Yamaha SG 3000?
Paul Jenks
Problem is, I can't find any information on the bloody thing because there were
very few made -- I'm having a hard time working out a fair price. I have heard
in some quarters that a serious collector might be very interested in this
guitar which would please me to no end, obviously. Can anyone point me to a
link or suggest how I might find a comparable sale? These guitars are very
rarely resold, I guess.
Also, I'm trying to decide if it's a good idea to sell as is or if I should
replate the gold on the machine heads and bridge. Do you guys have any
thoughts on what would be most preferable? Thanks.
Boogieman
<c1su...@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> Is it an SG3000 or an SBG3000? If it's the latter, it was a
> double cutaway, Gibson scale type thingie that was made very popular
> by Rik Emmett (esp. during the Triumph Thunder Seven tour).
>
They are both the same.
> I recall playing one...very nice. Great neck, great action,
> great tone. Yamaha makes a damn fine guitar.
>
Yes indeed.
Anthony
Nil
news:110420030125397914%bo...@spamsux.com:
> In article <nln99v0h9j3rflg6k...@4ax.com>, Atlas
><c1su...@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> Is it an SG3000 or an SBG3000? If it's the latter, it was a
>> double cutaway, Gibson scale type thingie that was made very popular
>> by Rik Emmett (esp. during the Triumph Thunder Seven tour).
>
> They are both the same.
I have an SG2000. What's the difference between it and an SG3000?
Scotty
had a black ornate trimmed 3000 years ago 1987, traded it away for
something, can't remember. I do remember it was a very nice guitar, big fat
neck, big frets, ebony board... Kinda heavy and i wasn't a fan of the
pickups... But, it was better than most shit out there today.
Regards,
Scotty
Pro Analog Your source for vintage and rare effects!
http://www.proanalog.com
sco...@proanalog.com
"Paul Jenks" <paul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030409171427...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Boogieman
<redn...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I have an SG2000. What's the difference between it and an SG3000?
I have a couple of SG2000's, too.
The SG3000 has:
Different pickups;
Different bridge with no brass "sustain plate" embedded underneath it;
Fancy inlay;
Different pickguard (also available without pickguard installed);
Different colour options.
These are what I can think of right now.
Boog
Boogieman
<sco...@proanalog.com> wrote:
> Theres an article in this months Vintage Guitar on the whole Yamaha line.
Thanks for the heads up. Michael Wright has been talking about writing
an article about the Yamaha SG series for a while on VG's BBS. I am
glad that it has come out at last.
Too bad I am not living in the US.
> I
> had a black ornate trimmed 3000 years ago 1987, traded it away for
> something, can't remember. I do remember it was a very nice guitar, big fat
> neck, big frets, ebony board... Kinda heavy and i wasn't a fan of the
> pickups... But, it was better than most shit out there today.
>
Agreed. The SG series is one of the better-built guitars made outside
the US.
Boog
anita gordon
its the same as the 2000 but with locking trem
Not bad for a guitar of that age
nice DiMarzios as well a real players guitar BUT what a heavy sucker to wear
all night
real shoulder pain after a few nights back to back
"Boogieman" <bo...@spamsux.com> wrote in message
news:120420031844021503%bo...@spamsux.com...
> In article <Xns93598ED5...@204.127.204.17>, Nil
> <redn...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have an SG2000. What's the difference between it and an SG3000?
>
> I have a couple of SG2000's, to back
Nil
news:120420031844021503%bo...@spamsux.com:
(re. SG2000 vs. SG3000)
> The SG3000 has:
> Different pickups;
I hated the pickups, and it didn't take me long to replace them. I've
had a Duncan JB and Jazz in there for many years, but am planning to
replace them again soon.
> Different bridge with no brass "sustain plate" embedded underneath
> it;
I would think this would make a huge difference. Although I like the
SG2000 a lot, I think if it as being almost TOO consistent in tone, and
maybe a bit characterless. It lacks the woody character that my
previous Les Pauls had. I've imagined this to be due, at least in part,
to the brass block. It does have tremendous natural sustain, of course.
