stein

Well, ME, I haven't changed!

All true, I wouldn't depend on it. Unless, there is evidence that there was once an "upside down" bridge, that would be close to proof positive the top is original? (Or evidence of another bridge that can be seen?) Don't take this to the bank: I honestly don't recall what bridge is correct for the '63 or '67 someone said earlier. It's a lotta assumptions.

That is likely true. And a good point. Where Gibson did the bridges "right side up" as Martin does would be what years? Even though this bridge is not either Gibson or Martin...the shape is a little different. But, while it would be very hard with pics, I bet a close examination of the top and bridge area might reveal a bit more with the info you suggest.

An ES-330 in Baritone would be PERFECT for us getting bigger guys. A little larger, thin, light... I think Gibson should maybe think about a whole new line of guitars for this growing demographic in these days of covid. They can be under the "lifestyle" section...

We can probably say for sure, this is more than one guitar...that is the bridge, fretboard, and more than likely the top do not match the headstock. And THAT means the guitar would have at least got a new finish or parts refinished and sprayed over. And THAT means there would be a lot of checking. I don't see where these tuners would not cover holes that were there from original tuners. And of course, for a "custom" build you have to have fancy "custom" tuners, right? I wouldn't want to say for sure that the back and sides are Gibson based on a pic of the label and a little of the bracing. More pics would be helpful.

That's like a real theatre. And on top of that, you likely don't get a job there unless you know what you are doing. And on top of that, if you happen to not do a top-notch job, they don't keep you. I seen that orchestra (Setzer...the big one) at an outdoor place around here NOT known for it's sound, and they sounded great. I also had the record when I had my fancy audiophile turntable and such. Them in that theatre would top almost anything in my memory! You are a blessed man.

So, so many reasons. And sound is generally far better than it used to be isn't it? I have been out of it for so long....I don't even know what they use for equipment these days.

Maybe a baritone? I seem to remember a V in Baritone.

Sometimes I feel like telling the sound guys the sound is bad is like telling a friend they have bad breath.

Oddly, the only thing that looks genuine on this guitar is the headstock itself. I have met some relatively well known musicians that were not bashful that what they were playing were copies. Like a Tokia or Aria with a replaced headstock. My best guess is that this is one of those guitars. That is, a "generic" guitar with a replaced headstock. Any evidence of that where the headstock joins the neck?

I remember nearly everyone here, and who is who is coming back to me. I haven't played hardly at all since. In fact, I picked up and played about 6 months ago and found I had no callouses left. Can you even imagine? I know this sounds strange to a lot of you, but unless I am going to play in a band or with others, I have no desire to play, and right now, there isn't a desire to join a band or start that all up again. But, every now and again....I think what if? I should jam with these folks...or..but it's only just a thought. It's a LOT of work! This may sound vain, but where I used to be somewhat a ham, now I do NOT want to go up on stage!

AH, yes, I remember these builds now. I seem to remember you had some specific mini's in it, too. Didn't this start a conversation about different mini's back in the day?

Interesting. Not "uncool" that it isn't a true 70's spec, cause do we really want that anyway? One thing to note maybe, is that perhaps his real one may be one of the nicer ones. Better year. The thing I remember most about the 70's ones is the shape. The top carve, headstock, maybe even the neck angle. VERY different feeling guitars than what they make now. But the other thing, those mini humbuckers are some great sounding pup's in my opinion. They are definitely unique. Some my find them bland or flat, but they also have a mid growl that nothing else has. They can be very creamy with distortion. I didn't watch the whole vid, but one thing I didn't get was how is the top carve on it? It actually looks flatter than the 50's LP I remember of a few years ago. Is this true?

I forgot how funny this place can be!

I remember you!

nice, nice color on that one!

guys...guys!!!

I can NOT believe you guys are STILL HERE! This was a great place back then. I have to assume it still is if you gays are still here.

RABS!!!!

JDGM!!!! You remembered!!

Sounds like you already know what you are after and what the different string types sound like. You might even know more than us guys giving advice (me included) Here is mine: It was on my L7 (61?) that I discovered the relationship between tension and tone. It structurally handles fat strings just fine, but this one likes lighter ones. Lots of tension seems to choke it out. Lighter ones sound brighter. What this particular guitar likes isn't true for all my others or others I have played/tried. Each one likes what it likes. Like matching bullets to guns for accuracy. After becoming aware of this, I would tune up or down on my guitars to try and find if that particular guitar likes more or less tension. Sometimes the results are drastic.

335 is always a contender. Always.

Is Henry still in charge? Is this place really still here? Should I maybe, possibly, learn to play again? Does Gibson make anything that might hide the fact I have put on a few pounds?

I believe, and I believe this is true, there are two different things in play here: the tonality of the guitar as it relates to weight, and the sustain of the guitar. I believe both exist, but they are not the same thing. For one, the idea that weight equates to sustain is a myth. Also, being solid doesn't matter either. It used to be the popular perception, but more and more people are realizing it isn't the case. I guess a good example would be an acoustic flat-top guitar. They are both lighter and definitely not solid, they should have no sustain at all. In the case of frequency, or bright vs dark tonality, weight IS one of the factors that effects it, along with tension and coupling. A heavier guitar, everything else being equal, will be darker sounding than a lighter one. The reason there are still bright sounding heavy ones and dark sounding light ones is because not everything is equal. But to be sure, if you take the same guitar and change the weight of the tuners, there will be a difference in tonality. A little or a lot, but to one who is listening for it, it may seem like a lot. To one listening to the entire picture, might not hear the difference past a string change or the turn of the settings on the amp. But back to sustain: If you have a very dark sounding guitar, like say, a Les Paul Custom with ebony board that weighs 14 pounds, and has a naturally "dead" sound, there isn't a lot of treble in it's own sound and not very loud acoustically. Note don't change much as they decay. Plugged into an amp where one would simply turn the tone controls where he likes it, it could SEEM to sustain for days, because it's all amp and the notes are even sounding. But if you time it, it's more often than not the same. Really, you would have to add a LOT of weight to the guitar to change it fundamentally, and you can't add enough weight to the headstock to effect it enough to change it to get that perceived sustain. But dialing in that little bit to go a direction you like when you can hear it, it does tend to make one hear a good guitar as better.

Just bumping this thread cause I can't link to another thread I wanted to.