Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Asymmetry of the SG horns


JefferySmith

Recommended Posts

Okay, some of you are going to think I'm crazy, but I was always under the impression that the SG series of Gibson and Epiphone guitars were symmetrical. I have seen some other companies make very asymmetrical "copies" of the SG series, but I always considered the SG series to be symmetrical (I had a Gibson SG bass for years in the 1960's!). Now that I look at them in a guitar book, it appears that one horn (the upper one) is longer than the lower horn. Have they always been like that? If they have, the difference between the two horns is so subtle, I missed it for 45 years!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEP...they've always been like that, at least as far back as I can remember, and I remember when they were introduced!

It's subtle, compared to some of the "copies," but it's always been there. What's changed, the most, is the bevel (chamfer)

depth or "relief!" Compare a '61 reissue (VOS or otherwise) to a current "Standard," and you'll see a pronounced difference. I think the necks were slightly wider, too? Seemed that way, anyway...

 

I have always LOVED the '61's beveling...both for comfort and looks. "But, that's just me!" LOL!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay' date=' some of you are going to think I'm crazy, but I was always under the impression that the SG series of Gibson and Epiphone guitars were [b']symmetrical[/b]. I have seen some other companies make very asymmetrical "copies" of the SG series, but I always considered the SG series to be symmetrical (I had a Gibson SG bass for years in the 1960's!). Now that I look at them in a guitar book, it appears that one horn (the upper one) is longer than the lower horn. Have they always been like that? If they have, the difference between the two horns is so subtle, I missed it for 45 years!!!

I actually find it hard to imagine that you thought they WERE symmetrical.

I just did a quick measurement on my two. The G400 upper was about 3/4 of an inch longer. And the '97 Jr. was a good full inch longer.

Not that subtle in my opinion.

I don't think you are crazy. But if you never saw the difference in 45 years...........all I can say is.......well I don't know what to say to that.

Maybe you were always turning your head a little to the right when you looked at one. (lol).

O:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, if you make it symmetrical, you tend to see the lower bout as being longer. It's one of those weird perception things. You notice this on some of the original Epi solidbodies; they were symmetrical but to the eye it appears that the lower bout is longer; eventually they adjusted the horns to compensate for this.

 

A similar trick occurs in typography. Letters like 'O' and 'C' have to be made a little taller then all the rest so that they will appear to be the same size; but in actuality they extend above and below the 'square' letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upper horn has always been a little higher. I've a 1961 Les Paul and it's asymmetrical.

 

It seems like some of the copies, especially the ESP, make the body even more asymmetrical...but maybe that's another optical illusion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like some of the copies' date=' especially the ESP, make the body even more asymmetrical...but maybe that's another optical illusion...[/quote']

 

No, the ESP/LTD Viper has the entire body offset somewhat for an exaggerated 'oblique' SG effect:

 

Viper-50_BLK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just for the record' date=' it's 'scarf'; a 'serf' is a feudal labourer.

#-o [/quote']

 

LOL! Yeah, that's it! I knew that...didn't WRITE that, and apparently haven't, for some time, here!

But, thanks for the correction!

You should give English, Grammar, and Spelling lessons, to this forum! We OBVIOUSLY need them! LOL!

Some History, would be good, too! Real (Accurate) history, that is...not that altered "Politically correct"

*Shite! (*British version) ;>)

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A similar trick occurs in typography. Letters like 'O' and 'C' have to be made a little taller then all the rest so that they will appear to be the same size; but in actuality they extend above and below the 'square' letters.

 

Huh, I didn't know that. Very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always a pleasure to be of service' date=' CB. I enjoy your posts.[/quote']

 

 

Thanks, and Right back at you, RotcanX! Also...in reality, I think the term for what is going on,

around the SG's is "Chamfering." certainly inside the horn areas. (The Terms) Beveling and Chamfering are

often used, interchageably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, although I tend to think of chamfering as something done to the edges of a drilled hole in machining. Chamfering is a more subtle effect than scarfing. It's true that 'scarfing' is usually referred to with respect to joining two pieces of wood via a 'scarf joint' but even there the word 'scarf' is referring to the angled cut in the wood.

 

Gibson refers to the bevels in an SG as 'scarfs'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps' date=' although I tend to think of chamfering as something done to the edges of a drilled hole in machining. Chamfering is a more subtle effect than scarfing. It's true that 'scarfing' is usually referred to with respect to joining two pieces of wood via a 'scarf joint' but even there the word 'scarf' is referring to the [i']angled[/i] cut in the wood.

 

Gibson refers to the bevels in an SG as 'scarfs'.

 

Yeah...I've seen "bevel, chamfer, and scarf" used a lot, to describe the same thing. So,

whatever works. I was looking, just now, at some illustrations, on chamfering, and they

do look remarkably like what is going on, in the inside areas of the horns, on SG's. Especially

the '61-64 era. The outside beveling around the rest of the guitar is just that...beveling or

"Scarfing." They also seem to use the "scarf" term, more for joints (is that what we passed around,

in the '60's..."Scarfs?"...LOL!) Whatever...

At least we know it's NOT "Serfs"....LOL! They were a good band, though. ;>)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...