What were the early years at Bozeman when they were hand building and hand pulling the necks?

[onewilyfool]

There was a post a while back, I think RAR was commenting on some of the early years where just a few guys wer literally hand building the guitars, carving the necks by hand etc. Also mentioned which of the early years at Bozeman were considered the best, and which years when they were ramping up production, when they were considered not-so-good....I can't find that thread through "search" function....any info out there???

[ponty]

There was a post a while back, I think RAR was commenting on some of the early years where just a few guys wer literally hand building the guitars, carving the necks by hand etc. Also mentioned which of the early years at Bozeman were considered the best, and which years when they were ramping up production, when they were considered not-so-good....I can't find that thread through "search" function....any info out there???

 

I cant remember the thread either. However, RAR was responding to a comment that I had made regarding

my 2 1993 J-45. They were made only a few months apart, and yet the necks are like chalk and cheese.

One being very slim and the other very clubby. He said they were most likely hand planed.

[merseybeat1963]

In addition to that I was wondering during the short period that English Maple was being used if any ebony board..or some ornate Custom J200 was ever made.

[Hogeye]

In addition to that I was wondering during the short period that English Maple was being used if any ebony board..or some ornate Custom J200 was ever made.

The wood in question is Sycamore. Gibson made many customs out of it.

[Hogeye]

There was a post a while back, I think RAR was commenting on some of the early years where just a few guys wer literally hand building the guitars, carving the necks by hand etc. Also mentioned which of the early years at Bozeman were considered the best, and which years when they were ramping up production, when they were considered not-so-good....I can't find that thread through "search" function....any info out there???

 

Hand pullig is a process I'm not familiar with. I will tell you this. The necks blanks were sawn from a neck blank on a band saw. The neck blank was clamped onto a ball carver three at a time and the ball carver gave them their rough shape. Henry bought the ball carver from a sports equipment maker. Yes it was used and the tolerances were terrible. The next step was to send the necks to Leonard. Leonard was a big guy that operated a spindle sander. He never played a guitar and never even saw one finished. He was just responsible for sanding the necks smooth and getting any irregularities out of them. He had no real idea as to the final shape or even the final size of the neck. When the guitar was neck fit and went to final sanding the neck was hand sanded yet again. This process went on from 1989 to late 1992. Then Bob Taylor visited the plant and helped Gibson get their first CNC machine.

 

I laugh when folks post saying they measured their neck and it is a particular size. No two Gibson necks are alike. When the final sander gets the guitar and starts his process he can tale a 64th of an inch off either or both sides to get a "bad" spot out.It's just the nature of working with wood. This process goes on today. The CNC machines did make the neck shape more consistent. Only a very light sanding is needed in the final sand area. If you get a chubby neck the wood was good and didn't need much sanding. If you get a very thin neck they had to sand out a bad spot to make it look good.

Some of the best guitars Gibson has produced are Sycamore, paddle cut, Fullerplast J-200's from 89 to 91.

[onewilyfool]

Does that mean that the nut width on some of these hand sanded necks could vary also during the pre CNC days??

[rar]

The wood in question is Sycamore. Gibson made many customs out of it.

Just to be clear, it was what's called "sycamore" in England, Acer pseudoplatanus, which is a maple. U.S. sycamore is genus Plantanus, no species of which is a traditional tone wood (although Rick Turner makes some spectacular looking, and nice sounding, tenor ukes out of California sycamore, Platanus racemosa).

 

-- Bob R

[merseybeat1963]

Hand pullig is a process I'm not familiar with. I will tell you this. The necks blanks were sawn from a neck blank on a band saw. The neck blank was clamped onto a ball carver three at a time and the ball carver gave them their rough shape. Henry bought the ball carver from a sports equipment maker. Yes it was used and the tolerances were terrible. The next step was to send the necks to Leonard. Leonard was a big guy that operated a spindle sander. He never played a guitar and never even saw one finished. He was just responsible for sanding the necks smooth and getting any irregularities out of them. He had no real idea as to the final shape or even the final size of the neck. When the guitar was neck fit and went to final sanding the neck was hand sanded yet again. This process went on from 1989 to late 1992. Then Bob Taylor visited the plant and helped Gibson get their first CNC machine.

 

I laugh when folks post saying they measured their neck and it is a particular size. No two Gibson necks are alike. When the final sander gets the guitar and starts his process he can tale a 64th of an inch off either or both sides to get a "bad" spot out.It's just the nature of working with wood. This process goes on today. The CNC machines did make the neck shape more consistent. Only a very light sanding is needed in the final sand area. If you get a chubby neck the wood was good and didn't need much sanding. If you get a very thin neck they had to sand out a bad spot to make it look good.

Some of the best guitars Gibson has produced are Sycamore, paddle cut, Fullerplast J-200's from 89 to 91.

 

And some of those(89-91) were with ebony fingerboards? As custom orders?

