Build Quality

[PlukkyBoy]

I am certainly guilty of owning more than my fair share of one or two piece body guitars. To me it makes a certain sense that a one piece body should sound different than a multi piece body but I haven't done anywhere near enough research to know if anyone can "hear the glue" or otherwise - I would imagine some people can, otherwise luthiers wouldn't get excited about finding big boards that they can get one piece bodies out of.

But if it does make a difference, why do 335s and Danelectros sound so good? Why was one of the best teles I have played one with a 3 piece body (because it was originally an opaque finish).

Maybe I just prefer a one piece body because to me they *look* like they are "made better" than the alternatives:

[calling card]

My house has a load bearing beam laminated like that.

So long as the wood is good it takes about $800 and lots of free labour to make a cheapy into something worth playing. My last guitar buy was a Japan 62ri for $900, all the work done as is and a Fender logo and nitro for free.

[ash]

Number of pieces of wood....

It's a tough one to quantify on a number of levels, which makes it a confusing and easily misrepresented factor. The short answer is, like everything - yes, it matters. BUT! How much does it matter? Are you ears good enough to tell? How many pieces does it need to be before you can tell? If you can tell, is is worse or just different?

Lots of people insist that they can tell, but I think most of them are dreaming. The number of people in the world who have done actual back-to-back testing with the same piece(s) of wood is probably less than have been into Space. Speculation and low-sample anecdotal evidence can only get you so far before you're just plain guessing.

Take a look at some legendary tone machines - '59 Les Paul, '63 Strat, '58 335

How many pieces is the body on each?
LP = 3
Strat = 3
335 = 16

What about the necks?
LP = 4
Strat = 3
335 = 4

"Oh, but you can't count the bookmatched top or the fretboard or the truss rod filler or the laminations!!"

Why not? They all get slapped up with glue. They all present an interface to waves moving within the structure.


So, feel free to consider the number of pieces your guitar is made of, but do compare apples with apples. Almost none of the most famous tone machines support the theory that you need a one-piece body.

My preference is generally for a two piece body for stability and symmetry in the final product, cost and availability in the pre-production stage.
Leo Fender originally specified three piece bodies with the glue joints away from the core of the guitar. I think that's a perfectly valid idea too.
One-piece bodies are great, but they have drawbacks. Timber over 250mm wide is hard to get and much more expensive. When you can get it, the chances of it being the required quality or cut is very low. The chances of cupping or splitting goes way up. The time required to ideally dry and season doubles. I'm lucky to have found several stocks of wood for one-piece (anything) bodies and necks that meet all the usual criteria, but that doesn't mean I'm going to use it all on Radians. There are some one-piece Radians around, but most are two or three piece and a couple four piece. I wouldn't bother going more than that because for one thing I don't need to, because laminating lots of pieces is a pain in the butt, but also because there's always some golden-earred genius who will make something of it, whether there is something to hear or not.

Next time you see a lovely Les Paul with a one-piece mahogany back, ask yourself, is it one piece of the only 350mm wide scrap stock they could find? Or would you be better off with a three-piece back of actual decent wood?

Ever wonder why Gibson drill lightening holes in most of their Les Paul models now? It's because light one-piece backs are so hard to get that they're not going to waste them on standard production models when they have people queuing up to buy custom shop models at triple the price. They use the heavier, less desirable wood and drill all the weight out of it. While everyone's wailing and gnashing their teeth at horrible old Gibson and their cheapo chambering tactics, some of the most desirable corksniffy boutique luthiers in the whole World do exactly the same thing. Gustavsson and McInturff, for example, and they charge MEGABUCKS and rightly so.

If anyone wants to fund it, I'd be quite happy to build some test bodies to put on trial

[Capt. Black]

This thread has been full of win. Despite the Rhettoric.

Regarding how many peices in a body.

Tokai, Greco etc. are recreating how gibsons were built in the '50s and '60s.

Gibson are recreating how they build them now.

[PlukkyBoy]

Thanks Adrian.

Cool post as ever.

[GrantB]

Tokai, Greco etc. are recreating how gibsons were built in the '50s and '60s.

.

[Pastasauce]

Capt - aww.

Ash - thanks man. This is why I love being a part of this forum.

[Capt. Black]

[handsoffmatt]

If anyone could pick a 1, 2, 3 or 7 piece body in a blind test with any degree of accuracy, I'll give them $100.

