Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
hbomb76

2013 SG Original - THE Definitive SG "Reissue" (GREAT JOB, GIBSON!!!)

Recommended Posts

Found out, according to gibson specs, that it is a 1 piece rosewood board.

 

Still curious on the lack of ABR-1 on it, from you guys. Sounds like a non-issue, and I don't want to resurrect old debate, but just curious on a couple of vintage preferring fellows.

 

2 vs 1 piece body really doesn't matter to me. I've got a 2 piece SG 61' that plays and sounds better than any I've ever held.

 

I'm actually wondering about this as well. I've got a SG Original and i was wondering why the choice was made for the nashville over abr-1 bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an ABR fan. I don't like how the tension wire rattles. Nashville all the way.

 

The retainer wire has never rattled on my '97 Standard, but I do understand that this is a common problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my Gibson Les Paul guitars has the original and wireless ABR-1 bridge. However, I think I will replace it with a wired one. In case of breaking a string, I won't lose the related saddle held by the string only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some use clear nail polish, to secure the wires on the ABR-1's,

some just bend the ends a bit, to tighten them. Some remove

the wire, entirely. And, still other's change to the version

without the wire, or go to a "Nashville" bridge. I say...

"Whatever works," for you! [thumbup]

 

The "Original" is an outstanding version, of the '61 SG w/Maestro.

The headstock is a bit more "flared" at the top, than the '61 LP,

which is a bit more "squared off," and...of course, it has the

Nashville Bridge, but otherwise, it's pretty damn close, to the

original '61 LP. As it's not an official historical "reissue" of

the '61 LP, those 2 small differences are quite acceptable, IMHO.

It's really an outstanding version (again), all the way around,

of the venerable SG! [thumbup] IMHO, as always. [biggrin]

 

 

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to this party. I just got mine last night from Sweetwater.

 

For those who have these - Do your control knobs have a big gap under them? Mine look like they used long shaft pots where they should have been short. The knobs are well off of the body and the nuts, washers, etc. are clearly visible.

 

Just curious if this is normal or I got something strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to this party. I just got mine last night from Sweetwater.

 

For those who have these - Do your control knobs have a big gap under them? Mine look like they used long shaft pots where they should have been short. The knobs are well off of the body and the nuts, washers, etc. are clearly visible.

 

Just curious if this is normal or I got something strange.

 

Can you post a pic? I've got that SG, and a few other recent SG's as well. On mine, the bottom of the knob is slightly higher than the nut. That makes the nut clearly visible from the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post a pic? I've got that SG, and a few other recent SG's as well. On mine, the bottom of the knob is slightly higher than the nut. That makes the nut clearly visible from the side.

Here's a pic and 1 of the whole guitar for good measure. I can add a nut on the backside to lower them, so not a big deal. Loving the guitar!

IMG_1445_zpsa5d35129.jpg

IMG_1442_zpsd8bf73c3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a pic and 1 of the whole guitar for good measure. I can add a nut on the backside to lower them, so not a big deal. Loving the guitar!

IMG_1445_zpsa5d35129.jpg

IMG_1442_zpsd8bf73c3.jpg

 

That looks about right to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I sold my 2010 SG standard a few days ago and ordered the original right after..... What a beautiful guitar they made. Can't wait to try it with my band. [drool]

Welcome here, Gibsonfreak, and post pics after arrival of your new toy... [love]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know...we haven't heard anything from H-Bomb (who started this thread),

in a LONG time. Are you out there, Heath?!! [confused] :unsure:

 

Did you buy one of the new "61 Les Paul Tribute" (SG's) yet? Lance, and

Brian told me, you'd called about one. [biggrin]

 

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

 

I finally got my SG Original! [thumbup] It really looks beautiful!

I already had a 2010 Firebird so I played both of them to compare and found out that the neck on the SG felt thicker [confused] I really thought it'd be thinner than the Firebird's neck.....

I took the measurements on both guitars at the 12th fret and here is what I got:

 

Firebird: 0.854

 

Original: 0.917

 

[confused] [confused]

 

So weird! The Gibson site says that it should be around 0.890!!!!!

 

Why is it that thick? Do you guys know if it's normal on that guitar?

 

Thank you for your help :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Gibsonfreak, welcome to the "nuthouse!" [biggrin]

 

Your concern over the neck thickness, is understandable, given

the published numbers, on the Gibson web site. However, they

are "hand shaped," and will vary somewhat, accordingly. So

(unless it just doesn't feel good, and not something you feel

like you'll get used to), I wouldn't worry about it. The numbers

published, are "ideals." In reality, once again, because they

ARE hand shaped, they'll vary on each guitar. They always have,

even back in the '60s. Probably even more so, back then (though

that's some speculation, on my part).

 

Enjoy, your great SG Original! They're awesome instruments! [thumbup]

 

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Gibsonfreak, welcome to the "nuthouse!" [biggrin]

 

Your concern over the neck thickness, is understandable, given

the published numbers, on the Gibson web site. However, they

are "hand shaped," and will vary somewhat, accordingly. So

(unless it just doesn't feel good, and not something you feel

like you'll get used to), I wouldn't worry about it. The numbers

published, are "ideals." In reality, once again, because they

ARE hand shaped, they'll vary on each guitar. They always have,

even back in the '60s. Probably even more so, back then (though

that's some speculation, on my part).

 

Enjoy, your great SG Original! They're awesome instruments! [thumbup]

 

CB

 

Thanks for the answer CB

 

I just came back from a rehearsal about 10 minutes ago.

I played the SG pretty much for 2 hours in a row and started feeling good \:D/

I guess I'm so used to playing the Firebird (which is a kind of special guitar to play) that I might need some time to get used to the SG.

 

P:S.: The SG sounds so good!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on your nice SG Original, Gibsonfreak - HNGD! [thumbup]

 

As for the neck dimensions, there might be slight differences in the thickness of the finishes, too, and these might add up with the size tolerances of the final shaping for some hundreth inches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its nice to hear of neck thickness variations since on paper at least, Gibson's standardized everything to the slim taper.

 

personally id be pissed if i bought one of these only to hear they're doing over the binding fret ends now. That's the one thing I don't like about my 2012 standard. The thick neck profile makes up for it tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its nice to hear of neck thickness variations since on paper at least, Gibson's standardized everything to the slim taper.

 

personally id be pissed if i bought one of these only to hear they're doing over the binding fret ends now. That's the one thing I don't like about my 2012 standard. The thick neck profile makes up for it tho.

 

 

Hmmmm...All my SG's (still) have the binding "nibs" at the fret ends. And, they're

all recent. 1 2012 '61 "Satin", 3 2013 models (Kirk Douglas Custom, "Original,"

and '61 "Les Paul Tribute")

 

I haven't (yet) seen a 2013 "Standard" SG...does it still have the "nibs," or have

they gone to the frets through the binding, on it???

 

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah actually I guess my post didn't make much sense; I saw Gibson added this feature for the new 2014 line-up but assumed the Original would continue into 2014 and get the same treatment. The nibbed binding does feel nice but from a historical accuracy perspective, the 2014 method sounds like an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...