New SG Classic Help!

[RobbieJ]

I originally started playing years ago and was in love with Les Pauls. That was back in the late 80's to mid 90's. I got big into Fender for a while and PRS. Recently I said I wanted to complete my dream line-up. I own an American Strat, a '52 Tele Reissue, PRS McCarty. I just added the SG Classic and someday soon will purchase a Les Paul, I hope. Anyway I have been away from Gibson products for a while and I have a question I wonder if anyone may help with. So far I love this thing by the way. Gloss finish, binding, US made, etc for 900 bucks?!

 

Here we go.....

 

I played 3 of them at two different stores before choosing the one I finally went with. I noticed on all the SG's the bridge/tailpiece are rather high. I know most Gibson come set-up way too high for my playing preference. At least that's what I recall from my past experience. So anyway, I chose the one I could get lowest with the best action after set-up/adjustments.

 

My questions are 1) Is the neck set in angle different on an SG compared to a Paul or is it that the SG has a flat top or both? And where/how do you take this measurement to verify it's correct? 2) Is there an acceptable range for bridge height, from top of body to bottom of bridge?

 

In other words my guitar looks safe and the bridge seems stable. But time may change that. But it is higher than most Pauls and other SG's I have seen and played in the past or saw on the internet. And I need to have my tailpiece a bit high too so the strings clear the bridge but it does hold stings at a good break angle over the bridge to tailpiece. Just want to make sure it is acceptable and not defective. Especially since all I see now seem to be this way.

[Gibson67]

I noticed that myself. I have an original 1967 SG Special and it is not like that.

 

But I think that is the way all of the new classics are.

[RobbieJ]

I noticed that myself. I have an original 1967 SG Special and it is not like that.

 

But I think that is the way all of the new classics are.

 

It says 5 degrees in the specs on Gibsons site. I feel that older ones are not that big. I will try to see how much of the studs are screwed in to the body next time I change my strings.

 

Like I said it just does look so strange to me as well, being use to older stuff I have seen. But it plays fine and does not seem to move much when I try to move it with my fingers and it holds tune well. And I love it! Just unusual to my old eye I guess.

 

Just seems like an odd thing to do, IMO. Why not just make the angle different so you can get more stud in the body and maybe get that tail piece close or flush. Like so many of us do try to do. I feel like I see people putting aftermarket ABR's on, since they are thinner width-wise, so they can screw the tailpiece down further.

 

Tonight I will take a side view pic and post it later. Maybe others could post old or new SG's side view of bridge/tail to see height as well? Maybe I am just paranoid? No I am paranoid!

[PP_CS336]

I originally started playing years ago and was in love with Les Pauls. That was back in the late 80's to mid 90's. I got big into Fender for a while and PRS. Recently I said I wanted to complete my dream line-up. I own an American Strat, a '52 Tele Reissue, PRS McCarty. I just added the SG Classic and someday soon will purchase a Les Paul, I hope. Anyway I have been away from Gibson products for a while and I have a question I wonder if anyone may help with. So far I love this thing by the way. Gloss finish, binding, US made, etc for 900 bucks?!

 

Here we go.....

 

I played 3 of them at two different stores before choosing the one I finally went with. I noticed on all the SG's the bridge/tailpiece are rather high. I know most Gibson come set-up way too high for my playing preference. At least that's what I recall from my past experience. So anyway, I chose the one I could get lowest with the best action after set-up/adjustments.

 

My questions are 1) Is the neck set in angle different on an SG compared to a Paul or is it that the SG has a flat top or both? And where/how do you take this measurement to verify it's correct? 2) Is there an acceptable range for bridge height, from top of body to bottom of bridge?

 

In other words my guitar looks safe and the bridge seems stable. But time may change that. But it is higher than most Pauls and other SG's I have seen and played in the past or saw on the internet. And I need to have my tailpiece a bit high too so the strings clear the bridge but it does hold stings at a good break angle over the bridge to tailpiece. Just want to make sure it is acceptable and not defective. Especially since all I see now seem to be this way.

 

RobbieJ, whatever you do, do not, I repeat, do not mess with the height of the stud tailpiece. Yes it looks a bit high compared to other Gibson guitars that

have them. I'm not exactly sure of the reason (I can speculate that it has something to doe what a flat top as opposed to an arched top, such as the Les Pauls

or Semi-Hollow guitars have that use the Stud tail-piece). I say don't touch, because if it plays fine, that's the way the Gibson factory set it up to play.

