Full gibson line to be released Tomorrow?

[stein]

As to SG beveling? My only real complaint, with the 2016 offerings, is that they retained the nicer beveling/horn tapering

on the HP models, but NOT on the Traditional models, where, one would think, it belongs...being "traditional!"

 

Most, seemed to really

like it! And, the fact that Gibson DID retain the wider/deeper and horn tapers on the "advanced" HP line, must be some

indication that even they think it's the nicer spec. ???

 

 

"Whatever!"

 

CB

 

 

Hold that thought. I'm so with you on the wasted effort of different shapes on the different lines that I can't believe it.

 

 

I, for one, don't think Gibson is capable of a consistent SG carve. I think we just haven't seen a large enough sample size and we'll find different carves in both the T and HP lines.

Curiosity killed me, just went on the Gibson site and looked at every 2016 SG to look into the bevel thing.

 

It seems SG50 is correct: there is NO consistency across the line as far as bevels go. Some look deeper, some look "better", but all are different on the sample guitars they used for the pics.

 

I don't think they are using a CNC machine. And I don't think they have a spec they are going by. It seems more at the whim of whoever is doing the beveling on that day.

 

It kinda reminds me of the early 80's when Fender was starting to get back into the proper shapes and carves of their Strats, until they settled on one shape for all.

[Rabs]

 

I don't think they are using a CNC machine. And I don't think they have a spec they are going by. It seems more at the whim of whoever is doing the beveling on that day.

 

Yeah they do... check at 6:25 (at 7:58 you actually see the roundover bit doing the bevel)

[stein]

Yeah they do... check at 6:25 (at 7:58 you actually see the roundover bit doing the bevel)

I see it.

 

So...do the '61 reissues get EXTRA hand work to achieve the deeper bevels, or is the CNC machine set to different settings for different amounts of bevel?

 

I also wonder, how accurate are they? Case if you look at the website and look at the bevels for each 2016 example they have, they all seem clearly different from one another.

[scottpaine_69]

Does anyone know what constitutes improved GForce? What is improved? Can the improvements be back ported to existing GForce tuners?

 

Tha's funny! The improvement to the G-Force is that it is quieter when it auto tunes and it's less noisey when you tune manualey as well. Because people just couldn't take the tiny bit of sound the servos made while tuneing.

[Rabs]

I see it.

 

So...do the '61 reissues get EXTRA hand work to achieve the deeper bevels, or is the CNC machine set to different settings for different amounts of bevel?

 

I also wonder, how accurate are they? Case if you look at the website and look at the bevels for each 2016 example they have, they all seem clearly different from one another.

Hmmm. Donno....

 

I guess its possible they do extra work on some models.. They certainly do some fine sanding after the CNC process but im not sure about any actual shaping.. As mentioned before, it seems like more work to do certain models with certain bevels.. The whole point of a CNC machine is that its a machine and can make exact copies of the digital template they use.... So it doesn't seem to make sense apart from they want different bevels and tapering on different models?

[charlie brown]

I see it.

 

So...do the '61 reissues get EXTRA hand work to achieve the deeper bevels, or is the CNC machine set to different settings for different amounts of bevel?

 

I also wonder, how accurate are they? Case if you look at the website and look at the bevels for each 2016 example they have, they all seem clearly different from one another.

 

Well, as the tour guide stated, they're CNC machines, so they are programmed, for whichever model, they're beveling.

And, at several at a time, of each model they'd be pretty accurate one to the other. Any slight variance, would be due to

hand sanding later on, but that would be quite minimal, I would think. So, it seems the '61's, and HP's have more the wider,

deeper beveling, and the traditional's have the thinner bevels. All programmed according to model. WHY they decided

to use the thinner beveling and no horn tapering, on the traditional models, is unclear. Normally, you'd think that

"Tradition" should dictate the use of the wider/deeper bevels and horn tapers. So...??? Also, the amount, and where

the beveling is done, on those various models, is different, as well. While the "Traditional" has no horn tapering,

the back has more actual horn bevels, than the '61..which only has a bevel on the upper horn, on the back. The lower

horn is only beveled, and deeper, on the front. The back of it, is only tapered, as they were originally.

