# Gibson "good wood era"?



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

I've seen this term used- especially when someone is selling a Gibson - and I really don't follow what is going on here. It's usually applied to turn of the last century CS stuff and also the early 90's studio LPs.
Does anyone have any factual - and I _really mean _*factual *info on this?
I get to play Gibsons from all the various time periods and I just don't see/hear any difference at all from any model until you go back to the 50's and 60's models. There are differences in build quality related to the price points -and era- of various models but, comparing apples to apples, I'm at a loss to explain the "good wood" thing. Anyone have inside intel on this?


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

I've never seen anyone mention good wood in relation to 90's Studio LPs. More the fact that they were essentially Standards without the binding and the fact that they had ebony fretboards. Wouldn't most LP's at the time been made with the same or similar wood? I'm sure Studios and Standards were.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Guncho said:


> Wouldn't most LP's at the time been made with the same or similar wood? I'm sure Studios and Standards were.


that's what I would think. I've seen the term applied to not just the studios of that era as well though.

It strikes me as the same kind of thing as the "lawsuit era" Japanese guitars. People just attach that label to any old POS bolt neck les Paul copy from the 70's and ask $2k for them. 

WRT Gibson, I've never seen evidence of this "good wood era" claim.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Maybe Honduran vs African mahogany? And I know most of us have heard the term boat anchor when talking about some older LP's.... I remember being out with my brother in law hitting all the pawn shops and we found one of those boat anchors. My god that thing weighed a ton compared to anything I had on hand. So they are not all the same.


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

I don’t have facts. I do have scuttlebutt.
Not mine, but a good quote, best I could find.
“It refers to the period from about 1989 to 2005, during which Gibson upped their QC game on regular production instruments to compete with PRS production instruments, which were constantly threatening to eat Gibson's lunch. So Gibson chose to compete fiercely and created consistently high quality instruments. Then PRS introduced the Singlecut in 2001, Gibson lost more ground despite their continued hard work, and they decided to sue instead, which was litigation they lost in 2005. So they then decided to chuck the whole being competitive thing all together, and began hogging out Les Pauls in 2006. So sellers coined this term "good wood years" as a reference to that earlier period of Gibson's history.”


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

My "good wood" era is slowly fading with age.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

bzrkrage said:


> I don’t have facts. I do have scuttlebutt.
> Not mine, but a good quote, best I could find.
> “It refers to the period from about 1989 to 2005, during which Gibson upped their QC game on regular production instruments to compete with PRS production instruments, which were constantly threatening to eat Gibson's lunch. So Gibson chose to compete fiercely and created consistently high quality instruments. Then PRS introduced the Singlecut in 2001, Gibson lost more ground despite their continued hard work, and they decided to sue instead, which was litigation they lost in 2005. So they then decided to chuck the whole being competitive thing all together, and began hogging out Les Pauls in 2006. So sellers coined this term "good wood years" as a reference to that earlier period of Gibson's history.”


Ah, so nothing to do with wood choice at all then. They just tried harder. lol.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

zztomato said:


> I've seen this term used- especially when someone is selling a Gibson - and I really don't follow what is going on here. It's usually applied to turn of the last century CS stuff and also the early 90's studio LPs.
> Does anyone have any factual - and I _really mean _*factual *info on this?
> I get to play Gibsons from all the various time periods and I just don't see/hear any difference at all from any model until you go back to the 50's and 60's models. There are differences in build quality related to the price points -and era- of various models but, comparing apples to apples, I'm at a loss to explain the "good wood" thing. Anyone have inside intel on this?



It is a load of shit, an internet myth that people are dumb enough to believe and that some seize upon when trying to sell a guitar. Complete load of bollocks.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

knight_yyz said:


> Maybe Honduran vs African mahogany? And I know most of us have heard the term boat anchor when talking about some older LP's.... I remember being out with my brother in law hitting all the pawn shops and we found one of those boat anchors. My god that thing weighed a ton compared to anything I had on hand. So they are not all the same.


A few months ago I bought a crappy SG Special so that it could be set up for me learning slide (please don't ask how that is going). That fucking thing weighs a metric ton.


----------



## Jaime (Mar 29, 2020)

I kinda lump this label in with the classic "this is the best guitar I have ever played" descriptor when someone is selling a guitar.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> A few months ago I bought a crappy SG Special so that it could be set up for me learning slide (please don't ask how that is going). That fucking thing weighs a metric ton.


You DID know that the slide goes on your* fret* hand, right?  Just checking.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

As an organic material that is grown to the specs of the tree, rather than the commercial manufacturer, there are several things germane:
1) The age and type of raw lumber obtained (and here, bans on the harvesting or importation of certain species from various regions plays a role).
2) The selection of that raw lumber.
3) The treatment and curing/drying/storage of the lumber.
4) The way it is cut.
5) The manner in which it is selected for a given model.
6) Whether it is a solid plank or the body is a bunch of glued pieces.
7) The thickness of the body and overall weight balance.
8) The match between neck and body.

