Huntster Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 HI-- Is it true that between '70-'74, there were custom Les Pauls that had 2 piece bodies laminated from the top to the bottom like a sandwich? I have heard of making guitar bodies out of multi-pieces woods by laminating the pieces sideways next to each other , but laminating two pieces on top of each other to get the thickness? Is that true? I dont mean the maple laminate on top, I mean 2 pieces the same thickness like 3/4" or so glued together to get the thickness. I have never heard of this. I have never seen a guitar with the joint line running all the way around the body right in the middle on the edge like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 I believe the "pancake bodies" were common during the Norlin era of production around that time. They weighed a ton as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Not a Custom, but here's what it looks like on a 1975 Standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 You betcha. My sandwich body Norlin LP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 They were made from '69 to '76. Under-rated guitars - they sound great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchabalk Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 nice, one was featured on "Pawn Stars" just last night too. The guy 'thought' it was a 1960 LP Custom :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Kind of like what Gibson is doing nowadays. Except they're gluing the wood side-by-side instead of one on top of the other. 3-piece bodies on some Les Pauls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanC Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Its correct. I own a '74 LP Custom 20th Anniversary which I bought new in '74/75. I don't know if this is true but I understood that Norlin were concerned about the strength of the body. The rumour at the time was that there was trouble with LP's cracking and Norlin decided to increase the strength by sandwiching two pieces of wood around a very thin piece of wood which when pressed together looked like a sandwich. The guitars are heavy but I recently played a 2009 LP Custom which seemed heavier. I love the guitar. Very distinctive and quirky sound when compared to my other two LP Standards which seem much smoother in sound. Over the years I wore the frets right down and had to replace them. On purchase I put Schallers on it because at the time Gibson machine heads were unreliable and I'd already owned two other Gibsons which had problems with the operation of the machine heads. The picture I have doesn't show the sandwich but I'll post one shortly. Here's the guitar as it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share Posted December 29, 2009 Yeah-- Thats the show my buddy told me he saw the Gibson LP on. It was "Pawn Stars" I told him that I didnt think the custom was built with a "sandwich" layering build and he insisted that's what the pawnbroker on the show said. So I argued with my roomate for like an hour about it and that's why I posted this blog. I had to hear it from the experts. So it wasn't the 'custom' then? I didnt think so. The pawnbroker on the show bought it from the guy even though the layers were coming unglued due to constant heat stress because the guitar was in Arizona for years. He thought it was worth a lot because he insisted it was a 'custom' from the early 60's. I guess the pawnbroker said that the layering coming apart due to heat was a common problem so maybe that's why they discontinued making them. I have never heard of this 'sandwiching' technique but it did exist but not with the 'customs'. Thanks everyone for the replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 nice' date=' one was featured on "Pawn Stars" just last night too. The guy 'thought' it was a 1960 LP Custom [/quote'] I saw that. I was hollering at the TV.... "It's not a '60... It's a Norlin.. Look at the 2 piece body." When it went to commercial, I told my wife.. "I bet it's a 71 or 72." Sure enough it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I told him that I didnt think the custom was built with a "sandwich" layering build... So it wasn't the 'custom' then? I have never heard of this 'sandwiching' technique but it did exist but not with the 'customs'. The Custom was also made with a sandwich body' date=' ALL Les Pauls were made this way during that era.[/b'] I may have been misunderstood in my previous reply that started out "Not a Custom". I was referring to the photograph I provided of a Standard, "not a Custom". Sorry for the mixup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 It started in late '69 actually and I can assure you the retailers were hopping mad about it. In the days of Norlin, one thing was certain: They could care less what the customer thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Its correct. I own a '74 LP Custom 20th Anniversary which I bought new in '74/75. I don't know if this is true but I understood that Norlin were concerned about the strength of the body. The rumour at the time was that there was trouble with LP's cracking and Norlin decided to increase the strength by sandwiching two pieces of wood around a very thin piece of wood which when pressed together looked like a sandwich. The guitars are heavy but I recently played a 2009 LP Custom which seemed heavier. I love the guitar. Very distinctive and quirky sound when compared to my other two LP Standards which seem much smoother in sound. Over the years I wore the frets right down and had to replace them. On purchase I put Schallers on it because at the time Gibson machine heads were unreliable and I'd already owned two other Gibsons which had problems with the operation of the machine heads. The picture I have doesn't show the sandwich but I'll post one shortly. Here's the guitar as it is today. Nice Custom! Back when all this started Gibson really got hammered about it' date=' but, as I noted above, they could have cared less. They had very little competition other than Fender, and could pretty much do whatever they wanted. As with any business, by short-changing