Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

bobouz

All Access
  • Posts

    3,933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

bobouz last won the day on February 9 2018

bobouz had the most liked content!

Reputation

280 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As someone who loves the metallic overtones produced by models sporting the historically-maligned plastic adjustable bridge, this is one of the few topics that draws me out of the woodwork these days. Often overlooked is the fact that string vibrations travel through the metal framework to the top (somewhat like an archtop bridge), and not through the plastic. The plastic faux-bridge serves only as a pin holder. Note that none of this applies to the non-adjustable plastic bridge on models such as the LG-0, where string energy must indeed travel through the tone-deadening plastic. And it’s truly rather amazing how well some of these plastic adjustable bridges have held up. The one on my ‘66 Epi Cortez is bone stock, and in perfect condition after 57 years. A lot of traditional bridges have led much briefer lives! A totally goofy idea for sure, but one with a very interesting outcome.
  2. See my two related posts re your similar question on UMGF.
  3. All features on your Heritage conform to a 1968 or 1969 build date. The rosewood back & sides are laminated, and this can clearly be seen by comparing the grain lines on the back with those visible through the soundhole. 1965-1967 Heritage models had solid rosewood back & sides and a belly-up bridge. Rosewood used during this period most commonly was Brazilian.
  4. I haven't posted on this board in well over a year. Occasionally I'll look in to see if much has changed (the answer is no), but for some reason this thread caught my eye, and I simply cannot believe how far off base the responses are - even from my fellow geezers! If you wouldn't own a guitar with the fifth string kissing the sixth, that leaves out a huge number of hourglass-headstock Epiphones made by Kalamazoo in the '60s, and it leaves out one heck of a lot of Gibsons, too (including my own '66 Epi FT-45n Cortez & '66 Gibson ES-125T). The issue is how far inward the tuning peg holes were drilled on the headstocks of '60s Epis & Gibsons- and it was almost always further in than we commonly see today. Three-on-a-plates were typically slanted to the point where the sixth & first strings toed inward (frequently resulting in the fifth string touching the sixth). On individually mounted tuners (as on the Frontier), the same scenario occurred as well, but there could be variations in the placement of the holes. There could also be variations in holes drilled on the right or left side, as to how far inward they were drilled. This too could sometimes result in the fatter fifth & sixth strings touching. And now the important bottom line: The fifth string rubbing the sixth as it passes by has virtually no effect on tuning. The OP's headstock holes could have been lined up a little better, but ten to one it was patterned after an actual '60s Kalamazoo Frontier!
  5. Can’t get much better than that! No question, the ES-330 and it’s Epi Casino soulmate are right at the top of my favorite electric guitar list. I’ve got this territory well covered with three fine instruments, but my oh my, you’ve hit the absolute motherload by finding a natural finish vintage 330 - Congrats & Enjoy!
  6. JT, many thanks for all that you’ve done, and continue to do, in recognition of the women who kept Gibson going during the war - along with building so many fine & memorable instruments!
  7. It’s an LG-1. Ladder bracing, no back center-seam reinforcement, and another tell-tale marker is that from what I can make out in your photo, it has single-ply top binding. Both the LG-2 & LG-3 had multi-ply top binding, while the LG-1 had single-ply. This is pretty basic stuff, so the “vintage” shop either doesn’t know much about Gibsons, or they’re pulling a fast one. The guitar was clearly misrepresented as an LG-3, which means the situation should be easily rectified unless they are completely dishonest. Hope a resolution to the matter is quick & straightforward. Edit: Regarding the finish, the guitar was either stripped of it’s original sunburst, or perhaps special ordered in natural. But the basic key factor remains - it is ladder braced rather than X-braced, which takes a huge chunk out of the guitar’s value as opposed to a true ‘50s LG-3.
  8. The 1948 L-48 I owned had a solid pressed & arched mahogany top. The sides & back were solid mahogany as well, but looked like they had been pulled from a shelf of flat-top acoustic parts, with the back being flat & fully braced. It was a flea market find of mine from back in the ‘70s (when virtually no one wanted an acoustic archtop), and one of my few regrets in letting a guitar go. To date, I’ve never seen another one like it. That said, the L-48 is a model that indeed went through many transitions in woods used & construction during it’s long production run. Enjoy your new-to-you beauty!
