!!! For the love of God man, are you really serious?

[stein]

Well, gee...

 

Back in the day, a certain day, it was more common than not that tuners would suck.

 

If in the 70's or 80's, you compare any open-type tuner with a sealed-type like the Schaller mini's or the Grovers, it was absolutely no contest.

 

And of corse, at that "time" in history, no one was thinking about collecter value for most of these. Changing tuners "reducing" the value didn't come into it. That aspect simply didn't exist.

 

For my own personal nostalgia, a guitar that would have been USED in the 70's and 80's seems more correct with the "upgraded" tuners.