It is entirely possible that a company can exhibit more stringent criteria for each of those steps/stages, or for some subset, during this period, compared to that one. It is entirely possible that a given model is redesigned, or its commercial fabrication rejigged in some manner, that complements or works against use of some particular wood source. It is entirely possible that a particular source opens up or shuts down during some period.

And, as I like to remind folks, not all woods are available in the sort of quantity and quality that will sustain a product intended for higher-volume production. There may be enough of a reliable supply of a particular species and quality to sustain production of something you figure on selling maybe 1000 of during a year, but much less than enough for something you hope to market 10-20,000 of in that year.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## 1979 930 (Oct 13, 2019)

This makes me think of what is happening in the watch world right now. Different names are added like « batman », « sofia loren », « big 9 », etc. This gives the illusion that you are buying something special. Auctioneers love this. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guitar world got hit by a wave similar to this. For example a black stat from the 70s could be a « black eye » strat, etc.

cheers


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I own an early '90's LP studio....it is actually stunning and sounds wonderful. Bought it before i'd ever heard the term "good wood era", just dumb luck.
I love ebony boards, so that was a big part of what attracted me to it...and it has a great flamey maple top...so, I could live without the binding when compared to a "higher-grade" LP.
heres a very old pic, its to the right of the Tele.








I think I saw one similar to mine sell on here a while back, which was surprising.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I own an early '90's LP studio....it is actually stunning and sounds wonderful. Bought it before i'd ever heard the term "good wood era", just dumb luck.
> I love ebony boards, so that was a big part of what attracted me to it...and it has a great flamey maple top...so, I could live without the binding when compared to a "higher-grade" LP.
> heres a very old pic, its to the right of the Tele.
> View attachment 334706
> ...


There are some nice guitars there.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

butterknucket said:


> There are some nice guitars there.


Thanks!
Its about half of my arsenal, wasnt room on the sofa for all of them.
The strat has moved on though. Wish I kept it actually, but it wasnt seeing much love in my house.


----------



## DavidP (Mar 7, 2006)

Well I know from direct experience that Norlin era (ca. 70s - early 80s) had wood the density of lead. That was also the period that equated heavy weight = increased sustain... I had a LP Pro that I called "Led Paul" -- it could have easily doubled as a boat anchor!


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

I have a 90's standard and while it sounds fantastic it is a heavy beast of a guitar. easily between 9-10lbs.

It appears to have a 1 piece back too.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Moosehead said:


> I have a 90's standard and while it sounds fantastic it is a heavy beast of a guitar. easily between 9-10lbs.
> 
> It appears to have a 1 piece back too.


So...remove the Bigsby and you have a 8-9 lb Standard? Isn't that a normal weight?


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

mhammer said:


> As an organic material that is grown to the specs of the tree, rather than the commercial manufacturer, there are several things germane:
> 1) The age and type of raw lumber obtained (and here, bans on the harvesting or importation of certain species from various regions plays a role).
> 2) The selection of that raw lumber.
> 3) The treatment and curing/drying/storage of the lumber.
> ...


So, what are you saying then? WRT Gibson, bunch of BS or fact?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Jaime said:


> I kinda lump this label in with the classic "this is the best guitar I have ever played" descriptor when someone is selling a guitar.


You mean the ones that play like butter, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> You DID know that the slide goes on your* fret* hand, right?  Just checking.


Yeah but that ain't helping any!

I wish I could find a local teacher. There is a guy in a slide guitar group on Facebook who is in Cambridge who posts online lessons that seem good. He offers online video lessons so I might just go that route.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> I own an early '90's LP studio....it is actually stunning and sounds wonderful. Bought it before i'd ever heard the term "good wood era", just dumb luck.
> I love ebony boards, so that was a big part of what attracted me to it...and it has a great flamey maple top...so, I could live without the binding when compared to a "higher-grade" LP.
> heres a very old pic, its to the right of the Tele.
> View attachment 334706
> ...


Because of my recent Gretsch purchase (very quickly becoming my #1 and I think I finally know what it feels like to have found 'the one'), I am more attracted to your Gretsch than your other guitars. She's a beauty and looks similar to mine.


----------



## Permanent Waves (Jun 2, 2020)

I've read that one often in Kijiji ads (probably from the same seller) and I don't believe it. I think he uses 1993 as the cutoff year where afterwards, apparently all the wood in the world became bad. Coincides with the opening of the Gibson Custom Shop, so maybe he thinks that all the good wood went there and everything else was crap. As far as I could tell there is no basis in fact for this but sellers like to perpetuate these myths when it benefits them.

