Thickness of laminated tops on Gibson ES175's
Keith
eventually got into the subject of how thick the laminates were on
Gibson guitars of various years. I noticed that a number of people
made statements about new Gibsons having much thicker laminates than
the ones from the classic years. The following quote was taken from
that discussion:
"The laminated instruments that Gibson produced (the ES series) from
about 1946 to somewhere in the mid to late 60s used lighter laminated
plates. The plate thickness was around .125" with a 3 ply (and
sometimes 4 ply) construction. The outer layers were (as we can see)
maple. The cross grain core wood was a less dense (than maple)
species
such as was basswood or poplar. When NORLIN bought Gibson circa 1970
they changed all of this. The
post Kalamazoo Gibsons, including current production, use a much
thicker laminate .190" or so."
After reading this, I wondered if could be true. A thickness of .125"
is only 1/8" which seems like a pretty thin top to me. The .190"
referenced above is about 3/16" which sounds more like what I would
have expected a top to be. Since I have three ES175's spanning a
period of over 40 years, I decided to measure the thickness of the
tops. It is not easy to get a perfectly accurate measurement, but I
used a recently calibrated caliper in the f-hole and did my best to
hold it perfectly still and straight. My measurements probably aren't
perfect, but I am sure they would be accurate within 5 or 10
thousandths of an inch. I also don't know how much thickness the
finish adds, but all three guitars have their original finish so my
little test should be a fair comparison of the three guitars. The
results were very interesting and did not support the the above
statement taken from this newsgroup:
My 1969 ES175D (pre-Norlin) is very close to the .190" thickness that
wasn't supposed to appear until the Norlin years.
My 1959 ES175DN is slightly more than .200" making it thicker than the
'69 and nowhere near the .125" thickness that was suggested to be used
in the 1950's.
My 2001 ES175 is also a little over .200". It appears to somewhere in
the middle - i.e. thicker than the '69 but thinner than the '59.
My guitars are all stock. I bought the '69 new and I purchased my '59
from the original owner (and I know the history of the guitar). So,
what's up? Could it be that ES175 tops never were actually .125" thin?
Maybe some other folks could measure their guitars and let us all know
what they find out. One thing I do know is that my 1959 is the best
sounding electric guitar I have ever owned. Granted, the paf's have a
lot to do with that, but I am convinced that there is nothing wrong
with a top of about 3/16" thick for an electric archtop. I have owned
many other boutique guitars, some with thinner tops which may have
sounded better acoustically, but that didn't necessarily make them
sound better amplified.
Keith
invisaman75
I wonder how much the tops shink or expand over time.
mikeo
thinnest top of any 175 i have ever played. perhaps he will post here
with some caliper measurements.
I had a '91 ES-175 and never bothered measuring thickness but compared
to Stan's top, mine was significantly thicker, no question.
hmm, interesting discussion.
TFPainter
Measurements should be taken perpendicular to the plane of the plate,
it's hard to get an accurate reading at the f-hole. It would be better
to remove the pickup and measure the thickness of the top there.
My observations are based on a 1946 ES-150 that I own and other
Gibsons of various vintage that I have either owned or played. The
general consensus is that the Kalamazoo Gibsons were, generally
speaking, more lightly constructed than the modern incarnations. This
is not solely my observation, but has been confirmed by other players,
and dealers that I have spoken with.
Perhaps my statement seems to imply a rigorous scientific study has
been done, sorry to mislead. It is just my (and other players and
dealers) observation based on a limited sample of instruments. Gibson
was not hesitant to make minor variations in the construction of their
instruments through the years to utilize the materials that were
available at the time.
An interesting story about this was relayed to me from a long-time
dealer in the biz.
Somewhere in the mid '60s, Gibson received a rush order from Sam Ash
for 50 or so florentine cut L-5CESs. They needed them to be delivered
in a month or so. Production said there was no way 50 could be made in
a month...........management said do whatever it takes...
So, out there in the world, are 50 or so florentine cut L-5CES guitars
with laminated spruce tops (!)
Tom
Five Sharp
laminate guitars were constructed much more lightly than the current
ones. I am sure the laminates will be somewhat thinner and probably
different glues and layers were used in the plywood. Still, what
interests me more is how this translates into a "better" sound. My
1998 Tal is of a heavier construction than my 125 with a bit thicker
laminates probably but sounds much "better" in my mind. The 125 is a
very nice classic jazz guitar with a great bop sound but really no
match for the Tal, which sounds fatter on all fronts and seems to me
more responsive. Maybe it's just taste after all.
