Sheraton Body Shape (and neck?) inconsistencies....

[charlie brown]

This is very ODD, after this length of time.

 

I was in my dealer's last week, and noticed 3 brand new "regular" Sheraton's

(I.E., not 50th Anniversary models), and two were consistent, in the "correct"

Gibson style ES body shape. They were the Sunburst, and the Ebony models.

However, the "Natural" finished one, had the older Korea (Samick) generic body

style! WTH??? I thought they'd all gone to the more accurate Gibson body

silhouette, nowadays. My Dealer checked it, and told me, the Natural one was

made in Korea, and the other's were made in China. The Korean one, had the

5-piece vertical seamed neck, I couldn't see what the Chinese versions had,

because they were totally painted over!

 

What if I wanted a "Natural," but with the correct body style, AND the 5-piece

neck style??? Am I SOL???

 

What gives, Epi???!!!

 

Examples: (Photos, from Sweetwater site)

 

Old (Natural) style body outline:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ETS2NAGH/

 

New (Correct, ES Gibson style) body outline:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ETS2VSGH/

 

CB

[charlie brown]

Understood. But, wouldn't they "spec" them out, the same, now?

Do the Chinese versions have the 5 piece neck, now? They didn't

at first...it was a 1 piece neck, with scarf joints at either end,

for the headstock, and heal. I much prefer the 5-piece neck, but

also the Gibson style body, as well. ????

 

I really don't care, what country they're manufactured in, I'd just

like to know they'll be consistent, in spec's, and in body shape!

 

CB

[Coz52]

Mine is an Unsung 2005. With the narrowed ears. I sooth myself thusly: It's a Sheraton. Not a faux ES-335. Now, the non 5 piece/scarfed neck......., THAT I would have a problem with.

[charlie brown]

I understand this isn't "important," in the grand scheme of things...but, I would like to

know, what I can expect to be getting, spec wise, even if part of it is covered by paint!

 

Anyway, a while back, someone on this forum, mentioned he'd seen several of the "new" Gibson

body style Sheraton's, with 5-piece necks, now. I questioned that, and was assured he'd

seen them, in a dealer's store. And, I remember seeing one, myself (a "Natural") on the

Sweetwater web site, that was as he had mentioned. But, ALL of the "Natural" finished

versions, lately...both in my dealer's store, and on Sweetwater's web page, have been those

made in Korea, with the "generic" Samick body style. So, I'm really curious, as to what

exactly is going on? Is it randome? Are ONLY the "Natural" versions being made (now) in Korea?

Are some "Natural" finished Sheri's still made in China. IF so, do they ALL have 5-piece necks,

now...including the ones that are sunburst, or black, regardless of which country they're made in?

 

 

CB

[Bender 4 Life]

I understand this isn't "important," in the grand scheme of things...but, I would like to

know, what I can expect to be getting, spec wise, even if part of it is covered by paint!

 

Anyway, a while back, someone on this forum, mentioned he'd seen several of the "new" Gibson

body style Sheraton's, with 5-piece necks, now. I questioned that, and was assured he'd

seen them, in a dealer's store. And, I remember seeing one, myself (a "Natural") on the

Sweetwater web site, that was as he had mentioned. But, ALL of the "Natural" finished

versions, lately...both in my dealer's store, and on Sweetwater's web page, have been those

made in Korea, with the "generic" Samick body style. So, I'm really curious, as to what

exactly is going on? Is it randome? Are ONLY the "Natural" versions being made (now) in Korea?

Are some "Natural" finished Sheri's still made in China. IF so, do they ALL have 5-piece necks,

now...including the ones that are sunburst, or black, regardless of which country they're made in?

 

 

CB

 

I noticed the same thing a while back while window-shopping at Sweetwaters V/G but just figured the Na were older leftovers.....I think it's the same way w/Standard Casinos too.

[mgrasso]

This is my guess.

The Unsung plant still had leftover parts for the Sheraton IIs (body's and necks).

Made a deal with epiphone to finish producing those units.

Hence the new numbering system and older specs.

I'm sure as soon as the stock runs out, they will all be made in China.

 

My 2 cents.

[Red 333]

Understood. But, wouldn't they "spec" them out, the same, now?