I adjusted mine after I first got it, because like you I was unaccustomed to seeing one that high. It totally whacked everything else out when I tried readjusting

the intonation, etc. to get it back. Thank God my guitar tech was merciful with me when I told him what I did. He got it back into shape, the way it should be,

and now it plays fine again, just like the day I took it out of the box at the store for the first time. So for the time being leave well enough alone and as time

goes by and it needs adjusting for any reason, I'm sure your tech will handle it and and tell you why. Enjoy your new SG.

[RobbieJ]

RobbieJ, whatever you do, do not, I repeat, do not mess with the height of the stud tailpiece. Yes it looks a bit high compared to other Gibson guitars that

have them. I'm not exactly sure of the reason (I can speculate that it has something to doe what a flat top as opposed to an arched top, such as the Les Pauls

or Semi-Hollow guitars have that use the Stud tail-piece). I say don't touch, because if it plays fine, that's the way the Gibson factory set it up to play.

I adjusted mine after I first got it, because like you I was unaccustomed to seeing one that high. It totally whacked everything else out when I tried readjusting

the intonation, etc. to get it back. Thank God my guitar tech was merciful with me when I told him what I did. He got it back into shape, the way it should be,

and now it plays fine again, just like the day I took it out of the box at the store for the first time. So for the time being leave well enough alone and as time

goes by and it needs adjusting for any reason, I'm sure your tech will handle it and and tell you why. Enjoy your new SG.

 

Too late for that. I already adjusted truss rod, lowered bridge and tailpiece and set intonation. I would not say doing these adjustments are so difficult you need to let a guitar repairman do it. I have adjusted all my guitars for years. And I have done ones with more difficult adjustments like a strat with a tremolo or a Floyd. I feel like with enough experience, learning and practice you can do this yourself. If you are playing your guitars a lot and are in tune with each ones needs I deem all these adjustments something necessary for you to do yourself. I don't have the time or money to waste to drive to a store/repairman everytime I would like a little change.

 

With that said, anyone that is nervous or little to no experience should be nervous and take it to a repairman. I practiced on my cheaper guitars first a long time ago. ;)

[PP_CS336]

Too late for that. I already adjusted truss rod, lowered bridge and tailpiece and set intonation. I would not say doing these adjustments are so difficult you need to let a guitar repairman do it. I have adjusted all my guitars for years. And I have done ones with more difficult adjustments like a strat with a tremolo or a Floyd. I feel like with enough experience, learning and practice you can do this yourself. If you are playing your guitars a lot and are in tune with each ones needs I deem all these adjustments something necessary for you to do yourself. I don't have the time or money to waste to drive to a store/repairman everytime I would like a little change.

 

With that said, anyone that is nervous or little to no experience should be nervous and take it to a repairman. I practiced on my cheaper guitars first a long time ago. ;)

 

Well, since you seem to know what you're doing, I guess you're okay then. Gibson67 said that he noticed the newer SG's tailpieces seemed to be much higher than his

older SG, so I thought I'd give you fair warning, just in case, but as you said, you can already take care of your own guitars. Since I'm not so good at it, I take it

to someone who is. Yes, it cost me more, but at least my guitars stay in good shape. Well, play on my SG brother, and much playing enjoyment with your new axe.

[RobbieJ]

Well, since you seem to know what you're doing, I guess you're okay then. Gibson67 said that he noticed the newer SG's tailpieces seemed to be much higher than his

older SG, so I thought I'd give you fair warning, just in case, but as you said, you can already take care of your own guitars. Since I'm not so good at it, I take it

to someone who is. Yes, it cost me more, but at least my guitars stay in good shape. Well, play on my SG brother, and much playing enjoyment with your new axe.

 

Paul, please don't take my comments to be a dig or me being a jerk. Did not mean to come off like that. Not implying you took that way. But I'd thought I'd mention, better safe than sorry. And when communicating like this you can't hear ones emotions, sarcastic, rude, friendly, etc....

 

I guess I should use these things?!

 

Thanks for your advice. I know what you mean.

 

Anyway I'll post a pic later like I stated.

[RobbieJ]

Paul, please don't take my comments to be a dig or me being a jerk. Did not mean to come off like that. Not implying you took that way. But I'd thought I'd mention, better safe than sorry. And when communicating like this you can't hear ones emotions, sarcastic, rude, friendly, etc....

