Let's see your vintage SG!

[Steve D]

'86 & '68

On the road in the early 70's with my '63

I'll bet you wish you still had that '63!

The '68 Custom is really cool, up earlier on this page of the thread someone posted their '69 SG Custom and it had the same color scheme as yours, including the white pickguard. I was surprised and wondered if that was really original but what more proof can there be than someone a few posts later putting their own guitar of the same model with the same configuration.

A lot of 1960s SG Customs are showing up in this thread, that's awesome. There can't have been that many made so it great that they still exist and we can all get a look at them thanks to the internet.

 

[zhivago]

Wow, that looks like it's in fantastic condition. Beautiful guitar!

It has minimal checking and the three PAFs are still intact...I added a MojoAxe VibroStop to it and it just sings! :)

 

[PermissionToLand]

That's a beauty. Some SGs of that era have that iconic cherry red thing going on and others have a warm brown with more subtle hints of red like your photo shows, more satin than glossy. I wonder if that's a case of it fading somehow or if there were really different finishes used. I love that natural stained mahogany look yours has, it's a lovely guitar and looks to be in amazing and nearly completely original shape (and really well preserved on top of that!). I only wish I could hear it. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Oh yeah, you have many cool pairs of shoes too

Purely fading of the finishes. Gibson only offered the Standard in Cherry until 1969, when Walnut was added (and quickly became the most produced option). The only other possibility is a custom order of Sparkling Burgundy, but that is totally opaque and metallic, so hard to confuse with Cherry.

I'll bet you wish you still had that '63!

The '68 Custom is really cool, up earlier on this page of the thread someone posted their '69 SG Custom and it had the same color scheme as yours, including the white pickguard. I was surprised and wondered if that was really original but what more proof can there be than someone a few posts later putting their own guitar of the same model with the same configuration.

A lot of 1960s SG Customs are showing up in this thread, that's awesome. There can't have been that many made so it great that they still exist and we can all get a look at them thanks to the internet.

Customs were White only until 1969 and then Walnut only. No overlap. So his would have to be a 1969 as well.

 

[Satellitedog]

I finished my restoration of a '65 standard (http://www.tdpri.com/threads/rebuilding-a-65-sg.776592). I still need to replace the case lining, but the guitar is done:

Alright, I read the whole restoration thread over on TDPRI, and it is very informative, and one of the best reads in the genre, I suggest everyone at least take a look. Also, I really like your sense of humor.

The reason for quoting your post is that I've been wondering whether there is a difference between the body thickness of current SG models and '60s ones? I saw the comparison shot with your SG Classic, which has the "cold chisel" horns, but even the pointy early '60s horns don't seem to slope downwards much from the top plain of the body, and yet the difference looks immense, the early SG shape just looks streamlined and featherweight. I can accept if that it's just a matter of sculpt/design, and the viewpoint tricks my eyes, but I'd like to actually know. Is the full body thickness the same between modern and early SGs?
Thanks for posting your progress.

 

[Steve D]

Alright, I read the whole restoration thread over on TDPRI, and it is very informative, and one of the best reads in the genre, I suggest everyone at least take a look. Also, I really like your sense of humor.

The reason for quoting your post is that I've been wondering whether there is a difference between the body thickness of current SG models and '60s ones? I saw the comparison shot with your SG Classic, which has the "cold chisel" horns, but even the pointy early '60s horns don't seem to slope downwards much from the top plain of the body, and yet the difference looks immense, the early SG shape just looks streamlined and featherweight. I can accept if that it's just a matter of sculpt/design, and the viewpoint tricks my eyes, but I'd like to actually know. Is the full body thickness the same between modern and early SGs?
Thanks for posting your progress.

Uh oh ... horns and bevels being brought up ... that might bring some passion to the thread!

 

[Satellitedog]

:-DDDD Nah, I'm only here for the thiccness :-D


although I do have strict preferences with regards to horn styles.

 

[Steve D]

I also have preferences for horns and bevels, I can't really say specifically, more like seeing one and saying "oh yeah, that looks great". I'd say though i tend to favor more heavily carved ones (i.e. large bevels, very tapered cutaways). It looks more hand made to me when you have that going on. I know it's not any more so, but hey, I like it that way anyway.

 

[Satellitedog]

I share your sentiment, although not for the original bevls being handmade looking. That's one of the weaknesses from an aesthetic point of view.

I really admire the sculptural design concept of the SG with the subtle asymmetries and streamlined space age sleekness with relatively sharp contours all round.
This is the reason I really dislike the post '65 revisions to the beveling, and I also hate how in the last twenty plus years they never got the design right, even now when it would be really easy to do so, with the technology given.
The Custom Shop VOS reissues look very-very nice with the deep bevels and precise curves, but even those got the essence of the horn design wrong. Precision Guitar Kits got it right from a conceptual standpoint but theirs are so crisply done they lack the handmade look in general (which highlights the design, but more like a sportscar, less like a guitar).

 

[Chuteboxehero]

I share your sentiment, although not for the original bevls being handmade looking. That's one of the weaknesses from an aesthetic point of view.

I really admire the sculptural design concept of the SG with the subtle asymmetries and streamlined space age sleekness with relatively sharp contours all round.
This is the reason I really dislike the post '65 revisions to the beveling, and I also hate how in the last twenty plus years they never got the design right, even now when it would be really easy to do so, with the technology given.
The Custom Shop VOS reissues look very-very nice with the deep bevels and precise curves, but even those got the essence of the horn design wrong. Precision Guitar Kits got it right from a conceptual standpoint but theirs are so crisply done they lack the handmade look in general (which highlights the design, but more like a sportscar, less like a guitar).