 

CB

 

Because the Korean plant would be required to make a costly investment to replace all their forms and jigs with new ones of the Gibson shape. I doubt it's anything they would be motivated to do, especially since they do so little manufacturing for Epiphone now.

 

Red 333

[charlie brown]

Thanks, Red 333, and mgasso. Makes sense, if that's the reason. I just hope,

that when things finally do "settle down," we'll have the best of both, for the

Sheraton. 5-piece necks, and Gibson style bodies! Regardless, of "finish!"

 

Just a note of curiosity....would you like to keep the same, overall spec's, now...

OR, a return to Kalamazoo spec's, with mini-humbuckers, stop and frequensator tail

piece options, 1-piece mahogany necks, and all the original color options, as well?

 

OR...have both...with the "Kalamazoo" spec's version made in Japan, as an additional

"Elitist" model, along with the Casino, and possibly a Kalamazoo spec'd Riviera, again?

 

Do you think there would be enough real "interest" (equals purchasing/sales), to justify

bringing it back, as an "Elitist?"

 

Again, just curious, as to what your feelings on this are.

 

CB

[charlie brown]

Re: Chinese Vs Korean spec'd Sheri's...

 

Well, over the short term, maybe. It seems like (to me, at least) having two very

different spec'd Sheratons, of the same type (Non-Elitist/Kalamazoo) would be confusing,

and ultimately hinder sales. But, maybe not???

 

CB

[Jayyj]

I think there's a lot of scope for Epiphone to offer a heritage range along the lines of the limited run Casino and Sheraton, whilst retaining the Sheraton II and Dot as a budget 335 style range. With Gretsch doing so well with the Electromatics and Guild reintroducing their electric models, it seems like a good time to put the vintage models back on the map. The recent reissues look great for the price, but personally I'd rather see the historically accurate stuff as pro-level instruments such as the Elitists and Gretsch pro-line. I guess it depends if Gibson feel there's a market for them, and whether pro level Epis muddies the water for Gibson in terms of 335 sales.

[mgrasso]

Red's point is very valid.

How much old stock would they have laying around.

But I do believe that the Chinese versions would not revert to the 5 peice neck.

Or the would not have changed once production began in China.

 

For me, I like CB's suggestion that even the standard versions of the models should be produced with as original specs as possible.

 

For the Sheraton, they should be equipped with the Minis and Frequensator tail piece.

Sheraton II's can be produced with the stop tail and regular humbuckers.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Bluemans335]

Because the Korean plant would be required to make a costly investment to replace all their forms and jigs with new ones of the Gibson shape. I doubt it's anything they would be motivated to do, especially since they do so little manufacturing for Epiphone now.

 

+1. They couldn't justify the cost. How many people would notice the difference between the two, and of the few that did, how many actually care?

[charlie brown]

I don't know...if Gibson/Epiphone put in their spec's, that they are "subject to change

at any time"...why not "change" to something consistent, at least within the same model?!!

And, if the Korean's can make a 5-piece neck, there's no reason the Chinese can't, for

the same cost, too.

 

And...After all, the Sheraton is the "Flagship" of the ES Epi models. Shouldn't it be

the most consistent, of all???!!!

 

CB

[Bluemans335]

I don't know...if Gibson/Epiphone put in their spec's, that they are "subject to change

at any time"...why not "change" to something consistent, at least within the same model?!!

And, if the Korean's can make a 5-piece neck, there's no reason the Chinese can't, for

the same cost, too.

 

And...After all, the Sheraton is the "Flagship" of the ES Epi models. Shouldn't it be

the most consistent, of all???!!!

 

Not if it's going to sigificantly add to the cost. Who's going to pay for new machines and tooling in the Korean plants so that Epi production can be standardized? As an accountant, I can certainly understand that. They make guitars so that they can be sold at a profit. You are obviously not an accountant.

 

The best-sounding necks are thick and one-piece. Having multiple pieces of wood glued together gives more rigidity, but glue isn't known for it's tonal properties. The more pieces, the more glue, the more wood separation, and the less vibration transfer. If there's a 'problem' it's with the Korean production, not the Chinese. I'd much rather have a Chinese Sheraton. They're making a better product, including the necks.

