E-minor7 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 If I'm not groovin' in a smoke-filled Mexican bar getting to the buttom of a bottle of butterfly larva booze with trumpet folklore ringing in one ear and strip-tease dancers singing in the other, this is a short scale guitar. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeselmer Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 If I'm not groovin' in a smoke-filled Mexican bar getting to the buttom of a bottle of butterfly larva booze with trumpet folklore ringing in one ear and strip-tease dancers singing in the other, this is a short scale guitar. . Haha, vivid image! I quess it's me in the bar...how can it be short scale? Did I measure it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Your good pics show the same measure as my same-period G's. Guess we need a third part with inch-expertise to chime in now. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slk Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 That for sure is a long scale. It is measuring 25.5 + - just a fraction. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 If I'm not groovin' in a smoke-filled Mexican bar getting to the buttom of a bottle of butterfly larva booze with trumpet folklore ringing in one ear and strip-tease dancers singing in the other, this is a short scale guitar. . Sorry, but his technique is correct, and that's a long-scale guitar. I measured my three short-scale Gibson acoustics, and the corresponding measurement (bearing surface at nut to center of 12the fret) averaged 12.3125", or 312.74mm. Double that, and you get a scale length of 24.625". which is pretty much the average Gibson short-scale length. We may need to re-think the timeline on the details of the square should Gibsons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 There she is! Wow, that's great detective work E-minor7! :-) How did you find out the exact photo of my guitar on the net? That is one Fine-looking Bird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 With your allowance - Doesn't really look long scale. . This one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 It's come to this has it??? Guys pulling out their rulers to see whose is longest????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Sorry, but his technique is correct, and that's a long-scale guitar. I measured my three short-scale Gibson acoustics, and the corresponding measurement (bearing surface at nut to center of 12the fret) averaged 12.3125", or 312.74mm. Double that, and you get a scale length of 24.625". which is pretty much the average Gibson short-scale length. We may need to re-think the timeline on the details of the square should Gibsons. But that's what we see in the pic !??! - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 To my tired old eyes, that picture looks to have been taken at an angle. The headstock is tilted away from the body, making the neck look a small bit shorter. Unless Mikeseimer is using a rubber ruler, it's a long neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I might be lost in that Mexican bar. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 But that's what we see in the pic !??! - No, what I see in the picture of the 'Bird is a measurement to the 12th fret of about 12.625", or 320.675 mm. Double that, and you get a scale length of about 25.25". Nominal long-scale is 25.5, Gibson short scale is nominally 24.75", but more typically about 24.625". Sort of like nut width: slight variations from the nominal dimensions. Somewhere recently, I saw a timeline of Gibson "short scale" lengths at various points in time. As I recall, that scale length has varied from just over 24.5" to the full-length 24.75". Not that we're talking big differences. We're talking about 1/4" (about 6.35mm) here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I might be lost in that Mexican bar. . . Just another tequila sunrise....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Your good pics show the same measure as my same-period G's. Guess we need a third part with inch-expertise to chime in now. . Well, , , , my turn to measure again and they were all 1 cm shorter - 30.2 - don't have an inch-ruler here. So Mr. Selmer has a long scale 1967 Kalamazoo Hummingbird - sure don't hope that 1 centimetre comes between you and your joy with the old guitar. Keep us informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeselmer Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 No, what I see in the picture of the 'Bird is a measurement to the 12th fret of about 12.625", or 320.675 mm. Double that, and you get a scale length of about 25.25". Nominal long-scale is 25.5, Gibson short scale is nominally 24.75", but more typically about 24.625". Sort of like nut width: slight variations from the nominal dimensions. Somewhere recently, I saw a timeline of Gibson "short scale" lengths at various points in time. As I recall, that scale length has varied from just over 24.5" to the full-length 24.75". Not that we're talking big differences. We're talking about 1/4" (about 6.35mm) here. You mean this site? There's some info on wavering Gibson scale lengths over the years due to changing production equipment: http://www.stewmac.com/How-To/Online_Resources/Fretting/Scale_Length_Explained.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeselmer Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 Well, I am happy that this thread with the scale length discussion now has common interest to all Gibson fans :-) Maybe we can all learn something here (to me it's basically all new stuff, as I am new to vintage Gibsons). Getting back to the original title of this topic and Tim Christensen's super 1967 Hummingbird: can your tired and old, but more experienced eyes recognize if his Hummingbird is short or long scale? Here's a pretty good look at it (some neck closeups at around 2mins): By the way, for once the Hummingbird doesn't sound so brilliant here! haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Well, I am happy that this thread with the scale length discussion now has common interest to all Gibson fans :-) Maybe we can all learn something here (to me it's basically all new stuff, as I am new to vintage Gibsons). Getting back to the original title of this topic and Tim Christensen's super 1967 Hummingbird: can your tired and old, but more experienced eyes recognize if his Hummingbird is short or long scale? Here's a pretty good look at it (some neck closeups at around 2mins): By the way, for once the Hummingbird doesn't sound so brilliant here! haha! The difference between long-scale and short-scale is so small visually that without being able to measure, you can't tell by looking at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeselmer Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 I am still and continually experimenting on how to make the long-scale 1967 Hummingbird in this thread sound the best it can...what an interesting quest! Here's what I've found out so far: THE EFFECT OF A LONG SCALE: I think this is as expected: the tone is somewhat tight and focused, as opposed to the rounder and looser tone of a short scale Hummingbird (I haven't tried a short scale, but that's what I've read). The bass and trebles are forward-sounding and focused, and full chords stay nicely intact. For fingerstyle, a short scale might suit better, as the notes pop out a bit too boldly and loudly with the long scale - short scale might sound more relaxed. STRINGS: I got the most balanced tone with the basic D'addario EJ16 strings. With these strings, nothing really stands-out EQ-wise, and that's great with this guitar. Maybe a tad more bass would be nice, though. The runner-up strings are the Thomastik Spectrums with their woody and fundamental and warm tone...if only they had more sustain. BRIDGE PINS: This really has an effect! I tried replacing the original plastic pins with bone and ebony pins. Bone pins (together with the installed bone saddle) accentuate the sound of the long scale even more: sound becomes even more focused and tight. I didn't really care for this. But ebony pins are just great for this guitar: they tame the forward-nature of the tone a little bit, just shaving off some of the highest highs, and make the basses sound less tight. It feels like they affect the feel and attack too: the tones don't stand out so brightly and fast, which I really dig. So far so good! But what next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.