 

I guess I should use these things?!

 

Thanks for your advice. I know what you mean.

 

Anyway I'll post a pic later like I stated.

 

Funny this pic is on the Guibson site Under the 60's Tribute. This is exactly what my height looks like. So it must be ok if they posted one like that?!?!

[Jef]

Isn't it supposed to be like that to clear that raised P-90?

[RobbieJ]

Isn't it supposed to be like that to clear that raised P-90?

 

Or is the P-90 raised like everything else to meet the steep neck angle. Which came first the chicken or the egg? LOL!

[PP_CS336]

Paul, please don't take my comments to be a dig or me being a jerk. Did not mean to come off like that. Not implying you took that way. But I'd thought I'd mention, better safe than sorry. And when communicating like this you can't hear ones emotions, sarcastic, rude, friendly, etc....

 

I guess I should use these things?!

 

Thanks for your advice. I know what you mean.

 

Anyway I'll post a pic later like I stated.

 

Robbie, I wasn't taking your comments as a dig. Initially I didn't know if you had any of you own experience of adjusting guitars or not. As you can tell, my own

experience wasn't so great, so I almost ruined a perfect guitar. I just didn't want you doing the same as I did (sometimes I can kick myself when I do something

like I initially did to my SG because I didn't realize it was suppose to be like that). The treble (498T) pickup sits up pretty high, so maybe that's why the bridge

and stud tailpiece were so high. My action feels great so I won't complain. When it comes to setup, to each his own. We're all different in the way we want our guitars to feel and play. I know you weren't being rude in your response to me. You're correct, sometimes the written word isn't always understood the way it's meant to. No wonder our planets in the mess it's in. . Happy pickin' and grinnin' with your new axe. BTW, SG's give great feedback (I'm talking desired feedback)

with a good fuzz and wah-wah pedal. They're a Rock 'n' Roll machine.

[GuitarTrouble]

There are a couple things at play here re the stop tailpiece height. The more modern Nashville style TOM is deeper than an ABR 1 so it needs more room for string clearence and it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere along the way the neck angles were changed. One way to facilitate being able to screw down the stop tailpiece flush to the body and still have the strings clear the bridge is to string over the stop tailpiece (like Billy Gibbons and Joe Bonamassa). I was going to try that on my SG Standard but I got cold feet because I wasn't comfortable with the way the strings pull the stoptail up in the back and down in front....made me a little worried that the pressure of the strings pulling on the tailpiece would over time start to pull out the tailpiece studs....maybe someone with some longterm experience with stringing over the stoptail could shed some light on it.

[rct]

I've been playing the guitar since 1971. I have noticed also recent years the tailpiece is stupid high when I pick up a guitar. When I get it home the very first thing any guitar suffers at my hands is new strings and straplocks. While it is unstrung the tailpiece is screwed down flush, the only place I've ever kept it on all of my Gibsons.

 

Wrapping over the tailpiece has never changed anything to me and has been needed only when using a VERY early 50's knockoff with just a stop bar.

 

rct

[RobbieJ]

Well I am a bit late but here are the pics of my actual guitar. This is from my iPhone so no fancy DSLR shots like Gibson uses with the nice overall whole body shot like I posted earlier. Oh and also the strings do clear the bridge. They are not touching but you can't tell from the angle of the photos.

 

I don't know if I like the top wrap idea like the previous poster mentioned. I just feel that's not what they intended the install to be or they would do from factory. Plus I think it looks strange and will end up gouging the tail.

 

I was just trying to get an idea of what other newer SG owners came across. Maybe just get opinions on if they also thought this was unusual? And whether they thought it was a problem and returned and found one better or if you are living with it because that's the way they all now? Because from all I've seen they are. Just double checking maybe other areas had better luck. So I guess I an checking Gibsons consistency.

 

I may end up living with the bridge height. Because with the pick guard it does not look too high. But it's really an illusion. Because if the pick guard was not there it would look ridiculous. I may try an aftermarket thinner ABR style TOM in lieu of the Nashville wider style bridge. The only advantage is it would look more old school in line with the style of the guitar. And I will also maybe be able to lower my tailpiece a tad more.

[rct]

There is nothing right or wrong about any of it. The height of your bridge is to be determined by how you use it, how you like yer action, gauge of strings, neck relief, all kindsa stuff, NOT how it looks.