Thanks

[retrorod]

The next step was to send the necks to Leonard. Leonard was a big guy that operated a spindle sander. He never played a guitar and never even saw one finished. He was just responsible for sanding the necks smooth and getting any irregularities out of them. He had no real idea as to the final shape or even the final size of the neck. .

 

 

This comment just begs me to wonder WHY Leonard was the "go to" guy for sanding the necks IF indeed, he had 'no real idea' of the final size? Sounds a little 'sketchy'..!

Certainly a little "show and tell" would have helped Leonard out a bit...??

[retrorod]

The wood in question is Sycamore. Gibson made many customs out of it.

Were some of the black J-100's as sported by John Hiatt and Steve Earle of the English Sycamore wood?

[ksdaddy]

Were some of the black J-100's as sported by John Hiatt and Steve Earle of the English Sycamore wood?

 

You can pretty much tell by the date. If it was made much past '91 it's doubtful it's sycamore. And if you look at the back from the inside you will typically see sycamore has very little figure.

 

All caveats and disclaimers apply.

 

My June 1989 sycamore:

 

 

My 2000 (NOT sycamore!)

 

 

And here's a prime example of Gibson's use of sycamore in the MK53.

 

 

It's my understanding Gibson (Norlin) bought a bunch of it from a tennis racket company and used it from the mid 70s on. It went from K'zoo to Nashville to Bozeman until it got used up. Some say there is a huge difference in tone, others say there is none. I believe the major fact is that Gibson HAD it so they USED it. It was economics.

[PickitPaul]

Ksdaddy, that is a tasty back strip on the June '89 sburst. I like the look also of the less figured maple too.

[retrorod]

Very nice guitars, Scott Is your '89 a 100 or 200? Was that your dads guitar ...as I recollect?? Very nice! I must say that I am a big fan of sunburst on any maple regardless of any figuring on the wood.....even MORE so on the wildly-flamed stuff. If its a natural finish, then I prefer a golden, amber hue> Thats just me.

Seems like I read somewhere that the black J-100's were the English Sycamore..

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=j9VQzIv8RMo

 

Jes Sayin'....I am hankering for one..

[ksdaddy]

Both of mine are 200s. Dad's '85 J100 is still upstairs at my mother's house... she isn't ready to let it go yet.

[ryanfender]

More Sycamore from 1990

 

 

[merseybeat1963]

[merseybeat1963]

[onewilyfool]

Has anyone had a Sycamore and Maple at the same time, or played one next to another? How id the sound quality compare??? By the way, I played my Koa J-200 next to a flame Maple J-200 from the person I got mine from. I found the Koa more "lively" than the Maple. The maple sounded less bright and less loud to my ears.

[struma6]

Just to be clear, it was what's called "sycamore" in England, Acer pseudoplatanus, which is a maple. U.S. sycamore is genus Plantanus, no species of which is a traditional tone wood (although Rick Turner makes some spectacular looking, and nice sounding, tenor ukes out of California sycamore, Platanus racemosa).

 

-- Bob R

[merseybeat1963]

Has anyone had a Sycamore and Maple at the same time, or played one next to another? How id the sound quality compare??? By the way, I played my Koa J-200 next to a flame Maple J-200 from the person I got mine from. I found the Koa more "lively" than the Maple. The maple sounded less bright and less loud to my ears.

I think it was Wildwood guitars that had a 20th Ann. J200 new,was like $4195 not tht long ago. European/English Maple(to us Americans)

Would a been nice to try that one next to a comparable new Sitka topped J200 guitar of Maple for difference of tone,tho only a partial.

[blindboygrunt]

 

that looks like an arse !

:D lol

[ksdaddy]

Has anyone had a Sycamore and Maple at the same time, or played one next to another? How id the sound quality compare???

 

Yes.

 

The 89 has a deep thud. Even the unwound strings are thick sounding. Thick but not muffled. The 00 (regular maple) is deeper and brighter, like the mids are scooped. It sounds tighter and sustains longer.

 

As Hogeye pointed out.... these necks vary. The 89 has a wide neck that is quite a handful. The 00 is more like a Les Paul, less taper and downright fast and graspable in the lower registers.

 

Cosmetics are different, too. The 89 has multiple layers of headstock binding while the 00 is single layer.

 

The 89s original guard was deflowered so I replaced it with a newer 'yellow dot' guard and didn't like it. The sunburst is so dark on the 89 and it's beauty is in it's subtlety that the yellow dot guard was overpowering. Fortunately I scored a period correct guard for it. I put layer upon layer of clear lacquer on it and buffed the s__t out of it. It's held up well.

 

I scrimped and saved for a year and bought a '73 J200 with a twisted neck. I immediately flipped it. I then found the '89 for $1950. That was in 2006. In April 2011 the blonde was on ebay, buy it now for $1500. One tuner was mismatched, otherwise clean. I thought, for $1500 if I hate it I can flip it and make a few hundred. Hmph. That guitar stays!

 

Actually I'm hoping I'm never in a situation where either has to go away.