  9. Ah, where to begin. First let me say that you now have met someone who owns a 2005 Terada-made 1964 McCartney Epiphone Texan..... and also a Terada-made 2000 USA-Series John Lee Hooker Sheraton..... and also a Terada-made Elitist Casino. I have also played an Elitist Byrdland. And I've been able to directly compare the quality of those instruments to similar guitars I currently own including a J-45 Rosewood, J-50, ES-330L, ES-33Ovos, ES-335, & ES-339, as well as other Gibsons I currently own or have played. The world is littered with guitar generalizations regarding brands, manufacturers, eras, and so on. I never put out a specific opinion on the build quality or tone/playability of an instrument unless I've owned it, or have had it in hand to play. Now remember, my point here has nothing to do with the demise of the Epiphone brand. I'm reasonably well versed on the history of both Epi acoustics and electrics, post 1970. I started playing guitar in 1971, at the ripe old age of twenty. A college friend showed me a few chords and a Travis picking pattern, and off I went to the music store to buy a guitar. The only choices in my entry-level price range were Yamahas made in Taiwan, and Epiphones made in Japan. In comparing the two, even then the Epiphones struck me as cheaply made. The four-bolt neck & very mediocre tone steered me directly towards the Yamahas. In the following two years, I became somewhat obsessed with guitar construction, and by '73 had made a habit of looking for good quality older guitars at flea markets to buy cheap, repair as needed, and trade in to buy the best high quality guitar I could afford. Those tactics landed me four new Guilds (D-40, F-20, F-30, F-40) at various points during the decade. Some of my flea market finds included a number of Gibsons: '48 L-48, '50s LG2-3/4, '50s ES-125, and a '64 Epiphone FT-45n that ended up having a lifelong impact on my tonal preferences. Many Gibsons & Epiphones were to follow, so yes, I get where you're coming from. With the above said, let's take a look pacific-rim build quality. Even back in the '70s, there were clear signs by the end of the decade that Japanese factories were capable of building some fine instruments, including mandolins & guitars marketed by Ibanez (again, which I owned & played) and Takamine (including a Gallagher Doc Watson clone that was quite impressive). But I want to move forward into the '90s & 2000s to talk about Peerless. Like almost all Epiphone acoustics outsourced first to Japan, then Korea and China, Gibson has continually speced these instruments to fill the very lowest price points. But on the electric side, Peerless built Epiphones with a significantly more refined level of build quality. Models such as the Casino, Regent, and Emperor that came out of the Peerless factory were being recognized as excellent bodies to upgrade (as Gibson saddled them with mediocre electronics). At one point there were four Korean factories manufacturing Epi electrics. When I sold my Peerless Casino, the fact that it came from Peerless was a very real selling point I was able to utilize (and today, you will continue to find sellers on Reverb using Peerless as a selling point). Peerless clearly had the capability to build fine quality instruments. Today, there is a Korean factory building electrics for Guild. Again, I can tell you about them first hand, because I own a fully acoustic Guild archtop made in 2014, before Fender sold the Guild brand to Cordoba. This model is the A-150b (blonde), with a solid spruce top & floating D'Armond monkey-stick pickup. Overall build quality is very high, and speaks volumes about their capabilities. Now let's get to the most direct example of world class build quality I can discuss first hand - Terada. It is my understanding that Ibanez sourced instruments from Tereada as far back as the '70s. They were building Epiphone electrics for Gibson in the very early '80s, but then Gibson turned to Korea for it's acoustic & electric production. However in 1999, Gibson returned to Terada to build the USA-Series Lennon Casino (two versions), and then the following year added the John Lee Hooker Sheraton (there had been a Korean JLH version in the '90s that did not remotely compare to the two new Terada JLH models). These models essentially represented Gibson telling Terada to utilize their finest build quality, for a product that would be labeled as "Assembled in the USA" and sold as comparable to Gibson's own ES instruments. Because of the models I own, I can tell you through first-hand comparisons that the Terada JLH Sheraton's build quality is unquestionably on a par with it's Gibson counterparts. The USA-Series Epis flew briefly under the radar, but they clearly demonstrated that Terada had become a world class manufacturer. In 2002, the rather extensive Epi Elite (later Elitist) line was released, with the Riviera and another new Sheraton version immediately being recognized as best-buy picks by Guitar Player Magazine. Elitist models remain in demand and sell well on Reverb. Of all the models produced, the Byrdland and Broadway represent Terada's finest Elitist endeavors, with carved solid spruce tops, and again, impeccable quality. So on to the McCartney Texan, the only guitars Paul has ever allowed to use his name for endorsement/selling purposes. This is another model people know little about today, but it's the best example I'm aware of where Gibson finally asked Terada to build an acoustic with the build quality of a Gibson, and with solid woods throughout. When the one I own arrived, after setting it up to my preferences, I was floored by the tone I was getting - it just nailed the dry & slightly metallic