freddairy Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I've been looking at SG pics all night and I find the '61 Reissue heel doesn't really look anything like that on a real 1961 SG. But it seems to be much more similar to the 1965 models. Is the '61 RI closer to a mid 60s SG than early 60s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbomb76 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 As a rule, yes, the '61 through '63 models had a little different heel, and from late '63 through early '66 even you could find any one of about 4 distinct neck joints on SG's. Some were box-joints like the '61 reissue, some had an extra "step" or "lip" that came out slightly, some still had the older style joint and then there was the transition to the longer, smooth/no lip joint which became the standard for all SG's from mid '66 through '71. That said, the '61 in general isn't REALLY an accurate "reissue" of anything due to various factors. It has a larger headstock, which wasn't UNcommon to see but wasn't a regular feature on the early OR mid-60's models, of course it's got the modern tuners (which are at least as good as, if not slightly better than the originals), it has a stopbar tailpiece wherein it SHOULD at least have a vibrola option, and there are subtle-yet-important contouring/shaping/beveling inaccuracies on the "reissue". But yes, for the most part it's more or less an "early-to-mid-60's reissue" SG, and could technically represent vaguely any of the SG Standards from '61 through '65 adequately enough for most people. Let it be known that while some people have "issues" with the smaller neck joints on the early SG's, there are just as many that have withstood the test of time WITHOUT being broken or cracked as there are damaged ones, and most of the broken ones have been the result of clumsiness, neglect and the occasional honest accident. They won't just "fall apart" though. But I'd be perfectly happy if they'd fix the bevels and finish on the '61 RI and add the Maestro option again and changed the name of it to the "SG '64" or "SG '65" (preferably the latter, with chrome hardware), but even if they kept the name and simply made those improvements it's not offensive as "SG '61"...with the variations of the HAND MADE early ones, I've actually seen one or two that look enough like the '61 RI to not worry about it. H-Bomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddairy Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 hbomb. Thanks for the informative responses here and on my other threads. I'm quite ignorant regarding SGs and I've found your answers most helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaker Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It seems that Gibson should produce "real" '64 or '65 SG reissue guitars. "Real" '61 reissues would have that sideway vibrato unit (that nobody wants)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddairy Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 It seems that Gibson should produce "real" '64 or '65 SG reissue guitars. "Real" '61 reissues would have that sideway vibrato unit (that nobody wants)... If I could have a correct reissue it would be a '64. That's the Clapton model, which is why I've gotten the SG in the first place. It looks like Gibson was almost there with the '61 Reissue in 2000. How easy would it be to bring that back and make it closer to a '64? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jameswithesg Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 i dont know i always liked those sideways vibratos, (just the look really, im not much of a vibrato guy) and the bevels seem fairly accurate on the 61 reissue, alot better than the standards, and i really like the wider headstock, looks classy in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbomb76 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 If I could have a correct reissue it would be a '64. That's the Clapton model' date=' which is why I've gotten the SG in the first place. It looks like Gibson was almost there with the '61 Reissue in 2000. How easy would it be to bring that back and make it closer to a '64?[/quote'] It depends on what you think would bring it closer to being like a '64. Adding the Maestro Vibrola back is the biggest thing, along with a smooth, well-applied non-faded RED Cherry finish. The beveling and tapering on the '99-'01 ones was spot on (most of the '06-present ones have been "receding" terribly compared to ones from that time period), the only improvement on that could be a little more "rounding" (ever-so-slightly, I mean...just take a little of the "edge" off the...well...EDGE...lol) of the point-tip on that upper horn. Otherwise honestly it could more easily pass for an original than the Historics. Even though the Historics have a different veneer on the headstock (and smaller headstock with small-hole original style tuners but all are moot points to most fans compared to the beveling/shaping/tapering issues on the body) and a little more accurate-DEPTH bevel on the horns, it's no big improvement and isn't "good enough" to carry the torch of the originals. The '61 RI w/Maestro, however, was worth every cent and I regret not keeping my original first-run