Differences in tone boils down (largely) to
- wood species
- pickups
- hardware
Out of these things, pickups are by FAR the biggest influence.

Build quality is how well the thing is put together. Including things like...

- tightness of neck-body joins
- fretwork
- correct neck angle (probably the largest tonal factor)
- humidity control throughout the build process
- finishing (thin as possible whilst still looking good)

A lot of this stuff is invisible to the inexperienced (consumers AND salespeople) but those of us who have been in the industry a while can tell you a lot about these things.

Gibson scored a bad rep for quality due to some questionable quality throughout the 1970's and 1980's. They started coming right in the late 1990's (although still very inconsistent). I've gotta say though, quality-wise they've been producing great build quality on pretty much everything since around 2008 I reckon.

Those Tributes (and a lot of the newer, cheaper Gibson models) are an interesting one though. They have good general build quality, but I wouldn't call them great guitars. The fretwork and fret edges are not the best and they have obviously skimped a LOT on the final neck shaping and the finishing process. They are really cool guitars....but GREAT guitars they are not. They don't hold a candle to a Standard.

All of the above is just my opinion of course....

[willow13]

If anyone could pick a 1, 2, 3 or 7 piece body in a blind test with any degree of accuracy, I'll give them $100.

Differences in tone boils down (largely) to
- wood species
- pickups
- hardware
Out of these things, pickups are by FAR the biggest influence.

also not forgetting the amp you're running into as well

[handsoffmatt]

If anyone could pick a 1, 2, 3 or 7 piece body in a blind test with any degree of accuracy, I'll give them $100.

Differences in tone boils down (largely) to
- wood species
- pickups
- hardware
Out of these things, pickups are by FAR the biggest influence.

also not forgetting the amp you're running into as well

Naturally.....but that's a little OT and a WHOLE nother thread..

[willow13]

If anyone could pick a 1, 2, 3 or 7 piece body in a blind test with any degree of accuracy, I'll give them $100.

Differences in tone boils down (largely) to
- wood species
- pickups
- hardware
Out of these things, pickups are by FAR the biggest influence.

also not forgetting the amp you're running into as well

Naturally.....but that's a little OT and a WHOLE nother thread..

which i'm sure he has already started


matt any price on these yet http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electri ... A/LPJ.aspx .... very interested in the rubbed vintage burst

[PlukkyBoy]

But say I had $1500 to burn on a guitar. Maybe an SG, a Les Paul... maybe a Tele. What options are there outside of the above two, when it comes to the absolute best build quality I'd get for that price?

And an off-the-wall response to the OP:

A budget of $1500 in NZ gives you about US$850 (allowing for shipping and import duty) to spend in the US which can get you a used Hamer USA guitar fairly easily - very good build quality, usually have Seymour Duncan pickups.

[Pastasauce]

Those Tributes (and a lot of the newer, cheaper Gibson models) are an interesting one though. They have good general build quality, but I wouldn't call them great guitars. The fretwork and fret edges are not the best and they have obviously skimped a LOT on the final neck shaping and the finishing process. They are really cool guitars....but GREAT guitars they are not. They don't hold a candle to a Standard.

This!

When I play my Les Paul Studio I feel like it's a cool guitar but not a great guitar. The multi-piece body and the way the red stain is visible a tiny bit on the side of the fretboard where it joins the body all say to me that it wasn't crafted with total care, even though it plays great and sounds like I expect a Les Paul to sound.

But if I were to drop $1500-2000 on a guitar, I'd want it to be great not just cool. I'd want to know the wood was reasonably top quality (not necessarily that it was one piece of mahogany oiled with the tears of little African children... but just good, you know). And I'd want to know it was crafted well - that it was something I could keep my whole life and pass on to my kids.

That's partly what's driving my interest in SG Standards... because LP Standards are so darn expensive. My thinking is, maybe if I got an SG Standard for closer to one grand than two it might turn out to be a great SG.

So maybe I could narrow the question... if you had $2000 to spend on a sensibly shaped, humbucker equipped, versatile rock guitar that you knew was going to be great, what would you get?

[slash-ed]

Your Studio doesn't fall into the same bracket as the Tributes.

For $2000 I'd wait for a LP Std/Classic to show up on TM.