SG dude Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Today i was in a local guitar shop. They had new SG tyled guitars that they said were the second and third best to gibson. Naturally, hearing this and the guitars being at £500 and £350 made me interested. i played with them both. First up, Tokai, USG60 at £500, made in Japan, looked like a '61 (no vibrato) AND the bevels were DEEP AN HUGE!! it sounded pretty good but no way was the neck comfortable, it was huge aswell, but the action was nice 'n' low. HEAVY AS HELL!!!!! Next to the floor was a Burny, Super grade SG, at £350, made in Japan. this one looked like the current SG standard except instead of the tulip on the headstock it said "super grade", but it was written to look like les paul handwriting so it read "LUPER GRADE". the bevels were acceptable (noticibly bigger than gibsons though) This one sounded a little more like the gibson SG than the £500 Tokai, and i'm a fan of big pickgaurds, the neck was smaller and nicer to hold, but there was a dent in the guitar,which was noticible, this, the shop assisstant said explained the price. again, HEAVY AS HELL. when i say heavy i mean it was heavy plus the Gibson sg weighs practicly nothing. my question is....... is the gibson SG just really light, or is this one just a "weirdo"??? also what do you guys think about "non gibson" SG's?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmiJAMM Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Genuine Gibson SG's generally weigh in the neighborhood of 7-8 lbs. As for "non gibson" SG's, you'll probably get the same response around here... aint nothing' like the real thing, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbomb76 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The older Tokais (and the Burny's...I really like some of them I've played!), the Edwards and the now-defunct Epi Elitists put 99% of post-1971 SG's to shame in terms of playability, looks and quality, but most will agree that Tokai "ain't what they used to be". I have played, and repeatedly kicked myself for not buying one each of: a mid-80's Tokai that was a near-perfect clone of a '61-'65 SG Standard with a factory Bigsby; a recent Edwards SG complete with Maestro-clone tremelo (with Elitist Epi style body...I just hated the finish, which was a disturbingly thin clearcoat which already had sunk into the woodgrain terribly); an '04 Epi Elitist SG which sends any stoptail Historic crying home to Mommy (in sound, feel AND looks). While the "right" '64/'65-style Gibson SG Standard is still my "dream guitar", there IS a lot of competition out there making good, solid guitars (pun intended) comparable to the off-the-shelf current stuff. A properly-made Gibson clone can give the "real deal" a run for the money, I've found. I've seen plenty of under-7-pounder Gibsons, but anywhere under 8 is considered the "norm". You occasionally find weight variation in the imports, and even one of my two Epi Ltd. Ed. w/Maestro models is significantly heavier than the other. You OCCASIONALLY find an original SG here and there that has more heft than the rest (wood not fully dried-out or something...green wood can be heavier), but considering MOST imports are made like the Epi's, with thicker bodies and less-top-shelf wood, don't be surprised to pick up a 9+-pounder. I have a neat bolt-neck Aston cheapo mismatched-piece-bodied copy that sounds surprisingly dark, full and "Les Paul-ish", and seriously, my Epi's sound close enough to the real thing for me not to really want to risk taking my walletbusters out to the shiznitty bars all the time. With very minor pickup upgrades and a little tweaking, I get as much satisfaction out of them as my Gibsons, and more often than not your audience could care less about who's guitars you're whoring/advertising onstage, so if you likey, then take advantage of a good deal and pick 'er up! H-Bomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 To be honest, I'd like to find one around 9/10 pounds, now that mahogany is getting heavier, and less neck dive. My '79 will drop like a sack of taters without a rough in leather strap. Oh yea, and BIG FAT BEVELS..................................... Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 also what do you guys think about "non gibson" SG's?? If you like it, go for it! I have to confess that I´m always trying to get the "real thing". That is sometimes stupid. I didn´t even try any other SG. But even I know that very often the other one is better or as good as Gibson and cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG dude Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 cheers guys. i liked the Burny better than the Tokai (and the pickgaurd played a part)(a tiny part) but its a shame about the darn lump on the body!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgTime Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah, go for it if you really like it. Just make sure you try out every guitar you can first, because buyer's remorse is a *****. Btw was the sg a 2007 or 2008 model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG dude Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 It was a 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I checked the internet for pics of Burny and Tokai SGs. If the Burny plays and sounds as good as it looks, go for it. Just by lookin´ at the pictures I´d prefer the Burny before the Tokai. Made me curious. When I go to the guitar shop next time I´ll find out what they´re like - if they have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG dude Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 I checked the internet for pics of Burny and Tokai SGs. If the Burny plays and sounds as good as it looks' date=' go for it. Just by lookin´ at the pictures I´d prefer the Burny before the Tokai. Made me curious. When I go to the guitar shop next time I´ll find out what they´re like - if they have any. [/quote'] yeah the burny looks fricken sweet!!! i can't find any pics anywhere, can u link me to a pick of the burny? i need to see it again!! OH and can someone explain to me the diferent types of bridges, like ABR and all?? i have no idea what you guys are talking about when you say stuff like that? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Hi SG dude! I found pics of the Burny here http://www.leihinstrumente.com/index.php?artikel_ID=466. If you click `em you get bigger versions. I liked the wine red one. But it´s just pictures. I will check whether my favourite guitar shop round here offers them and take a closer look. As far as I found out Burny belongs to Fernandes guitars. I´ll let you know if I get to check one out at the store tomorrow. For bridges check http://store.gibson.com/Store/Gear/Hardware/Bridges.aspx or http://www.thomann.de/de/gibson_gitarrenstege.html or http://schaller-guitarparts.de/hp762/Produkte.htm Schaller makes lots of guitar parts and some of them are or were used on Gibsons as well. They are close to were I live in Germany. The main difference between the ABR and the Tune-o-matic bridge is that the screws of the ABR are directly driven into the wood while the T-O-M has bushings. Another difference is that the screws and saddles lie loose inside the ABR. They´re only fixed with a piece of wire, while the T-O-M is a unit that can´t be easily disassembled. In my opinion the ABR is worse quality than the T-O-M. I never saw an ABR bridge on a Gibson that didn´t have any crooked up screws or any other parts that didn´t fit properly. But there is hope because I didn´t see too many yet and only Gibsons. I have no idea about ABR copies. Maybe some of them are better. Greetings Kurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG dude Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Thanks Kurt! Yep it's fernandez that owns burny! i went back to the shop and they have sold it. but thats good because now they can order me a new (less bashed) one!! i'm seriously considering it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 My guitar shop doesn´t have Burny guitars. :D I went there today and got a new bridge for my Angus SG. Because I like to replace that crooked up ABR thing with a Tune-O-Matic. I never liked ABR bridges and that one had bent screws already when it was new. The guy in the shop told me that the T-O-M will fit as well. We´ll see. The guys also told me that Gibson bridges are still made by Schaller. Now it is even harder for me to understand why they can build good quality T-O-Ms along with weird and sh!tty ABRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 In vintage circles, it is apparently unusual to find an ABR 1 that is not warped. Re Burny, I know this is in the wrong forum, but there seems to be a few of these for sale in the UK. Worth checking out at that price. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Burny-by-Fernades-Les-Paul-in-Honeyburst_W0QQitemZ360129024506QQihZ023QQcategoryZ141188QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Collapsed ABR-1s were more of an issue when heavy gauge strings were in vogue. A good question, why after half a century can't we get this fixed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Collapsed ABR-1s were more of an issue when heavy gauge strings were in vogue. A good question' date=' why after half a century can't we get this fixed? [/quote'] Mine isn´t collapsed yet. I just had to turn it and the saddles around for intonation issues. And while doing this I found out that the screws and saddles didn´t fit exactly. I had to file a screw tip and a saddle to fit them in. Never had anything like that with a t-o-m. So I got me one today. According to the guy from the shop it should fit onto the screws of the ABR. If it causes further problems I won´t hesitate to change the screws as well and have bushings set into the body as usual with t-o-ms. But I still don´t understand why the same company (Schaller) can build a perfect t-o-m and awful ABRs. If I were Gibson, I wouldn´t buy such crap. They needn´t be state of the art, but they should work properly either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Perhaps it's a case of the original ABR's were bad, and Schaller have done their best to replicate it - faults and all ! I'm sure that Schaller could 'improve' it, but then it would no longer be an ABR. My TOM works great on my LP, maybe the only thing I would consider doing is changing the zinc saddles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Perhaps it's a case of the original ABR's were bad' date=' and Schaller have done their best to replicate it - faults and all ! I'm sure that Schaller could 'improve' it, but then it would no longer be an ABR. My TOM works great on my LP, maybe the only thing I would consider doing is changing the zinc saddles. [/quote'] Good point! I didn´t expect anything less from you. This really could be a reason, but is still no excuse for crap. Were would you get saddles for the T-O-M bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Due to the previous owner not cleaning my LP after playing, the gold plating has suffered and some corrosion has taken place on the zinc saddles. I think I would fit brass saddles, or gold plated brass if available. But I'm not sure where I saw them. After searching these sites, I saw that Pigtailmusic has them for both ABR and Nashville. Although we refer to the Nashville as a TOM, strictly speaking, when the ABR 1 was introduced in 1954, it was called the Tuneomatic bridge. When you look at the notches in the ABR for the screws, it is clear that these weaken the design and make it difficult to resist the bending forces of the strings. In addition, the bridge is made from zinc which is not a strong material. Steel would be much stronger, but the tone gurus would rebel ! Here are a few links for saddles : http://www.allparts.com/store/bridge-parts-saddles-for-tunematics,Category.asp http://www.cvguitars.com/parts/FaberRPL-110107.html http://www.allparts.uk.com/bridge-parts/saddles-tunematics-c-277_1_25_28.html http://www.pigtailmusic.com/Products.