I have a confession. I dropped my beautiful, Crimson Guitars Copper Rodded guitar a while back. It fell backwards and hit the floor, but the headstock caught my pedal board first. In my mind, watching this unfold in slow motion, I just knew the headstock was going to break off and I was going to cry. I almost threw up, but the guitar simply bounced off the pedal board. Not even out of tune. I still went for a lie down, though.
Happened to me 25 years ago with my Gibson Heritage 80 Les Paul. Unfortunately I wasn’t as lucky as you. Cracked (broke) the headstock. Had Mark Brown (Mark’s Guitars) fix it and it’s still playing today. It’s one of my few LP’s, but still one of my favorites since I bought it new in 1981. ✌️😎🎸🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶
Within a couple of days of each other recently, my Gibson LP and Gibson SG fell off their stands and hit the floor. Only a slightly bent tuner on the SG.
I have been beating this drum since I had to repair my first G***** headstock break!!! The combination of short grain mahogany, no volute, the headstock angle, the splay of the strings from the nut, and the inexplicably HUGE HOLE right at the weakest spot in the neck to accommodate the pickup truck lug nut they use for the truss end. With how little wood actually exists between the nut and the headstock it's almost inevitable that the headstock will eject itself from the neck. ☮❤🎶
It's not almost inevitable, as some players have never had one break while others have broken the same guitar more than once. Mine go back in their cases, no leaning them against a chair, table, amp etc or even sitting them in a stand, waiting for a pet, child or combination thereof to bring disaster. That said, I've never understood why Gibson is so reluctant to change that weak point. The Les Paul Japanese "lawsuit" era guitars of the seventies copied the head stock shape and truss rod cover, but not its extreme angle, so why can't Gibson do that?
@@deaddoll1361 Old luthier joke: There's 2 types of Gibsons...those that have had a broken headstock and those that will have a broken headstock in the future.
Played Gibsons for almost 25 years. Never had a single neck break or truss rod “ejection” in that time. One of my Gibsons I’ve owned throughout that period and have owned 50 or so in total (most of which I still own), for context. The trick is to actually take care of your instruments. Contrary to popular belief Gibson necks don’t break on their own. Despite that I have had several accidents with my Les Pauls over the years, including one completely falling off its strap and hitting the floor (without me being able to react in time to catch it or reduce the impact in any way). The neck was fine… and has been fine for more than 20 years now since… but a tuning peg and the jack socket got bent.
Gibson TV on CZcams has a video of a 1967 factory tour. At 9:16 in that video you can see necks having the fretboard installed before it is installed on the guitar. I would take this as fact that Gibson has been doing it this way quite a while.
Indeed. And whilst this is 8 years after the hallowed 1959 production year Gibson was under the exact same ownership (CMI as an independent company pre-take over) at this time.
I think the modern production sequence might have changed to accommodate the t-shaped neck binding they've been using since at least the mid 90's. It slots into a pre-routed groove in the side of the neck around the area where fretboard meets mahogany. That would make it difficult to assemble after the neck angle adjustment, so the board goes on before it's fit to the mortise.
Ted, you are a never-ending font of cool info! Thanks dude, I had no idea they were using binding like that, v cool modern solution to workers not closing the gap between binding and neck properly? Either way.. another example of them saying 'we build traditional' with their mouths while their eyes are saying 'give me your money in the cheapest and most efficient way we can get it!'... or something 🤔
@@CrimsonCustomGuitars He said Gibson's been doing that since as recently as the mid-'90s, so how could Gibson be following tradition there when they're continuing on with a manufacturing technique that's not even that old?
@@CrimsonCustomGuitars The Les Paul you modified for the axcess neck joint, what year was that instrument manufactured. Something like the QC issues seen on that guitar would be expected in an early Norlin era build. Modern Les Paul guitar manufacturing relies heavily on the CNC work to accurately cut the neck mortise and tenon, however that could also fail should something go wrong or out of spec with the machines. Question, do you know if the Gibson Custom Shop builds the Les Paul using the same traditions and process as say an L5 or similar Arch Top? As to what twoodfrd states, I think we can all agree with him 100%. Although I'm sure a clamp fixture could have been fabricated to facilitate the clamping of the new binding after the neck has been installed, it just wouldn't be profitable or easily managed for QC issues. So much great information and contributors here, a big thank you to everyone.
@@hkguitar1984 Gibson Custom Neck Fitter here. To answer your questions, we absolutely do not build things the ye olde way. We have an ever dwindling number of jigs, fixtures, and machines that they used way back when, and an ever increasing number of newly engineered CNC machines and riggings that are still being dialed in. The final specs of all of our core, true historic reissue models never changes, but how we go about making them is constantly in flux. Especially when we have the Made to Measure program where you can make any change or edit to make your custom guitar not stock. Don’t know how they do things over at USA, but since their output is over five times as much as ours, I imagine they have even more high tech stuff.
@@contentocustomguitars1046 Thank You so much for the reply, very much appreciated. Very interesting that some of the old fixtures still exists. Has the idea of building a guitar the “ye olden way” ever been considered, at least for a time study or possibly a build exercise to keep the processes from completely fading away or being lost? Idea; Build a couple instruments each year using the old-processes and tooling, have Marketing come up with a name for the series (say call it “The Gibson Time Study Instrument”) and then sell them under the Crimson label! All dreaming aside, I’d imagine labor costs/hours are what keep those old fixtures/jigs from being used. Very, Very interesting, thank you so much for sharing.
I really believe it has less to do with Gibson itself. It's the customers. If this thing would get all the modern building methods, headstock angle more shallow, volute, people would freak out and rebell... That's the problem... Which really is a shame...
@@cameronthomson6141 because they did that stuff while also raising the prices and caring less about quality, same goes for Fender in the CBS-years. People wasn't obsessed with the bursts because the specs, they just wanted a guitar that looked the same as Jimmy Page's, a guitar that Gibson didn't build for way too long (first reissuing the p-90 goldtops and then switching to mini humbuckers for a few years, before FINALLY getting the full sized humbuckers back in the Les Paul's) A lot of changes as well as bad quality builds an association for the customer, explaining why some people today think that "vintage" means that the guitar is automatically better
Ask Paul Reed Smith. He's the one who brought Ted McCarty out of retirement, just so he could learn all the details about Gibson's golden age of guitar building. Gibson couldn't be bothered about the man who brought Gibson into the modern age. Ted's legacy is the only reason Gibson is still around today.
The giant gap under the neck tenon only happened, I believe, for a relatively short period (maybe a decade or so?) When the sole of the tenon was actually machined to a curve, so that the angle of the neck could be freely set using the top as the reference plane rather than the base of the pocket. That leaves a big void under the tenon. In some ways that mitigates the problem you state with the fretboard being attached before mating the neck to the body, but it's still a terrible idea, done for expediency over quality, and the design was thankfully dropped after a few years (which is not to say the assembly quality improved at all.)
There are multiple reasons why the Les Paul original "traditional" is built wrong.. from the neck construction with the solid mahogany & the way the grain runs, namely the "sawn" type of construction, i.e., "quarter sawn", half sawn, etc. The angle is not perfect at the headstock "break".. Crimson my friend, I've sat with luthiers many times & gone over the faults of this antiquated design which is now over half a century old & their response is "tone" after they sit there with their feelings seemingly hurt! I even go over another aspect of the neck angle, tuner arrangement & nut design when altogether the design leads to a G string that is never perfectly intonated or in perfect pitch! I knew a real luthier would definitely have many findings & believe me, you just scratched the surface on these matters but I couldn't agree more, another video on the next series of faults & how you address them will be fantastic!
@@gearmeister I think the G string issue mostly stems from the cut of the nut slots. My old Les Pauls suffer the G string issue, but my newer ones don't at all. I assume that's because Gibson pleks their nuts now.
Professional fine woodworker/cabinetmaker and semi-pro luthier here. Made approx 3 dozen custom guitars so far over my 40 year career. Made 2 Les Paul ‘59 style copies about 10 years ago from StewMacs schematic drawings, 9:33 although I highly modernized them with many features you spoke of, such as less headstock angle, used wood where the grain actually turned to follow the neck into headstock angle to minimize short grain, made volutes as well, 2-way truss rod, compound 12-16 radius with 24 jumbo frets, all access neck joint with deep set tenon. And yes. Set the neck exactly as you described with fretboards going on after neck to body joint. No problems at all. Only failure in my mind is they ended up being just as heavy as the classic ones we all read about…10-11 lbs.
100% agree. The number of times I have seen anything from LP standards to $5000+ custom shop Les Pauls with incorrect break angles and other neck related issues, this makes perfect sense. I talked to the owner of a guitar store near my home a while back, he was mid process taking pictures of a Les Paul with a horrifically incorrect break angle. Apparently over about a 10 year period it was the 6th Les Paul to come in with an unforgiveable (neck) defect, considering he probably only ordered and sold only about two or three times that number it speaks volumes. Gluing on the fretboard before getting everything properly set up and true makes no sense from a quality standpoint. It's clearly an attempt at production efficiency optimization. They need to learn when something isn't working and correct it. It's gotten to the point where, when I decide to drop $2000+ on a guitar, I will go with a boutique brand or a vintage instrument. The quality is gone and the price doesn't reflect the drop in both quality and material quality, particularly on the standard line (non custom shop). I am sorry but we shouldn't have to pay custom shop prices for what used to be the quality of the cheapest Gibson.
Hey Ben! I actually live a couple of minutes away from the original Kalamazoo Gibson factory in Michigan! Currently, Heritage Guitars has ownership of the site and is still producing instruments using some of the original equipment if I’m remembering correctly, they may have some insight into the original production techniques!
@@salavussalavuswalroos7579 I build guitars there... The body has the neck angle built into the top first and the fretboard acts as the guide for the correct neck angle. I'm 99% sure its always been done this way. I will confirm with Jim been there since the 50s.
@@weezerti From time to time I see LPs with string misalignment. What is the root cause of it? At what step the string alignment is done? How it is done?
@@pavelm9078 as in the strings aren't centered down the neck, like there is more or less fretboard overhang on one E string compared to the other? That is usually from the bridge pins holes being slightly off.
I completely agree with fitting the neck to the body BEFORE the fretboard is glued on the neck. I normally don't use a tenon joint on my normal builds. But I have done a couple just to do them. The first time I glued the fretboard to the neck first, and learned immediately that it was much easy and precise to do it without the fretboard on while fitting the neck.
I had a Gibson LP built by their custom shop through my workshop. The sustain was terrible and there were the starts of finish cracks around the neck joint. When I pushed on the neck gently to see what was going on the neck just came off. Turns out that there was no glue in the joint at all and the fit and the finish were all that held it together. Quick glue job and a slower finish touch up and the guitar played "better than it ever has". QC aside, the more recent neck joints that I have done work on are far more reliant on the accuracy of the CNC, and a glue with filling properties, than they are on traditional fitting.
I had an 81 mahogany V. It slid out of the guitar rack and snapped the headstock. Got it fixed and sold. Last yr I started looking at several Les Paul's, after several weeks of playing. I was handed a Vintage V100. Omg what a great guitar, already relieved at the base of the neck, the weight was thick. The playability was fantastic, sustain forever. I bought the Vintage, used it in shows and studio. Even the engineer was impressed with the tone. Buy the Vintage, save $500 and get a Super Guitar. You should review them....
That’s why my Les Paul Substitute is a PRS SE Bernie Marsden. Also most of the guitars that a tend to use live have Wilkinson Tremolos of various designs because they tend to stay in tune better than most unlocking tremolos.
Correct I saw some recent Gibsons cut in half. Tennon bottom is not flat, but curved to where one point touches away from edge and the external point touches. They only have to sand down single point to get it to "fit" and set neck angle. I think they started that in early 2000s Before that, you are correct in how they were made and fit up. I also thought it was wrong, but have seen very few people mention it or notice problems with it. I have one made the "new way" and there is no way to tell.
I'm playing a pair of Gibson double cut Melody Makers from 1964 for almost 30 years. It's the model that has probably the weakest, shortest neck-body joint Gibson ever made, and it was the cheapest solid body guitar in their line. I use 0.13-0.56 srts of strings and both instruments stay perfectly in tune. They look quite worn and battle scarfed but I avoid to drop them... I think that helps a lot. But secondly, the wood Gibson (and probably all manufacturers) used in the 50's and 60's for their solid bodys was just «furniture grade» but probably far better than the stuff they use actually. I guess that makes an enormous difference.
After goofing with this exact problem on a LP type tenon on a SG, 100% correct! I think it makes that neck break angle much easier if you have it sorted before you put the fretboard on. Gibson (Production, not custom shop) also has a problem with gaps where the neck heel and the body meet. They fill it with glue and burst it if it's off. Of coarse, my SG type is more like the 70s type tenon joined at the 19th fret...now Gibson just does the 60s thing with a big ol heel joined at the 22nd fret and cap it with body on the back, like used to break and take part of the body with it...fun times.
Funny thing is, they DID volutes. And still do on a couple of models, like the 70s Deluxe and the Custom Axcess (which has a volute that runs the entire length of the headstock)
I think Gibson is very likely building their Les Pauls correctly. Heritage Guitars, (started by former Gibson employees who stayed behind in Kalamazoo after Gibson moved to Nashville), has a very good reputation. A recent factory tour shows them gluing the fingerboards to the necks before fitting them to the bodies by hand. PRS’s Maryland factory tour shows workers using the same process. Three highly regarded guitar manufacturers all use the same process to fit the necks to solid body electric guitars. It seems highly unlikely all three companies have been putting fretboards on too soon in the process all these years.
The problem is of course that the people who buy Gibson guitars would stop buying them if they did anything even slightly differently. If Gibson implemented structural improvements then demand would drop and they'd have to lower prices. In short order, they'd be in competition with everyone else who already builds proper guitars, and why on earth would they want that when they're able to sell inferior products at ridiculous prices by the truckload?
I’m have seven Gibson guitars, 3 LPs, 335, SG, Southern jumbo and a firebird. Two of them are custom shop guitars, three are vintage. I absolutely love them. They ALL sound amazing. I’ve had PRS’, Duesenberg, all sorts of fenders, Gretsch, etc…. My Gibsons are by far my favorite. I may be a little biased. I’ve had Gibsons of all sorts in my house growing up. My old man has more than he knows what to do with. Me and my brothers are going to have to fight till the death over them, haha. Actually we all have our favorites and it’ll be amicable. I hope. Well, it should be. My favorites are the guitars worth the least.