These days L5s are built like a tank and are quite heavy. I am sure
they will carry heavier tops than vintage ones. But they still sound
great and that is the general view over here.
In the end the materials and the way of production are quite
irrelevant to me. Sound is what counts. I have played too many light
and responsive carved guitars that really don't cut it amplified.
#####
Bill C
The Tal has a bigger body and longer scale which might contribute to a
fatter sound. The maple neck might also be a little brighter, giving
more "definition" to the sound than the mahogany neck on the 125
Five Sharp
> The Tal has a bigger body and longer scale which might contribute to a
fatter sound. The maple neck might also be a little brighter, giving
more "definition" to the sound than the mahogany neck on the 125
Sure. There are so many variables in guitar construction that to only focus
on the thickness of a top seems pretty limited. By the way, my 1982 ES 175
is by no means a lesser guitar than my 125 either. On the contrary ..
These days I seem to gravitate towards a 17" body and a 25.5 scale length
more and more. Kind of weird because I am not a big guy with big hands. You
always read here that guys find the 175 so comfortable to play for their
smaller hands. Not so in my case.
I like the roomier neck and the somewhat "bigger" sound of the longer scale.
#####
TFPainter
There are many factors to consider..
I think this one sounds a lot like the Tal I had....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7NT_VeO7Zw
Five Sharp
#####
"TFPainter" <paint...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:18300313-76fd-4c7b...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
TFPainter
> Is that the 350? So, the first one I see in the vid?
>
> #####
>
Yup :-)
Five Sharp
hands and through my amp. I'd love to try one out.
#####
"TFPainter" <paint...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:3faed98c-3786-44ef...@o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
mikeo
>
> Sure. There are so many variables in guitar construction that to only focus
> on the thickness of a top seems pretty limited. By the way, my 1982 ES 175
> is by no means a lesser guitar than my 125 either. On the contrary ..
>
>
> #####
oh absolutely. with ES-175s, the thickness of the top is probably a
very small part of the tone equation, especially since it is not a
carved solid top. There is more difference between 175s with maple vs
mahogany necks, IMO - now THAT makes a huge difference. I consider
the ES-175 very much an electric guitar, so I probably would gravitate
toward a less resonant, thicker top myself to achieve the sound i
typically characterize as that of a 175 through an amp. YMMV.
TFPainter
Some of this may seem like minutia....but to those of us that have
been through many, many instruments...these details matter.
I would not automatically assume a carved instrument is
superior......in fact there are many professionals world-wide that
believe just the opposite.
When people speak of a characteristic 175 tone....that is kind of a
vague description. The P-90 175s are quite different from the latter
incarnations...much more resonant.
I've made absolutely identical guitars with the only difference being
the choice of neck wood. The result is not as dramatic as many would
assume. The maple necked guitar sounds more fundamental and focused in
the midrange. The mahogany necked guitar has a rounder "broader
spectrum" tone. When I made them I couldn't decide which I liked
better...they each had their own voice, different, but one not
necessarily better than the other...
Tom
mikeo
...
>
> I would not automatically assume a carved instrument is
> superior......in fact there are many professionals world-wide that
> believe just the opposite.
>
> When people speak of a characteristic 175 tone....that is kind of a
> vague description. The P-90 175s are quite different from the latter
> incarnations...much more resonant.
>
> I've made absolutely identical guitars with the only difference being
> the choice of neck wood. The result is not as dramatic as many would
> assume. The maple necked guitar sounds more fundamental and focused in
> the midrange. The mahogany necked guitar has a rounder "broader
> spectrum" tone. When I made them I couldn't decide which I liked
> better...they each had their own voice, different, but one not
> necessarily better than the other...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
be careful turning this thread into a "carved vs laminate - which is
better?" discussion. i dont think the OP was going there at all, and
that is a historically divisive topic in here to which there is
obviously no answer. just sayin'. I play both myself, for the
record. ;)
also, "characteristic ES-175 tone"? the answer is, there is NOT one.
It is like suggesting there is a characteristic "Tele Tone" (who had
it- George Harrison? Jimmy Page, Ed Bickert?). In my post, i was
careful to say "...the sound i typically characterize..." . In my
case, i think of guys like Joe Pass, Jim Hall, Herb Ellis, Joe Diorio,
even Pat Metheny for this sound. Even that little set of artists
represents a decent range of the instruments tonal versatility, P-90's
and humbuckers, thick or thin tops, etc...
ok, now who here uses a metronome?
george4908
Mechanical or digital? There's a lot riding on this.