Since you can personally compare the two models, what would you say is
the effect of the block?
Here's a small picture of my ol' faithful:
David and/or Rena Covell
Nil <redn...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Xns935B7BEB...@63.240.76.16...
Yours looks a lot like the one I played in the mid-80's. Same
finish; most of the 2000's seem to have got the same sunburst
treatment. I loved that guitar at the time, though the weight
was unfortunate. I agree with you about the lack of tonal
character; the 2000 does quite well with distortion, but when
played cleanly it lacks the nuances of a good Les Paul. It
might indeed be due to the brass block. Maybe there's such a
thing as too much mass.
But then again, my Les Paul is a 1979 model from the dreaded
Norlin era. Its body is quite dense; the guitar weighs 10.5
pounds. And yet it sounds lively and resonant, and has a lot
of character. It's one of the best-sounding LP's I've played,
and is certainly the best one I've owned. Go figure.
Boogieman
<redn...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> I hated the pickups, and it didn't take me long to replace them. I've
> had a Duncan JB and Jazz in there for many years, but am planning to
> replace them again soon.
>
Hey Lin, is that you? I am a BT'er. ;)
None of mine sports the stock PUs anymore. Never liked them.
They have all been refitted with one type or another Duncan's for
years. Lately, I have been toying with the idea of getting a set of
Holmes to try out. But they are so expensive.
> > Different bridge with no brass "sustain plate" embedded underneath
> > it;
>
> I would think this would make a huge difference. Although I like the
> SG2000 a lot, I think if it as being almost TOO consistent in tone, and
> maybe a bit characterless. It lacks the woody character that my
> previous Les Pauls had. I've imagined this to be due, at least in part,
> to the brass block. It does have tremendous natural sustain, of course.
>
The SG2000's are consistent sounding, but will be no match to a good
Les Paul. However, a good sounding Les Paul may not be an easy score.
At least with the SG2000, they are consistent enough that one can pick
it up off a sale and know what to expect tone-wise.
> Since you can personally compare the two models, what would you say is
> the effect of the block?
>
I have A/B'ed stock SG3000 with one of my Duncan-shod SG2000's. Here
is what I found:
SG3000 is a little more rounded (warmth?) tone-wise. I always find the
stock SG2000 PUs to be a little too trebly and lifeless,btw.
With an overdriven amp, the SG2000 edges out the SG3000 with better
sustain. On clean, however, there is not much difference in terms of
sustain. Yet, I prefer the SG3000's tone on clean, just because it is
more rounded. It might sound even more rounded with aftermarket PUs.
But then again, the difference between the two may not be due to the
(or the lack of the) brass sustain plate alone. The bridge and the PUs
may well have something to do with it.
Boog
Paul Jenks
double cutaway, Gibson scale type thingie that was made very popular
It's an SG 3000. I have a notion that it was the same as an SG 2000 and it was
kind of dolled up for the British Music Fair around 1982 or so. Apparently, it
became a favorite of Carlos Santana.
PJ
Paul Jenks
The guitars are basically the same. The SG 3000 has gold plating on the
hardware and mother of peral inlay, amongst other things.
Paul Jenks
had a black ornate trimmed 3000 years ago 1987, traded it away for
something, can't remember. I do remember it was a very nice guitar, big fat
neck, big frets, ebony board... Kinda heavy and i wasn't a fan of the
pickups... But, it was better than most shit out there today.
Regards,
Scotty >><BR><BR>
Hey, thanks... I'll check it out. Still no idea what to offer the guitar for,
though. :(
I agree the SG 3000 is a lovely guitar -- mine is a gold colour with that
ubiquitous mother of pearl inlay. I used to play it very often but it's not
getting a lot of use now.
PJ