For me personally, I typically have the neck and fretboard slightly proud of the guitar top. I glue the neck to the body, add spacers to both sides of the neck, level them to the neck plane, then glue on the fretboard, and lastly install the frets.
My Custom ES335 with P90s arrived cased and boxed, ‘factory fresh’, with the headstock hanging on by the headstock overlay and truss rod cover. Speedily replaced, but a ‘gutting’ experience luckily not repeated with any of the other 3 Gibsons I own - even though Thomann shipped my SG with the delivery label attached to the bottom of the exterior carton, meaning the instrument effectively travelled from Germany to the UK, in a case, Gibson carton and Thomann carton, standing on its headstock!
Hi Ben! Custom Shops aside, am I right in thinking that most of the construction side is done via CNC nowadays? And in theory, doesn't it mean that there should be a regularity in carving that makes assembly almost perfect every time? I'm sure that wouldn't have been the case some 15 years ago but I believe that it is more actually the case at present. Of course, the headstock angle and absence of volute is just unforgivable, but as many have pointed out, Gibson's customer base is mostly 'OK, boomer'. I for one would welcome an updated design for a Les Paul if it took out its flaws - but then I'm 35.
There is another way to fit the neck which I have done successfully. On a LP or other carved top guitar where the fretboard sits on the top, the surface of the top,under the fretboard must be straight and flat. The easiest way to accomplish this when the top is carved and sanded to approximate shape ( it is impossible to make it exactly the same every time even with a CNC) is to fit the neck without the fretboard as Ben said. The neck tenon is fit to the mortise and the angle of the neck heel is also altered to achieve the proper bridge height. And as Ben also said the surface of the top where the fretboard sits is also planed flat with the proper angle. This can be done without the fretboard glued but set in place, unglued and a straight edge is used to check the bridge height (0.71inch). Then the fretboard with nibs and all is glued on the lone neck and finally glued into the body mortise. Additionally, depending on the relative humidity, the fretboard might need to be glued on with some simulated relief, but that’s another story.
Interesting video. As far as im aware, Gibson seems to get a load of backlash from its customers when they try to change things, this may make them quite aprehensive to make changes, rightfully so. As a player, I want a nice guitar but its not there to sit and look pretty, its there to do work. From that perspective I welcome changes that make my life easier and improve the logevity/stability of my tools. However, Gibson has a massive collector community, these guys have a different perspective, typically looking for tradition, prestege and pedegree. They are also the demographic that has money to burn and as we all know, money talks.
Totally agree, but maybe we need to point out to that collecting community - 'Hey - if they change the break angle and add a volute then YOU will OWN one of the now uber-rare, still intact, 18 degree, no volute, original, pre-change models...'
@@drpaz not sure how “uber rare” those would be seeing as Gibson have been making tens of thousands every year that way for the vast majority of the time they’ve produced Les Pauls, which at this point is 60 years of production 🤔😉🤣🤣🤣
on one hand they are scared of changes, on the other they do tiny changes back and forth continuously so they can try to convince people to buy a new one every year.
My first Les Paul was a 70's goldtop; 3 piece maple neck with volute, heavy as a breeze block. It makes we wince even now to remember that there were times when it slid sideways off the speaker cab, or I would ding it as I turned around, or whatever - but it never broke. I won't even mention what the bullet belt (I was 18!!) did to the back. Then, the first time my modern 335 was knocked sideways, I opened the case to find a floppy headstock. Ever since, I have been ultra-precious with Gibson cases, to the point where I've explained to my kids (!) exactly how to treat a guitar. Surely, Gibson must realize they are losing sales because of the number of online articles about neck snaps? Its not anecdotal anymore, its a real phenomenon. Even a scarf joint under a dark finish would be better. But on the point of neck joint gaps, couldn't the CAM process address this within hours? There should never be a Gibson allowed on the market with a 2mm gap at a joint.
I’m not a luthier but a guitar player and I am a traditional hand tool carpenter and what your saying makes perfect sense and would be I would go about it. Why make life harder for yourself and lose the some of the craftsmanship that makes the instruments so special
First issue, the headstock angle. 18° is ridiculous and serves no purpose but to make a neck that is bound to break! Les Paul's already have a reputation for this problem and why it hasn't been dealt with is a huge issue for me. Honestly it makes me love my Strats even more. Secondly, I completely agree with you on how the necks are made. It should be fit and sorted before the fretboard goes on or better yet, it's not that hard to figure a neck break angle on paper and if you are diligent and methodical, you can achieve the same result on the wood with a somewhat simple mathematical equation! Finally, it's never been a Fender Vs. Gibson thing with me because guitars exist to make music. That is what matters, the musician puts his heart and soul into a song as should the craftsman that makes his instrument. Those are my thoughts! Peace & Love ✌️🤍
“Bound to break”? Come on!! I’ve played Gibsons for 25 years and have owned very very many of them. I’ve not had a single neck break. How’s that for “bound to break” for you? 🤔 Frankly the trick is to actually take care of your guitars. Don’t rest them against amps or the edge of tables where they can slide or fall… don’t lay them flat on the floor where the headstock back angle means the tip of the headstock lifts the guitar body of the floor and means any knock or impact immediately stresses the headstock… don’t just toss the guitar around, either out of its case or in it. These are not extreme or unreasonable steps to take for an instrument you’ve invested a decent amount of money in. Despite generally following all of these steps over the last quarter of a century I’ve still had Les Pauls fall off stands or even drop off a strap several times. Not once did it result in a neck break of any kind, including the time when the Les Paul fell off its strap and literally bounced on the floor, bending a tuning peg and the jack socket (because there was a cable installed at the time) in the process, but the core structure of the guitar was perfectly fine and that guitar has continued to “live” for another 20 years without issue. And on the general point about the back angle and general headstock design, Gibson have tried to “solve” this a number of times. They’ve reduced the back angle at points in their history and also introduced things like volutes and the “Apex carve” at times, none of which have proven popular in general with their customer base, so they’re reverted back to what customers want. Not really something Gibson can be blamed for in my view… ultimately they need to pay attention to what customers want. Final point, whilst a headstock with a steeper back angle and a one piece neck does introduce a weaker point in the headstock it’s not entirely without design positives. A steeper back angle creates a steeper break angle for the strings which in turn increases the downward pressure of the strings on the nut. This can exacerbate tuning stability issues if the nut is poorly cut but greater downward pressure of the strings also tends to contribute to better vibration transfer between string and guitar structure and also give better sustain. So, “serves no purpose”? I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong. As with most design decisions there are pros and cons to every decision made, and this is no different, but it’s not “without purpose”.
@@davidburke2132 First of all, my comment wasn't meant to be offensive to any LP lovers, which is why I finished the way I did however, in my 31 years as a guitar player I've seen more broken LP headstocks than you could shake a stick at. That doesn't mean they're terrible guitars and I certianly don't think that. You are correct on the care of the instrument but you also surely realize that doesn't always happen, especially on the road. On the headstock break angle, 18° does provide increased string tension but at the cost of a "sometimes" terminal weakness in a neck. Also, I was responding to the comment Ben made about a brand new LP arriving with the headstock snapped! Wrapped, in the case, wrapped again in the box! He asked for our OPINION. That's what I gave. When all is said and done, I was responding to a request to state an opinion by Ben. My comment was not directed at you personally and I certainly don't need to be schooled on why things are done the way they are when it comes to a guitar. I get it man. I love all guitars exactly as I said, because they make music. It doesn't matter that our opinions differ, the end result is music. No need for hostility. I have no bone to pick with you or Gibson for that matter and if a customer doesn't want to buy a guitar from me because I refuse to make a neck with anything beyond a 10° angle, so be it. My goal is to make great guitars that a player will enjoy and I have no desire to duplicate anyone else's design anyway. So again. None of this really matters. Peace & Love
@@SweetTGuitars and I didn’t mean to be offensive in my comment to you either and I believe I remained focused on the point at hand and that I was not “hostile”. We can disagree on things and point out what we believe to be inaccurate of misleading comments without being hostile. I just don’t think the discourse is helped by some of the inaccurate language you used, specifically talking about necks/headstocks that are “bound to break” and the suggestion you originally made (which I believe you’ve now deleted in an edit, which to be clear I applaud you for) that there is no beneficial design reason why a steeper headstock back angle might be selected (acknowledging completely that there are design ‘cons’ to doing this).
I think it's because of inspiration from other string instruments like violins or cellos where string angle changes quite a bit in the nut. Not necessary a calculated or thought out process based on solid engineering but rather a design choice that looks good if you are accustomed to traditional instruments, which was more usual back then when LP was introduced. Nowadays most young kids buying their first guitar will probably think LP looks ancient and yes, it's unnecessary bulky too.
@@McSlobo I agree completely. I do think headstock angles and so many other things about a guitar were inspired by classical or baroque instruments and I see the beauty in that but over time we have learned that in some environments, these things are impractical and in some cases prone to fail. My point is, learning from our mistakes or flaws, no matter how insignificant they seem, that is progress and that is where innovation comes from. Without that, all of us who build guitars would be content to duplicate LP's, Strats and Tele's forever. We can be innovative without ignoring the history we ourselves created. This is an art form as much as it is anything. If we weren't able to see things that we think should change, then there would be no need for us to try and guitar building would be so much less enjoyable! Ben Crowe introduced me to guitar building several years ago and I have felt more inspired to create than I have ever felt in my 54 years on this earth. I see things through different eyes than ever before and for that I will be forever thankful. My original comment to this video was in direct response to Ben's request to give feedback. I said the things I said for that purpose not to spark controversy! I love all guitars because I love what they do! They make music, the universal language. I don't really care about brand names or who does what better because to me, there is the ability to learn from what someone else has done, right or wrong! Sorry for the excessive comment but I felt it necessary to state my thoughts on this subject and give an explanation as to why I feel this way. After all is said and done, if we all felt the same then there would only be one guitar or one of anything. That is a really scary thought. Life is beautiful! Peace & Love
I think you are spot on. Some of what you are observing is from the time of or the legacy of Gibson’s previous owner who was notorious for driving his operations and luthiers to be fast, fast, fast, resulting in custom shop guitars with issues like construction pencil marks visible through the finish. You can just imagine what assembly shortcuts or skipped steps were hidden behind the outer surface, including the gaps in the neck pocket you highlighted! Recovery from a deeply ingrained corporate culture often takes a long time.
I had a les paul that I paid maybe $2,799 for it in 2018. I have most always used heavier strings and put on my normal pack .12-.52 GHS. It took weeks for it to settle in to being in stable tunning. It was mind numbing how it felt tunning this guitar up and feeling the tension get more and more. I never had this issue with fender guitars. I ended up selling the guitar about a year ago. I did so and didn't feel any remorse because the money went to an old friend in Ukraine; furthermore, I really think they need to put reinforcement into the guitars. As far as the tone from what I remember being told about the old les Paul is that they were sourced from timber that was very old (I could be completely wrong as it has been a while since I played that 59-it did sound like a Strat or tele at times which was trippy). So, maybe the construction wouldn't really matter. I watched a guy building an expensive classical acoustic guitar, I think taking concepts from that to make the electric sound better. For example not filing down the first fret when fretting installing frets. I did this with a squire I had and it improved the sound. As far as, For a new guitar imitating an old one, the pickups could just be slight degaussed/demagnetized. And during pickup construction one could use none or very little wax potting. Also there are different alnico magnets. Maybe degauss a rare earth magnet and make a set. OR incorporate ceramic magnet glued to an alnico5 magnet. Thus, having it be half ceramic and half alnico.
Thank you for the explanation. I am a former luthier and guitar tech and tried to break those issues to customers. It is very hard to critisize a legend. Thumbs up!!!
I agree with you up to a certain extent. There is no practical reason for a headstock to be sawn at 17-18 degrees, and the volute is a good idea, since the routing for the truss rod access weakens the neck even further at that point. I think anything above ten degrees is a little much. Where I differ from you is where you suggest gluing the neck to the body before the fingerboard is glued to the neck. I don’t think that is practical at all, since at that point you’ve got the guitar about 75 percent built and a lot can go wrong if you have to add binding to the neck. First you have to put in the frets before adding the binding, and the frets have to be filed flush with the wood before gluing on the binding. One little slip and you’ve ruined a guitar after most of the work has already been put into it. Any solvent or solvent based glue that squeezes out from the binding must be removed completely before any finish is applied. The binding must be left tall so it can be scraped, filed and sanded to form the nibs. More delicate work where things can go wrong. Having built a number of set necks myself, I don’t think it’s any harder to fit a neck that is already bound and fretted than a neck with no fingerboard. The problem as I see it is that the long tenon neck that Gibson seems to be so proud of is just a marketing ploy. Considering how much wood is being used, there is precious little area of contact for the glue. And if you’ve ever built a Les Paul style kit guitar you will know exactly what I mean. You have to be really stingy with the glue because squeezeout is impossible to remove once it soaks into the wood where it is going to show under the finish. It makes no sense to extend the neck into the neck pickup area and then rout off some of the wood. I own four Epiphone Les Pauls, built over a period of roughly twenty years, and the neck to body angles are practically identical on each of them. They are all set up the same way, and the bridges and stoptails are the same height off the body on each of these guitars. If Epiphone can do it, then Gibson ought to be able to do it as well. But they’re stuck in a snare of their own making. All they have to do is forget this crap like 17 degree peg heads and long tenon necks and build the guitars like they do in China, using CNC machinery to shape the body to neck joints. And it wouldn’t hurt for them to give up the medieval hide glue and use Titebond, which CF Martin had enough sense to do a long time ago. (I am aware that Martin still uses hide glue for vintage repairs.). This crap like the long tenon and hide glue is a lot of silly PR that does nothing but add to the price of Gibson guitars, while increasing the number of guitars returned for warranty repairs, often because of glue failure at the neck to body joint. And if they absolutely have to keep doing things the hard way it’s their own fault for making unprovable claims about wood, glue and tone.
