BluesKing777 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I am really enjoying playing my latest aquisition - 1959 Gibson LG3 - with the non-scalloped bracing. To me this bracing makes the Gibson a touch 'Martinish' sounding. It is a great fingerpicking guitar, but the extra brightness also makes for some great 'light thumb strumming' sounds for pop and country tunes. My Blues King sounds a bit dull after playing the LG3. Out of interest, I have tried to find out why Gibson changed from scalloped bracing to non-scalloped bracing on the LG3 (and others) in 1955. My Fab Flattops book says they did it, but no reason was given 'Why?" Was it a financial reason? Change of ideas? Change of Management? Any clues? BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I am really enjoying playing my latest aquisition - 1959 Gibson LG3 - with the non-scalloped bracing. To me this bracing makes the Gibson a touch 'Martinish' sounding. It is a great fingerpicking guitar, but the extra brightness also makes for some great 'light thumb strumming' sounds for pop and country tunes. My Blues King sounds a bit dull after playing the LG3. Out of interest, I have tried to find out why Gibson changed from scalloped bracing to non-scalloped bracing on the LG3 (and others) in 1955. My Fab Flattops book says they did it, but no reason was given 'Why?" Was it a financial reason? Change of ideas? Change of Management? Any clues? BluesKing777. I think it's because scalloped bracing made the tops more fragile ... I can't remember were I know this from but maybe someone with a better memory will chim in . JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Hey BK! Can't answer your question but the reason your Blues King sounds dull next to the LG3 is the dif between 1959 and 2009 (or whenever). Old wood, bro! That LG3 top is nice and crispy dry. You might even notice in the early morn coolness of a house whose furnace hasn't kicked in yet, it's even more lively. Ahh, makes me miss my little B25. I've got another thought. Trade your BKing in for a 30-40's era L00 and you'll have a 'perfecta'. A little sharp, a little soft. Don't wreck that vibrant top by humidifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Hey BK! Can't answer your question but the reason your Blues wood, bro! That LG3 top is nice and crispy dry. No matter how old wood gets, it cannot become drier than the air surrounding it. As or the OP's question, I don't know. Martin did the same about decade earlier. I've always assumed that this was a response to the string pull of heavy gauge strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 It is almost surpising that Gibson waited as long as they did to get away from the scallop bracing. Martin. as example, moved away from it quite a bit earlier. When it comes to slope shoulder jumbos, I actually like the sound of the 1950s non-scallop braced guitars to the earlier scallop braced models. Although it ain't scalloped it is shaped and was designed to beef up top support but still allow for alot of top end flutter. Based on the guitars I have played, the non-scallop guitars lacked a bit of the low end oomph of earlier models but were as best as I can describe it punchier sounding. I heard no differenvce in volume at all. Gotta tell ya when it comes to the smaller body guitars I prefer those made with a scallop bracing. There is a noticeable difference in sound between say a mid-1940s and later 1950s LG-2. I always wished though Bozeman would issue either a J-45 or SJ with the mid-1950s bracing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I am really enjoying playing my latest aquisition - 1959 Gibson LG3 - with the non-scalloped bracing. To me this bracing makes the Gibson a touch 'Martinish' sounding. It is a great fingerpicking guitar, but the extra brightness also makes for some great 'light thumb strumming' sounds for pop and country tunes. My Blues King sounds a bit dull after playing the LG3. For me it is just the opposite - I feel modern Gibsons sound more 'Martinish' than older guitars (whether with scallop or non-scallop top bracing). I always figured it is because the scallop top bracing used by Bozeman in their guitars (other than the Legend Series) has a more Martin-like vibe to it than anything used in the past. I swear though, when you get to the cheaper pre-1955 Gibsons like the LG-2s and LG-3s, it looks like they shaped the braces with a pen knife. Pretty rough looking inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I really wouldn't believe everything you read in Fabulous Flat-tops. That book tends to be inaccurate in many areas. Gibson flat-tops, depending on year and model, may have scalloped or non-scalloped bracing. They seemed to switch back & forth. You can even find examples from the same year with both types of braces. It all depends on the individual guitar. Take the J-35 - some had scalloped braces & some didn't - some had 3 tone bars & others had 2. No consistancy when it comes to vintage Gibsons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I really wouldn't believe everything you read in Fabulous Flat-tops. That book tends to be inaccurate in many areas. Gibson flat-tops, depending on year and model, may have scalloped or non-scalloped bracing. They seemed to switch back & forth. You can even find examples from the same year with both types of braces. It all depends on the individual guitar. Take the J-35 - some had scalloped braces & some didn't - some had 3 tone bars & others had 2. No consistancy when it comes to vintage Gibsons. Never actually read the book. There is a big difference between pre- and post McCarty-era Gibsons when it comes to consistency in design. In the 1930s and into the 1940s, tools, dies and such were a hodge podge. It was taking Gibson something like 3 months to make a guitar so instruments had to be in process when orders came in. All in all, Kalamazoo was not what you would call a well organized, efficient factory. It was a very different ballgame though around 1950 when the plant was expanded, re-tooled and re-organized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rar Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 