[charlie brown]

Not if it's going to sigificantly add to the cost. Who's going to pay for new machines and tooling in the Korean plants so that Epi production can be standardized? As an accountant, I can certainly understand that. They make guitars so that they can be sold at a profit. You are obviously not an accountant.

 

The best-sounding necks are thick and one-piece. Having multiple pieces of wood glued together gives more rigidity, but glue isn't known for it's tonal properties. The more pieces, the more glue, the more wood separation, and the less vibration transfer. If there's a 'problem' it's with the Korean production, not the Chinese. I'd much rather have a Chinese Sheraton. They're making a better product, including the necks.

 

Look, I understand all that. What I don't understand, is why Epiphone STILL has different spec's,

for the same guitar! Why don't they build them all, in China, or Japan, now? Why have another

factory, with diffenent build spec's? The whole point, of the Chinese dedicated factory, was to

keep build quality, and spec's, the same, throughout the line! IF they're going to still have other

factories build their guitars, at different spec's, what was the point, of "Qingdao?" I don't expect Samick

to "retool" for just Epiphone output. That's obviously not worth it, unless they were making ALL

of Epiphone's output. Then, it might(?) be.

 

As to one piece necks, being better than 5-piece. Maybe...but 1-piece, with scarf joints at either

end, ends up a 3-piece neck. IF they made them, like they did in Kalamazoo...and like Gibson STILL

does, as solid one piece necks, with only the small "wing" pieces, on either side of the headstock, Great!

But, such is not the case. So, I don't think the current Chinese "one piece" is the same, or even

better tonally, than the Korean 5-piece version. Sorry! Why not make ALL Epiphones, to original spec's,

from the Kalamazoo era? Just because they're now made in Asia, doesn't mean they have to have

different build and design spec's...does it?!

 

CB

[Coz52]

Not if it's going to sigificantly add to the cost. Who's going to pay for new machines and tooling in the Korean plants so that Epi production can be standardized? As an accountant, I can certainly understand that. They make guitars so that they can be sold at a profit. You are obviously not an accountant.

 

The best-sounding necks are thick and one-piece. Having multiple pieces of wood glued together gives more rigidity, but glue isn't known for it's tonal properties. The more pieces, the more glue, the more wood separation, and the less vibration transfer. If there's a 'problem' it's with the Korean production, not the Chinese. I'd much rather have a Chinese Sheraton. They're making a better product, including the necks.

I am just wondering, in as neutral a fashion as possible, how much of a role glue plays in the tonal quality of a neck. I've worked with wood and glue. Yeah it was in woodshop forty-some years ago but I remember gluing pieces together. Applying the glue, CLAMPING the pieces together and watching the majority of the glue being squeezed out. The vast majority. probably 99. something %. Then once that dries (and shrinks), that bond often became the most unbreakable part of whatever it was you were making. Suggesting that on a molecular level you had a higher mass at the joint. I have difficulty imagining how a vibration between the joined materials would be hindered/absorbed at this point. It just doesn't make much sense. Has anyone ever A-B'd a five-piece and a solid neck and heard a difference?

[bobouz]

Sometime last year, I posted re my surprise at seeing a

5-piece neck first hand on a Chinese Sheraton.

 

They are definitely out there,

but who knows how many.

[charlie brown]

Sometime last year, I posted re my surprise at seeing a

5-piece neck first hand on a Chinese Sheraton.

 

They are definitely out there,

but who knows how many.

 

See, I remembered that! (Sorry, bobouz ...that I didn't remember "Who"

had done it!)

 

Well, what "I" would ultimately like to see, is Epiphone stick to their Kalamazoo

era spec's, all across the board, regardless of where they're made! Including

necks, body designs, hardware, and Truss rod type, and covers! Why NOT? It's

the labor they're saving the most on, anyway. Aside from the Truss Rod & cover,

their recent '50th Anniversary Sheraton, was GREAT!! As were the 50th anniversary

Casino's. Just those last little "tweaks" and they would have been "perfect"

replications, aside from the non-nitro finishes, which is ok/understandable.

