I'm hearing reports that newer Sgs have more pronounced/carved bevels on the horns. Just a quick look at Sweetwater confirms this, I think! There are a mix of older and newer SGs there right now, so one can easily compare... (Note: I see no actual pics of SG standards, so I went with the Special Fadeds...) WEAK bevels: STRONG bevels:
LOL, those are larger bevels... indeed the best I've seen! I was referring to the fact that the bevels are not carved sharply, and not 'rounded' as before. So, it is an improvement at least!
[quote author=HWY2H377 link=topic=19687.msg238744#msg238744 date=1251658849] this is an even better bevel [/quote] Now that's " proper " SG bevels as it should be O0 :notworthy:
Those less rounded "better" bevels are nice; they also look like a little more hand work and less belt sander.
[quote author=everdying link=topic=19687.msg238750#msg238750 date=1251670824] i wonder if the newer horns also taper to a finer point. [/quote] That's my gripe with new SGs. As I've said elsewhere, Gibson go to extreme lengths to get minor details correct on Les Pauls but can't be bothered to get the contours right on supposed "VOS" SGs! >
On the Gibson forum, there's alot of moaning and complaining about bevels...Personally I don't think it makes or breaks the guitars aesthetics. I think it's kinda cool that there is a chronology that helps to date guitars by the cut and bevels. If I am ever able to get a nice vintage with the proper bevels, that will add to the appeal because it really distinguishes it from a modern SG. The "sharper" bevels (as posted by the O.P.) look like crud to me, looks like instead of focusing on making them more pronounced Gibson may be just slacking on the finishing of the body's.
agreed. the sharper bevels just look unfinished, as if gibson didn't have enough quality issues. they are also inconsistent with the smooth, large body bevels along the top and bottom edges. i love the deep bevels on the very old SG's.
I heard a story once about how Les Pauls had lost a lot of their archtop profile in the mid 1970s because the planes used to the shape them had simply worn down... Does anyone know how much actual hand work goes into elements like the bevels on the SGs and the archtops on LPs?
I don't know for sure, my guess is the final sanding is done by hand, the staining and spraying may be done by hand and I'm certain the final polish is done by hand. My faded looks a bit rougher, as in less time spend sanding and finishing the wood. The standard has softer cuts and just looks like more time was spent finishing the wood. I suppose it could just be the thicker, prettier finish.
Do they still cut the necks basic layout with just a band saw and a guy that follows a template, or do they use machines on that now? I seem to recall watching a "How it's made" at the Gibson factory and was surprised that some guy was cutting out the neck with no template I don't know if that could be the inconsistency we are seeing.
[quote author=gnolivos link=topic=19687.msg238743#msg238743 date=1251657469] I'm hearing reports that newer Sgs have more pronounced/carved bevels on the horns. Just a quick look at Sweetwater confirms this, I think! There are a mix of older and newer SGs there right now, so one can easily compare... (Note: I see no actual pics of SG standards, so I went with the Special Fadeds...) STRONG bevels: [/quote] that looks very epiphone-like. ewww.
I think it was on youtube I saw a video of a guy rough cutting necks without even a template. Did it fast too. The same video showed a guy sanding a LP, he used a belt sander but pressed the belt to the wood with his hand, rather than some computerized machine.
The thing with production guitars...(and this would also apply to those made by other leading manufacturers).....is they are machined with CNC milling equipment that uses carborundum blades. A finite number of guitars can be cut by them before those blades have to be re-sharpened. Every time those blade get sharpened, the tooling takes a little off it's depth and shape, this in turn will effect the rough shaping of the wood, changing it's contours just a tiny bit each time. The cost of these blades are incredible, and they...(Gibson)....will get as much use out of them as they can, as anyone would do. Over certain periods of time and depending on the contour, bevel, or angle, slight changes will be noticed, some of those changes can be corrected with hand work, but only so much time can be spent on each piece, or profit margin suffers. Eventually new blades are ordered, and the original shape returns until that set of blades become worn beyond usefulness. This could very well be the reason why you are seeing differences in the bevel cuts on SG's. Of course more hand work will go into a guitar costing 2 grand, than one only costing 700 dollars, but tooling does play a small part in the general scheem of things....
[quote author=gnolivos link=topic=19687.msg238743#msg238743 date=1251657469] I'm hearing reports that newer Sgs have more pronounced/carved bevels on the horns. Just a quick look at Sweetwater confirms this, I think! There are a mix of older and newer SGs there right now, so one can easily compare... (Note: I see no actual pics of SG standards, so I went with the Special Fadeds...) WEAK bevels: STRONG bevels: [/quote] WEAK airbrushing: STRONG airbrushing: ;D
I know you meant the pics, lol. But they take the pics themselves, they don't use Gibson stock photos.
I'm taking the risk to offend many members here. But I allway thought that the bevels on the faded and special looks strange and faint. And not even the VOS models have it right, although very close. Sure, the bevels are somewhat different on every gtr, But the early Les Paul/SGs are superior in this aspect. Perhaps Brucewayne can answer on this, but I suspect that those bevels are very difficult to sculpture out in the wood.