As zztomato mentioned, the one that annoys me the most is Lawsuit - that word should be banned from ads. A lot of these sellers like to spread the mythology that in the 70's, these Japanese companies were making instruments of such greater quality that American companies sued them, while in fact, it was Gibson suing to have them stop using the open-book headstock shape. I've had 70's Ibanez with both types of headstocks and there is no difference in quality. I still can't believe I see 70's LP copies listed for the same amount you could buy the real deal.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

zztomato said:


> So, what are you saying then? WRT Gibson, bunch of BS or fact?


I'm saying sometimes you get more attention paid to the wood, at all of the enumerated stages, and sometimes you don't. I suppose that can happen with a change in management, or staff. And sometimes it's entirely out of your control when the model continues but the wood source doesn't. It's also the case that wood changes with age. More likely to happen with acoustics, where the inside is not sealed with some sort of finish, and can breathe, than with solid bodies.

There are some things that can be assigned to this year and that, like pickups (a change from flat polepieces to staggered height, or this wire gauge to that one, from this date to that), but those are things where all aspects are under the manufacturer's control. Wood strikes me as being in a somewhat different category. For large manufacturers, I would imagine that the raw timber is bought many years before it ever hits the rack at L&M or Sweetwater. It has to be dried, seasoned, whatever the word is, and that's going to take some time, conceivably even straddling management and staff changes.

BTW, I have an older "lawsuit era" Ibanez LP copy and it is a piece of crap. The bolt-on neck is too damn thin and the body is actually fairly hollow, with some formed plywood making the top and back, and some braces inside to give it rigidity. If I was Gibson, I would have sued for impacting on Gibson's reputation with such cheap bodies. That is, after all, one of the foundations of trademark law:* you* can't make a product that looks like mine but is so inferior in quality as to damage the consumer perception of *my* product.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

mhammer said:


> I'm saying sometimes you get more attention paid to the wood, at all of the enumerated stages, and sometimes you don't. I suppose that can happen with a change in management, or staff. And sometimes it's entirely out of your control when the model continues but the wood source doesn't. It's also the case that wood changes with age. More likely to happen with acoustics, where the inside is not sealed with some sort of finish, and can breathe, than with solid bodies.
> 
> There are some things that can be assigned to this year and that, like pickups (a change from flat polepieces to staggered height, or this wire gauge to that one, from this date to that), but those are things where all aspects are under the manufacturer's control. Wood strikes me as being in a somewhat different category. For large manufacturers, I would imagine that the raw timber is bought many years before it ever hits the rack at L&M or Sweetwater. It has to be dried, seasoned, whatever the word is, and that's going to take some time, conceivably even straddling management and staff changes.
> 
> BTW, I have an older "lawsuit era" Ibanez LP copy and it is a piece of crap. The bolt-on neck is too damn thin and the body is actually fairly hollow, with some formed plywood making the top and back, and some braces inside to give it rigidity. If I was Gibson, I would have sued for impacting on Gibson's reputation with such cheap bodies. That is, after all, one of the foundations of trademark law:* you* can't make a product that looks like mine but is so inferior in quality as to damage the consumer perception of *my* product.


Yup. All true. Probably not true that Gibson was in an "era" of good practices -be it wood selection or less on the job drinking- from 1993-2005 or whatever the claims are.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

i wonder if theres something to the weight aspect.


colchar said:


> Because of my recent Gretsch purchase (very quickly becoming my #1 and I think I finally know what it feels like to have found 'the one'), I am more attracted to your Gretsch than your other guitars. She's a beauty and looks similar to mine.


Brian setzer model, you should see it up close...more tiger stripes than Tony. My wife had surprisingly good taste when she got it for me for Xmas 10years ago.
my Tele is dreamy too...fender select, bought it from a well known member here.
knowing you as I do, you would probably like my 83 Explorer as well 
i need to re stage a pic with all my a-list guitars together. I tended to mix them up when I took pics.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Permanent Waves said:


> I've read that one often in Kijiji ads (probably from the same seller) and I don't believe it. I think he uses 1993 as the cutoff year where afterwards, apparently all the wood in the world became bad. Coincides with the opening of the Gibson Custom Shop, so maybe he thinks that all the good wood went there and everything else was crap. As far as I could tell there is no basis in fact for this but sellers like to perpetuate these myths when it benefits them.
> 
> As zztomato mentioned, the one that annoys me the most is Lawsuit - that word should be banned from ads. A lot of these sellers like to spread the mythology that in the 70's, these Japanese companies were making instruments of such greater quality that American companies sued them, while in fact, it was Gibson suing to have them stop using the open-book headstock shape. I've had 70's Ibanez with both types of headstocks and there is no difference in quality. I still can't believe I see 70's LP copies listed for the same amount you could buy the real deal.


