Crown Inlay Location

[cerebral gasket]

Neck and headstock markings are key features to identifying an SG model.

The original SG lineup was as follows:

SG Junior

Unbound neck with dots
Silkscreen headstock logo
No crown inlay

SG Special

Bound neck with dots
Headstock logo as inlay
No crown inlay

SG Standard

Bound neck with trapezoids
Headstock logo as inlay
Crown inlay on headstock

SG Custom

Bound neck with large blocks
Headstock logo as inlay
Split Diamond inlay on headstock

Over the years the original models have been reconfigured with different tuners, pickups, guards, bridges, knobs, etc. Headstock and neck markings have remained fairly consistent until recently.

The crown inlay is an iconic feature that is typically found on the SG Standards and its reissues. The location has moved back and forth between two positions over the years.

Recent variations of the SG Special have now included the crown inlay as a silkscreened decal on the headstock. crossing over into SG Standard feature territory.

Reissues and Tribute models were probably never intended to be exact replicas of the original models they represent. However, at what point does one draw the line where features are either added, omitted or changed from their original locations?

The 2019 SG Standard 61 has similar features to the original 1961 SG Standards and its reissues, but the crown inlay is not at the same historical location as the 1961 SG Standard or its reissues.

If a batwing was used in place of the small guard on an SG '61 Reissue, how would people react to that? Dots instead of trapezoids? No crown inlay at all?

 

[Gahr]

I guess a number of people will always react, regardless of whet is done. While I hold up the early SGs (1961-1965) as my "ideal" guitars looks wise, I more and more see the "charm", if you will, in the different years having small features that are unique. They will still be true Gibson SGs.

That being said, I think a guitar that goes by the name 61 Reissue or 61 Standard should at least be reasonably close to the original 1961 SG. Where to draw the line? Hard to say, but a dot neck or a batwing instead of an angel wing would be too far away from a correct interpretation. The smaller headstock and crown placement on the 2019 61 Standards are ok in my opinion, as they are not necessarily meant to be exact clones of the original SG.

However, if the Gibson Custom Shop issues a guitar that is supposed to be a 1961 model, I would expect them to pay attention to all the details, including beveling, neck joint, crown inlay, tall pickup rings, wide bevel pickguard etc.

 

[cerebral gasket]

Great points.

Interpretation is the key.

When naming a guitar after a certain year, one would think that any features that are included from said year could at least be installed at the correct location. I don't see the correlation of why it would need to be a Custom Shop model to be historically correct.

To muddy the waters even more, I see coming soon an SG Standard ’61 with Maestro. The 1961 SG Standard had a sideways vibrola, not a Maestro. The Maestro was not released until 1963.

I guess as long as the SG Standard ’61 has the “correct” bevels and neck joint at the 22nd fret, nothing else really matters. My point of this thread is that it just seems odd to ignore or rewrite the history of the 1961 SG Standard.

 

[Gahr]

Great points.

Interpretation is the key.

When naming a guitar after a certain year, one would think that any features that are included from said year could at least be installed at the correct location. I don't see the correlation of why it would need to be a Custom Shop model to be historically correct.

To muddy the waters even more, I see coming soon an SG Standard ’61 with Maestro. The 1961 SG Standard had a sideways vibrola, not a Maestro. The Maestro was not released until 1963.

I guess as long as the SG Standard ’61 has the “correct” bevels and neck joint at the 22nd fret, nothing else really matters. My point of this thread is that it just seems odd to ignore or rewrite the history of the 1961 SG Standard.

I see your point. They could have called it something in the vein of "early sixties" or "original" (I mean, they have already issued an SG Original, with a Vibrola to boot).

I still really like the 2019 61 Standard...

 

[cerebral gasket]

I see your point. They could have called it something in the vein of "early sixties" or "original" (I mean, they have already issued an SG Original, with a Vibrola to boot).

I still really like the 2019 61 Standard...

I think it looks awesome too as do all SG IMO.

 

[Bettyboo]

Great points.

Interpretation is the key.

When naming a guitar after a certain year, one would think that any features that are included from said year could at least be installed at the correct location. I don't see the correlation of why it would need to be a Custom Shop model to be historically correct.

To muddy the waters even more, I see coming soon an SG Standard ’61 with Maestro. The 1961 SG Standard had a sideways vibrola, not a Maestro. The Maestro was not released until 1963.

I guess as long as the SG Standard ’61 has the “correct” bevels and neck joint at the 22nd fret, nothing else really matters. My point of this thread is that it just seems odd to ignore or rewrite the history of the 1961 SG Standard.

I pretty much agree with you and Gahr.

Call the '61 with Maestro a '63 or '64 because the name '61 doesn't have to be any more iconic than a '63 or '67 with a batwing - all are great; I love a batwing myself.

The 2018/2019 Specials do irk me, not having the inlay, just a silkscreen. The Original series LP special has the inlay, so the SG should too because these 2018/2019/original line specials are pretty close to a '61 (or a '63/'64 with the maestro), so put the dame inlay in! I'm paying $1800 for my '64 special (as I'm calling it...), at that price I feel like there's something missing - the Gibson inlay!

A 1964:

A 2019:



... So near, yet so far (well, not really, but it still irks a tad...)