themselves and the public they created the environment in which Ibanez, Hamer, PRS, etc. could offer a better instrument for less money. They tried various PR tactics to justify what they were doing, including getting Les to say that the guitars were still being built the same way they'd been done in the 50s. (Real bad move for Les, btw.) Another they tried was a bulletin which claimed that the only part of the body that affected the acoustics of a solid body guitar was the area directly around the bridge. Well, wrong. Worse for them, there were plenty of the original guitars around to be A/B'd with the new ones and, of course, it was no contest. This was obviously just a cost saving measure where they could use any old narrow planks, glue them together and ship them off to the bandsaw. It was actually much cheaper to layer what were essentially scraps together than having to select wider planks with the proper weight, matching grain, etc., and it was the same thing with the multi-piece mahogany necks. Yet, despite all of this many of them were good guitars and some have responded well to time & a good player's care. Edit to add that in case you think I'm being a little too had on the Norlin era, I had a '71 Custom just like Clayton's that I gigged the crap out of, and in its memory recently scored a well-worn '72 that is a tremendous load of fun to have around. [img']http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t186/sok66/72%20Les%20Paul%20Custom/1972LPCustomWeb.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 My '76 LP Deluxe, has the "pancake" body. Weighs a ton, too! But, it's really a "Sweet" guitar, tone wise, and construction. My '80 LP Custom, has a 1 piece body, but 3 piece top...much like the one pictured, though it's nicely matched, and harder to see. It too, is a "Tone Monster!" So...to be honest, I've never worried (at all) about it. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanC Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Sok66 said - "This was obviously just a cost saving measure where they could use any old narrow planks, glue them together and ship them off to the bandsaw. It was actually much cheaper to layer what were essentially scraps together than having to select wider planks with the proper weight, matching grain, etc., and it was the same thing with the multi-piece mahogany necks. Yet, despite all of this many of them were good guitars and some have responded well to time & a good player's care." You're probably right but a it's a bit disappointing as at the time the price of Customs did not drop. Nevertheless they did still sound and play great! Mine seems to have aged well - neck is great and the sound is different to any of my other guitars. Mine is a very good blues guitar when using the neck pickup through a Fender Twin. Hard to beat!! I'll never sell mine. Thanks Sok66 for the info!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Wasn't there some idea about "cross banding" to add strength but also harmonic complexity? Also, If I recall, Norlin added a neck joint volute, which has since been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 The argument that the pancake body construction was a cost saving exercise just doesn't hold water. This method of construction is more expensive - thicknessing and sanding the individual pieces, and the associated labour involved in glueing and clamping. It is far easier and cheaper to form the body from one piece. Think about it - if you were trying to save money would you go to the trouble of adding a central slice of maple ...? Opinions on the thinking behind this type of construction basically fall into 2 groups - those that believe it was a cost cutting exercise, and those that think that Gibson were trying to produce a body that was more suitable for the volume and high gain that was becoming the norm. To attack the laminated neck is pure folly. Gibson's highest quality instruments the L5 and Super 400 had laminated 2, 3 or 5 piece necks... What is the cheapest way to make a neck ? Simply bandsaw one out of a neck blank - super fast and cheap - you could not get any cheaper.... Of course, there is a price to pay by the consumer - the ridiculously fragile headstock... Les Paul expressed his disappointment to Gibson with the number of headstock breaks he'd seen. The multi-piece neck with volute was a sensible, long overdue step that was more expensive to make - and as we can see from the numbers of '70s LPs with intact headstocks, it was entirely vindicated. Of course, when it became clear there were huge profits to be made from talking up vintage values, a whole industry sprang up dedicated to knocking Gibson's 1970s output. As so many attest, they are actually pretty good guitars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 BRING BACK THE VOLUTE! or maybe not. I just don't see why people hate it so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 BRING BACK THE VOLUTE! or maybe not. I just don't see why people hate it so much. My '76 Deluxe and '80 Custom LP's both have valutes...nice ones, not the overly large ones, that you sometimes see. They've never bothered me. But, I think because they weren't "original" specs, on the original LP's, SG's, and ES models, and were introduced in the "dreaded Norlin Era," they've gotten a bad rap, because of it...MAYBE? Some, that are too large, are pretty ugly, I admit. But, the ones on my LP's aren't large, and nicely tapered. So again, it's probably a matter of how well they're done? Who knows? CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonesullivan Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 well, however they are done, they increase the strength of the headstock, which is never a bad thing. They don't get in the way of using the guitar either. Carvin uses volutes on all of their guitars currently, and I almost never hear of a broken off headstock. I do have to admit that the whole "original spec" and "reissue" stuff is kinda bogus. You can't recapture the magic of those new instruments, and rolling back advances in favor of "historically accurate" is kinda dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 The argument that the pancake body construction was a cost saving exercise just doesn't hold water. This method of construction is more expensive - thicknessing and sanding the individual pieces' date=' and the associated labour involved in glueing and clamping. It is far easier and cheaper to form the body from one piece. Think about it - if you were trying to save money would you go to the trouble of adding a central slice of maple ...? Opinions on the thinking behind this type of construction basically fall into 2 groups - those that believe it was a cost cutting exercise, and those that think that Gibson were trying to produce a body that was more suitable for the volume and high gain that was becoming the norm. To attack the laminated neck is pure folly. Gibson's highest quality instruments the L5 and Super 400 had laminated 2, 3 or 5 piece necks... What is the cheapest way to make a neck ? Simply bandsaw one out of a neck blank - super fast and cheap - you could not get any cheaper.... Of course, there is a price to pay by the consumer - the ridi****usly fragile headstock... Les Paul expressed his disappointment to Gibson with the number of headstock breaks he'd seen. The multi-piece neck with volute was a sensible, long overdue step that was more expensive to make - and as we can see from the numbers of '70s LPs with intact headstocks, it was entirely vindicated. Of course, when it became clear there were huge profits to be made from talking up vintage values, a whole industry sprang up dedicated to knocking Gibson's 1970s output. As so many attest, they are actually pretty good guitars... [/quote'] Well, even Gibson admitted to us that the multi-piece bodies were much less expensive to produce than the single piece method, the necks, too. The volute was an attempt to strengthen the headstock, no doubt, but no, it actually was not very successful. We saw just as many breaks with volute guitars as before. There are a few more steps involved in gluing multi-piece bodies & necks together, but the bottom line is in TOTAL cost of production. Sourcing the proper mahogany & maple in the widths needed, matching top halves, etc., combined with natural wastage implicit in the original design was extremely expensive to bean-counter driven Norlin management. Using smaller widths of mismatched wood, which today might be considered scrap, meant they could literally cobble together many bodies & necks for the cost of one done the the "old way". Believe me, there was no other reason to do what they did other than cost. Gibson management of the late 60s & 70s could have cared less about what volume levels people were playing their instruments. They looked upon the rock community in particular with utter contempt and reacted to them like they were a bunch of idiots. They treated their retailers that way, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 This is laughable. Go to a custom guitar maker and ask for a quote to produce a guitar with a basic 'one piece' style of construction and one made with laminations... The 3 piece neck with volute and 14 degree degree headstock is substantially stronger than one piece, no volute and 17 degrees. To suggest otherwise is a deception. As children in school, we were taught about the dangers of using short grain timber. Basic woodworking and engineering principles are interesting subjects that some might find enlightening... Amusing to think that a 'snap off' headstock design could be considered an 'upgrade' to an L5 or Super 400... :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sok66 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 This is laughable. Go to a custom guitar maker and ask for a quote to produce a guitar with a basic 'one piece' style of construction and one made with laminations... The 3 piece neck with volute and 14 degree degree headstock is substantially stronger than one piece' date=' no volute and 17 degrees. To suggest otherwise is a deception. As children in school, we were taught about the dangers of using short grain timber. Basic woodworking and engineering principles are interesting subjects that some might find enlightening... Amusing to think that a 'snap off' headstock design could be considered an 'upgrade' to an L5 or Super 400... No, it's not "laughable" 80LPC, it was done due to the simple economic facts of the day, inflation, recession, Kalamazoo labor disputes, etc., etc. It was, and is, VERY expensive to source the wood necessary to make flawless single piece bodies and necks. It is, by comparison, relatively inexpensive to use smaller pieces and laminate them, particularly when little thought or effort is given to matching, other than by wood type. I'm not going to argue the points further with you, but will point out that I was selling these things at the time they were produced and I had many discussions with Norlin management, who were based just a few miles away from our store. One of my contacts was Gibson's President, a pretty good source of information. BTW, a multi-piece L5 or 400 neck is made of maple sandwiched with ebony. Not a good comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 Given your source, I'm hardly in a position to say you are wrong, but producing guitars with the pancake construction is clearly a more labour intensive process. The point has to be made that no matter how flawless a one-piece might be, it is substantially weaker than a 3 piece neck. When necks became 3 piece maple in the mid '70s, this strength increased further. For Gibson to use laminate necks on high end guitars (maple, mahogany/ maple and maple / ebony), is the highest accolade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 I don't know how prevalent this was, but the sandwich layers of my '71 appear to have originally been one piece of wood. It had to have been run through one hellacious bandsaw and then laminated in the normal fashion of the day. As stated, I don't know if this is an oddball or fluke or coincidence, but it sure looks like the two pieces of wood were originally one piece: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.