I gotta admit, I never understood the hype around the Japanese lawsuit era guitars either.
in the 80’s you couldn’t give one away for firewood. Now theyre “vintage” lol. Not saying they’re all crap...Ibanez usually did a good job. But the mystique over most of them is greatly overrated IMO. Better modern options for not much more money.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

could they be referencing the Richlite era, when they say that?


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I gotta admit, I never understood the hype around the Japanese lawsuit era guitars either.
> in the 80’s you couldn’t give one away for firewood. Now theyre “vintage” lol. Not saying they’re all crap...Ibanez usually did a good job. But the mystique over most of them is greatly overrated IMO. Better modern options for not much more money.


some of those old Tokai's are killer gtrs


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

It’s hard to criticize terms like “good wood” when we can’t even properly define or quantify the word “tone”, which is more over used and meaningless yet leads to billions of dollars of sales every year, in the pursuit of it.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

bolero said:


> some of those old Tokai's are killer gtrs


And some, absolute pieces of shit.
i think that’sthe problem with that niche of guitars. It’s a spin of a roulette wheel if you get a sleeper gem or old trash.

i dont know what makes a guitar sound good, honestly. I have a $500 peavey with fake photo quilted top, Jack Daniels logos and weighs almost nothing, but sounds as huge as some Gibson historics. Makes no sense.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

zztomato said:


> Yup. All true. Probably not true that Gibson was in an "era" of good practices -be it wood selection or less on the job drinking- from 1993-2005 or whatever the claims are.


I remember reading a review of the 2002 LP Standard (of which I own one). The review did focus on an improved era at Gibson and really favoured the 2002 model. I would agree that mine is an amazing instrument.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> i wonder if theres something to the weight aspect.
> 
> Brian setzer model, you should see it up close...more tiger stripes than Tony. My wife had surprisingly good taste when she got it for me for Xmas 10years ago.
> my Tele is dreamy too...fender select, bought it from a well known member here.
> ...


I would like the Explorer, but honestly the Gretsch I just bought has been a game changer for me.

Those Setzer models are awesome. If I was ever to buy a top of the line Gretsch it would come down to one of those or a White Falcon.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

bolero said:


> could they be referencing the Richlite era, when they say that?


Nope, nothing to do with it. The 'good wood era' bullshit was around long before Gibson was forced to use Richlite.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

allthumbs56 said:


> I remember reading a review of the 2002 LP Standard (of which I own one). The review did focus on an improved era at Gibson and really favoured the 2002 model. I would agree that mine is an amazing instrument.


I can't remember the last time I read a critical review of any piece of music gear. We're such a bunch of suckers...
BTW, I am in no way implying in this thread that Gibson is not making great guitars. I'd just say that, in comparison over the last 30 years, I can't point to this early 90s to early 2000s as anything more special. In fact they've put out some great stuff in the last 10 years- apart from the adjustable brass nut and robot tuner era. 😁


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

zztomato said:


> I've seen this term used- especially when someone is selling a Gibson - and I really don't follow what is going on here. It's usually applied to turn of the last century CS stuff and also the early 90's studio LPs.
> Does anyone have any factual - and I _really mean _*factual *info on this?
> I get to play Gibsons from all the various time periods and I just don't see/hear any difference at all from any model until you go back to the 50's and 60's models. There are differences in build quality related to the price points -and era- of various models but, comparing apples to apples, I'm at a loss to explain the "good wood" thing. Anyone have inside intel on this?


In the early 2000's, there were a lot of complaints about the quality of the guitars and the woods used. Now, apparently they are sought after. In 2007, that was suppose to be another banner year for woods and from my limited experience, It seems that a lot of the owners of 2007 Gibson's were stating that. 2012 was suppose to be "bad" because of the laminate issue but some of my favourite Gibson's were from that year. From personal experience, the latest stuff coming out of Gibson has been really great. Really since 2009 when they started making tweaks to the pickups and assembly of the guitars, they have been improving. How much of the wood quality has changed is a good question but the end result is the instruments being built now are as good or better playing and sounding than any period. ymmv.


----------



## Tim Plains (Apr 14, 2009)

zztomato said:


> Does anyone have any factual - and I _really mean _*factual *info on this?


Nobody does and never will because their claims are not fact based.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Tim Plains said:


> Nobody does and never will because their claims are not fact based.


Absolutely. I see it in kijiji ads a bit but it shows up on reverb a lot it seems.
I think someone somewhere put forward a theory about 90s Gibsons having better wood and it just stuck. Or someone just made it up to sell a guitar and it stuck.
I never found anything written anywhere to support the claim.


----------



## loudtubeamps (Feb 2, 2012)

colchar said:


> Yeah but that ain't helping any!
> 
> I wish I could find a local teacher. There is a guy in a slide guitar group on Facebook who is in Cambridge who posts online lessons that seem good. He offers online video lessons so I might just go that route.