Interesting point... and makes me remember a guitar I had built in 1973 by a luthier called Pete Redding who said he spent most of his time fixing the heads back onto Les Pauls, so he had designed this guitar to be dropped on its head... literally the day the guitar was finished I took it to where friends were doing a band session and leant it to the guitarist who let go to fiddle with his mic and the guitar popped off its strap and fell on its head... and bounced! but did forever have a bruised corner. Mark D Phillips....... (MarcP Guitars)
I am wondering if he is trolling us with this question. Anyway, the 1967 Gibson factory tour video, which can be found here on CZcams, clearly shows, at 9:28, an unmounted short tennon neck, similar to what's used on an SG, with the fingerboard in place, and again, its not on the guitar. So it appears that since as early as 1967, Gibson applied their finger boards prior to the neck being glued to the body. In the footage it also shows fingerboards being applied to acoustic necks prior to being attached to their respective bodies. Search for 1967 Gibson factory tour, its easy to find.
I've dropped my 1990 Les Paul Custom a couple of times with a heavy bang to the headstock, and it was fine, it just moved the tuners a bit. Some bands used to fling les pauls around the stage by their straps then carry on playing them. Breakages happen but I'm not sure it's as common as believed.
It seems to me that Gibson could (with some added expense) steam and bend the wood to achieve the neck break angle while keeping continuous wood fiber, ie: no grain run-out, no qtr-sawn, no cf bars req'd., etc.
This is absolutely spot on. I built a Gibson LP from plans with the help of a 10 part video by Freddy’s Frets. He was scrupulous about the neck/ body fit. They also don’t scarf joint the head stock which is why Gibson LP are notorious for breaking here.
The ideal practice when setting a Gibson style neck tenon, prior to fitting the fretboard, is to set the tenon several thousandths of an inch proud of the body plain. Once the fretboard is fitted to the neck, glueing tenon to mortise will result in the tenon being tight to the base of the mortise withought fear of the fretboard being lifted by contact with the body. Most early Les Paul carve tops display a small gap between fretboard and body surface for this reason. 😬
I was just thinking... What if the tuning pegs on the D & G strings were lets say 6mm (1/4 inch) taller and A & B were 3mm inch taller? Would this reduce the stress on the headstock? I know this would help with tuning stability. When I string my D & G I wound from the bottom up and they rarely go out of tune. Either way I do agree they should all have a volute.
Only tangentially related; I was once standing at the top of some stairs and my strap came undone. I watched my guitar bounce the entire way down, finally slamming into the radiator at the bottom head first. Luckily it was a strat, which since then has had a big dent in the lower edge of the headstock, but is otherwise ok. I'm terrified of even looking at gibson style headstocks the wrong way in case they break.
The irony is that Fenders have bolt-on necks -- they are designed so that the neck is easily replaceable. But the headstock is designed to be difficult to break...
You're the professional luthier, so I won't argue about the whole "fitting the neck in before gluing the fretboard on", but I watched a guy do a video about a year ago, and his big thing with why modern Les Pauls don't sound like the old ones is the material that the ABR bridge is made of. The old ones were nickel plated brass, I think, and the modern ones are chrome plated steel (which kills tone). He even did a before and after test on the same modern Les Paul to prove the point. The brass bridge sounded way better, than the modern one. Wouldn't have believed it had I not heard it for myself. You can still get aftermarket brass ABR bridges luckily, from Faber, maybe some other places...idk...His second reason was the modern PAF lugs are made of a different material than the old ones. He makes his own PAF clones with period correct metal like the old ones. They also sounded better in the before and after test. I don't know what the deal is, but he made a good argument, at least on those two points. He had a third point about the shielded wiring Gibson uses now, but I won't even get into that. Something about the new stuff creates "capacitance" in the signal...etc..etc...
This is one of those things that gets blown out of proportion on the internet. Gibson has made millions of guitars over the years and only a small number of those have had headstock breaks. Personally, I've been playing Gibsons since 1987; out of the 41 Gibsons I have owned, only 1 had a headstock repair - but that was from the previous owner. I've never had a headstock break under my watch - and I didn't baby my guitars when I was a gigging musician and playing in Rock bands for over 20 years. For the past 15 years or so, I've primarily bought and sold guitars online, too. No breaks from sending or receiving them.
Absolutely agree, Ben. Gibson hasn't had experienced luthiers on the floor for a good amount of years now. They're in the practice of bringing in people from off the street, sometimes with no playing experience, and teaching them how to do one singular thing in the build process. And many of those people are now teaching later generations how to do that one thing. A lot of the traditional practices have left Gibson, when people retired or passed away.
What you are describing is a production line. If you want to build hundreds of guitars a day economically, that's what you have to do. With that said these people do gain experience and expertise and then move to more skilled positions. It's not like they bring someone in off the street and have them setting necks their first day on the job.
@@Relayer6a Gibson Custom Shop Neck Fitter right here. I can confirm that that is exactly what we did. Had a guy come in off the street that had never held a chisel before in his life and six months into it had a slip and gutted the hand that was holding the neck. He’s so lucky he didn’t hit any tendons or bleed out but there was definitely bone showing. We’ve made it a point to only put luthier school graduates and/or actual woodworkers in the department since. Being a cog in the machine is wild sometimes.
In my opinion the defects found in Gibson’s guitars are almost solely due to the large corporate world we live in now where everything is mass produced so quickly just to get it out the door. Gibson was so much better when it was still actually owned by Gibson from the original days. One of the reasons I really like PRS Guitars. Paul owns the company and is heavily involved with the builds that come out of his shop especially on the higher end side of things. He even keeps a pretty close eye on the SE series being built by a third party company because they have his name on them yet even those aren’t built to the high standards of the PRS shop builds. It’s all about how fast and how much money the big corporate companies can make on a product before they finally run it into the ground and then sell the company off piece by piece in the end.
Mass production has been around since the early 1900s. Every company’s goal is to pump out as many products as they can to make as much money as they can.
@@junjuan7695 I’m well aware of that however it wasn’t on the scale that it is today. Even in the early 1900’s American craftsmanship meant more. Today it’s all about get it out as cheaply and fast as possible and to many corners are cut during quality control as well as the manufacturing process. It’s really easy to see as you have to do is take a pristine 1950 les Paul and compare it to a 2000’s or for that matter just ask a professional musician that knows a lot of guitars which one he would prefer. Large corporations buy a company often times for very little and take a product that was very good make it extremely cheap and then sale it for a little less than it was originally sold for yet the product has nowhere near the quality. More than 90% of the manufacturing has been sent overseas on top of that. They’ve already proven that the android TV boxes you can buy online that are manufactured in China have chipsets in them that have malicious software built into them so they can be used to spy on whoever purchased them as well as steal their personal information, activate cameras, microphones and so on.
@@P-J-W-777 I know first hand. I work in manufacturing and I’ve seen a lot of stuff at work. Our company builds high end furniture and a sofa that costs around $500 to build is sold for $10,000. However, the bigwigs in corporate want to make more money and are pushing the production managers to increase output. Increased output equals less quality control. You’re still getting an American made sofa for $10,000 but you’re basically paying for the brand.
@@junjuan7695 exactly they need the funds to buy their next 200 million dollar yacht or 10 bedroom 16 bathroom house. All while the product suffers. That wouldn’t happen in a smaller company who’s sales actually depend on their product being great.
As you said, PRS has guitars built overseas and the PRS name put on them. Sure, they do a QC check before they send them out to the dealers, but that's FAR from overseeing any aspect of their production. I think even Ben did a review on an overseas built PRS guitar and was upset with the quality of the instrument. I would argue that at least if it says Gibson on the headstock you know Gibson built it in their US factories. Unlike PRS and Fender and others, they at least put Epiphone on the headstock of their imported (but still built in their own factories) guitars. And there are a lot of people who won't buy an Epiphone who would just as happily buy an Epiphone as a Gibson if it said Gibson on the headstock. Orville Gibson died in 1918. The company was subsequently bought by CMI (Chicago musical Instruments) in 1944 until they sold it in 1969 to Norlin. It's been a long time since Gibson was owned by Gibson. Certainly not during their "golden era". PRS guitars are great guitars, but they aren't what Paul cracks them up to be. Just like Gibsons aren't all they crack them up to be. Listen to Paul, he's as much a salesman as he is anything.
Hi, another thing that some people often miss, about the gibson LP design is the truss rod ajustment. It is a treaded rod, with a bolt ontop to screw. that bolt requires you to remove alot of material from the weakest aria. Why not use an umbraco/bullet style ajustment instead? it requires alot less material to be removed! :P
I have no idea, I've never held a Gibson. I bought an epiphone les paul studio E1 (made in Indonesia, mahogany body) the other day though and it's a lovely instrument. Each time I pick it up and play it, I grow more fond of it. It's quite a plain les paul in glossy black and doesn't have any binding on the body or neck, but it just feels great to hold and to play. I've had a 93 jap squier strat (HSS) since 1993 and I find this les paul much easier to play. Maybe I should have gone for an epiphone les paul all those years ago, although I didn't like the one my friend had back in the mid 90's lol.
CNC machining should eliminate the gap issues. They could make the neck body joint with a dovetail that has round corners to mirror match the body to the neck. Do the volute as Ben said. CNC should remove mistakes with fits. I know there can be mistakes at a CNC setup or tool choice or compensation, but after the run is started it should be consistent. Let alone their volume is enough that one CNC could do one operation all year and another do a different operation. Etc etc
I'm not a luthier and only a "good enough for me" woodworker, but if I wanted a bend like the one at the headstock with all the tension it has to take I would want riven wood steam bent to the angle. I'd imagine it's completely impractical for factory construction but it's all I can think of to give the strength you need. Honestly, it seems silly to try for a one piece neck and headstock on a steel strung guitar. Any luthiers, feel free to point out where I'm wrong. No offense will be taken at all.
I love my Les Paul. But I totally agree with this video. I wish Gibson's "modern" models really did leave the past behind. Make something more like an Eclipse. They can still make the traditional models for those that want them.
Being the owner of a 2021 LP Std 60s I agree wholeheartedly. About six months after purchase I noticed that the inlays on the fretboard were off centre, now it’s all I see. Given that these things are put on jigs these days for the inlays to be cut, I was quite astounded that it could still happen, and worse was that it got through QC (if indeed there is such a thing at Gibson). Even worse was the attitude from their customer services. Basically they said, so what, here’s another example of bad workmanship. It’s the norm around here. There also appears to be filled holes on the flame top. My advice, if you insist on buying a new Gibson - don’t look at it too closely.
To be fair, Gibson did put a volute in, and their customer base screamed blue bloody murder. I've a bunch of guitars with a volute and I quite like them. Mind you one of those with a volute had the head snapped off twice.
Regarding the gap in the neck pocket, unless people have x-rayed all the old 50’s and 60’s Les Pauls how do we know some of those didn’t have sloppily fitted necks also? I think the snapped headstocks are partly a side effect of abusing equipment being part of the rock ‘n’ roll image. For example I don’t think someone using a Les Paul in a jazz band is going yank the headstock back for a makeshift whammy bar. (Slash snapped the headstock off one of his LPs doing that.) I think the sheer weight of a Les Paul may make them easier to accidentally drop and break. Another CZcams luthier said in regards to the number of LP headstock breaks he’s had to repair, “stop dropping your guitars people”, (or words to that effect). I’ve got to be really careful with my Lute. It has roughly a 90 degree break angle. 😁
Heres the thing though, if the guitar is used for stage music, and the guitars frequently break to that use, its not the users job that the tool was not constructed adequately for the job of its intended use. As to the old ones "how do we not know some of those dident have sloppy neck fits" Alot of them absolutely did, the idea that 60s guitars where some bastion of quality control is just a mix of nostalgia and post hoc justification on astronomical price tags. As someone whos worked on plenty of old instruments, there was plenty of lemons, it was the same mass production we have now but without the assistance of computers to maintain the tolerances. if you go to a guitar show and look around you will find many of the high condition collectors guitars from the 50s and 60s have attrocious actions. Because if an instrument is that old and shows little to no wear, than it wasent played much and if it wasent played much in that long theres probably a reason. Fender jaguars often suffer this because the distributers often dident know or dident disclose the instruments where designed to be set up with a neck pocket shim to a higher or lower angle depending on string gauge. As a result, they are still "inexpencive" novelties even for 60s fenders because 95% of the ones you pick up dont play right
I have a 1981 Les Paul standard a few years ago I lent it on the settee which had wooden arm's , when I stood on the settee to get a cobweb down it fell sideways right across the wooden arm fret board first I was devastated when I picked it up you could see were the strings had made grooves in the arm but to my surprise there was no damage. That was over 20 year's ago , recently I took it to a guitar maker John Levoi in Alford Lincolnshire for a set up and fret dress and it still plays magnificently . The moral of the story his never lean your prized possession against anything lay it in its case I was lucky , I think I'll have a blast now as I'm writing this I'm sat looking at it 🎸😂
I love my les paul. But here some issues: 1. No Locking-Tuners 2. The Position of the tuners 3. Nut has often a not good angle for the strings 4. The angle of the headstock is to big , framus solved it with a better angle or others companies with more wood at the joint 5. sometimes the Bridge and the stoptail are moving, so you have more Intonation problems. Ibanez and other companies solved it with little screws in parts or with bolts which have screws. Good for Intonation and good for Sustain. 6. The cavities are not isolated every time 7. You mentioned it . And so on . But , it is like a woman. Not perfect . I am also not perfect. It is a marriage for life.
I've seen many headstock repair videos and often wondered why Gibson couldn't address this issue during construction of their necks? It wouldn't take more than a few minutes for them route 2 channels at the break angle and install a couple of inserts before shaping! They may be visible if stained, but for the ones that will be painted, it's a no brainer! Just my opinion Ben.
Why are 53/61 Les Paul’s special. They carved the tops and the under side of the maple cap top. This creates a very slight chamber in the centre section when the cap is glued on. This creates a resonance that gives them a distinctive sound when linked to the PAFs. Also the bridges are normally tight or close to the body. As are the tail stops. Most don’t know that as most don’t take the tops off them. This is something that they did only on the 68/69 ones when they reintroduced the model. From 70 onwards they are all flat. That gem came from an article from the 1970s by one of the guys that carved the tops. Also I have seen two 57 gold tops where the gap actually showed in the pick up routs.