 

The height of the stop bar is determined soley by you the user. If Gibson wants them up that high that's fine on their guitars, but not mine. And they really don't mind me screwing them down flush, like zillions of guitar players.

 

It isn't a matter of how they do it at the factory, and no it won't hurt yer stop bar to wrap over, people have been doing that since about 1952 or so.

 

Strings can touch the back of the bridge. The string knows nothing beyond the saddle at this end and the nut at the other end.

 

Again, what it looks like has absolutely nothing to do with it, this stuff is purely functional.

 

rct

[PP_CS336]

RobbieJ, from what I can see from your "Thumbnail" picture attachment, that's exactly how my new SG Standard came setup from the factory. I guess that's just

the way they make them now. As rct mentioned, what one does once the guitar is theirs is their own prerogative. I think the thing that looks stranger is how

high the treble pickup seems to be. Most guitars with humbuckers have mounting rings, as the SG Standard's just come out of the pick guard. The mounting plates

seem to take away the illusion of the treble pickup sitting higher than the rhythm pickup. Just my own opinion. Bottom line is to get it set up the way you

want it to be and that you are happy with that. Then it's just play, play, and enjoy. :)

[EVOL!]

Before I put a Bigsby on my SG I used to screw the tailpiece all the way down and top wrap the strings. You get some fun chime noises by picking between the bridge and tailpiece that way. Now with a Bigsby I still get those chime sounds.

 

I think it's been said before, but don't worry about adjusting your bridge or tailpiece height. It's all personal preference. Same for pickup height.

[RobbieJ]

There is nothing right or wrong about any of it. The height of your bridge is to be determined by how you use it, how you like yer action, gauge of strings, neck relief, all kindsa stuff, NOT how it looks.

 

The height of the stop bar is determined soley by you the user. If Gibson wants them up that high that's fine on their guitars, but not mine. And they really don't mind me screwing them down flush, like zillions of guitar players.

 

It isn't a matter of how they do it at the factory, and no it won't hurt yer stop bar to wrap over, people have been doing that since about 1952 or so.

 

Strings can touch the back of the bridge. The string knows nothing beyond the saddle at this end and the nut at the other end.

 

Again, what it looks like has absolutely nothing to do with it, this stuff is purely functional.

 

rct

 

 

RobbieJ, from what I can see from your "Thumbnail" picture attachment, that's exactly how my new SG Standard came setup from the factory. I guess that's just

the way they make them now. As rct mentioned, what one does once the guitar is theirs is their own prerogative. I think the thing that looks stranger is how

high the treble pickup seems to be. Most guitars with humbuckers have mounting rings, as the SG Standard's just come out of the pick guard. The mounting plates

seem to take away the illusion of the treble pickup sitting higher than the rhythm pickup. Just my own opinion. Bottom line is to get it set up the way you

want it to be and that you are happy with that. Then it's just play, play, and enjoy. :)

 

RCT, I know you can't go by looks. I like pretty low action and I have achived it after set-ups/adjustments. So what I am trying to say is the action is pretty low now and the bridge and tailpiece are still pretty high AFTER those adjustments. From what I was stated originally, in the past with other Pauls(3, Standard, Custom and a Studio) and one SG I was able to get the action lower like I like it and the bridge and tailpiece would always end up much lower. So there was more bridge stud into the guitar(more stable?, better transfer of string vibration to body, etc.) and the tailpieces were either flush or close to flush.

 

What I was really getting at was questioning the angle of which the neck is set into the guitar. Like maybe it was glued in and clamped and was a little off? Maybe the angle has changed over the years? I feel like if the neck was installed at a better angle I could achieve an even lower bridge height and put the tailpiece flush. If I need to leave the bridge where it is now to keep the desired action I want and tried to screw down the tail piece it would not be good. The string break over the bridge to tailpiece would be so crazy I would worry about breaking a string. And it would look silly as well, that is how far off it is. And I beg to differ about the sting contacting the back of the bridge making a difference. I experimented and made them touch by lowering the tailpiece and the strings sound a tad dead when touching compared to not touching. Very small difference but it was noticable.

 

I personally saw only 3 SG Classics at the stores I visited and they were all similar. So I was just trying to see if everyone else's new, say 2009 and ups, SG's were also like this? That is why I came on here. Then if I had like 3-5 other newer SG users have the same experience I would feel a bit better. Then I would accept that is how it is done now and not faulty craftsmanship.

