Discussion in 'Gibson SG' started by SG standard, Sep 3, 2016.
You posted that just to tweak me, didn't you?!?
no, just rambling and free associating.
I've wanted one of the Firebrands ever since I saw them.
Just never had the motive + the opportunity + the cash
all at the same time.
Black is beautiful. I love ebony necks!
I think the bevel/horn taper fetish is a relatively new phenomenon. I like them all and love the variation. I am in the over 50 age group and have been around guitars and guitarists for almost 40 years (many of whom were SG devotees, admirers,etc...) and do not recall a single one ever even discussing bevels or horn tapers until the past decade. I'm curious what finally made this topic that is so heated and opinionated to exist.
took me forever to actually spot the differences, but now that i have seen them, i cant unsee it.
im a deeper bevel and sharper point kind of guy. also preefer the smaller pg.
I'm in the camp that doesn't understand the obsession over the bevels, scarfs and horns. Guess I have never noticed it until I saw it discussed on this forum. When I saw the difference after it was pointed out, I shrugged and went on about my business of playing the guitar, not giving it a second thought.
I personally like deep bevels and sharp horns. Early models excel in these categories and look phenomenal.
I think both are fine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) did it. Or maybe it's in the water.
For me, if you put two SG in front of me with the same hardware and electronics on them, but one with deep bevels and the other with next to none, I might go for the deeper one. But if I don't have the choice, I'll pick either.
One thing I don't get is why doesn't the horn lower inside bevel always follow the pickguard. The template for the bevel is right there, use it. Get the bevel right to the edge of the black plastic. Now that makes more sense and would also make it more comfortable to those of you who play up there.
Speaking of that ... you ever played a PRS ? I think Mr Smith really got what a horn bevel is all about.
Pictured below is a 1963 SG Special. How about the chamfer that spans across the entire backside indicated by yellow arrows? It resembles the edge of a cold chisel. Last year was the first time I had ever encountered an SG with that feature.
Looking at original 1961 SG Standards online I noticed they had the same chamfer across the backside. I have not seen many discussions about that feature missing from the SG 61 RI.
On a veneer SG like the G400, where the veneer is cut straight there, that is a bit ugly.
How many SG-admiring guitarists did you ever have together at the same time, looking at guitars or pics of guitars for days, weeks, months and years on end? I suspect it has a lot to do with the internet; news groups, email lists and forums where people get together in large numbers and relentlessly talk about a particular interest. If we were here discussing 'guitars' you'd never hear SG bevels mentioned. But we're here discussing 'SGs' - what makes an SG so different to any other 6-string, one or two pickup guitar? We might want to say the tonewoods, or the heritage, or something else, but really, it's the shape. So the shape kinda matters to some degree! Even if the bevels don't matter to some folks...
The shape is everything to me, personally. The wide range of tones it's capable of, too.
Bevels not so much. I'm a fan of both deep and shallow, so to me it's not an issue, really
never saw this deeper one on the back of an sg....
guess it also affects the deeper tone it has...
I think that feature only existed on the SG from 1961-1964.
Well, much ado about a total non-issue, but that's what internet fora
are all about IMHO. And if you think it's obsessive-compulsive on this SG forum,
this is pretty mild compared to how guys get on some other fora...
I maintain that it's about the music we can make with these instruments.
I've been on some other boards where the level of OCD was actually scary.
And people get mad, over nothing... or over snarky remarks made by someone
they don't know.
I'm only mildly OCD, so I don't suffer, and I observe with a bit of understanding.
But it's still pretty tiresome sometimes, when it breaks down into chest pounding
and name calling.
I think of the SG shape as art. I love my two beauties... their bevels were hand
done by a guy with a rasp and some files IMHO... and so were everyone else's.
General statements about them make no sense to me.
They are all individual hand work AFAIK. If you don't approve of one, get another
But I don't fuss about these details. I'm an SG lover. I caress them, and take their strings
off them reverently, and clean them lovingly with expensive guitar products and a
clean cotton bandana. I wax them down with woodworking products and wipe off
the excess carefully, lube the nut slots with a mixture of powdered graphite and vaseline
and put new strings on them using the self locking method. This is how my OCD works.
Then I play them vigorously for at least thirty minutes, in order to pull any looseness
out of the winding, and they stay in tune quite well.
Then I'll leave them on stands, so I can see them and admire their lovely bevels, horns
and curves. I don't compare them to what they are not. I love them for what they are. If you agree with me, you MIGHT be a guitar slut (which is the opposite of being a guitar snob)... But you're in
I believe this feature was one of the reasons Mr. Les Paul himself disapproved of the SG.
He told Gibson there wasn't enough wood there, and he was right. Gibson rectified
this design flaw later maybe by about 1965 or 66, the instrument is much stronger
and less likely to break right at this point. I don't think they included it in the '61 RI
because it's a flaw in the design. Who needs it?
Some guys maintain that the 'vintage' SGs are better, but I don't.
I like a strong neck, and my 21st century SGs have excellent tone.
I just did a quick check on my SG's. To be honest, I've never cared about the depth (or lack there of) on bevels. But for those who do- here's what I found...
All but one, it was a Norlin, have rear bevels. However, another Norlin of mine and a friend's Norlin have them. They're shallower than non-Norlins though.
My 2013 only had a rear bevel on the Treble side.
Basically, much like all the specs in the last almost 60 years, there are variances. They don't matter much to me.
My Epi G400 Vintage has bevels on both sides, front and back.
My earlier post with the 1963 SG Special was not intended to point out bevels on the horns. I have edited the original post to hopefully clarify any confusion it may have created.
Separate names with a comma.