 You have the SG, you're half way there.  
Get a handle on these and you're on your way.
Derek Trucks Slide Guitar Lesson - YouTube
Sonny Landreth - The Ultimate Slide Guitar Lesson - YouTube
Warren Haynes on Slide Guitar in Standard Tuning | Reverb Interview - YouTube


----------



## sillyak (Oct 22, 2016)

I always figured it was because Gibson started to improve quality from the Norlin era. I would assume they increased wood quality somewhat, but I doubt there is any grade difference from anything else they have used in the last 30 years. Of course with anything wood, sample variation is huge. There are gems and duds from every single year.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I think people's prejudices have tainted the Norlin years unfairly.
They did stuff that just "doesnt seem right" with conventional wisdom, but really wasnt that bad.
for example: adding neck volute, dimensionally stable multi-piece maple necks, pancake bodies (likely costed more in labour, meant to increase sustain)
OTOH, some wacky designs, some really heavy guitars (although some dispute that as well), and generally its thought the acoustic models really sufferred.
Lots of owners love their Norlins, but maybe they arent expecting it to sound like a 59 burst?
I wonder if it was a '70's quality control thing. Or the pickups.


----------



## Waldo97 (Jul 4, 2020)

colchar said:


> Yeah but that ain't helping any!
> 
> I wish I could find a local teacher. There is a guy in a slide guitar group on Facebook who is in Cambridge who posts online lessons that seem good. He offers online video lessons so I might just go that route.


Consider this: fireslide home

If nothing else, there's some good advice on general slide playing.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Waldo97 said:


> Consider this: fireslide home
> 
> If nothing else, there's some good advice on general slide playing.



I signed up for a couple of online courses (through places like Truefire and the like), I just need to sit down and go through one of them regularly rather than doing a bit here, a bit there, then some more two months later.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> I think people's prejudices have tainted the Norlin years unfairly.
> They did stuff that just "doesnt seem right" with conventional wisdom, but really wasnt that bad.
> for example: adding neck volute, dimensionally stable multi-piece maple necks, pancake bodies (likely costed more in labour, meant to increase sustain)
> OTOH, some wacky designs, some really heavy guitars (although some dispute that as well), and generally its thought the acoustic models really sufferred.
> ...


People denigrate them, while others ask ridiculous prices for them. Are they shit or are they vintage? Or are even shitty vintage guitars worth more?

If I could find a nice Les Paul Custom from the Norlin era at a reasonable price I'd snap it up.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

colchar said:


> People denigrate them, while others ask ridiculous prices for them. Are they shit or are they vintage? Or are even shitty vintage guitars worth more?
> 
> If I could find a nice Les Paul Custom from the Norlin era at a reasonable price I'd snap it up.


I've had a couple 70's customs; a wine red one that I rescued from having all the hardware painted in black house paint, and a black one with 3 piece maple top where the seam was clearly visible and could be felt as slightly different heights. Both were fine. Both were heavy. Neither were anything special. I think the red one had "tar back" pickups- which sound like their name implies from what I remember.
Actually, a friend of mine has an SG with tar backs that sounds pretty good.


----------



## hondamatic (Feb 5, 2019)

This thread reminds me of one of one of my other hobbies.... statistics and robust design.

In theory, by experimenting and selecting variables, it should be possible to make a polynomial equation for exactly what makes a great-sounding guitar.

It’s challenging because the end goal is subjective.

Whenever I watch interviews with Paul Reed Smith, I feel like he just instinctively does this.

But then I wonder if we’re just happier with the mystique of ‘tone’?


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

IMO 90's LPs will have the same 'bad' reputation of norlin era construction. There was the good and the bad.

When I first got into guitar forums 20 yrs ago, a heavy 11lbs paul was a good thing to have. Apparently the heavier the heavier the better. How has that aged? SRV tone needs 12's, Forum bullshit.

I have a 90's and its a boat anchor, and the reason it gets played less and I won't be able to sell it.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

hondamatic said:


> This thread reminds me of one of one of my other hobbies.... statistics and robust design.
> 
> In theory, by experimenting and selecting variables, it should be possible to make a polynomial equation for exactly what makes a great-sounding guitar.
> 
> ...



eloquent way to describe bullshit.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Diablo said:


> I think people's prejudices have tainted the Norlin years unfairly.
> They did stuff that just "doesnt seem right" with conventional wisdom, but really wasnt that bad.
> for example: adding neck volute, dimensionally stable multi-piece maple necks, pancake bodies (likely costed more in labour, meant to increase sustain)
> OTOH, some wacky designs, some really heavy guitars (although some dispute that as well), and generally its thought the acoustic models really sufferred.
> ...


The weight thing always makes me chuckle. I guess you had to be there.