overtones I so love from '60s Gibsons with adjustable bridges. My example of the Terada McCartney Texan feels light as a feather, and is easily equal to today's Bozeman Gibsons in build quality. And once again, I can directly compare it to the two very fine Gibson roundshoulders I own. All three are different, but they are all equally satisfying. The guitar industry has changed and evolved considerably from the earliest days of offshore production. The best builders worldwide use similarly automated equipment, and employ labor forces populated with people who just need a job. The Kalamazoo days of skilled craftsmen working their entire careers with one company & retiring with a pension are long gone. Guitars are built differently today, and what the manufacturing process looks like around the world has increasingly leveled out. That said, who manufactures what & where will continue to be driven by specific price points, and of course, labor costs. Fun stuff, huh? I don't know what will determine Gibson's future directions, but the more USA-made Epi classics, the better! (Edit: The oval-soundhole Howard Roberts acoustic carved-spruce archtop would be soooo cool!).
  10. Best of luck to you in finding another guitar that is satisfying in every way.
  11. Bravo - A thoughtful response that goes well beyond the curt one liner! I agree with much of what you say, but we’re talking about two different issues: Post 1970 Epiphone production vs the current ability of top pacific-rim makers to produce instruments on a par with their USA counterparts. Will get back to you tonight when I have more time to discuss further.
  12. Hello? Having a little difficulty comprehending? If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a “bazillion” times, and most recently in the second paragraph of my last post. Again, these companies both build fine guitars, and they essentially operate on a similar playing field. Thanks so much for repeating what I just said, which apparently indicates that we are in agreement on that point. But where the corporate road currently separates is in Martin’s handling of the loose binding and neck reset issues. Terrific that you have not experienced these problems to date, but the world does not end at your nose. Thanks to sbpark for being just one of the “bazillions” to share how Martin left him in the lurch with his neck reset issue. Again, plenty more of these testimonials over at UMGF. Now if you’d like to get off the dance floor, we could sit a few out & grab a beer.
  13. We can keep doing this dance for as long as you want to keep going down the same repetitive road. Of course people come here to ask about Gibson QA stuff, just like they go to UMGF to ask about Martin QA stuff. And guess what? For anything similar to these assorted blemish issues, Martin guys typically give the exact same answers: "Oh, it must be the dealer's fault..... Decide if you really want to keep that guitar, and if so, try negotiating a discount you can live with..... I wouldn't keep anything sold as new that isn't perfect - send it back..... If you want to keep the guitar, it might be covered under warranty, contact Martin." For the umpteenth time, my point being that these two companies exist on the same playing field. They both make good guitars, and they both have screw ups from time to time because they are significantly automated production line manufacturers with regular staff turnover. That said, Martin's systemic & extended binding problem is the most severe example I can recall in recent decades, and their corporate leadership's silence on the matter is disappointing to say the least. Hopefully their loyal customers will be better served in the future. And speaking of loyalty, it seems pretty obvious that if ever there was a Martin fanboy, you are it. Nothing wrong with that at all. But a Martin fanboy who continually feels the need to elevate Martins above Gibsons on a Gibson forum is rather sadly pathetic. So why are you here? Have you torched your bridges with every other forum via your typical calling card incivility? No problem - you can tout your Martins here all day long, post pictures as you have, and enjoy sharing with everyone how much you like them. Beyond that, I would refer you once again to Frank's sage advice.
  14. Glad you brought that up again. And feel free to get about a bazillion testimonials on UMGF’s “Technical Info” section as to how problematic that “BS” has been for Martin owners, while Martin’s corporate heads ignore it all. Then read a bit further to find stories about Martin screw ups along the lines of this finish blip. Most recent one I recall was about four blemished areas on an otherwise beautiful rosewood back, most likely caused by an assembly line machine that holds the instrument stationary during an automated buffing process. You opened this door once again, all on your own, to create another Martin vs Gibson thing. We get that you love your Martins & that’s great - but in today’s world, they’re just another automated USA production line instrument, and screw ups will sometimes happen. Far from not liking Martin’s, I had one of mine out last night & thoroughly enjoyed playing it. They do indeed build fine instruments. But for a variety of reasons, I like playing my Gibsons even more.
  15. No problem. You are free to ignore whatever facts you choose.
×
×
  • Create New...