 

And PP CS336 I agree with you completely on all you said. I agree it does look a bit strange. But if the neck angle was better this could also be a bit lower as well. The neck angle affects all of this other stuff. Imagine the worst case situations. If the neck was glued in flat and followed the body top evenly or if the angle was way steep. If steeper, like I think mine is, imagine it so steep the bridge height would need to be so high it would run out of adjustment and fall off. Extreme but I am trying for you to get a mental picture. If neck glued in too flat you could make the bridge touch the body and the action would then be too high and you can't go lower. I say there is a perfect medium and they seem to be a bit off.

[rct]

RCT, I know you can't go by looks. I like pretty low action and I have achived it after set-ups/adjustments. So what I am trying to say is the action is pretty low now and the bridge and tailpiece are still pretty high AFTER those adjustments. From what I was stated originally, in the past with other Pauls(3, Standard, Custom and a Studio) and one SG I was able to get the action lower like I like it and the bridge and tailpiece would always end up much lower. So there was more bridge stud into the guitar(more stable?, better transfer of string vibration to body, etc.) and the tailpieces were either flush or close to flush.

 

If your action is as low as you like it that's what matters. Could be a few reasons why the bridge is high, and yer back pickup there looks to be one of them, assuming the strings could go even lower.

 

What I was really getting at was questioning the angle of which the neck is set into the guitar. Like maybe it was glued in and clamped and was a little off? Maybe the angle has changed over the years? I feel like if the neck was installed at a better angle I could achieve an even lower bridge height and put the tailpiece flush.

 

Could be that. Could be the nut. Could be relief. Probably is nut AND relief.

 

If I need to leave the bridge where it is now to keep the desired action I want and tried to screw down the tail piece it would not be good. The string break over the bridge to tailpiece would be so crazy I would worry about breaking a string. And it would look silly as well, that is how far off it is. And I beg to differ about the sting contacting the back of the bridge making a difference. I experimented and made them touch by lowering the tailpiece and the strings sound a tad dead when touching compared to not touching. Very small difference but it was noticable.

 

I don't agree, and in 40 plus years of playing the guitar I won't ever agree. Yer picking hand is back there most of the time doing the very same thing if you really want to debate it. And if yer picking hand isn't back there doing the very same thing then the difference in sound isn't going to matter, if you hear one.

 

I personally saw only 3 SG Classics at the stores I visited and they were all similar. So I was just trying to see if everyone else's new, say 2009 and ups, SG's were also like this? That is why I came on here. Then if I had like 3-5 other newer SG users have the same experience I would feel a bit better. Then I would accept that is how it is done now and not faulty craftsmanship.

 

I just bought an SG in April, it was all bridge up and stuff. Until it got home. Then it wasn't. The action is where I like it, which is probably higher than you do and the bridge is nearly all the way down. I use cork spacers under the wheels, keeps me from having to adjust every time I change strings, which is usually often. Bar is all the way down, same as it ever was. Strings don't hit the bridge, but that isn't usually the case with these. The old ones, yes. And even then it wasn't a problem. You may hear something. I and the audience and yer record company don't.

 

And PP CS336 I agree with you completely on all you said. I agree it does look a bit strange. But if the neck angle was better this could also be a bit lower as well. The neck angle affects all of this other stuff. Imagine the worst case situations. If the neck was glued in flat and followed the body top evenly or if the angle was way steep. If steeper, like I think mine is, imagine it so steep the bridge height would need to be so high it would run out of adjustment and fall off. Extreme but I am trying for you to get a mental picture. If neck glued in too flat you could make the bridge touch the body and the action would then be too high and you can't go lower. I say there is a perfect medium and they seem to be a bit off.

 

If you are that convinced it is wrong, take it to some local fixer. It doesn't take but ten minutes and 45 dollars to have it set to specs and discuss bridge and stop bar heights. Really. The chances of them putting yours together at the wrong angle are pretty slim and easily determined.

 

rct

[RobbieJ]

If your action is as low as you like it that's what matters. Could be a few reasons why the bridge is high, and yer back pickup there looks to be one of them, assuming the strings could go even lower.

 

 

 

Could be that. Could be the nut. Could be relief. Probably is nut AND relief.