You think early 80's Norlins are heavy, stay the hell away from Ibanez Artists or Yamaha SG2000's. Some of them created their own gravity. Heavy guitars was just a thing for a while (I worked in a music store at the time). Maybe it was about selling less desirable wood? Maybe it was testosterone-fueled machoism of the era? Maybe it was the heavier commercial music coming on line (the start of hair/glam metal)?

I could tell you about a 12 lb 25th Anni Strat that we could barely give away. While single cuts were acceptable at >10lbs, Strats and Teles never quite were. Unless they were made out of rosewood.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> The weight thing always makes me chuckle. I guess you had to be there.
> 
> You think early 80's Norlins are heavy, stay the hell away from Ibanez Artists or Yamaha SG2000's. Some of them created their own gravity. Heavy guitars was just a thing for a while (I worked in a music store at the time). Maybe it was about selling less desirable wood? Maybe it was testosterone-fueled machoism of the era? Maybe it was the heavier commercial music coming on line (the start of hair/glam metal)?
> 
> I could tell you about a 12 lb 25th Anni Strat that we could barely give away. While single cuts were acceptable at >10lbs, Strats and Teles never quite were. Unless they were made out of rosewood.


I think the heavy weight was to create sustain...brass nuts and bridges etc...I _kind of_ believe it, but its not a direct correlation, to be sure. just 1 way to approach it.
esthetically, the wood in the norlin period IMO is less desirable. Havent seen many "monster tops" from that period. not sure that amounts to a hill of beans tone-wise though.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Moosehead said:


> I have a 90's standard and while it sounds fantastic it is a heavy beast of a guitar. easily between 9-10lbs.
> 
> It appears to have a 1 piece back too.


I think the number of pieces is part of what is meant by "good wood". It seems they spent a bit more time picking pieces to make their guitars out of, matching seams better or going with fewer pieces.

Here's some more info:







Permanent Waves said:


> As zztomato mentioned, the one that annoys me the most is Lawsuit - that word should be banned from ads. A lot of these sellers like to spread the mythology that in the 70's, these Japanese companies were making instruments of such greater quality that American companies sued them, while in fact, it was Gibson suing to have them stop using the open-book headstock shape. I've had 70's Ibanez with both types of headstocks and there is no difference in quality. I still can't believe I see 70's LP copies listed for the same amount you could buy the real deal.





Diablo said:


> I gotta admit, I never understood the hype around the Japanese lawsuit era guitars either.
> in the 80’s you couldn’t give one away for firewood. Now theyre “vintage” lol. Not saying they’re all crap...Ibanez usually did a good job. But the mystique over most of them is greatly overrated IMO. Better modern options for not much more money.


Some are crap, but some are great. They made the whole range. After the mid-70s they seemed to really dial in what they needed to do to make a great guitar. As for the crazy prices... yeah, I wouldn't pay the ridiculous amounts either, but I kind of understand them. For example, the high-end Greco EGF-1800 LP copies were over 4 times the price of their lower-priced set-neck versions, had nitro finishes, highly sought-after pickups, long neck tenons, ABR-1 bridges, very figured full-thickness flame maple tops, and other historic specs that were not available until the Gibson custom shop started producing reissues. And if listed in the right market, they do hold their value as there are some very passionate collectors out there.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

How about this seventy pound beast.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Diablo said:


> I think the heavy weight was to create sustain...brass nuts and bridges etc...I _kind of_ believe it, but its not a direct correlation, to be sure. just 1 way to approach it.
> esthetically, the wood in the norlin period IMO is less desirable. Havent seen many "monster tops" from that period. not sure that amounts to a hill of beans tone-wise though.



I thought the same thing until I played a 6-7lbs tele. The thing rings and rings and you can feel it on your stomach and shoulder. I've played guitars around 10lbs that would do that, but it would be a more focused waveform if that makes sense while the lighter guitar the resonance has a better amplitude, if that makes sense... 

My stepdad has a heavy ass hoyer bass from the 70's, Entwistle special, all brass hardware, super skinny neck, small body, still weighs a tonne, but maybe its different for bass.

Isn't Taylors claim to fame is they actually measure the resonant frequency of the soundboard/wood and plane the thickness to fine tune the tone? I believe that is why they have a few original bracing designs and have their signature upper midrange sound depending on models. Bob Taylor has a couple factory tour videos where IIRC he goes over this.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

sulphur said:


> How about this seventy pound beast.
> 
> View attachment 334964


looks like something from one of Saddam Husseins sons collections....or something from an Austin Powers movie.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

TheYanChamp said:


> I thought the same thing until I played a 6-7lbs tele. The thing rings and rings and you can feel it on your stomach and shoulder. I've played guitars around 10lbs that would do that, but it would be a more focused waveform if that makes sense while the lighter guitar the resonance has a better amplitude, if that makes sense...
> 
> My stepdad has a heavy ass hoyer bass from the 70's, Entwistle special, all brass hardware, super skinny neck, small body, still weighs a tonne, but maybe its different for bass.
> 
> Isn't Taylors claim to fame is they actually measure the resonant frequency of the soundboard/wood and plane the thickness to fine tune the tone? I believe that is why they have a few original bracing designs and have their signature upper midrange sound depending on models. Bob Taylor has a couple factory tour videos where IIRC he goes over this.