What I have seen is the horn tapering can vary...which is probably done by hand, so that would make sense.

 

 

FWIW, all my SG's seem pretty consistent, with the beveling/horn tapering. And, they all have the deeper/wider version.

But then, all mine ARE based on the '61.

 

CB

[stein]

Well, as the tour guide stated, they're CNC machines, so they are programmed, for whichever model, they're beveling.

And, at several at a time, of each model they'd be pretty accurate one to the other. Any slight variance, would be due to

hand sanding later on, but that would be quite minimal, I would think. So, it seems the '61's, and HP's have more the wider,

deeper beveling, and the traditional's have the thinner bevels. All programmed according to model. WHY they decided

to use the thinner beveling and no horn tapering, on the traditional models, is unclear. Normally, you'd think that

"Tradition" should dictate the use of the wider/deeper bevels and horn tapers. So...??? Also, the amount, and where

the beveling is done, on those various models, is different, as well. While the "Traditional" has no horn tapering,

the back has more actual horn bevels, than the '61..which only has a bevel on the upper horn, on the back. The lower

horn is only beveled, and deeper, on the front. The back of it, is only tapered, as they were originally.

What I have seen is the horn tapering can vary...which is probably done by hand, so that would make sense.

 

 

FWIW, all my SG's seem pretty consistent, with the beveling/horn tapering. And, they all have the deeper/wider version.

But then, all mine ARE based on the '61.

 

CB

Oh, I agree.

 

Just reading some of the comments, some might think you and others are kinda crazy. But then when you look at the actual bevels, there is a LOT of variation.

 

Seriously, look at the Gibson page, and click on all the 2016 SG models, both "T" and "HP". I see different beveling for each guitar, and it doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason according to which model or how expensive or affordable.

 

I don't know all that much about CNC machines. But without placing blame, I don't expect machines to always be perfect or completely capable. Nor do I know the WHOLE process behind making and shaping an SG body. But I find it hard to believe they would re-program the machines to purposely achieve a different amount of bevel that often.

[stein]

Tha's funny! The improvement to the G-Force is that it is quieter when it auto tunes and it's less noisey when you tune manualey as well. Because people just couldn't take the tiny bit of sound the servos made while tuneing.

Well, that might be a nicer way of saying "the manual tuning works better", without making the older ones seem flawed because they improved them.

 

I think one thing many didn't like so much about the idea of the G-force is the "feeling" that if they go out or fail, you are stuck. Even though Gibson has said many times over you CAN use it manually.

 

I have checked them out because of curiosity, but don't have the experience of owning one (like you do). And to be honest, tuning them manually does seen to me a bit hard and discomforting. Like it's being forced and maybe not good for them.

 

I think improvement in that area would be welcome. That is, the manual tuning part.

 

Of corse, that is if I am even correct about any of this.

[charlie brown]

Oh, I agree.

 

Just reading some of the comments, some might think you and others are kinda crazy. But then when you look at the actual bevels, there is a LOT of variation.

 

Seriously, look at the Gibson page, and click on all the 2016 SG models, both "T" and "HP". I see different beveling for each guitar, and it doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason according to which model or how expensive or affordable.

 

I don't know all that much about CNC machines. But without placing blame, I don't expect machines to always be perfect or completely capable. Nor do I know the WHOLE process behind making and shaping an SG body. But I find it hard to believe they would re-program the machines to purposely achieve a different amount of bevel that often.

 

No, they'd only do it, for specific models, as mentioned. The whole question, for Me, is WHY have two different beveling styles,

with one version ("T") having no horn tapering, the other ("HP") retaining that feature. And, even different amounts, and location

of said beveling. Plus, one would think, the "Traditional" would have the horn tapers, and wider/deeper bevels...being "Traditional!"

 

And YES, Stein...I AM quite insane!

 

CB

[stein]

The whole question, for Me, is WHY have two different beveling styles,

with one version ("T") having no horn tapering, the other ("HP") retaining that feature.

 

And YES, Stein...I AM quite insane!