one. With a period-correct "as new" cherry finish, you could otherwise re-reissue those '99-'01 models w/Maestro as they were then and call it a '64 Reissue and most of us would be more than happy with that. H-Bomb PS...here's a pretty nice example of a post-sideways vibrola "Les Paul" from '63 that just went up on eBay (not too bad, eh?) HERE Sorry, but I haven't seen a single "reissue" that really looks like THAT! A little tweaking would go a LOOOONG way, Gibson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddairy Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Now you've got me wanting 1999-01 '61 Reissue. How was the neck on those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbomb76 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes, they were great reissues, and I am pissed that I sold mine (in order to get one of the at-the-time new Historic series SG Standards, thinking it'd be even closer to true vintage than the '61 RI...WRONG). The neck profile? Same as now. Typical slim-taper neck, awesome feeling in any position. That's the ONE thing that they do get right on 'em all the time. H-Bomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lous1952 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Fred- Since you want pictures, here's my '61 RI w/Vibrola, and one shows the long neck tenon. I have the ABR bridge on it now, the Nashville equipped pictures are older. As you will notice, it looks more like my '65 SG, which has '64 specs- nickel hardware, patent number pickups, early beveling, early control cavity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 IMHO Gibson's done a respectable job on the SG reissues over the years. The earliest real '61s (the LP SGs) had the smallest heels, but as was pointed out, through the 60s it seemed to grow larger as a result of some offtimes serious joint issues. The '61s also had the wider fingerboard with the thin profile, which some guys love & others don't. The impact of the early SG on PRS's guitars can't be ignored. The neck profiles on his first 24s seemed to me to have been lifted straight fron the 61 Les Paul SG. Likewis, when he gave the 22s that big neck heel it seemed reminiscent to me of the mid '60s & later SGs. There's always been an issue with SGs related to balance, and as the vibrola got lighter, and the neck heavier it became somewhat problematic for the player to keep the guitar steady. I used to move the strap button t the upper horn for guys, which helped in a number of ways. Someone suggested that Derek Trucks RI with the stop tail retains the base of the vibrola for this very balance reason. The sideways vibrola, BTW, was a total dog. Heavy, got in the way of muting and was prone to sticking and pitch issues. Most SGs I've ever played that were fit with stop tails had the best tone, sustain, etc. Edit to add that when I started playing guitar in '61 the SGs had just been introduced as replacements for the original Les Pauls. The store where I worked & took lessons got the first ones in and they were something of a sensation, particularly the white Customs, which for a time became my holy grail. However, at the same time, in the window of the store we put on display our last 1960 cherry sunburst Les Paul. Unfortunately, after a month or so of sun exposure the cherry color faded badly and it was sold as a "damaged" to a local customer for $225 with the Lifton case. By 1970 I was managing the guitar and amp department of the store and through sales records tracked the buyer of the '60 sunburst down. I bought it from him for....sit down...$400. Two years later, to raise money for college I sold it for $1,000 and was hailed as the next Donald Trump. Today it's worth $200k+... Oh, I never did get that a white SG Custom.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jameswithesg Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 im a big balance guy, my guitar was neck heavy at first, now at 8-9 pounds its perfect though at times i want 24 frets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddairy Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 lous, your RI with vibrola is a thing of beauty! I want one. Unfortunatly they don't seem to come up on ebay very often. Mine's not much of a neck diver at 7lbs, but I'll take a little neck dive as opposed to a heavy guitar. Especially if it's one I plan on gigging with. Here's my '06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callen3615 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbomb76 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 ...Gibson's done a respectable job on the SG reissues over the years... Construction-wise, for the most part, that is true; same with electronically (I'm not one to ***** and cry about non-NOS "bumblebees" and different pots). Cosmetically though? Not a chance. They haven't made one reissue that REALLY looks like the guitar it's supposed to be (aside from the Krieger SG which looks exactly like a late '69 to '71 Standard, receding bevels and all; and even it's flawed, with nickel instead of chrome hardware). They could do it, but until people demand more authenticity, they'll keep on halfassing them in the looks department. H-Bomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.