Andre S Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The new one is 300 cheaper than the old one!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsl Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 One reason might be that new one is a Hard-Tail compared to the Lyre Vibrola on the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellen Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 the lyre vibrola sure looks nice on the old one,and i like the cartoon on the headstock(most people don't). the new one looks like a guitar made for some bad boy boogie,i call it a even race.(if i had to choose today i go for the new one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 the lyre vibrola sure looks nice on the old one' date='and i like the cartoon on the headstock(most people don't). the new one looks like a guitar made for some bad boy boogie,i call it a even race.(if i had to choose today i go for the new one)[/quote'] If i had to choose anyday anytime, the old one wins hands down! If it were a little cheaper I'd snap it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickey Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 It's prolly cheaper 'cause of the $$ they saved by cheaping out on the BEVELS! It's an ugly POS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 man.. give the damn bevels a rest. some have more than others. maybe angus wanted them that way? I think the SGs with the bevels going up to the edge of the scratchplate look kinda stupid. It's a much better effect when you have the scratchplate, then the flat part, then the bevel. What's next, a "My angus young guitar is better than yours!!" thread? Gimme a break. Stop obsessing and play the stupid thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellen Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 What's next, a "My angus young guitar is better than yours!!" thread? Gimme a break. Stop obsessing and play the stupid thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickey Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Sorry, but IMHO an SG without bevels is like an 80's Corvette--dull,boring, lifeless, & without character & looks like ZERO effort went in to making it,like it was cutout in 1 step on a cookie cutter machine. Remember the Strats of the late 70's? same thing-- Virtually no contours front or back.looks clunky & machine made. My '61 has the BEST bevels I've ever seen, & that's one of the reasons I bought it--Of course it sounds & plays great too. bevels should go right to the pickguard;there should be no flat area showing. You gotta have it all--tone,playability, & bevels. An SG without bevels is just plain Fugly. AND TO HELL WITH WHAT ANGUS WANTED! Who made him the expert? When Gibson starts making SG's that really DO look like 60's SG's (Like what Fender HAS accomplished with their re-issues) They'll sell like crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 AND TO HELL WITH WHAT ANGUS WANTED! Who made him the expert? Last I checked, GIBSON was the one and only expert who decides what an SG looks like. Styles and eras change, so guitars need to as well. I see no problem with the bevels on the new Angus SGs. They have them, they are just more subtle than on other models of SGs. I fail to see how taking out more is more artistic. Making it all flow together smoothly is just as imporant as how deep the bevels go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellen Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 i guess its good there are some difference in the body style,would have been boring if they were all the same.i have 4 different sg(kinda stupid i know,just cant help it),and there are difference when it comes to body, neck,headstock and sound.the 61 is the beauty,the special is for metal(emg),angus sg is my pride and joy the epiphone are my first guitar.actually my favourite right now(my opinion shift like the weather on that subject),sounds great with the angus sig pickup and compared to the 61 neck i feel the epip are a little little more comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGplayer1994 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Hey dickey, maybe what Angus wants matters because it's an ANGUS YOUNG SG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I'd take the new one. I really like the old version (i love the cartoon on the headstock, too) but i love more the lightning-inlays How much does it cost in the US the new model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickey Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 Last I checked' date=' GIBSON was the one and only expert who decides what an SG looks like. Styles and eras change, so guitars need to as well. I see no problem with the bevels on the new Angus SGs. They have them, they are just more subtle than on other models of SGs. I fail to see how taking out more is more artistic. Making it all flow together smoothly is just as imporant as how deep the bevels go.