Gibson are damned if they do and damned of they don't. They know perfectly well that he design is compromised, but the market wants reproductions of the three magic years 58-60. If you put a volute on as Gibson did in the 70s when owned by Norlin, I bet they would be unable to sell them. I think the problem really goes back to the initial design. The Les Paul is basically a scaled down jazz box. The hollow jazz boxes were several inches thick and had heavy, heavy strings. A 17 degree headstock angle would be fine on such a guitar. When the Les Paul was designed I bet they just stuck the neck they were already making onto the solid body. Also, most people played sitting down in those days making on stage damage much less likely.
I have said this for years, and a look at Epiphone will show what that neck joint will do with lesser materials and looser quality controls. It is common advice to tell someone to go play Epis I the shop before buying to make sure you don't get a dud. Between two identical guitars, one might sound like like a cardboard box while the other sings and resonates. The difference is that Epiphone starts with the neck joint loose and shims to fit, while the fretboard to body top sets the neck angle and depth. I have re-set a bunch over the years and what I most commonly see is the neck almost completely cleanly pulled from the socket, only tearing the top part of the pocket away with it. I just did an SG that was given to me because in addition to the neck separating, the guitar "sounds like crap anyway". Upon dissection of the problem, it was apparent that there was a 1/8 inch gap from bottom of tenon to bottom of neck pocket with zero glued surface. The right side of the tenon was set against the pocket side but was so badly cut that there was about 25 percent glued surface. The left side of the tenon was the shimmed surface and had a piece of 1/32 shim stock about 1/4 inch wide making contact between the tenon and the pocket. The fretboard was doing most of the work holding that neck in. I squared the tenon, built up the lower surface and shimmed the neck pocket trying to achieve as close to 100 percent glueing surface as I could. The change to the guitar is remarkable. It is so resonant and lively now, and rings loud enough I can play it unplugged while practicing. Sustain is beautiful and she sounds just amazing! I honestly think many of the kits on the market have better neck joints than a Gibson/Epi.
I currently have a 1992 Cherry burst -- and I've had other Les Pauls + loads of Lawsuit models(Antoria - Ibanez etc) . The Lawsuit models can exhibit quality construction miles better than Gibson - especially necks and fretwork. However I have never personally broken a headstock( luckily) but have repaired many breaks for others. Dear Ben, see if you can get hold of a Memphis edition Antoria (set neck) and compare with Gibbo. I'm sure you'll be astonished.
Problem is the Gibson fanboys want the guitars made the same way as they did in the 50s! That's why you don't see as many 70s les Paul's wit h the headstock snap because of the large volute but the Gibson fans hate them! The SG will snap at the heel because of the way they set the neck then get rid if of all the wood for the pickup! Gibson will not change the way they manufacture their guitars because sales will drop massively...
That's an insight into the quality control of the modern Gibsons. I'm sure some of the manufacturing methods have changed slightly but this shouldn't be compromising the craftmanship of these high-end guitars.
I wonder if, when buying a Gibson, we are buying into a badge and an historical reputation above buying a guitar. The legendary Gibson is exactly that. A thing of great beauty from the past. We want a piece of what our heroes had from times gone by, creating a sound no human had heard before. Like the cosmic background radiation, that history still glows bright. We want a facsimile of what was. I get it. Totally. But it is a bit sad. Anyway, have you done a lefty guitar draw thing yet? Did I miss it? ;))
There was smallprint on a couple of the descriptions for the ubiquitous models that they'd get you a lefty on request if you won. I haven't paid much attention to the smallprint lately and they've tended to be vintage items rather than new stock, but it might be worth double checking. They were also toying with an idea of tickets to win a cost-capped crimson custom build, that could be lefty if that's what the winner wanted.
I watched this, because you are a very experienced Luther. I have looked inside many Les Pauls, including mine. I can see your obvious shock. You are absolutely right. Mine also has a volute. Let me know when you are delving into pickups. Also how about a buff, it looks pretty clean. What kind of wood is under the black face? Would it look good stripped?
i have a black 81 les paul deluxe with a 3 piece maple neck and a 3 piece maple cap,, got it in 88, it never gives trouble, never goes out of tune nothing has ever gone wrong on it, its been in bellies of planes and the neck has never moved, and despite the mini humbuckers it plays and sounds like a good les paul is supposed to, i think it has proved itself as being a good example, its more battered than the one you have there, theres no finish left on it, it aint pretty and it weighs a ton, i wont sell it though because its got it where it counts where other more modern les pauls ive tried just dont
I love Les Pauls but I believe they put the fretboard on after setting the neck back in the day. I am not sure if binding was before or after. I doubt they would have put the frets in ahead of time.
Just nothing like a Gibson Les Paul. Mine are amazing guitars! I don’t have the issues others talk about. Mine stay in tune and play, sound and feel amazing!
The design is fine. Don't confuse this with bad manufacturing. Gibsons don't break. Careless people break them. Bad fitting original cases dont help either. I've owned over 50 Gibsons from the '30s onwards. Never broken one. My main three have been played to death and will outlive me. I dont think volutes make any difference. In fact they present a whole wide area of end grain where a crack can start. Dont lean your Gibson on anything or on a crappy stand. Dont leave it plugged in on the stand.You'll be fine
If your interested you could give Heritage guitar a call as some of their employees used to be with Gibson those that haven't retired I am guessing they may still have some insights in to old Gibson manufacturing design. I am wondering if you have had a chance to check the Norlin era 1970s Gibsons as their used to do their neck in a 3 strip maple neck with Rosewood or ebony fret boards with slightly large head stocks and a lesser angle of 14 degrees as opposed to 17 or 18 degree tilt.
I think you're right about the older ones being made with more care. Gluing the fretboard to the neck before fitting it to the body seems wrong to me, but I guess the Gibson factory has some reason why it's got to go on first. My money is on cost savings somewhere in the chain. It would be really interesting to x-ray some of these guitars from different decades and see if the neck joints have issues across the board, or if it's only the newer ones.
It's easier to shape the neck with the the fingerboard glued to it. It saves awkward sanding by the top bout where the neck joins the body. Gibson also used a straight tenon without the little ledge on the heel where it butts up to the body.Good wood was more readily available in the 50's and was also properly seasoned. Cheers Andrew
Well you sold me, I agree I have a 78 with the valuate and it has been a gem, when many people around have had the neck break specially SG's there are allot of Black Gibson's for some reason. The old Gibson factory in Kalamazoo, Heritage Guitars they may be able to answer any of your Questions since they have many of the old machines and build patterns
I was selling Gibsons back in the days when they started making three-piece necks and or/ volutes. Of course, to this day, some people think that was horrible. It was done because there were problems with headstocks breaking off. At that same time in the early-to-mid '70s, I changed tuners on a whole bunch of Gibson and Martin guitars in northwest Florida ... I only used hand tools and noted how dry the "saw dust" was that was created by the process ... it was like powder. Could have been due to A/C units and heaters sucking out the moisture. And most likely, Gibson USA is not going to build the same quality into their instruments as they do in the Custom Shop, including and especially in the quality of woods and tenon length and care taken ...
Well, put it to the test. Take one of them, remove the fretboard, and inspect the joint. That will give you the answer of whether you found one with an issue or if this is an issue fairly across the builds.
But with long tenon joint you could see if there's a gap by looking at the pickup cavity. The longer joint would have more glue surface anyways and a small gap wouldn't matter that much. On the other hand, I have a feeling it doesn't matter that much anyways but what do I know.
I have a question since you are a builder. I read once that when Gibson did have volutes in the seventies & early eighties they were put in the wrong place so they didn’t do much to help prevent breaks in practice. I know the Norlin era is often looked down on but at least they tried to make some changes to fix some of the problems with Gibson designs (of course they also supposedly over-braced the acoustic guitars to prevent warranty repairs so it wasn’t all good changes).
I've recently picked up a Les Paul (2002 Special), just held it up against my Crimson (custom, built by Christopher). The headstock angle on the Crimson is way lower than that on the Gibson... and the Crimson has a nice chunky volute... which aside from being stronger is nice to rest your thumb again. I took my Les Paul for setup work with my favourite tech and its great now, but there was basic stuff wrong with it when I got it.
It makes me wonder if they only do this for the production guitars like the standards, classics and lower priced Gibson's. Perhaps they do build them as you say (the correct way) for the more expensive reissues, custom shops and Murphy labs guitars. Since they're more expensive and aren't as worried about pushing out volume, on top of supposedly being reproduction models, like the Gibson usa shop is. Just a thought don't know if it really works that way.
Hang on. I was under the impression that Gibson actually attempted to correct the lack of volute problem and met extreme customer resistance and were actually forced by public demand to return to the weaker and incorrect neck design, proving that the consumer is not always right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to know.
They did. Volutes, robo-tuners, short neck tenons, pancake bodies, access heel carves, PCB electronics - any attempt at modernising is generally frowned upon by their masses. But that's not really the crux of this vid. It's about neck pocket construction order potentially not being done the traditional way, despite them (and like you say, their customers) making such a big deal about how they still use and desire traditional vintage processes. We can argue that blindly adhering to tradition arguably makes a worse product. But the crux in this vid is the opposite - they're potentially not doing it the traditional way. Owners will be horrified if it's true - will there be lines of vintage-incorrect Gibsons infront of steamrollers? 😱😉
Your right, I didn't care much for Gibson guitars until 2016 2017 when they cam out with the High performance series, I bought a green ocean burst and blueberry bust, both HP guitars. Everyone complained, I love these ones. To get an access neck like those you have to buy custom shop a 6k, my green ocean burst at the time was 2700 Canadian. Smoking deal as far as I was concerned
@@PaulCooksStuff Thanks for that. Very informative and kind of you. I had got the idea (perhaps incorrectly) that Ben was claiming (incorreclty in my opinion) that Gibson had never tried a volute. I did understand (and was shocked by) his issue with hollow neck pockets. I didn't know about that beforehand and found it really shocking.
They did indeed change the headstock angle to 12- 14 degrees (approximately) in the 90's but, changed back to 15 -17 degrees (they vary) later ...also had volutes for awhile.
The whole headstock issue scratches my head. Epiphone does a scarf joint neck. I'm sold on making laminate necks, 7 degree headstock angles, and volutes because I don't have a 100 year tradition to back my work up. Volutes are so easy and kinda sexy. Then there is the whole 1 way truss rod and bowed channel thing. Why? My recent efforts in making neck through guitars sold me on the index the fretboard early, put it on last philosophy. You can't bind the fretboard otherwise. My GGBO 2023 entry is going to have some Les Paul construction elements and I want an angled neck but against a flat top so the idea of planing down the top to the level needed to support the fretboard makes perfect sense to me. And it can be done that way just by spot gluing the neck in temporarily.
I have thought for years that their neck angles are all over the place. I bought three Les pauls before I learned what to look for. I have the bridges bottomed out on the body and the strings are still to high to be considered low action. I suspect they do this to avoid having to put fall-away in the last several frets. I see this issue on just about every Les Paul I pick up.
I met Uncle Trev once in a guitar shop in Dursley. What was going to be a short visit turned into an afternoon absorbing as much of his knowledge and philosophy as possible.
I think some people love the way a Gibson neck feels, because is it feels like it could snap under string tension at any moment. This maybe makes the neck feel more lively in your hand. Just a thought, but I could be completely wrong.
I looked at a LP kinda mean one time and SNAP! off went the headstock. However, in a childish fit of anger I threw a Strat at a fireplace and all I had to do was tune it, it didn't even go out of strobe.
Great video, thank you. A few years ago I ordered a Epiphone Les Paul as my first "Gibson" style guitar. When I went to pick it up from the shop they told me the head was broken clean off when they opened the box so I had to wait for another to be sent out. This video explains why...
I’ve built 6 LPs of different specs. I agree that if you were to redesign the build it could be done better. I made a few with a thinner mahogany back and I make the neck joint fit the hand better. I sold off all my fenders and Gibson’s in 2010 because I can make a much better guitar for well under a grand.
Great post I heard a long time ago that the Gibson neck would be better if the truss rod adjustment was at the heel of the neck so there would be more meat on the bone at the headstock? Any truth do you think ? Cheers I love your channel 👌
I don’t think there is any added strength by glueing the end of the neck in the joint; in fact I’m aware of builders who purposefully leave a more substantial gap…
czcams.com/video/3-zOaOYB120/video.html At 9:12 in that video, we can see that even in 1967 they were gluing the fretboard to the neck prior to assembly.
I've seen many 1970's gibson guitars (Norlin era with volutes) with broken headstocks. The volute added very little (if any) additional strength to the neck / headstock. The bottom line is Gibson guitars need to be cared for like any fine wooden instrument. When they are not being played they need to be in the case. When shipping them the strings need to loosed and the headstock needs to be properly supported. If the player doesn't understand that then they need to look to different brands Fender, PRS, etc.
One properly set scarf joint would fix most of the Gibson decapitations. "It's tradition" (AKA "we've always done it this way") is the worst reasoning to continue with a poor practice.
I read through the comments below to see if anyone would mention that some players believe their Les Paul's sound _better_ after a neck break repair. Garry Moore thought so!
I have a confession. I dropped my beautiful, Crimson Guitars Copper Rodded guitar a while back. It fell backwards and hit the floor, but the headstock caught my pedal board first. In my mind, watching this unfold in slow motion, I just knew the headstock was going to break off and I was going to cry. I almost threw up, but the guitar simply bounced off the pedal board. Not even out of tune. I still went for a lie down, though.
Hallelujah!
Happened to me 25 years ago with my Gibson Heritage 80 Les Paul. Unfortunately I wasn’t as lucky as you. Cracked (broke) the headstock. Had Mark Brown (Mark’s Guitars) fix it and it’s still playing today. It’s one of my few LP’s, but still one of my favorites since I bought it new in 1981.
✌️😎🎸🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶
Within a couple of days of each other recently, my Gibson LP and Gibson SG fell off their stands and hit the floor. Only a slightly bent tuner on the SG.
"I still went for a lie down though" lol.