 

CB

Looking at what I have seen, I don't think it's true to say the HP line have different bevels than the T line. I think that "rumor" started here (this thread?) because someone observed a particular guitar and made that assumption.

 

HP vs T having different beveling according to product line: not true, or at LEAST remains to be seen.

 

As for two different beveling styles? Maybe that's true, maybe not. But I am not seeing that. I see NO particular beveling style, except to say they all seem less. It looks to me all over the board. Out of the pics of the 2016 samples, I would say out of six guitars, 4 or 5 different beveling. And I couldn't be sure WHAT the particular style is aimed for, if any.

 

Perhaps it remains to be seen?

 

Go on the Gibson site here and look at the SG's for 2016. Tell me what YOU think!

[charlie brown]

Have I looked at the Gibson SG pages? Yes...that's where I noticed the differences!

But, if other's can't see those difference(s), I guess there's nothing I can say?

 

The bevel and horn tapering, between the HP and T versions are quite obvious, to me!

But maybe, as you stated "I must be a little 'Crazy'!" And, I'm used to

looking for those differences, as I much prefer the early '60's style bevels and

horn tapering. That's all.

 

Now, which version(s) actually end up in dealer's stores, out here...remains to be seen,

in my area of the country. Some dealers are reluctant to even order the HP series,

as their spec's (G-Force tuners, wider neck, and metal Zero fret) didn't do well, last

year! So, maybe all we'll get, out here, are the less beveled "T" series? Who knows?!

 

CB

[Rabs]

Oh, I agree.

 

Just reading some of the comments, some might think you and others are kinda crazy. But then when you look at the actual bevels, there is a LOT of variation.

 

Seriously, look at the Gibson page, and click on all the 2016 SG models, both "T" and "HP". I see different beveling for each guitar, and it doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason according to which model or how expensive or affordable.

 

I don't know all that much about CNC machines. But without placing blame, I don't expect machines to always be perfect or completely capable. Nor do I know the WHOLE process behind making and shaping an SG body. But I find it hard to believe they would re-program the machines to purposely achieve a different amount of bevel that often.

Well I did look and what I looked at was comparing the same models in the different lines... Ok I will post them all then so we can see :)

 

So the SG Standard T Small

 

And the SG Standard HP Big

 

Faded T Small

 

Faded HP Big

 

P90T Small

 

P90 HP Big

 

Special T Medium

 

Special HP Medium

[stein]

Have I looked at the Gibson SG pages? Yes...that's where I noticed the differences!

But, if other's can't see those difference(s), I guess there's nothing I can say?

 

The bevel and horn tapering, between the HP and T versions are quite obvious, to me!

But maybe, as you stated "I must be a little 'Crazy'!" And, I'm used to

looking for those differences, as I much prefer the early '60's style bevels and

horn tapering. That's all.

 

Now, which version(s) actually end up in dealer's stores, out here...remains to be seen,

in my area of the country. Some dealers are reluctant to even order the HP series,

as their spec's (G-Force tuners, wider neck, and metal Zero fret) didn't do well, last

year! So, maybe all we'll get, out here, are the less beveled "T" series? Who knows?!

 

CB

Maybe it's ME who has to take another look.

 

I actually don't think you are crazy...I realize YOU prefer all "regular" SG's to have the early sixties shaping, and that might be extreme. But as far as beveling and the fact it matters, I think you are spot on with your observations.

 

The beveling, that's part of the design, and part of what makes an SG what it is.

[charlie brown]

Maybe it's ME who has to take another look.

 

I actually don't think you are crazy...I realize YOU prefer all "regular" SG's to have the early sixties shaping, and that might be extreme. But as far as beveling and the fact it matters, I think you are spot on with your observations.

 

The beveling, that's part of the design, and part of what makes an SG what it is.

 

 

Well, there was no offense implied or taken. Just interesting, how we all observe things,

subtle, or otherwise.

 

And, you're quite right, the "bevels and horn tapers" to ME...are important, and what made, and still makes, an SG!