 

 

 

I don't agree, and in 40 plus years of playing the guitar I won't ever agree. Yer picking hand is back there most of the time doing the very same thing if you really want to debate it. And if yer picking hand isn't back there doing the very same thing then the difference in sound isn't going to matter, if you hear one.

 

 

 

I just bought an SG in April, it was all bridge up and stuff. Until it got home. Then it wasn't. The action is where I like it, which is probably higher than you do and the bridge is nearly all the way down. I use cork spacers under the wheels, keeps me from having to adjust every time I change strings, which is usually often. Bar is all the way down, same as it ever was. Strings don't hit the bridge, but that isn't usually the case with these. The old ones, yes. And even then it wasn't a problem. You may hear something. I and the audience and yer record company don't.

 

 

 

If you are that convinced it is wrong, take it to some local fixer. It doesn't take but ten minutes and 45 dollars to have it set to specs and discuss bridge and stop bar heights. Really. The chances of them putting yours together at the wrong angle are pretty slim and easily determined.

 

rct

 

rct Completely agree with you about seeing what a local luthier may think about it. That is the best idea.

 

I was not trying to open a can of worms but it seems I did. I kind of wanted this original post to go one way and all too quickly it went some other direction. Sorry for doing that to you all. I am happy with this guitar and I am going to keep.

 

And even though a very good idea to visit a luthier I am not that concerned that I will go that far, yet. LOL! After taking measurements of my studs on bridge and tailpiece I confirmed there is way more stud in contact with the bushings in the guitar than I thought.

 

I think I was just use to seeing them so much lower in the past models I had so I got worried.

 

In the end I really just wanted to know how high other peoples bridges were after set up to their liking, either personally or pro set-up. Whether it be some pics or actual measurements. I was just curious to what other people in other regions saw. For consistancy sake. The SG Classic examples I played happened to be one made on 2010 the other 2 in 2011. To find more to play I would have to drive very far to find a stocking dealer. So that's why I was wanting others to post a pic or specs.

 

Maybe I will start a new thread and ask specifically for specs and/or pics? But I don't want to overpost and be that dude.

 

Thanks so far to you all for being patient with me and helpful!

[PP_CS336]

RobbieJ, just one more comment and I'll let this rest, as you seemed to have done so yourself. Maybe you should have a talk with one of the Gibson representatives directly by calling their 800 service number. I had questions on both my new Gibson electric guitars (CS-336 and SG Standard) and they were very helpful. It seems that as you said, and some others on this thread have mentioned, that on the newer SG's the bridge and especially the stud tailpiece seem to be much higher than maybe earlier models were. From some of the things I've read, the earlier models of the SG didn't have as much (long) of a tenon where the neck glues into the body as the newer ones do. Past complaints about SGs was that they were very neck heavy and seemed to suffer from more head dives thus cracking the headstock and/or neck. Maybe to compensate for that Gibson made a change at that part of the guitar to alleviate this condition. The neck and body on my 2011 SG Standard seem to be pretty balanced. I also noticed that if you hold the guitar up flat, in front of your face to look at the overall guitar from headstock through the body, the body of the guitar from where the neck joins to the further end of the body pitches in a downward angle. Maybe that has a lot to do with the bridge and the stud tailpiece sitting up higher than earlier model SGs. Gibson may not have changed the look of the guitar over the years, but may have recently changed the aerodynamics of the neck/body joint and the guitar's body.

If you do what I told you to do earlier in this paragraph you'll definitely see the alignment of the neck and body are not in a continuous straight line. And maybe by talking with one of Gibson Customer Service reps, as I aforementioned, he can verify whether what I'm saying is true or not. I'm purely speculating based upon the evidence.

[RobbieJ]

RobbieJ, just one more comment and I'll let this rest, as you seemed to have done so yourself. Maybe you should have a talk with one of the Gibson representatives directly by calling their 800 service number. I had questions on both my new Gibson electric guitars (CS-336 and SG Standard) and they were very helpful. It seems that as you said, and some others on this thread have mentioned, that on the newer SG's the bridge and especially the stud tailpiece seem to be much higher than maybe earlier models were. From some of the things I've read, the earlier models of the SG didn't have as much (long) of a tenon where the neck glues into the body as the newer ones do. Past complaints about SGs was that they were very neck heavy and seemed to suffer from more head dives thus cracking the headstock and/or neck. Maybe to compensate for that Gibson made a change at that part of the guitar to alleviate this condition. The neck and body on my 2011 SG Standard seem to be pretty balanced. I also noticed that if you hold the guitar up flat, in front of your face to look at the overall guitar from headstock through the body, the body of the guitar from where the neck joins to the further end of the body pitches in a downward angle. Maybe that has a lot to do with the bridge and the stud tailpiece sitting up higher than earlier model SGs. Gibson may not have changed the look of the guitar over the years, but may have recently changed the aerodynamics of the neck/body joint and the guitar's body.