I once got into a fist fight in my guitar room and someone fell on my SG and only a tuner broke, so lucky
I have been beating this drum since I had to repair my first G***** headstock break!!! The combination of short grain mahogany, no volute, the headstock angle, the splay of the strings from the nut, and the inexplicably HUGE HOLE right at the weakest spot in the neck to accommodate the pickup truck lug nut they use for the truss end. With how little wood actually exists between the nut and the headstock it's almost inevitable that the headstock will eject itself from the neck. ☮❤🎶
It's not almost inevitable, as some players have never had one break while others have broken the same guitar more than once. Mine go back in their cases, no leaning them against a chair, table, amp etc or even sitting them in a stand, waiting for a pet, child or combination thereof to bring disaster. That said, I've never understood why Gibson is so reluctant to change that weak point. The Les Paul Japanese "lawsuit" era guitars of the seventies copied the head stock shape and truss rod cover, but not its extreme angle, so why can't Gibson do that?
@@deaddoll1361 They tried and people bitched because it wasn't the same as the originals.
@@deaddoll1361 Old luthier joke: There's 2 types of Gibsons...those that have had a broken headstock and those that will have a broken headstock in the future.
Played Gibsons for almost 25 years. Never had a single neck break or truss rod “ejection” in that time. One of my Gibsons I’ve owned throughout that period and have owned 50 or so in total (most of which I still own), for context. The trick is to actually take care of your instruments. Contrary to popular belief Gibson necks don’t break on their own. Despite that I have had several accidents with my Les Pauls over the years, including one completely falling off its strap and hitting the floor (without me being able to react in time to catch it or reduce the impact in any way). The neck was fine… and has been fine for more than 20 years now since… but a tuning peg and the jack socket got bent.
I broke my gibson headstock and still bought 3 more, some of us accept the risk
With Gibson a break angle means something completely different.
comment of the year
Haha, that’s a good one😂
The fakes are so good these days a broken headstock repair is at least a pretty good signifier what you're buying is legit!
Gibson's break angle giving me anxiety. kinda wish they use the epiphone break angle or even less
@@valen1879 Thats the cost of pedigree... Take the bad the the good
Gibson TV on CZcams has a video of a 1967 factory tour. At 9:16 in that video you can see necks having the fretboard installed before it is installed on the guitar. I would take this as fact that Gibson has been doing it this way quite a while.
Indeed. And whilst this is 8 years after the hallowed 1959 production year Gibson was under the exact same ownership (CMI as an independent company pre-take over) at this time.
I think the modern production sequence might have changed to accommodate the t-shaped neck binding they've been using since at least the mid 90's. It slots into a pre-routed groove in the side of the neck around the area where fretboard meets mahogany. That would make it difficult to assemble after the neck angle adjustment, so the board goes on before it's fit to the mortise.
Ted, you are a never-ending font of cool info! Thanks dude, I had no idea they were using binding like that, v cool modern solution to workers not closing the gap between binding and neck properly? Either way.. another example of them saying 'we build traditional' with their mouths while their eyes are saying 'give me your money in the cheapest and most efficient way we can get it!'... or something 🤔
@@CrimsonCustomGuitars He said Gibson's been doing that since as recently as the mid-'90s, so how could Gibson be following tradition there when they're continuing on with a manufacturing technique that's not even that old?
@@CrimsonCustomGuitars The Les Paul you modified for the axcess neck joint, what year was that instrument manufactured. Something like the QC issues seen on that guitar would be expected in an early Norlin era build. Modern Les Paul guitar manufacturing relies heavily on the CNC work to accurately cut the neck mortise and tenon, however that could also fail should something go wrong or out of spec with the machines.
Question, do you know if the Gibson Custom Shop builds the Les Paul using the same traditions and process as say an L5 or similar Arch Top?
As to what twoodfrd states, I think we can all agree with him 100%. Although I'm sure a clamp fixture could have been fabricated to facilitate the clamping of the new binding after the neck has been installed, it just wouldn't be profitable or easily managed for QC issues.
So much great information and contributors here, a big thank you to everyone.
@@hkguitar1984 Gibson Custom Neck Fitter here. To answer your questions, we absolutely do not build things the ye olde way. We have an ever dwindling number of jigs, fixtures, and machines that they used way back when, and an ever increasing number of newly engineered CNC machines and riggings that are still being dialed in. The final specs of all of our core, true historic reissue models never changes, but how we go about making them is constantly in flux. Especially when we have the Made to Measure program where you can make any change or edit to make your custom guitar not stock. Don’t know how they do things over at USA, but since their output is over five times as much as ours, I imagine they have even more high tech stuff.
@@contentocustomguitars1046 Thank You so much for the reply, very much appreciated. Very interesting that some of the old fixtures still exists.
Has the idea of building a guitar the “ye olden way” ever been considered, at least for a time study or possibly a build exercise to keep the processes from completely fading away or being lost? Idea; Build a couple instruments each year using the old-processes and tooling, have Marketing come up with a name for the series (say call it “The Gibson Time Study Instrument”) and then sell them under the Crimson label! All dreaming aside, I’d imagine labor costs/hours are what keep those old fixtures/jigs from being used. Very, Very interesting, thank you so much for sharing.
I really believe it has less to do with Gibson itself. It's the customers. If this thing would get all the modern building methods, headstock angle more shallow, volute, people would freak out and rebell... That's the problem... Which really is a shame...
You are 100% correct. Gibson did all that stuff in the 70's and their customers rejected it.
@@cameronthomson6141 because they did that stuff while also raising the prices and caring less about quality, same goes for Fender in the CBS-years.
People wasn't obsessed with the bursts because the specs, they just wanted a guitar that looked the same as Jimmy Page's, a guitar that Gibson didn't build for way too long (first reissuing the p-90 goldtops and then switching to mini humbuckers for a few years, before FINALLY getting the full sized humbuckers back in the Les Paul's)
A lot of changes as well as bad quality builds an association for the customer, explaining why some people today think that "vintage" means that the guitar is automatically better
Ask Paul Reed Smith.
He's the one who brought Ted McCarty out of retirement, just so he could learn all the details about Gibson's golden age of guitar building. Gibson couldn't be bothered about the man who brought Gibson into the modern age. Ted's legacy is the only reason Gibson is still around today.
The giant gap under the neck tenon only happened, I believe, for a relatively short period (maybe a decade or so?) When the sole of the tenon was actually machined to a curve, so that the angle of the neck could be freely set using the top as the reference plane rather than the base of the pocket. That leaves a big void under the tenon.
In some ways that mitigates the problem you state with the fretboard being attached before mating the neck to the body, but it's still a terrible idea, done for expediency over quality, and the design was thankfully dropped after a few years (which is not to say the assembly quality improved at all.)
There are multiple reasons why the Les Paul original "traditional" is built wrong.. from the neck construction with the solid mahogany & the way the grain runs, namely the "sawn" type of construction, i.e., "quarter sawn", half sawn, etc. The angle is not perfect at the headstock "break".. Crimson my friend, I've sat with luthiers many times & gone over the faults of this antiquated design which is now over half a century old & their response is "tone" after they sit there with their feelings seemingly hurt! I even go over another aspect of the neck angle, tuner arrangement & nut design when altogether the design leads to a G string that is never perfectly intonated or in perfect pitch! I knew a real luthier would definitely have many findings & believe me, you just scratched the surface on these matters but I couldn't agree more, another video on the next series of faults & how you address them will be fantastic!
@@gearmeister I think the G string issue mostly stems from the cut of the nut slots. My old Les Pauls suffer the G string issue, but my newer ones don't at all. I assume that's because Gibson pleks their nuts now.
Professional fine woodworker/cabinetmaker and semi-pro luthier here. Made approx 3 dozen custom guitars so far over my 40 year career.
Made 2 Les Paul ‘59 style copies about 10 years ago from StewMacs schematic drawings, 9:33 although I highly modernized them with many features you spoke of, such as less headstock angle, used wood where the grain actually turned to follow the neck into headstock angle to minimize short grain, made volutes as well, 2-way truss rod, compound 12-16 radius with 24 jumbo frets, all access neck joint with deep set tenon.
And yes. Set the neck exactly as you described with fretboards going on after neck to body joint. No problems at all.
Only failure in my mind is they ended up being just as heavy as the classic ones we all read about…10-11 lbs.
100% agree. The number of times I have seen anything from LP standards to $5000+ custom shop Les Pauls with incorrect break angles and other neck related issues, this makes perfect sense. I talked to the owner of a guitar store near my home a while back, he was mid process taking pictures of a Les Paul with a horrifically incorrect break angle. Apparently over about a 10 year period it was the 6th Les Paul to come in with an unforgiveable (neck) defect, considering he probably only ordered and sold only about two or three times that number it speaks volumes.
Gluing on the fretboard before getting everything properly set up and true makes no sense from a quality standpoint. It's clearly an attempt at production efficiency optimization. They need to learn when something isn't working and correct it. It's gotten to the point where, when I decide to drop $2000+ on a guitar, I will go with a boutique brand or a vintage instrument. The quality is gone and the price doesn't reflect the drop in both quality and material quality, particularly on the standard line (non custom shop). I am sorry but we shouldn't have to pay custom shop prices for what used to be the quality of the cheapest Gibson.
Kinda sadwhen I see much better quality control and attention to detail from Epiphone and Squier than I do from Gibson and Fender.
Hey Ben! I actually live a couple of minutes away from the original Kalamazoo Gibson factory in Michigan! Currently, Heritage Guitars has ownership of the site and is still producing instruments using some of the original equipment if I’m remembering correctly, they may have some insight into the original production techniques!
That was going to be my suggestion is to check with Heritage !
@@salavussalavuswalroos7579 I build guitars there... The body has the neck angle built into the top first and the fretboard acts as the guide for the correct neck angle. I'm 99% sure its always been done this way. I will confirm with Jim been there since the 50s.
@@weezerti From time to time I see LPs with string misalignment. What is the root cause of it? At what step the string alignment is done? How it is done?
@@weezerti did you hear anything back from Jim?
@@pavelm9078 as in the strings aren't centered down the neck, like there is more or less fretboard overhang on one E string compared to the other? That is usually from the bridge pins holes being slightly off.
I completely agree with fitting the neck to the body BEFORE the fretboard is glued on the neck. I normally don't use a tenon joint on my normal builds. But I have done a couple just to do them. The first time I glued the fretboard to the neck first, and learned immediately that it was much easy and precise to do it without the fretboard on while fitting the neck.
A simple question: how do you address the string alignment?
I had a Gibson LP built by their custom shop through my workshop. The sustain was terrible and there were the starts of finish cracks around the neck joint. When I pushed on the neck gently to see what was going on the neck just came off. Turns out that there was no glue in the joint at all and the fit and the finish were all that held it together. Quick glue job and a slower finish touch up and the guitar played "better than it ever has". QC aside, the more recent neck joints that I have done work on are far more reliant on the accuracy of the CNC, and a glue with filling properties, than they are on traditional fitting.
I had an 81 mahogany V. It slid out of the guitar rack and snapped the headstock. Got it fixed and sold. Last yr I started looking at several Les Paul's, after several weeks of playing. I was handed a Vintage V100. Omg what a great guitar, already relieved at the base of the neck, the weight was thick. The playability was fantastic, sustain forever. I bought the Vintage, used it in shows and studio. Even the engineer was impressed with the tone. Buy the Vintage, save $500 and get a Super Guitar. You should review them....
Doesn't a locking nut mean you don't need the neck angle?
Love this channel!
pretty much yeah
That’s why my Les Paul Substitute is a PRS SE Bernie Marsden. Also most of the guitars that a tend to use live have Wilkinson Tremolos of various designs because they tend to stay in tune better than most unlocking tremolos.
Correct
I saw some recent Gibsons cut in half. Tennon bottom is not flat, but curved to where one point touches away from edge and the external point touches. They only have to sand down single point to get it to "fit" and set neck angle.
I think they started that in early 2000s
Before that, you are correct in how they were made and fit up.
I also thought it was wrong, but have seen very few people mention it or notice problems with it. I have one made the "new way" and there is no way to tell.
I'm playing a pair of Gibson double cut Melody Makers from 1964 for almost 30 years. It's the model that has probably the weakest, shortest neck-body joint Gibson ever made, and it was the cheapest solid body guitar in their line. I use 0.13-0.56 srts of strings and both instruments stay perfectly in tune. They look quite worn and battle scarfed but I avoid to drop them... I think that helps a lot.
But secondly, the wood Gibson (and probably all manufacturers) used in the 50's and 60's for their solid bodys was just «furniture grade» but probably far better than the stuff they use actually. I guess that makes an enormous difference.
After goofing with this exact problem on a LP type tenon on a SG, 100% correct! I think it makes that neck break angle much easier if you have it sorted before you put the fretboard on. Gibson (Production, not custom shop) also has a problem with gaps where the neck heel and the body meet. They fill it with glue and burst it if it's off. Of coarse, my SG type is more like the 70s type tenon joined at the 19th fret...now Gibson just does the 60s thing with a big ol heel joined at the 22nd fret and cap it with body on the back, like used to break and take part of the body with it...fun times.
Funny thing is, they DID volutes. And still do on a couple of models, like the 70s Deluxe and the Custom Axcess (which has a volute that runs the entire length of the headstock)
They also did shallower, STRONGER headstock angles, and people still complain about them.
I think Gibson is very likely building their Les Pauls correctly.
Heritage Guitars, (started by former Gibson employees who stayed behind in Kalamazoo after Gibson moved to Nashville), has a very good reputation. A recent factory tour shows them gluing the fingerboards to the necks before fitting them to the bodies by hand.
PRS’s Maryland factory tour shows workers using the same process.
Three highly regarded guitar manufacturers all use the same process to fit the necks to solid body electric guitars.
It seems highly unlikely all three companies have been putting fretboards on too soon in the process all these years.
The problem is of course that the people who buy Gibson guitars would stop buying them if they did anything even slightly differently. If Gibson implemented structural improvements then demand would drop and they'd have to lower prices. In short order, they'd be in competition with everyone else who already builds proper guitars, and why on earth would they want that when they're able to sell inferior products at ridiculous prices by the truckload?
I’m have seven Gibson guitars, 3 LPs, 335, SG, Southern jumbo and a firebird. Two of them are custom shop guitars, three are vintage. I absolutely love them. They ALL sound amazing. I’ve had PRS’, Duesenberg, all sorts of fenders, Gretsch, etc…. My Gibsons are by far my favorite. I may be a little biased. I’ve had Gibsons of all sorts in my house growing up. My old man has more than he knows what to do with. Me and my brothers are going to have to fight till the death over them, haha. Actually we all have our favorites and it’ll be amicable. I hope. Well, it should be. My favorites are the guitars worth the least.