I completely agree.
Mass is just 1 way to approach it. Maybe its just all they knew in those days...or someone was head of design that had tunnel vision.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Diablo said:


> looks like something from one of Saddam Husseins sons collections....or something from an Austin Powers movie.


An apparent one off, all brass NAMM show piece from the '70s.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

sulphur said:


> *An apparent one off*, all brass NAMM show piece from the '70s.


Good.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

troyhead said:


> I think the number of pieces is part of what is meant by "good wood".



It isn't. This mythological era was long after the Norlin era. It refers to wood that is allegedly of higher quality than other eras. I've seen claims that there are good wood years, in which Gibson used the best wood since the '50s for all guitar made that year. Fucking preposterous.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> It isn't. This mythological era was long after the Norlin era. It refers to wood that is allegedly of higher quality than other eras. I've seen claims that there are good wood years, in which Gibson used the best wood since the '50s for all guitar made that year. Fucking preposterous.


Can't really say whether it is preposterous or potentially legit. I gather they don't simply order their wood off a website, but have "scouts" who deal with the sources, and are in a position to say, "Not bad but not really up to our needs or standards" or to say "Well take those 13 logs there, but none of the rest". Of course _having_ such people is separate from their tenure or experience. If Gibson sends someone with 23 years experience in the company, the last 11 in that role, to check out a source, then I'd agree that the claim IS likely preposterous. One simply doesn't take steps to procure optimal materials well in advance of when you use them, rely on trained people to maintain your standards, and have a period inserted where the people responsible for that procurement shrug and say "Ah, screw it. We'll take what you got. Pack it up and ship it.". At the same time, people _do_ retire, and management in many places can decide to install unseasoned individuals in roles that have greater implications than new management might realize.

Now clearly, I have NO inside information about any of this, one way or the other. I'm simply saying I can imagine circumstances in which a brief period of poor wood choice _could_ possibly exist, and can also imagine circumstances in which maintenance of standards is far more likely. In the absence of inside information, I'm not in any position to conclude which of those is the more probable. Certainly GIbson has had some bad models and designs, and even probably used/wasted good wood on some bad designs.


----------



## Waldo97 (Jul 4, 2020)

I have several Ray Kettlewell paddles. Ray co-owned a lumber mill in southwestern Ontario before he took up making paddles for a living. When a load came in, they knew Ray would look very carefully at every plank and only take the best for his purposes. Hence, in part, the excellence of his paddles.

I'd guess that Gibson has good people checking the wood. Their instructions may change over the years.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

All good observations. I could see one large wood order going bad and having it pollute the supply for years by the time its used up.

I'd imagine it is quite the investment just to mill, dry it, age it then store it and that it may have not been plausible to just chuck it out because they eventually found its too dense.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Can't really say whether it is preposterous or potentially legit.


Of course we can. 

The claim that there is a good wood year assumes that Gibson said "screw it, let's use all of our good wood this year and fuck next year".


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

colchar said:


> Of course we can.
> 
> The claim that there is a good wood year assumes that Gibson said "screw it, let's use all of our good wood this year and fuck next year".


I don't find this argument convincing. There are many other possibilities to consider, including Gibson having a good supply of excellent grade wood at some point in time and then possibly mismanaging it, perhaps by wrongly assuming they could always find more. Like @mhammer I'm not suggesting the wood was or was not better during this so-called "good wood era" or that such a thing existed in reality. It's certainly_ possible_ however that the quality of the wood supply at Gibson's disposal has varied over the years...perhaps quite significantly. Gibson has come up short with respect to predicting & managing wood supplies on a few occasions so there's nothing "preposterous" about the notion that some periods may in fact have been better than others.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Realistically, there is a great deal none of us know about how Gibson obtains, manages, and distributes their wood supply. They do make a broad line of products, including acoustic insruments and the Epiphone produc tline. How and when the wood gets distributed across them is opaque to the majority, if not entirety, of us.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

StevieMac said:


> I don't find this argument convincing. There are many other possibilities to consider, including Gibson having a good supply of excellent grade wood at some point in time and then possibly mismanaging it, perhaps by wrongly assuming they could always find more. Like @mhammer I'm not suggesting the wood was or was not better during this so-called "good wood era" or that such a thing existed in reality. It's certainly_ possible_ however that the quality of the wood supply at Gibson's disposal has varied over the years...perhaps quite significantly. Gibson has come up short with respect to predicting & managing wood supplies on a few occasions so there's nothing "preposterous" about the notion that some periods may in fact have been better than others.