When it comes to slope shoulder jumbos, I actually like the sound of the 1950s non-scallop braced guitars to the earlier scallop braced models. ... I always wished though Bozeman would issue either a J-45 or SJ with the mid-1950s bracing. +1 The early-'50s models just sound like inferior versions of the '40s models to me, but the late-'50s J-45/J-50/SJ models have a distinctively different tone that I like a lot. I think the theory that this was one of a number of moves to increase sturdiness is right. (For example, based on a limited sample, I'd say that the 1960 J-200 was about a pound heavier than the 1950.) -- Bob R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-1854Me Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 +1 The early-'50s models just sound like inferior versions of the '40s models to me, but the late-'50s J-45/J-50/SJ models have a distinctively different tone that I like a lot. I think the theory that this was one of a number of moves to increase sturdiness is right. (For example, based on a limited sample, I'd say that the 1960 J-200 was about a pound heavier than the 1950.) -- Bob R I am going to reserve judgment on this topic -- I like the tone of my '56 J-185 a lot, but the few J-185s I've played were far from a 'scientific sampling', by any stretch, and it's unlikely that any of them weren't somehow buggered-about with somehow. Two scalloped examples I found -- a '51 and a '53 -- were "ho-hum" and "meh", to use the highly technical lingo that I so prefer. A '55 I encountered several years ago was hands down the best I've played until I happened upon the '56 I now have. My '53 SJ's sound I far prefer over my '59 CW though. Not that the '59 is "poor" or "meh" at all; it's just that the '53 has more boomph (another technical term). And I like boomph. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I gotta agree. My point was not that early 1950s Gibsons sound better or worse than other years but just that they were more consistent in terms of the build a result of the company coming under new management in the late 1940s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 So we don't know why the change? Well I shall make up a story! Th Gibson factory manager was coming back from a late lunch and noticed the jazzy guy with whiskers doodling! When the foreman was questioned about this doodling, he told some lame story about scalloping braces or some nonsense, which took 1 hour or so for each guitar and was crucial to the final sound and performance......... Manager sent edict to all staff later that day: "From tomorrow, the Ninth Day of February in the Year 1955, Gibson Acoustic Guitars will no longer be scalloped. By Order of Gibson Management" Probably close to the truth? BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merseybeat1963 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Went on Martin factory tour a few years ago and the lady scalloping braces on those tops was taking her all of 20 seconds..I can't imagine that would be an issue ..but you never know with the suits. Went on a tour of the Royal Wochester China manufactory in England and there was an article about automating more of the hand work there..Along the way on the tour I saw this lady hand painting the China at F*%king super human speed and i said to myself ,"how god damn fast do they want them to work".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyReb Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 To avoid warranty claims maybe??? I've heard tell that the vintage series Martins have some extra cost included to cover some warranty issues that will come up from the light bracing. I think this is largely why Martin went to straight bracing post ww2. My Advanced Jumbo has a really thin top with scalloped and forward shift braces like pre war models. I sure hope it holds up well because I have no warranty. But who knows. Maybe Gibson changed bracing to avoid warranty claims too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 So we don't know why the change? Well I shall make up a story! Th Gibson factory manager was coming back from a late lunch and noticed the jazzy guy with whiskers doodling! When the foreman was questioned about this doodling, he told some lame story about scalloping braces or some nonsense, which took 1 hour or so for each guitar and was crucial to the final sound and performance......... Manager sent edict to all staff later that day: "From tomorrow, the Ninth Day of February in the Year 1955, Gibson Acoustic Guitars will no longer be scalloped. By Order of Gibson Management" Probably close to the truth? BluesKing777. Yeah, I'm sure it was something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I have read that Martin went to non-scallop braces to compensate for the heavier string guages that players were using. Better to add more rigidity to the braces than to build a heavier guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I've got the '53 CF-100......and it is the "sweetest" sounding Gibson I own...I don't know if the bracing is scalloped or not.....I wouldn't change a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I've got the '53 CF-100......and it is the "sweetest" sounding Gibson I own...I don't know if the bracing is scalloped or not.....I wouldn't change a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 I've got the '53 CF-100......and it is the "sweetest" sounding Gibson I own...I don't know if the bracing is scalloped or not.....I wouldn't change a thing! If it is a1953, it is probably scalloped. You could possibly look at the closest brace to the soundhole and tell us, OWF? BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 If it is a1953, it is probably scalloped. You could possibly look at the closest brace to the soundhole and tell us, OWF? Don't know about that model but the top braces on LGs, as example, seem to have been scalloped only below the soundhole. My old J-200 also has a combination of top bracing which I assume had to do with making the top as rigid as possible without sacrificing sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.