For me personally, I typically have the neck and fretboard slightly proud of the guitar top. I glue the neck to the body, add spacers to both sides of the neck, level them to the neck plane, then glue on the fretboard, and lastly install the frets.
My Custom ES335 with P90s arrived cased and boxed, ‘factory fresh’, with the headstock hanging on by the headstock overlay and truss rod cover.
Speedily replaced, but a ‘gutting’ experience luckily not repeated with any of the other 3 Gibsons I own - even though Thomann shipped my SG with the delivery label attached to the bottom of the exterior carton, meaning the instrument effectively travelled from Germany to the UK, in a case, Gibson carton and Thomann carton, standing on its headstock!
Hi Ben! Custom Shops aside, am I right in thinking that most of the construction side is done via CNC nowadays? And in theory, doesn't it mean that there should be a regularity in carving that makes assembly almost perfect every time? I'm sure that wouldn't have been the case some 15 years ago but I believe that it is more actually the case at present. Of course, the headstock angle and absence of volute is just unforgivable, but as many have pointed out, Gibson's customer base is mostly 'OK, boomer'. I for one would welcome an updated design for a Les Paul if it took out its flaws - but then I'm 35.
There is another way to fit the neck which I have done successfully. On a LP or other carved top guitar where the fretboard sits on the top, the surface of the top,under the fretboard must be straight and flat. The easiest way to accomplish this when the top is carved and sanded to approximate shape ( it is impossible to make it exactly the same every time even with a CNC) is to fit the neck without the fretboard as Ben said. The neck tenon is fit to the mortise and the angle of the neck heel is also altered to achieve the proper bridge height. And as Ben also said the surface of the top where the fretboard sits is also planed flat with the proper angle. This can be done without the fretboard glued but set in place, unglued and a straight edge is used to check the bridge height (0.71inch). Then the fretboard with nibs and all is glued on the lone neck and finally glued into the body mortise. Additionally, depending on the relative humidity, the fretboard might need to be glued on with some simulated relief, but that’s another story.
Interesting video. As far as im aware, Gibson seems to get a load of backlash from its customers when they try to change things, this may make them quite aprehensive to make changes, rightfully so. As a player, I want a nice guitar but its not there to sit and look pretty, its there to do work. From that perspective I welcome changes that make my life easier and improve the logevity/stability of my tools. However, Gibson has a massive collector community, these guys have a different perspective, typically looking for tradition, prestege and pedegree. They are also the demographic that has money to burn and as we all know, money talks.
Totally agree, but maybe we need to point out to that collecting community - 'Hey - if they change the break angle and add a volute then YOU will OWN one of the now uber-rare, still intact, 18 degree, no volute, original, pre-change models...'
@@drpaz not sure how “uber rare” those would be seeing as Gibson have been making tens of thousands every year that way for the vast majority of the time they’ve produced Les Pauls, which at this point is 60 years of production 🤔😉🤣🤣🤣
on one hand they are scared of changes, on the other they do tiny changes back and forth continuously so they can try to convince people to buy a new one every year.
My first Les Paul was a 70's goldtop; 3 piece maple neck with volute, heavy as a breeze block. It makes we wince even now to remember that there were times when it slid sideways off the speaker cab, or I would ding it as I turned around, or whatever - but it never broke. I won't even mention what the bullet belt (I was 18!!) did to the back. Then, the first time my modern 335 was knocked sideways, I opened the case to find a floppy headstock. Ever since, I have been ultra-precious with Gibson cases, to the point where I've explained to my kids (!) exactly how to treat a guitar. Surely, Gibson must realize they are losing sales because of the number of online articles about neck snaps? Its not anecdotal anymore, its a real phenomenon. Even a scarf joint under a dark finish would be better. But on the point of neck joint gaps, couldn't the CAM process address this within hours? There should never be a Gibson allowed on the market with a 2mm gap at a joint.
I’m not a luthier but a guitar player and I am a traditional hand tool carpenter and what your saying makes perfect sense and would be I would go about it. Why make life harder for yourself and lose the some of the craftsmanship that makes the instruments so special
First issue, the headstock angle. 18° is ridiculous and serves no purpose but to make a neck that is bound to break! Les Paul's already have a reputation for this problem and why it hasn't been dealt with is a huge issue for me. Honestly it makes me love my Strats even more. Secondly, I completely agree with you on how the necks are made. It should be fit and sorted before the fretboard goes on or better yet, it's not that hard to figure a neck break angle on paper and if you are diligent and methodical, you can achieve the same result on the wood with a somewhat simple mathematical equation! Finally, it's never been a Fender Vs. Gibson thing with me because guitars exist to make music. That is what matters, the musician puts his heart and soul into a song as should the craftsman that makes his instrument. Those are my thoughts! Peace & Love ✌️🤍
“Bound to break”? Come on!! I’ve played Gibsons for 25 years and have owned very very many of them. I’ve not had a single neck break. How’s that for “bound to break” for you? 🤔
Frankly the trick is to actually take care of your guitars. Don’t rest them against amps or the edge of tables where they can slide or fall… don’t lay them flat on the floor where the headstock back angle means the tip of the headstock lifts the guitar body of the floor and means any knock or impact immediately stresses the headstock… don’t just toss the guitar around, either out of its case or in it. These are not extreme or unreasonable steps to take for an instrument you’ve invested a decent amount of money in.
Despite generally following all of these steps over the last quarter of a century I’ve still had Les Pauls fall off stands or even drop off a strap several times. Not once did it result in a neck break of any kind, including the time when the Les Paul fell off its strap and literally bounced on the floor, bending a tuning peg and the jack socket (because there was a cable installed at the time) in the process, but the core structure of the guitar was perfectly fine and that guitar has continued to “live” for another 20 years without issue.
And on the general point about the back angle and general headstock design, Gibson have tried to “solve” this a number of times. They’ve reduced the back angle at points in their history and also introduced things like volutes and the “Apex carve” at times, none of which have proven popular in general with their customer base, so they’re reverted back to what customers want. Not really something Gibson can be blamed for in my view… ultimately they need to pay attention to what customers want.
Final point, whilst a headstock with a steeper back angle and a one piece neck does introduce a weaker point in the headstock it’s not entirely without design positives. A steeper back angle creates a steeper break angle for the strings which in turn increases the downward pressure of the strings on the nut. This can exacerbate tuning stability issues if the nut is poorly cut but greater downward pressure of the strings also tends to contribute to better vibration transfer between string and guitar structure and also give better sustain. So, “serves no purpose”? I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong. As with most design decisions there are pros and cons to every decision made, and this is no different, but it’s not “without purpose”.
@@davidburke2132 First of all, my comment wasn't meant to be offensive to any LP lovers, which is why I finished the way I did however, in my 31 years as a guitar player I've seen more broken LP headstocks than you could shake a stick at. That doesn't mean they're terrible guitars and I certianly don't think that. You are correct on the care of the instrument but you also surely realize that doesn't always happen, especially on the road.
On the headstock break angle, 18° does provide increased string tension but at the cost of a "sometimes" terminal weakness in a neck. Also, I was responding to the comment Ben made about a brand new LP arriving with the headstock snapped! Wrapped, in the case, wrapped again in the box! He asked for our OPINION. That's what I gave.
When all is said and done, I was responding to a request to state an opinion by Ben. My comment was not directed at you personally and I certainly don't need to be schooled on why things are done the way they are when it comes to a guitar. I get it man. I love all guitars exactly as I said, because they make music. It doesn't matter that our opinions differ, the end result is music. No need for hostility. I have no bone to pick with you or Gibson for that matter and if a customer doesn't want to buy a guitar from me because I refuse to make a neck with anything beyond a 10° angle, so be it. My goal is to make great guitars that a player will enjoy and I have no desire to duplicate anyone else's design anyway. So again. None of this really matters. Peace & Love
@@SweetTGuitars and I didn’t mean to be offensive in my comment to you either and I believe I remained focused on the point at hand and that I was not “hostile”. We can disagree on things and point out what we believe to be inaccurate of misleading comments without being hostile.
I just don’t think the discourse is helped by some of the inaccurate language you used, specifically talking about necks/headstocks that are “bound to break” and the suggestion you originally made (which I believe you’ve now deleted in an edit, which to be clear I applaud you for) that there is no beneficial design reason why a steeper headstock back angle might be selected (acknowledging completely that there are design ‘cons’ to doing this).
I think it's because of inspiration from other string instruments like violins or cellos where string angle changes quite a bit in the nut. Not necessary a calculated or thought out process based on solid engineering but rather a design choice that looks good if you are accustomed to traditional instruments, which was more usual back then when LP was introduced. Nowadays most young kids buying their first guitar will probably think LP looks ancient and yes, it's unnecessary bulky too.
@@McSlobo I agree completely. I do think headstock angles and so many other things about a guitar were inspired by classical or baroque instruments and I see the beauty in that but over time we have learned that in some environments, these things are impractical and in some cases prone to fail. My point is, learning from our mistakes or flaws, no matter how insignificant they seem, that is progress and that is where innovation comes from. Without that, all of us who build guitars would be content to duplicate LP's, Strats and Tele's forever. We can be innovative without ignoring the history we ourselves created. This is an art form as much as it is anything. If we weren't able to see things that we think should change, then there would be no need for us to try and guitar building would be so much less enjoyable!
Ben Crowe introduced me to guitar building several years ago and I have felt more inspired to create than I have ever felt in my 54 years on this earth. I see things through different eyes than ever before and for that I will be forever thankful. My original comment to this video was in direct response to Ben's request to give feedback. I said the things I said for that purpose not to spark controversy! I love all guitars because I love what they do! They make music, the universal language. I don't really care about brand names or who does what better because to me, there is the ability to learn from what someone else has done, right or wrong!
Sorry for the excessive comment but I felt it necessary to state my thoughts on this subject and give an explanation as to why I feel this way. After all is said and done, if we all felt the same then there would only be one guitar or one of anything. That is a really scary thought. Life is beautiful!
Peace & Love
I think you are spot on. Some of what you are observing is from the time of or the legacy of Gibson’s previous owner who was notorious for driving his operations and luthiers to be fast, fast, fast, resulting in custom shop guitars with issues like construction pencil marks visible through the finish. You can just imagine what assembly shortcuts or skipped steps were hidden behind the outer surface, including the gaps in the neck pocket you highlighted! Recovery from a deeply ingrained corporate culture often takes a long time.
I had a les paul that I paid maybe $2,799 for it in 2018. I have most always used heavier strings and put on my normal pack .12-.52 GHS. It took weeks for it to settle in to being in stable tunning. It was mind numbing how it felt tunning this guitar up and feeling the tension get more and more. I never had this issue with fender guitars. I ended up selling the guitar about a year ago. I did so and didn't feel any remorse because the money went to an old friend in Ukraine; furthermore, I really think they need to put reinforcement into the guitars. As far as the tone from what I remember being told about the old les Paul is that they were sourced from timber that was very old (I could be completely wrong as it has been a while since I played that 59-it did sound like a Strat or tele at times which was trippy). So, maybe the construction wouldn't really matter. I watched a guy building an expensive classical acoustic guitar, I think taking concepts from that to make the electric sound better. For example not filing down the first fret when fretting installing frets. I did this with a squire I had and it improved the sound. As far as, For a new guitar imitating an old one, the pickups could just be slight degaussed/demagnetized. And during pickup construction one could use none or very little wax potting. Also there are different alnico magnets. Maybe degauss a rare earth magnet and make a set. OR incorporate ceramic magnet glued to an alnico5 magnet. Thus, having it be half ceramic and half alnico.
Did you by any chance tighten the truss rod as you installed 12-52 on a guitar that left the factory with 9's or 10's?
17 degrees I believe,they tried 3 pieces for the neck and valute back in the 70s
Thank you for the explanation. I am a former luthier and guitar tech and tried to break those issues to customers. It is very hard to critisize a legend. Thumbs up!!!
I agree with you up to a certain extent. There is no practical reason for a headstock to be sawn at 17-18 degrees, and the volute is a good idea, since the routing for the truss rod access weakens the neck even further at that point. I think anything above ten degrees is a little much. Where I differ from you is where you suggest gluing the neck to the body before the fingerboard is glued to the neck. I don’t think that is practical at all, since at that point you’ve got the guitar about 75 percent built and a lot can go wrong if you have to add binding to the neck. First you have to put in the frets before adding the binding, and the frets have to be filed flush with the wood before gluing on the binding. One little slip and you’ve ruined a guitar after most of the work has already been put into it. Any solvent or solvent based glue that squeezes out from the binding must be removed completely before any finish is applied. The binding must be left tall so it can be scraped, filed and sanded to form the nibs. More delicate work where things can go wrong. Having built a number of set necks myself, I don’t think it’s any harder to fit a neck that is already bound and fretted than a neck with no fingerboard. The problem as I see it is that the long tenon neck that Gibson seems to be so proud of is just a marketing ploy. Considering how much wood is being used, there is precious little area of contact for the glue. And if you’ve ever built a Les Paul style kit guitar you will know exactly what I mean. You have to be really stingy with the glue because squeezeout is impossible to remove once it soaks into the wood where it is going to show under the finish. It makes no sense to extend the neck into the neck pickup area and then rout off some of the wood. I own four Epiphone Les Pauls, built over a period of roughly twenty years, and the neck to body angles are practically identical on each of them. They are all set up the same way, and the bridges and stoptails are the same height off the body on each of these guitars. If Epiphone can do it, then Gibson ought to be able to do it as well. But they’re stuck in a snare of their own making. All they have to do is forget this crap like 17 degree peg heads and long tenon necks and build the guitars like they do in China, using CNC machinery to shape the body to neck joints. And it wouldn’t hurt for them to give up the medieval hide glue and use Titebond, which CF Martin had enough sense to do a long time ago. (I am aware that Martin still uses hide glue for vintage repairs.). This crap like the long tenon and hide glue is a lot of silly PR that does nothing but add to the price of Gibson guitars, while increasing the number of guitars returned for warranty repairs, often because of glue failure at the neck to body joint. And if they absolutely have to keep doing things the hard way it’s their own fault for making unprovable claims about wood, glue and tone.