And how do we, as consumers, identify which of the years allegedly had better wood than others, especially when it takes months to make a guitar so one started in Year X might not be finished until Year Y. Wouldn't that mean that the following year, or at least part of it, would also be one of these alleged good wood years? The whole idea is bullshit seized upon by people who want to think their guitar is somehow special, and by those who are trying to sell a guitar. You know the one - the greatest guitar the seller has ever played, it plays like butter, it is too amazing for words, but for some reason is being sold.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I _hate_ it when they play like butter. Takes me hours to clean my fingers and re-establish any grip to my fingertips. Have you ever tried opening a pickle jar after playing one of those guitars? They certainly make your fingers smell and taste nice, but I've dropped more glasses and plates than I care to think about after playing one of those.

Although I seem to recall Marlon Brando muttering to Maria Schneider "Get the 59 Burst". (that was for you electraglide  )

But seriously, I think it more unlikely than likely that there _would_ have been any defined period during which the quality of wood was discernibly different and consistently so. That's not to say there couldn't have been duds that shaped the opinions of some regarding specific production years/periods. In that respect, it's a bit like pedals. People will try ONE pedal from each of several particular issues/years, disregard the reality of component tolerances, and generalize from their perception of the single unit of some period that they tried to _every single pedal_ produced in that era.

The sine qua non of any true issue/period difference is that some quality is consistently found across all exemplars of that issue/period that is either not found or else is only sporadically found in other issues/periods. And if you don't have that, then one is simply over-generalizing from the particular.


----------



## BEACHBUM (Sep 21, 2010)

Myth, legend, marketing hype and BS.


----------



## sillyak (Oct 22, 2016)

TheYanChamp said:


> I thought the same thing until I played a 6-7lbs tele. The thing rings and rings and you can feel it on your stomach and shoulder. I've played guitars around 10lbs that would do that, but it would be a more focused waveform if that makes sense while the lighter guitar the resonance has a better amplitude, if that makes sense...
> 
> My stepdad has a heavy ass hoyer bass from the 70's, Entwistle special, all brass hardware, super skinny neck, small body, still weighs a tonne, but maybe its different for bass.
> 
> Isn't Taylors claim to fame is they actually measure the resonant frequency of the soundboard/wood and plane the thickness to fine tune the tone? I believe that is why they have a few original bracing designs and have their signature upper midrange sound depending on models. Bob Taylor has a couple factory tour videos where IIRC he goes over this.


I find lighter guitars to resonate and vibrate more, but sustain less. Sort of like a banjo, lots of volume, no sustain.

Although this isn't a rule, exceptions exist.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Waldo97 said:


> I have several Ray Kettlewell paddles. Ray co-owned a lumber mill in southwestern Ontario before he took up making paddles for a living. When a load came in, they knew Ray would look very carefully at every plank and only take the best for his purposes. Hence, in part, the excellence of his paddles.
> 
> I'd guess that Gibson has good people checking the wood. Their instructions may change over the years.


These paddles have tone to die for.


----------



## Rollin Hand (Jul 12, 2012)

If figure the good wood is whatever works for a particular guitar. It's all variables, and dumb luck. Being selective and knowing what makes things somewhat better helps, as does the time and care taken by skilled luthiers. But the magic....it'll either have it or it won't. It's all wire and wood and how they interact with each other.


----------



## loudtubeamps (Feb 2, 2012)

BEACHBUM said:


> Myth, legend, marketing hype and BS.


Agreed...speaking of hype >>>>








$95k worth of Gibson Adam Jones 1979 Les Paul Customs stolen in premeditated theft


13 of the Tool guitarist's just-announced signature models were taken from a Sweetwater truck




www.guitarworld.com


----------



## Hammertone (Feb 3, 2006)

BEACHBUM said:


> Myth, legend, marketing hype and BS.





mhammer said:


> Realistically, there is a great deal none of us know about how Gibson obtains, manages, and distributes their wood supply. ... How and when the wood gets distributed across them is opaque to the majority, if not entirety, of us.


I guess it depends on which side of the curtain you are located, eh? Separating the signal from the noise is always a demanding task.

Oh, may as well add this..."there is a great deal none of us know about how Gibson obtains, manages, and distributes their wood supply _and their hardware_." At least, with hardware, it's easier to parse, and remediate as necessary.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

GuitarT said:


> My "good wood" era is slowly fading with age.


I had GREAT wood in the ‘90s but my EX-wife didn’t appreciate it as much as she should have. Fortunately the new missus has bought into the vintage hype that early ‘70s models now seem to be garnering.


----------

