pippy

Apologies for the drastic edidting of your post, Drew, but taking some points in order; Beautiful Instrument! Congrats! I've played several guitars with Richlite (and also Hagstrom's Richlite equivalent) and, although I'm a Luddite, I really liked it/them. VERY ebony-esque IMO. Looking forward to reading about your verdict! From the reports I've read over the years written by those who have used them the Min-E-Tune and G-Force systems would be perfect for your needs. Good question! I just had a google and they still seem to be an independently owned business. Pip.

Yes. I don't know when the style of binding was changed to the current form where a flat part of the nib sits flush with- and level with the fret took over from the earlier practice. Both my 1960 Classics (1991 & 1995) have the same style of binding as is used on my re-issues which is where the nib is shaped and tapered into the fret-top. Pip.

Agreed. I think it was more directed at the position taken by anyone who says "My Way Good; Your Way Not Good. You Old Fart." I do have, somewhere, a snap of one of my guitars which shows how fret-nibs were crafted in a different manner to how they are done (apparently) nowadays but it's not on the hard-drive and, of course, Photobucket has screwed-up much of my unimportant-Gibson-only reference stock so it will have to be added as-and-when I can find the original... Pip.

We Have a WINNER ! ! ! ! ! Pip.

There is a saying - well-known in engineering circles or so I'm led to believe - which suggests a link between 'Tools' and 'Bad Workmen'. Pip.

So you say. Well, all I can say is that for an "engineer" you talk an awful lot of shite. Pip.

Yup. Me too. Pip.

I thought the above sentiment sounded complete shite erroneous and so I've just checked. Unsurprisingly (to me) It is allowed after all. Perhaps I just have far superior technique to the OP? As, clearly, did Paul Kossoff. As does Eric Clapton. As does Peter Green. As does Billy Gibbons. As does Slash. As does Joe Perry, As does...well, I'm sure you get the idea. Seriously? Well I'm sure BB King had FAR better vibrato technique that I do so unless you have demonstrable evidence to prove he never used vibrato on the E string(s) can you please stop sullying the great man's name? Thank you. Pip.

I assure you; there's absolutely no problem on any of my guitars caused by the strings touching the back of the bridge. You are more than welcome to pop around any time to check them out for yourself if you doubt me. Pip.

What problem? Pip.

I just thought the sentiments expressed above were worth repeating. Pip. EDIT : BTW; why are we feeding the troll? EDITED EDIT : Damn! I've just done it again!

They do on the high- and low- E strings on the four guitars I have with ABR-1s. Pip.

Don't be silly. Pip.

Happy to have been able to help, Stevie. I learned a lot, too, so it was a Win-Win-fest. Pip.

Mere Luddites do too... Pip. EDIT : That should read SOME Luddites do too. My Bad.

The Nashville bridge was introduced in the mid-'70s as an improvement over the original ABR-1. It's more solid; it doesn't have a tendency to collapse with age; the bridge-saddles have a wider range of travel; adjustment of the saddles is easier as the screw-head faces rearwards instead of towards the bridge pick-up ring; it is more solidly located on heavier-duty studs; there is not the slight chance that the posts will become deformed and bend forwards under string pressure; the saddles can't fall out accidentally if a string breaks... That's all that I can think of without putting some real thought into the matter. Pip. EDIT : I can't understand why a '61 Re-issue SG can come with a Nashville fitted in the first place. Very Odd Idea.

It's a Gibson GK-55 Artist Active...apparently. I must admit that I'd never heard of it before but anything with active circuitry from those days used to be a XXXXXXX Artist so I did a google and subsequently found a few images of instruments identical to yours including this eBay post; https://www.ebay.com...s-/152918084010 Unusually for the time it was made (as JeffyTune has already mentioned) in the old Gibson plant in Kalamazoo and not Nashville. I'm guessing the name comes from Gibson Kalamazoo 1955 because the guitar has a certain similarity to the flat-top two p'up Les Paul Special which was introduced in 1955? EDIT : OK. There's no wiki entry specifically for the Artist Active variant but here is what Wiki has to say about the (basic) GK-55 model; https://en.wikipedia...ki/Gibson_GK-55 Although this basic version might have been pretty much down at the bottom of the pecking order the active electronics in yours makes it of considerable more interest and, as can be seen in the Wiki entry, this will be a pretty rare guitar nowadays - and probably VERY rare if the notoriously unreliable Moog electronics are still fully-functioning... All-in-all quite a cool instrument to own! Pip.

Pictures would definitely help an awful lot. It does sound a bit like an Invader but with an active circuit!?! Try the following. First try to get your image a reasonable size. 30cm x 20cm @72dpi or thereabouts. Probably 500 - 900kb. Set up an account with a picture hosting site. FWIW I use postimage. It's easy to use and it's free. Here's the relevant link. https://postimages.org/ When you have uploaded the image you will see a screen selection showing various options. Click on the one titled 'Hotlink for Forums'.. By way of illustration, image uploaded is seen top left. Click Hotlink for Forums (here circled green); Paste the code into your post. If you delete everything in the opening and closing square brackets sections - including the brackets - the image will be posted 'cleanly'. Like this; Hope this helps! Pip.