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 When you look at the notches in the ABR for the screws' date=' it is clear that these weaken the design and make it difficult to resist the bending forces of the strings. In addition, the bridge is made from zinc which is not a strong material. Steel would be much stronger, but the tone gurus would rebel ![/quote'] This is an even better explanation. The material could be an issue. And vintage and original specs is a good excuse for selling crap. Thanks for the links. I didn´t know that the saddles are available individually. I didn´t swap the bridge yet. Maybe I will need some new saddles after I crooked up mine. Who knows? But they´re not exactly cheap. Are they? I paid 37.- euros for the whole Schaller bridge. And that wasn´t cheap also. But I prefer my guitar shop to the internet. And good service is always worth a few extra euros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI_Canuck Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hi SG dude!The main difference between the ABR and the Tune-o-matic bridge is that the screws of the ABR are directly driven into the wood while the T-O-M has bushings. Another difference is that the screws and saddles lie loose inside the ABR. They´re only fixed with a piece of wire' date=' while the T-O-M is a unit that can´t be easily disassembled. In my opinion the ABR is worse quality than the T-O-M. I never saw an ABR bridge on a Gibson that didn´t have any crooked up screws or any other parts that didn´t fit properly. But there is hope because I didn´t see too many yet and only Gibsons. I have no idea about ABR copies. Maybe some of them are better. [/quote'] my '98 SG Standard has the ABR-1 bridge... came standard in those years, and i'm actually quite happy... I prefer the ABR over the Nashville... my own personal reasons are a) ABR looks better - I find the Nashville chunky looky and ABR is more traditional Gibson - it's also what the historics use.... i have no proof, but i think the ABR might also be better for sustain... possibly from having the studs driven directly into the wood, vs bushings... or also the construction... i think the ABR is solid, while the nashville is hollow beneath the saddles... of course the downside is if you strip out the ABR stud hole, you're in trouble - but if you don't touch it, no worries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I suppose when you look at it this way, the saddles are just 'nicely worn in'. I prefer this over the ABR because it looks like an engineer has designed it. Clean design, no stress raisers or weak points. These bridges don't collapse in the middle with heavy strings. So it's more rigid than an ABR, with benefits for sustain. Much better saddle location as well. I think if this design had come out in the '50s, and the ABR in the '70s, people would be complaining about all the faults of the ABR. But because the ABR is vintage it becomes the 'holy grail', free of any engineering critique. The cold eye of scrutiny should be applied to all parts, vintage or otherwise ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I suppose when you look at it this way' date=' the saddles are just 'nicely worn in'. I prefer this over the ABR because it looks like an engineer has designed it. Clean design, no stress raisers or weak points. These bridges don't collapse in the middle with heavy strings. So it's more rigid than an ABR, with benefits for sustain. Much better saddle location as well. I think if this design had come out in the '50s, and the ABR in the '70s, people would be complaining about all the faults of the ABR. But because the ABR is vintage it becomes the 'holy grail', free of any engineering critique. The cold eye of scrutiny should be applied to all parts, vintage or otherwise ![/quote'] Agreed! But I also agree with MI_Canuck that everybody should get what suites him best. To me the ABR 1 is a piece of crap and I don´t think that I would hear any difference compared to the T-O-M or Nashville bridge. But there must be some people liking the ABR, otherwise it wouldn´t still be in use. And I also agree that as long as it´s perfectly fitted you won´t have any problems with either one. But if you have to change anything or even turn the saddles around for intonation issues it´s more likely to have trouble with the ABR than with the Nashville type. But this is just my opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG dude Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 cheers guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 But there must be some people liking the ABR' date=' otherwise it wouldn´t still be in use. [/quote'] Thinking about 'ABR flex', maybe that is one component of vintage tone. Maybe it contributes to a softer attack to the note, or attenuates some frequencies while enhancing others. The ear (or more accurately the brain) finds certain distortions pleasing. If the output of an electric guitar was a pure sinewave, it would be like a flute - pleasant but not as interesting. The various parts of a guitar all contribute to give the overall sound 'character'. Each part colours the sound in some way, and maybe some people are attuned to the sound of an ABR. Sorry SG dude for turning a weight issue into a bridge discussion ! Btw Kurt, it would be interesting to know what changes (if any) you can hear when you try the TOM Nashville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.