If you do what I told you to do earlier in this paragraph you'll definitely see the alignment of the neck and body are not in a continuous straight line. And maybe by talking with one of Gibson Customer Service reps, as I aforementioned, he can verify whether what I'm saying is true or not. I'm purely speculating based upon the evidence.

 

Well maybe I will call that number and ask about the angle. If they changed it and why, just curious. It's not that big of a deal now though. Because as you'll see below from my findings all is ok after some good inspecting.

 

I am aware the guitars neck is in at an angle. That is the way they are supposed to be to clear the bridge, since TOM's sit kind of tall. Compared to a strat style bridge for example. I was questioning the neck angle size itself. I just believe it is larger now. Say it's 5 degrees versus 3 or 4 in the past or visa versa.

 

However, since I don't know where they measure the angle from I don't know if 5 would be more or less that 3. But I assume a smaller number would be less of an angle. For example 0 degrees may be if the neck and body were on the same plane or parallel. So I was guessing that they made it steeper now. Like I said the Gibson specs even states it's 5 degrees for my model.

 

With all that being said I actually looked over the guitar pretty good last night. And on the bridge and tailpiece there is plenty of stud threaded into the guitar. I actually pulled them all the way out just to see how far in they were threaded at my current set-up after I took all the strings off.

 

I think what tricked my eye was the bridge bushings. The bushing it screws into is rather shiny. And the studs reflection on the top of the bushing actually created an optical illusion to my bad eyes that made it look as if the stud was sticking out further that is physically was.

 

Both the tailpiece and bridge studs were at least 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the way into the body. So I feel better now. Because that was my original concern. That the bridge was too high with not much stud screwed into the guitar. And the fear that the bridge may tilt in the future.

 

Thanks everyone!

[nasticanasta]

I originally started playing years ago and was in love with Les Pauls. That was back in the late 80's to mid 90's. I got big into Fender for a while and PRS. Recently I said I wanted to complete my dream line-up. I own an American Strat, a '52 Tele Reissue, PRS McCarty. I just added the SG Classic and someday soon will purchase a Les Paul, I hope. Anyway I have been away from Gibson products for a while and I have a question I wonder if anyone may help with. So far I love this thing by the way. Gloss finish, binding, US made, etc for 900 bucks?!

 

Here we go.....

 

I played 3 of them at two different stores before choosing the one I finally went with. I noticed on all the SG's the bridge/tailpiece are rather high. I know most Gibson come set-up way too high for my playing preference. At least that's what I recall from my past experience. So anyway, I chose the one I could get lowest with the best action after set-up/adjustments.

 

My questions are 1) Is the neck set in angle different on an SG compared to a Paul or is it that the SG has a flat top or both? And where/how do you take this measurement to verify it's correct? 2) Is there an acceptable range for bridge height, from top of body to bottom of bridge?

 

In other words my guitar looks safe and the bridge seems stable. But time may change that. But it is higher than most Pauls and other SG's I have seen and played in the past or saw on the internet. And I need to have my tailpiece a bit high too so the strings clear the bridge but it does hold stings at a good break angle over the bridge to tailpiece. Just want to make sure it is acceptable and not defective. Especially since all I see now seem to be this way.

yes because the SG is flat on top...and to be honest.. no guitar company sends out their guitars fully ready to play unless you bought a very high end model and they specifically say they dress frets and intonation and height but really no company can get that right , that's between you and your guitar tech. ESP's come ready intonated and supposedly dressed frets... I still take every single guitar i get to my tech and have him dress frets set intonation (because he includes it in the dressings, otherwise I would be doing that) I don't have to tell him about action, he knows what I prefer. I don't think I ever bought a new guitar I didn't take straight to my tech to have the frets dressed. If it ain't broke don't fix it. the only reason there would for you to be worried about your concerns is if Gibson has no idea how to make a guitar!