"Quod Erat Demonstrandum" as the Kray Twins used to quip whilst nailing some niggardly miscreant's head to the floor. What more proof can anyone ever need? That settles it. Never mind plugging a guitar into an amp. Next time I go shopping for an electric guitar I'm taking a doorframe with me. Pip.

Never mind the door frames! Hereabouts we have 1920's six-panel solid pine doors so the panels themselves act as great sounding-boards. Being the age they are these doors also feature long tenon construction and that, of course, makes a huge difference to our doors' end-tone. We've also had them dipped'n'stripped back to bare wood to let the wood itself breathe better. The bathroom door seems to be particularly resonant. Pip.

You know I don't have any friends, Farns, so stop your teasing... Yeah..."Neck Resonance; the Whys and the Wherefores. Discuss". I don't doubt I was yapping on about it back then; it was a thorn in my side for years. Was I saying much the same stuff back then as I'm saying now? I hope I've been reasonably stubborn consistent in my end-views... Your idea sounds fun. I'm shooting from home over the next few days if you fancy whacking my strings for me? I might even dispense the odd cuppa char at timely intervals. How's Flight's shift pattern these days? If he's free he might want to pop around too. Just a thought! Pip.

I think the deciding factor is the actual lump of wood from which the neck has been fashioned, how it behaves once fashioned and how harmonically it resonates in conjunction with vibrating strings. Over the years I've played many dozens of Les Pauls - well into three figures - and once I'd initially noticed an apparent corollary between how some guitars had what I considered to be a preferred tone both unplugged AND amplified I started to concentrate a lot more during the 'dry-run' stage in an effort to work out why some were 'better' (IMO) than others. The four LPs I currently own were bought because, when I was out on the hunt, they were the most 'alive' guitars I played. The hunt for the R0 alone took the greater part of a year and after playing perhaps 70-80 LPs in that time period. The other LPs I've played and which I would choose to buy in the period since I bought the last of my quartet also have this 'quality' which I've noticed I happen to prefer. As to the magnitude of the difference? Impossible to quantify. We have all played a few LPs which have been 'dead'. We have all played LPs which have been better and we have all played LPs which we think are great. I've only played a relatively small number - certainly fewer than a dozen - which I would say were Outstanding. But as far as being able to measure, somehow, this desirable essence which some small number of individual instruments possess? No Idea. Pip.

Well, FWIW, my conclusion is that the difference is mainly down to each lump of timber from which the guitars were crafted - and especially the piece of mahogany which constitutes the neck. Over the years I've noticed that the guitars which 'ring out' better have a certain quality which can be felt through the vibrations - most noticeably at the rear of the neck. Certainly the 500k pots may not all have precisely the same value and much the same applies to the various caps and the 57 Classics in each but all of this only matters when the guitar is amplified. As I said in my earlier post there is a measurable tonal difference when unplugged as well and, obviously, this cannot be put down to variations in electrical values. Just my hunch - but it is borne out by all I have experienced since this hunch occured to me some ten years ago. It just cannot be proven to be true - which is a bit of a pity... Pip.

Despite myself I find I am slowly getting mired in here... Oddly enough - and perhaps confusingly - I actually agree with most points made by most posters. Perhaps I am interpreting what is being written slightly differently from how others are interpreting things? Anyhow, another tuppenceworth from these shores regarding; Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I have two solid-body Les Paul Re-Issues; a 1993 R9 and a 1995 R0. Made just two years apart they share everything in common as regards hardware, electronics, body & neck materials and (neck-profile apart) design and method of construction. Yet they each sound different from one another both unplugged and when amplified. Why? Pip. EDIT : Just to say there is no cigar waiting for the correct answer. I've been pondering this puzzle for over a decade now and only have my own hunch as to 'Why?'. I've even had a friend compare tonal output from each on an oscilloscope and he confirmed that what I thought I had been hearing did exist and was not just a figment of my imagination.

I'm not going to get suckered into this discussion but I just wanted to add something regarding... Leaving Les' original preference for a six-foot length of railway track aside for the moment... The man at Parson's Street generally credited with 99% of the design of the Les Paul Model was their Chief Engineer of Woodworking; Larry Allers. Guitar historian Gil Hembree writes, in his excellent book "Gibson Guitars : Ted McCarty's Golden Era 1948 - 1966",; "Wood was one important consideration for the (forthcoming) solidbody. The team tested different kinds and Allers worked with patternmakers on different types of bodies using different woods. An all-maple body had great sustain but was deemed too heavy. An all-mahogany body didn't have enough sustain. So they tested various combinations......eventually they found a suitable combination." Carry On! Pip.