My own preferences, that way, are just that...my own. But, since they were first introduced, with the wider/deeper

bevels, and those early model spec's were on the guitars I learned on ('61 SG Junior) and later owned several others,

it's just what I prefer, still. Which, of course, is really only (mostly) aesthetic, or cosmetic, in nature.

 

CB

[stein]

Well I did look and what I looked at was comparing the same models in the different lines... Ok I will post them all then so we can see :)

 

 

I see. It seems the Hp line IS consistency more beveled than the t line.

 

I am surprised at myself, I usually have a good eye for this stuff. But how I got confused?

 

I also DO see SOME consistency to the shapes here, but still, there are inconsistencies, besides HP and T being deeper or more than the other. Or rather, inconsistencies don't mean there isn't consistencies. Make sense?

 

So...now that we are on the same page...(literally thanks to the above).

[charlie brown]

And...Thanks, Rabs, for posting those photos. There are some other body angle shots,

and close up side (body) views, on the various model spec's details page, that illustrate

the differing horn tapering, or lack thereof, as well.

 

 

CB

[stein]

Well, there was no offense implied or taken. Just interesting, how we all observe things,

subtle, or otherwise.

 

And, you're quite right, the "bevels and horn tapers" to ME...are important, and what made, and still makes, an SG!

My own preferences, that way, are just that...my own. But, since they were first introduced, with the wider/deeper

bevels, and those early model spec's were on the guitars I learned on ('61 SG Junior) and later owned several others,

it's just what I prefer, still. Which, of course, is really only (mostly) aesthetic, or cosmetic, in nature.

 

CB

I didn't think or feel the slightest bit of offence or hostility, from anyone.

 

Just me being wrong, that's all. Nothing wrong with being wrong.

 

But back to "bevels"...I think it's more than preference, it's about the guitar as a whole and how it's built. (Not that preference doesn't matter).

 

I think it's more than looks. While I don't pretend to be an SG expert, it's fairly obvious to me that the beveling and the amount of beveling will affect the FEEL of the guitar as one plays it and particularly against the body and the forearm. And also, the more wood removed the less it weighs. That affects tone. By "tone", I don't mean good tone vs not having "tone", I mean the weight of a guitar effects it's tonality.

 

Some of it might be splitting hairs, but some of it I think WILL be drastic as to the end result.

 

Not to mention, "aesthetically" matters too, or it should I think.

[charlie brown]

It WOULD be interesting, to compare the various SG's over the years, to see what tonal differences

there are, and exactly what those bigger, or lesser, bevels contribute to that. But, you'd have

to take into account the era specific "stock" pickups, that have varied, as well. Possibly, for

any real accuracy, you'd have to equip them ALL, with the same pickups and electronics, to get the

most accurate determination, as to how the beveling/loss of wood, or not, would be a factor.

 

I would never argue about the comfort, or visual appeal, of the wider/deeper beveling, and horn tapering.

But, as to any significant sound or tonal differences?? It would be interesting, from a technical,

or "scientific" aspect, if nothing else.

 

CB

[sg50]

Forget about bevels for a moment... they moved the strap pin to the back of the top horn!

 

http://content.andertons.co.uk/2/1/images/catalog/i/xxld_94332-HSGS90HCCH1_back.jpg

[Rabs]

Forget about bevels for a moment... they moved the strap pin to the back of the top horn!

 

http://content.andertons.co.uk/2/1/images/catalog/i/xxld_94332-HSGS90HCCH1_back.jpg

YUP

 

[charlie brown]

YUP

 

 

Well, THAT's just RUDE=WRONG!!

 

CB

[SteveFord]

Did they do that to the SG-T line up?

[Rabs]

Did they do that to the SG-T line up?

Nope

http://www.wildwoodguitars.com/products/160013441.php?CategoryID=533&n=42

[charlie brown]

Much as I love (a lot of) their products, Gibson sure does some "WEIRD" stuff, at times! :unsure:

 

CB

[Drog]

Kinda sad that the traditional lineup gets the lesser grades of wood, does not get mother of pearl inlays. Seems a waste of materials to put it on the "high performance aka 2015 fiasco series".