Interesting point... and makes me remember a guitar I had built in 1973 by a luthier called Pete Redding who said he spent most of his time fixing the heads back onto Les Pauls, so he had designed this guitar to be dropped on its head... literally the day the guitar was finished I took it to where friends were doing a band session and leant it to the guitarist who let go to fiddle with his mic and the guitar popped off its strap and fell on its head... and bounced! but did forever have a bruised corner.
Mark D Phillips....... (MarcP Guitars)
I am wondering if he is trolling us with this question. Anyway, the 1967 Gibson factory tour video, which can be found here on CZcams, clearly shows, at 9:28, an unmounted short tennon neck, similar to what's used on an SG, with the fingerboard in place, and again, its not on the guitar. So it appears that since as early as 1967, Gibson applied their finger boards prior to the neck being glued to the body. In the footage it also shows fingerboards being applied to acoustic necks prior to being attached to their respective bodies. Search for 1967 Gibson factory tour, its easy to find.
I've dropped my 1990 Les Paul Custom a couple of times with a heavy bang to the headstock, and it was fine, it just moved the tuners a bit.
Some bands used to fling les pauls around the stage by their straps then carry on playing them.
Breakages happen but I'm not sure it's as common as believed.
It seems to me that Gibson could (with some added expense) steam and bend the wood to achieve the neck break angle while keeping continuous wood fiber, ie: no grain run-out, no qtr-sawn, no cf bars req'd., etc.
This is absolutely spot on. I built a Gibson LP from plans with the help of a 10 part video by Freddy’s Frets. He was scrupulous about the neck/ body fit. They also don’t scarf joint the head stock which is why Gibson LP are notorious for breaking here.
The ideal practice when setting a Gibson style neck tenon, prior to fitting the fretboard, is to set the tenon several thousandths of an inch proud of the body plain. Once the fretboard is fitted to the neck, glueing tenon to mortise will result in the tenon being tight to the base of the mortise withought fear of the fretboard being lifted by contact with the body.
Most early Les Paul carve tops display a small gap between fretboard and body surface for this reason. 😬
I was just thinking... What if the tuning pegs on the D & G strings were lets say 6mm (1/4 inch) taller and A & B were 3mm inch taller? Would this reduce the stress on the headstock? I know this would help with tuning stability. When I string my D & G I wound from the bottom up and they rarely go out of tune. Either way I do agree they should all have a volute.
Only tangentially related; I was once standing at the top of some stairs and my strap came undone. I watched my guitar bounce the entire way down, finally slamming into the radiator at the bottom head first. Luckily it was a strat, which since then has had a big dent in the lower edge of the headstock, but is otherwise ok. I'm terrified of even looking at gibson style headstocks the wrong way in case they break.
The irony is that Fenders have bolt-on necks -- they are designed so that the neck is easily replaceable. But the headstock is designed to be difficult to break...
@@johnbriggs3916 There is beauty in something thats designed simultaneously to be both highly durable AND easilly repairable
You're the professional luthier, so I won't argue about the whole "fitting the neck in before gluing the fretboard on", but I watched a guy do a video about a year ago, and his big thing with why modern Les Pauls don't sound like the old ones is the material that the ABR bridge is made of. The old ones were nickel plated brass, I think, and the modern ones are chrome plated steel (which kills tone). He even did a before and after test on the same modern Les Paul to prove the point. The brass bridge sounded way better, than the modern one. Wouldn't have believed it had I not heard it for myself. You can still get aftermarket brass ABR bridges luckily, from Faber, maybe some other places...idk...His second reason was the modern PAF lugs are made of a different material than the old ones. He makes his own PAF clones with period correct metal like the old ones. They also sounded better in the before and after test. I don't know what the deal is, but he made a good argument, at least on those two points. He had a third point about the shielded wiring Gibson uses now, but I won't even get into that. Something about the new stuff creates "capacitance" in the signal...etc..etc...
I’ve been playing Les Paul’s since the 80s and never broke a headstock. I actually dropped one on a concrete floor and it didn’t break.
This is one of those things that gets blown out of proportion on the internet. Gibson has made millions of guitars over the years and only a small number of those have had headstock breaks. Personally, I've been playing Gibsons since 1987; out of the 41 Gibsons I have owned, only 1 had a headstock repair - but that was from the previous owner. I've never had a headstock break under my watch - and I didn't baby my guitars when I was a gigging musician and playing in Rock bands for over 20 years. For the past 15 years or so, I've primarily bought and sold guitars online, too. No breaks from sending or receiving them.
Same. Not to tempt fate, but I bought my first LP in 1994. I got my fifth just over a year ago. No headstock problems with any of them.
Absolutely agree, Ben. Gibson hasn't had experienced luthiers on the floor for a good amount of years now. They're in the practice of bringing in people from off the street, sometimes with no playing experience, and teaching them how to do one singular thing in the build process. And many of those people are now teaching later generations how to do that one thing. A lot of the traditional practices have left Gibson, when people retired or passed away.
What you are describing is a production line. If you want to build hundreds of guitars a day economically, that's what you have to do. With that said these people do gain experience and expertise and then move to more skilled positions. It's not like they bring someone in off the street and have them setting necks their first day on the job.
@@Relayer6a Gibson Custom Shop Neck Fitter right here. I can confirm that that is exactly what we did. Had a guy come in off the street that had never held a chisel before in his life and six months into it had a slip and gutted the hand that was holding the neck. He’s so lucky he didn’t hit any tendons or bleed out but there was definitely bone showing. We’ve made it a point to only put luthier school graduates and/or actual woodworkers in the department since. Being a cog in the machine is wild sometimes.
In my opinion the defects found in Gibson’s guitars are almost solely due to the large corporate world we live in now where everything is mass produced so quickly just to get it out the door. Gibson was so much better when it was still actually owned by Gibson from the original days. One of the reasons I really like PRS Guitars. Paul owns the company and is heavily involved with the builds that come out of his shop especially on the higher end side of things. He even keeps a pretty close eye on the SE series being built by a third party company because they have his name on them yet even those aren’t built to the high standards of the PRS shop builds.
It’s all about how fast and how much money the big corporate companies can make on a product before they finally run it into the ground and then sell the company off piece by piece in the end.
Mass production has been around since the early 1900s. Every company’s goal is to pump out as many products as they can to make as much money as they can.
@@junjuan7695 I’m well aware of that however it wasn’t on the scale that it is today. Even in the early 1900’s American craftsmanship meant more. Today it’s all about get it out as cheaply and fast as possible and to many corners are cut during quality control as well as the manufacturing process. It’s really easy to see as you have to do is take a pristine 1950 les Paul and compare it to a 2000’s or for that matter just ask a professional musician that knows a lot of guitars which one he would prefer.
Large corporations buy a company often times for very little and take a product that was very good make it extremely cheap and then sale it for a little less than it was originally sold for yet the product has nowhere near the quality. More than 90% of the manufacturing has been sent overseas on top of that. They’ve already proven that the android TV boxes you can buy online that are manufactured in China have chipsets in them that have malicious software built into them so they can be used to spy on whoever purchased them as well as steal their personal information, activate cameras, microphones and so on.
@@P-J-W-777 I know first hand. I work in manufacturing and I’ve seen a lot of stuff at work. Our company builds high end furniture and a sofa that costs around $500 to build is sold for $10,000. However, the bigwigs in corporate want to make more money and are pushing the production managers to increase output. Increased output equals less quality control. You’re still getting an American made sofa for $10,000 but you’re basically paying for the brand.
@@junjuan7695 exactly they need the funds to buy their next 200 million dollar yacht or 10 bedroom 16 bathroom house. All while the product suffers. That wouldn’t happen in a smaller company who’s sales actually depend on their product being great.
As you said, PRS has guitars built overseas and the PRS name put on them. Sure, they do a QC check before they send them out to the dealers, but that's FAR from overseeing any aspect of their production. I think even Ben did a review on an overseas built PRS guitar and was upset with the quality of the instrument. I would argue that at least if it says Gibson on the headstock you know Gibson built it in their US factories. Unlike PRS and Fender and others, they at least put Epiphone on the headstock of their imported (but still built in their own factories) guitars. And there are a lot of people who won't buy an Epiphone who would just as happily buy an Epiphone as a Gibson if it said Gibson on the headstock.
Orville Gibson died in 1918. The company was subsequently bought by CMI (Chicago musical Instruments) in 1944 until they sold it in 1969 to Norlin. It's been a long time since Gibson was owned by Gibson. Certainly not during their "golden era".
PRS guitars are great guitars, but they aren't what Paul cracks them up to be. Just like Gibsons aren't all they crack them up to be. Listen to Paul, he's as much a salesman as he is anything.
Hi, another thing that some people often miss, about the gibson LP design is the truss rod ajustment. It is a treaded rod, with a bolt ontop to screw.
that bolt requires you to remove alot of material from the weakest aria. Why not use an umbraco/bullet style ajustment instead? it requires alot less material to be removed! :P
I have no idea, I've never held a Gibson.
I bought an epiphone les paul studio E1 (made in Indonesia, mahogany body) the other day though and it's a lovely instrument.
Each time I pick it up and play it, I grow more fond of it.
It's quite a plain les paul in glossy black and doesn't have any binding on the body or neck, but it just feels great to hold and to play. I've had a 93 jap squier strat (HSS) since 1993 and I find this les paul much easier to play. Maybe I should have gone for an epiphone les paul all those years ago, although I didn't like the one my friend had back in the mid 90's lol.
CNC machining should eliminate the gap issues. They could make the neck body joint with a dovetail that has round corners to mirror match the body to the neck. Do the volute as Ben said. CNC should remove mistakes with fits. I know there can be mistakes at a CNC setup or tool choice or compensation, but after the run is started it should be consistent. Let alone their volume is enough that one CNC could do one operation all year and another do a different operation. Etc etc
I'm not a luthier and only a "good enough for me" woodworker, but if I wanted a bend like the one at the headstock with all the tension it has to take I would want riven wood steam bent to the angle. I'd imagine it's completely impractical for factory construction but it's all I can think of to give the strength you need. Honestly, it seems silly to try for a one piece neck and headstock on a steel strung guitar.
Any luthiers, feel free to point out where I'm wrong. No offense will be taken at all.
I see where your going,
What id be tempted to try is make the headstock a different piece from the neck then glue it in to a slanted dovetail
I love my Les Paul. But I totally agree with this video. I wish Gibson's "modern" models really did leave the past behind. Make something more like an Eclipse. They can still make the traditional models for those that want them.
Being the owner of a 2021 LP Std 60s I agree wholeheartedly. About six months after purchase I noticed that the inlays on the fretboard were off centre, now it’s all I see.
Given that these things are put on jigs these days for the inlays to be cut, I was quite astounded that it could still happen, and worse was that it got through QC (if indeed there is such a thing at Gibson).
Even worse was the attitude from their customer services. Basically they said, so what, here’s another example of bad workmanship. It’s the norm around here.
There also appears to be filled holes on the flame top.
My advice, if you insist on buying a new Gibson - don’t look at it too closely.
To be fair, Gibson did put a volute in, and their customer base screamed blue bloody murder. I've a bunch of guitars with a volute and I quite like them. Mind you one of those with a volute had the head snapped off twice.
The early ones had a 17° headstock angle then they went to a 14° and now back to a 17° headstock .
Regarding the gap in the neck pocket, unless people have x-rayed all the old 50’s and 60’s Les Pauls how do we know some of those didn’t have sloppily fitted necks also?
I think the snapped headstocks are partly a side effect of abusing equipment being part of the rock ‘n’ roll image. For example I don’t think someone using a Les Paul in a jazz band is going yank the headstock back for a makeshift whammy bar. (Slash snapped the headstock off one of his LPs doing that.)
I think the sheer weight of a Les Paul may make them easier to accidentally drop and break.
Another CZcams luthier said in regards to the number of LP headstock breaks he’s had to repair, “stop dropping your guitars people”, (or words to that effect).
I’ve got to be really careful with my Lute. It has roughly a 90 degree break angle. 😁
Heres the thing though, if the guitar is used for stage music, and the guitars frequently break to that use, its not the users job that the tool was not constructed adequately for the job of its intended use.
As to the old ones "how do we not know some of those dident have sloppy neck fits"
Alot of them absolutely did, the idea that 60s guitars where some bastion of quality control is just a mix of nostalgia and post hoc justification on astronomical price tags. As someone whos worked on plenty of old instruments, there was plenty of lemons, it was the same mass production we have now but without the assistance of computers to maintain the tolerances.
if you go to a guitar show and look around you will find many of the high condition collectors guitars from the 50s and 60s have attrocious actions. Because if an instrument is that old and shows little to no wear, than it wasent played much and if it wasent played much in that long theres probably a reason.
Fender jaguars often suffer this because the distributers often dident know or dident disclose the instruments where designed to be set up with a neck pocket shim to a higher or lower angle depending on string gauge. As a result, they are still "inexpencive" novelties even for 60s fenders because 95% of the ones you pick up dont play right
I have a 1981 Les Paul standard a few years ago I lent it on the settee which had wooden arm's , when I stood on the settee to get a cobweb down it fell sideways right across the wooden arm fret board first I was devastated when I picked it up you could see were the strings had made grooves in the arm but to my surprise there was no damage. That was over 20 year's ago , recently I took it to a guitar maker John Levoi in Alford Lincolnshire for a set up and fret dress and it still plays magnificently . The moral of the story his never lean your prized possession against anything lay it in its case I was lucky , I think I'll have a blast now as I'm writing this I'm sat looking at it 🎸😂
I love my les paul. But here some issues: 1. No Locking-Tuners 2. The Position of the tuners 3. Nut has often a not good angle for the strings 4. The angle of the headstock is to big , framus solved it with a better angle or others companies with more wood at the joint 5. sometimes the Bridge and the stoptail are moving, so you have more Intonation problems. Ibanez and other companies solved it with little screws in parts or with bolts which have screws. Good for Intonation and good for Sustain. 6. The cavities are not isolated every time 7. You mentioned it . And so on . But , it is like a woman. Not perfect . I am also not perfect. It is a marriage for life.
I've seen many headstock repair videos and often wondered why Gibson couldn't address this issue during construction of their necks? It wouldn't take more than a few minutes for them route 2 channels at the break angle and install a couple of inserts before shaping! They may be visible if stained, but for the ones that will be painted, it's a no brainer! Just my opinion Ben.