I recently noticed how big of a difference there was in the overall shape of the SG and posted a few pics of the difference in the "horns" between my '67 and '74. I hadn't realized there was a major change between pre and post '65. I know by '69-70 they started to lose the deep bevel and take on more of a 70s style carve. I'll have to check some pics to see how they looked up to '65. I think this is one of best qualities of the SG. Most people probably don't realize how much the shape changed over the years but to those who notice, it adds another feature to love/hate.

 

[Satellitedog]

With the introduction of the full face/batwing pickguard they shrunk the lower horn's cutaway beveling noticeably (and the upper one as well, although to a lesser degree). I find it pretty ugly to be honest. It doesn't match the original balance of the design, and it doesn't match the new pickguard shape much better either.

 

[cerebral gasket]

I don’t understand the obsession with horn bevels and Nashville to ABR -1 conversions.

It happens that all my SG have batwings and I have no preference of what kind of guard.

The most important things to me are how the guitar plays, feels and sounds.

 

[Satellitedog]

That is the most important thing about any guitar of course.
For me it's weight -> neck feel/playability -> resonance/acoustic volume and tone.
However, SG-s are not a utilitarian design, like LP Juniors and Specials (single and double cut) or Telecasters, so the curves, contours and beveling are very much part of the reason they exist. Like a fine sports car or boat, that you don't need, but which grabs your attention and attracts and grabs you with it's predatory good looks and elegance.
I'd love to see some prototype SGs, or preliminary sculpts, because it was fine work, the og. design, and probably a lot of thought had been put into its making.

 

[tigger]

Alright, I read the whole restoration thread over on TDPRI, and it is very informative, and one of the best reads in the genre, I suggest everyone at least take a look. Also, I really like your sense of humor.

The reason for quoting your post is that I've been wondering whether there is a difference between the body thickness of current SG models and '60s ones? I saw the comparison shot with your SG Classic, which has the "cold chisel" horns, but even the pointy early '60s horns don't seem to slope downwards much from the top plain of the body, and yet the difference looks immense, the early SG shape just looks streamlined and featherweight. I can accept if that it's just a matter of sculpt/design, and the viewpoint tricks my eyes, but I'd like to actually know. Is the full body thickness the same between modern and early SGs?
Thanks for posting your progress.

Thanks! And sorry for the delayed response, I don't frequent this forum too often. I did body thickness measurements now and it's 1.374" for the '65 and 1.367" for the '06. So pretty much the same. I completely agree that the '65 just looks thinner and lighter and, well, nicer :)
It is totally my favorite guitar and the others are jealous. I'm not sure if it makes sense but it's not tonally as versatile as a lot of my other guitars and it takes some time to get the tone right, but once that happens it's magic.

 

[Satellitedog]

Hey, no probs, thanks for measuring them!
I could imagine the close relative placement of the pickups, and the slightly less focused sound of the resonant mahogany body may be the reason for a lack of great versatility compared to others. All my SGs sound pretty different to each other and my other electric, so I'm not complaining, all four have their uses.

 

[Gahr]

For some reason I don't think I have posted any pics in this thread before. If I indeed have, then I can't seem to find them, so I'll risk posting anyway.

My only "true" vintage guitar is this one. A 1965 Gibson SG Junior. I bought it about a year ago. It came with an old but unoriginal case, and was reaonably priced because of a couple of things. It had a few unoriginal parts; a brass nut, tuners (Schaller), knobs (black top hats), bridge (Badass), was lacking the Vibrola arm and had a crack by the jack input. However, it was in a perfectly playable condition and sounded absolutely awesome. The pickguard, pup and wiring are all original. I have since swapped the tuners for retros of the original ones, bought a more correct bridge (compensated for an unwound G) and, put on reflector knobs. I also got an arm for the Vibrola, but have removed it altogether (still have it, though). I am planning to swap the nut for a more vintage correct one. I absolutely love this little beast.

In addition to the Junior I also have a 1975 Gibson SG-II. Yes, I know it might not qualify as a proper vintage guitar (what is "vintage" anyway), but since it is almost as old as myself, and it was the first SG I got, I'll still post it.

It had Kluson Deluxe tuners when I got it, but I have swapped those for a set of the original three-on-a-plate tulip tuners the model came with. I have also swapped the original wraparound bridge for one compensated for an unwound G. I still have the original, of course. The pic shows it how it was before my "mods", though. It has the classic '70s toothpick/baseball bat neck. The tarback mini humbuckers are very single coil-like . It was one of Gibson's cheapest offers when it came out, and it really looks like s**t, but I still love it. It is really worn and faded after years of hard use and abuse. For many years it was the only guitar I played. I bought it in 1993 and I'll keep it until I die.

 

[slater529]

Shot a new photo of my '65 yesterday...

 

[Slowery]

I have a '72 SG Custom that I purchased when it was new. It has the controls "moon" cover on the front but does not have the embossed humbucker pickups. It also has an ebony "fretless wonder" (small frets) neck.

 

[Michael Zaporozhets]

Two for you today:

Here's my 1963 Les Paul/SG Standard. It's all original and in wonderful shape. Completely smooth heel and a PAF in the neck. It's a wonderful guitar Eliot Michael's (RSM) private collection.



I've also just purchased this 1962 Les Paul/SG Custom named 'Rosie' from the Joe B/CD 'Turd' collection. Heel repair, unoriginal pickups and tailpiece.

 

[crashbelt]

Here's my 3.
63 Les Paul Junior
61 refin Les Paul Standard
62 SG Special
The Special is my goto main gigging guitar - stunning playability and versatility.
The Standard with PAFs is a tone monster, reserved for serious blues/rock.
And the Junior does that uncomplicated raunch thing through an overdriven tweed amp.
They're all keepers and I don't yearn for any other SGs

 

[wallstrafed]