'61 Reissue SGs

[heymisterk]

Just curious if - as a whole - there is a consensus that quality is better in the '90s, or if it's better in the current decade for the beloved SG '61 Reissue. I've only seen pictures, and it looks like the wood has more of a nice grain to it than the ones from the '90s, but again, it was just pictures.

Thoughts or opinions?

[jimmiJAMM]

From what I understand, recent models have suffered somewhat due to a lapse in quality control.

[BigKahune]

From what I understand' date=' recent models have suffered somewhat due to a lapse in quality control.[/quote']

 

+1

 

But... if you get your hands, eyes, and ears on potential purchases before you spend your cash, you can find very nice work. Avoid buying sight unseen. I play one of the current 61 reissues and it is very nice indeed - unfortunately it's not mine, it belongs to my cousin.

[NeoConMan]

Mine was made in 2006 and I've seen few nicer.

Great build quality, playability, and tone - not to mention the finish quality and wood grain showing through.

 

I don't think those from the nineties are any better in any way judging from the ones I've played over the years.

I know lotsa people with SG's and mine is as nice as any of them.

[yell03]

I bought a 2009 Gibson SG 61 RI about a month ago.

I actually returned it Friday.

 

I must say, it was an amazing guitar.

Sound was great and so was playability although it was neck heavy.

 

I am more of a Les Paul guy and I had to make a decision as to keep my SG Standard or my 61 RI.

The 61 is a better (more vintage) sounding guitar, but I prefer the neck on the Standard to the wider and thinner 61 RI neck.

So, I kept my Standard and sent my 61 RI back.

I sound better on the Standard because I play better on it.

 

If I weren't in the market for a 3rd Les Paul I would have kept it.

 

I bought my 61 RI new for $1539, I feel it is worth $1500, but at $2000 I'd pass on it.

 

Howard