Why are 53/61 Les Paul’s special. They carved the tops and the under side of the maple cap top. This creates a very slight chamber in the centre section when the cap is glued on. This creates a resonance that gives them a distinctive sound when linked to the PAFs. Also the bridges are normally tight or close to the body. As are the tail stops. Most don’t know that as most don’t take the tops off them. This is something that they did only on the 68/69 ones when they reintroduced the model. From 70 onwards they are all flat. That gem came from an article from the 1970s by one of the guys that carved the tops. Also I have seen two 57 gold tops where the gap actually showed in the pick up routs.
Gibson are damned if they do and damned of they don't. They know perfectly well that he design is compromised, but the market wants reproductions of the three magic years 58-60. If you put a volute on as Gibson did in the 70s when owned by Norlin, I bet they would be unable to sell them.
I think the problem really goes back to the initial design. The Les Paul is basically a scaled down jazz box. The hollow jazz boxes were several inches thick and had heavy, heavy strings. A 17 degree headstock angle would be fine on such a guitar. When the Les Paul was designed I bet they just stuck the neck they were already making onto the solid body. Also, most people played sitting down in those days making on stage damage much less likely.
I have said this for years, and a look at Epiphone will show what that neck joint will do with lesser materials and looser quality controls.
It is common advice to tell someone to go play Epis I the shop before buying to make sure you don't get a dud. Between two identical guitars, one might sound like like a cardboard box while the other sings and resonates. The difference is that Epiphone starts with the neck joint loose and shims to fit, while the fretboard to body top sets the neck angle and depth. I have re-set a bunch over the years and what I most commonly see is the neck almost completely cleanly pulled from the socket, only tearing the top part of the pocket away with it. I just did an SG that was given to me because in addition to the neck separating, the guitar "sounds like crap anyway". Upon dissection of the problem, it was apparent that there was a 1/8 inch gap from bottom of tenon to bottom of neck pocket with zero glued surface. The right side of the tenon was set against the pocket side but was so badly cut that there was about 25 percent glued surface. The left side of the tenon was the shimmed surface and had a piece of 1/32 shim stock about 1/4 inch wide making contact between the tenon and the pocket. The fretboard was doing most of the work holding that neck in.
I squared the tenon, built up the lower surface and shimmed the neck pocket trying to achieve as close to 100 percent glueing surface as I could. The change to the guitar is remarkable. It is so resonant and lively now, and rings loud enough I can play it unplugged while practicing. Sustain is beautiful and she sounds just amazing!
I honestly think many of the kits on the market have better neck joints than a Gibson/Epi.
I currently have a 1992 Cherry burst -- and I've had other Les Pauls + loads of Lawsuit models(Antoria - Ibanez etc) . The Lawsuit models can exhibit quality construction miles better than Gibson - especially necks and fretwork. However I have never personally broken a headstock( luckily) but have repaired many breaks for others. Dear Ben, see if you can get hold of a Memphis edition Antoria (set neck) and compare with Gibbo. I'm sure you'll be astonished.
Problem is the Gibson fanboys want the guitars made the same way as they did in the 50s! That's why you don't see as many 70s les Paul's wit h the headstock snap because of the large volute but the Gibson fans hate them! The SG will snap at the heel because of the way they set the neck then get rid if of all the wood for the pickup! Gibson will not change the way they manufacture their guitars because sales will drop massively...
Makes sense to me , that installing neck to body would be done before fretboard . Also I never thought they needed 14• for headstock
That's an insight into the quality control of the modern Gibsons. I'm sure some of the manufacturing methods have changed slightly but this shouldn't be compromising the craftmanship of these high-end guitars.
I wonder if, when buying a Gibson, we are buying into a badge and an historical reputation above buying a guitar. The legendary Gibson is exactly that. A thing of great beauty from the past. We want a piece of what our heroes had from times gone by, creating a sound no human had heard before. Like the cosmic background radiation, that history still glows bright. We want a facsimile of what was.
I get it. Totally. But it is a bit sad.
Anyway, have you done a lefty guitar draw thing yet? Did I miss it? ;))
There was smallprint on a couple of the descriptions for the ubiquitous models that they'd get you a lefty on request if you won. I haven't paid much attention to the smallprint lately and they've tended to be vintage items rather than new stock, but it might be worth double checking.
They were also toying with an idea of tickets to win a cost-capped crimson custom build, that could be lefty if that's what the winner wanted.
I watched this, because you are a very experienced Luther. I have looked inside many Les Pauls, including mine. I can see your obvious shock. You are absolutely right. Mine also has a volute. Let me know when you are delving into pickups.
Also how about a buff, it looks pretty clean. What kind of wood is under the black face? Would it look good stripped?
i have a black 81 les paul deluxe with a 3 piece maple neck and a 3 piece maple cap,, got it in 88, it never gives trouble, never goes out of tune nothing has ever gone wrong on it, its been in bellies of planes and the neck has never moved, and despite the mini humbuckers it plays and sounds like a good les paul is supposed to, i think it has proved itself as being a good example, its more battered than the one you have there, theres no finish left on it, it aint pretty and it weighs a ton, i wont sell it though because its got it where it counts where other more modern les pauls ive tried just dont
I love Les Pauls but I believe they put the fretboard on after setting the neck back in the day. I am not sure if binding was before or after. I doubt they would have put the frets in ahead of time.
Just nothing like a Gibson Les Paul. Mine are amazing guitars! I don’t have the issues others talk about. Mine stay in tune and play, sound and feel amazing!
The design is fine. Don't confuse this with bad manufacturing. Gibsons don't break. Careless people break them. Bad fitting original cases dont help either. I've owned over 50 Gibsons from the '30s onwards. Never broken one. My main three have been played to death and will outlive me. I dont think volutes make any difference. In fact they present a whole wide area of end grain where a crack can start. Dont lean your Gibson on anything or on a crappy stand. Dont leave it plugged in on the stand.You'll be fine
If your interested you could give Heritage guitar a call as some of their employees used to be with Gibson those that haven't retired I am guessing they may still have some insights in to old Gibson manufacturing design. I am wondering if you have had a chance to check the Norlin era 1970s Gibsons as their used to do their neck in a 3 strip maple neck with Rosewood or ebony fret boards with slightly large head stocks and a lesser angle of 14 degrees as opposed to 17 or 18 degree tilt.
I think you're right about the older ones being made with more care. Gluing the fretboard to the neck before fitting it to the body seems wrong to me, but I guess the Gibson factory has some reason why it's got to go on first. My money is on cost savings somewhere in the chain.
It would be really interesting to x-ray some of these guitars from different decades and see if the neck joints have issues across the board, or if it's only the newer ones.
It's easier to shape the neck with the the fingerboard glued to it. It saves awkward sanding by the top bout where the neck joins the body. Gibson also used a straight tenon without the little ledge on the heel where it butts up to the body.Good wood was more readily available in the 50's and was also properly seasoned. Cheers
Andrew
Well you sold me, I agree I have a 78 with the valuate and it has been a gem, when many people around have had the neck break specially SG's there are allot of Black Gibson's for some reason. The old Gibson factory in Kalamazoo, Heritage Guitars they may be able to answer any of your Questions since they have many of the old machines and build patterns
I was selling Gibsons back in the days when they started making three-piece necks and or/ volutes. Of course, to this day, some people think that was horrible. It was done because there were problems with headstocks breaking off. At that same time in the early-to-mid '70s, I changed tuners on a whole bunch of Gibson and Martin guitars in northwest Florida ... I only used hand tools and noted how dry the "saw dust" was that was created by the process ... it was like powder. Could have been due to A/C units and heaters sucking out the moisture. And most likely, Gibson USA is not going to build the same quality into their instruments as they do in the Custom Shop, including and especially in the quality of woods and tenon length and care taken ...
Well, put it to the test. Take one of them, remove the fretboard, and inspect the joint. That will give you the answer of whether you found one with an issue or if this is an issue fairly across the builds.
But with long tenon joint you could see if there's a gap by looking at the pickup cavity. The longer joint would have more glue surface anyways and a small gap wouldn't matter that much. On the other hand, I have a feeling it doesn't matter that much anyways but what do I know.
I have a question since you are a builder. I read once that when Gibson did have volutes in the seventies & early eighties they were put in the wrong place so they didn’t do much to help prevent breaks in practice. I know the Norlin era is often looked down on but at least they tried to make some changes to fix some of the problems with Gibson designs (of course they also supposedly over-braced the acoustic guitars to prevent warranty repairs so it wasn’t all good changes).
I forgot to ask my question. Do you believe the volute design Gibson used helped protect neck breaks or was it a failed design?
I've recently picked up a Les Paul (2002 Special), just held it up against my Crimson (custom, built by Christopher). The headstock angle on the Crimson is way lower than that on the Gibson... and the Crimson has a nice chunky volute... which aside from being stronger is nice to rest your thumb again. I took my Les Paul for setup work with my favourite tech and its great now, but there was basic stuff wrong with it when I got it.
It makes me wonder if they only do this for the production guitars like the standards, classics and lower priced Gibson's. Perhaps they do build them as you say (the correct way) for the more expensive reissues, custom shops and Murphy labs guitars. Since they're more expensive and aren't as worried about pushing out volume, on top of supposedly being reproduction models, like the Gibson usa shop is. Just a thought don't know if it really works that way.
Hang on. I was under the impression that Gibson actually attempted to correct the lack of volute problem and met extreme customer resistance and were actually forced by public demand to return to the weaker and incorrect neck design, proving that the consumer is not always right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to know.
They did. Volutes, robo-tuners, short neck tenons, pancake bodies, access heel carves, PCB electronics - any attempt at modernising is generally frowned upon by their masses. But that's not really the crux of this vid. It's about neck pocket construction order potentially not being done the traditional way, despite them (and like you say, their customers) making such a big deal about how they still use and desire traditional vintage processes.
We can argue that blindly adhering to tradition arguably makes a worse product. But the crux in this vid is the opposite - they're potentially not doing it the traditional way. Owners will be horrified if it's true - will there be lines of vintage-incorrect Gibsons infront of steamrollers? 😱😉
Your right, I didn't care much for Gibson guitars until 2016 2017 when they cam out with the High performance series, I bought a green ocean burst and blueberry bust, both HP guitars. Everyone complained, I love these ones. To get an access neck like those you have to buy custom shop a 6k, my green ocean burst at the time was 2700 Canadian. Smoking deal as far as I was concerned
@@PaulCooksStuff Thanks for that. Very informative and kind of you. I had got the idea (perhaps incorrectly) that Ben was claiming (incorreclty in my opinion) that Gibson had never tried a volute. I did understand (and was shocked by) his issue with hollow neck pockets. I didn't know about that beforehand and found it really shocking.
Good old Biff Byford. Loved Saxon in my youth.
They're still going strong.
They did indeed change the headstock angle to 12- 14 degrees (approximately) in the 90's but, changed back to 15 -17 degrees (they vary) later ...also had volutes for awhile.
The whole headstock issue scratches my head. Epiphone does a scarf joint neck. I'm sold on making laminate necks, 7 degree headstock angles, and volutes because I don't have a 100 year tradition to back my work up. Volutes are so easy and kinda sexy.
Then there is the whole 1 way truss rod and bowed channel thing. Why?
My recent efforts in making neck through guitars sold me on the index the fretboard early, put it on last philosophy. You can't bind the fretboard otherwise. My GGBO 2023 entry is going to have some Les Paul construction elements and I want an angled neck but against a flat top so the idea of planing down the top to the level needed to support the fretboard makes perfect sense to me. And it can be done that way just by spot gluing the neck in temporarily.
I have thought for years that their neck angles are all over the place. I bought three Les pauls before I learned what to look for. I have the bridges bottomed out on the body and the strings are still to high to be considered low action. I suspect they do this to avoid having to put fall-away in the last several frets. I see this issue on just about every Les Paul I pick up.
I met Uncle Trev once in a guitar shop in Dursley. What was going to be a short visit turned into an afternoon absorbing as much of his knowledge and philosophy as possible.
I think some people love the way a Gibson neck feels, because is it feels like it could snap under string tension at any moment. This maybe makes the neck feel more lively in your hand. Just a thought, but I could be completely wrong.
I looked at a LP kinda mean one time and SNAP! off went the headstock. However, in a childish fit of anger I threw a Strat at a fireplace and all I had to do was tune it, it didn't even go out of strobe.
I like the way volutes look and feel. How well do they really help prevent breaks at that joint?
Great video, thank you. A few years ago I ordered a Epiphone Les Paul as my first "Gibson" style guitar. When I went to pick it up from the shop they told me the head was broken clean off when they opened the box so I had to wait for another to be sent out. This video explains why...
This is one reason I have a tele custom deluxe instead of a Les Paul. Love the sound, hate the neck joint. Drop a Tele you repair the floor.
I’ve built 6 LPs of different specs. I agree that if you were to redesign the build it could be done better. I made a few with a thinner mahogany back and I make the neck joint fit the hand better. I sold off all my fenders and Gibson’s in 2010 because I can make a much better guitar for well under a grand.
Great post I heard a long time ago that the Gibson neck would be better if the truss rod adjustment was at the heel of the neck so there would be more meat on the bone at the headstock? Any truth do you think ? Cheers I love your channel 👌
I guess that’s why so many Gibson LP’s have the bridge cranked way off the body? Knew something was amiss!
I don’t think there is any added strength by glueing the end of the neck in the joint; in fact I’m aware of builders who purposefully leave a more substantial gap…
Gibson has a 1967 tour video a year ago I think if that helps.
czcams.com/video/3-zOaOYB120/video.html
At 9:12 in that video, we can see that even in 1967 they were gluing the fretboard to the neck prior to assembly.
I've seen many 1970's gibson guitars (Norlin era with volutes) with broken headstocks. The volute added very little (if any) additional strength to the neck / headstock. The bottom line is Gibson guitars need to be cared for like any fine wooden instrument. When they are not being played they need to be in the case. When shipping them the strings need to loosed and the headstock needs to be properly supported. If the player doesn't understand that then they need to look to different brands Fender, PRS, etc.
Some Gibson cases break the headstock.
One properly set scarf joint would fix most of the Gibson decapitations. "It's tradition" (AKA "we've always done it this way") is the worst reasoning to continue with a poor practice.
I read through the comments below to see if anyone would mention that
some players believe their Les Paul's sound _better_ after a neck break repair.
Garry Moore thought so!