 

CB

[Jayyj]

Before we get too hung up on the one piece Mahogany necks are superior, don't forget many of Gibson's true high end arch-tops (L-5, ES-5, Super 400 etc) had laminated Maple necks, with Mahogany used on low and mid range models of the same period. I know in theory a laminated neck is stiffer than solid wood but I'd be pushed to say a laminated neck of either wood sounds appreciably different to a solid one, or if a scarf joint sounds different to a one piece headstock. Then there's neck mass, and where the neck joins the body, both of which in theory would effect the tone but I'm not convinced I could pick out one from the other.

 

Recently I had the chance to compare my Fugi-Jen Maple necked Casino to a more recent Elitist with a deeper Mahogany neck. They felt significantly different to play due to the neck profiles but sounded remarkably similar. I do find 335s with the 70s three piece Maple to sound consistently a little brasher than the 60s or reissue versions with Mahogany, but I'm not sure I want to pin all of that on the neck.

 

At the end of the day, being a bit of a history buff I like Sheraton IIs to have the five piece neck, and reissues to have the correct Kalamazoo specs (Mahogany one piece, Frequensor and mini humbuckers).

[Jayyj]

One thing I notice looking at Sheraton IIs is that the wonky body outline seems to change throughout the period they were produced, being closer but not accurately 335 proportions in the 80s, then getting a little further off throughout the 90s. Or is this just my eyes deceiving me?

 

It's also bizarre that the Sheraton has always had the wonky outline whilst Rivieras and later Dots of the same period have an authentic 335 outline. Oh well, gives them something to reissue in twenty years time... "Gibson by Epiphone" Samick Sheraton Anniversary edition, anyone?

[Coz52]

This is one of the original Sheratons. Note the narrower, "wonky", "incorrect" ears.

[charlie brown]

This is one of the original Sheratons. Note the narrower, "wonky", "incorrect" ears.

 

Well, that's from '66-'67 on. I have a '66 Casino, with that same type

"wonky" upper bout "ears." Gibson did the same thing, with their ES330,

335-345-355's of that era. Trying to get away from the "Mickey Mouse"

ears, that were on the late '50's and early '60's versions.

 

IF Epiphone were to go back to "Kalamazoo" spec's, the best would be

pre-1966...IMHO. Those, like the AIUSA, and Elitist body styles, and

the AIUSA headstock...which is more accurate to the '63-69 versions.

 

But, even if they want to keep the current Chinese body style, and headstock

shape, at least be consistant, with it...throughout the runs, and/or finish

options. Why have different body shapes, and neck construction, JUST for the

"Naturals?" I can see different=better wood grains, for the tops, on those

that have transparent finishes. But, why have 2 (or more?) different neck

constructions?

 

Well, ultimately...they'll DO whatever they WANT to, regardless. LOL

So, I suppose all of this is moot, or just a "tail chase"...???

But, one can always hope, and/or "wish=dream."

 

CB

[Jayyj]

It's funny, although 335 family guitars change horn shape considerably through the guitar's history - even the accuracy of the horns of the various reissues have been subject to intense debate on the Les Paul forum - I don't think of any of the Kalamazoo guitars as incorrect. Personally I prefer the more pointed horns of the Sheraton pictured to the original Mickey Mouse ears anyway. The Korean Sheratons do seem further away from the original design than Gibson have ever strayed though.

[Bluemans335]

What I don't understand, is why Epiphone STILL has different spec's,

for the same guitar! Why not make ALL Epiphones, to original spec's,

from the Kalamazoo era? Just because they're now made in Asia, doesn't mean they have to have

different build and design spec's...does it?!

 

How many people have gotten worked up about it to the extent that you have? A handful? Not enough to justify the cost. The guitar market is extremely competitive now with the lingering economy (people need food to live, not guitars). Epiphone's done a GREAT job of improving quality and lowering prices. Let them slide on this one.

[Bluemans335]

Before we get too hung up on the one piece Mahogany necks are superior, don't forget many of Gibson's true high end arch-tops (L-5, ES-5, Super 400 etc) had laminated Maple necks, with Mahogany used on low and mid range models of the same period.

 

Gibson also did things like that for cosmetics, not tonal reasons. In some ways they intentionally increased costs to befit the high-end nature of the guitar, regardless if it served any other purpose or not. More 'bling.' They also had some features (like an LP Std's carved top) partially because they knew Fender didn't have the tooling to do that themselves.