[/quote'] The problem is,shallow or non-existent bevels indicate something that was cut out on a CNC machine,with about as little care or cocern for aesthetics as you can get. It's a plank of wood,not a hand crafted work of art,like they looked in the 60's. No, the Angus guitar & the Robbie Krieger look like planks of cheap machine cut wood. Cheesy,cheap bevels that look like they were made with a few swipes of a broken file. And considering what they're asking for them,it is an outrage!! The ONLY reason anyone wants 'em is 'cause they have Angus' name on them. BFD! When you have good bevels (like the OLDER 61 RI's, or the VOS 61) the guitar looks like something that took time & effort to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 CNC machines can easily do bevels, neck shaping, pickup routing, you name it. Lack of bevels or less pronounced ones simply means they decided to have them that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbomb76 Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 Personally I never really even pay a lot of attention to the bevels on my Angus (and unfortunately I'm NOT in the position to get one of the Custom Shop ones, which I'm pi$$ed about), because aside from his black refinished '61 and his '64 Standard, most of his personal favorite SG's happen to be fairly bevel-less Norlin-transition style late '68-'71 models. I just appreciate them for their "Angus-y Goodness" (or BADness...lol). I would go for the new USA signature if it had the large pickguard, because I don't like the small guard on the smooth-heel models. Just doesn't sit right with me. I'd just be happy if they got the damned bevels AND tip-tapers right on those Historic SG's I'd be at least somewhat satisfied that they're trying (not to mention the shade of "cherry" used...but if need be I'd just pay the extra to have it finished properly like I did last time). Gibson should look at THIS AUCTION or just look at the photo itself to see that even a beat-up ol' bird like this is so much cooler; hopefully it'll let me post it here (warning, it's a big one...lol): If they'd just get the beveling (and tip-tapers...notice the way they narrow more at the tips!!!) on the Historics like this, it'd fix an imperfect instrument to make it better represent the originals. Or if the '61 Reissues would go back to the 2000-2003 era sculpt (AND color), although I'll admit I've seen a couple of individual guitars from this year which either represent a trend going back to more authentic scarfing, or are happy accidents...we'll see throughout the next few months I suppose...anyhow, off my personal rants....had to get one more in before 2010... Sorry' date=' but IMHO an SG without bevels is like an 80's Corvette--dull,boring, lifeless, & without character & looks like ZERO effort went in to making it,like it was cutout in 1 step on a cookie cutter machine. Remember the Strats of the late 70's? same thing-- Virtually no contours front or back.looks clunky & machine made. My '61 has the BEST bevels I've ever seen, & that's one of the reasons I bought it--Of course it sounds & plays great too. bevels should go right to the pickguard;there should be no flat area showing. You gotta have it all--tone,playability, & bevels. An SG without bevels is just plain Fugly. AND TO HELL WITH WHAT ANGUS WANTED! Who made him the expert? When Gibson starts making SG's that really DO look like 60's SG's (Like what Fender HAS accomplished with their re-issues) They'll sell like crazy![/quote'] Dickey, you and I may disagree over the stoptail/vibrola sustain issue, but you're absolutely right here. Compare a REAL '64/'65 SG Standard and a less-beveled modern one (Norlin-present), and it's exactly like the difference between say, a '67 Vette and an '83...one has sexy curves and class, the other looks cheap and halfa$$ed. I don't even mind that the "Angus" SG's lack the deep beveling, if he's happy I guess it's okay...but I wanna' see those '61 Reissues LOOK LIKE they came from '61. I don't care if it has upgraded modern electronics (although no more of this PCB crap, Gibson, PLEASE), or a Nashville bridge instead of the ABR, or modern tuners...just make 'em so that I really have to look twice (or three or four times) to discern whether it's a reissue or not. As of now, I can spot a reissue (including Historics/Custom Shop models) from 50 feet away in a poorly lit room, and that's not right. :- Last I checked' date=' GIBSON was the one and only expert who decides what an SG looks like. Styles and eras change, so guitars need to as well.[/quote'] As with any of their "reissues" and whatnot, I think a lot of folks may disagree that anyone at Gibson-present has a clue what magic those Kalamazoo-made guitars possessed. I see no problem with the bevels on the new Angus SGs. They have them' date=' they are just more subtle than on other models of SGs. I fail to see how taking out more is more artistic. Making it all flow together smoothly is just as imporant as how deep the bevels go.[/quote'] Flow is exactly the point...when you don't line that pickguard with a nice deep bevel, and when your horn tips look slabby and oddly-balanced (from the front AND from the edge-perspective), you ruin the overall sleekness and fluidity of the design. That McCarty cat knew what was up, man. CNC machines can easily do bevels' date=' neck shaping, pickup routing, you name it. Lack of bevels or less pronounced ones simply means they decided to have them that way.[/quote'] I agree that if someone wasn't halfa$$ing his/her job, the robots at the factory could easily duplicate an authentic "reissue" or replica...just look at the Krieger SG (which, face it, isn't the most gracefully-sculpted guitar, but it's seriously SO close to his original). So someone basically said, "oh well, I guess that'll do..." What a shame. You should also remember that flamey tops, quilted maple and spalted wood were once considered "flawed" or "undesirable", and look at them now. Gibson could do it both ways and just make us all happy, then we could go back to buying and playing guitars instead of arguing over them. (hint, hint) H-Bomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.