Search Results - Micarta
- Comment on: Topic 'Providing "Tooth" When Gluing'
- Scoring across the grain probably weakens the joint because the fibers are cut. Here's an example of a bridge glue job where the builder of the guitar completely misunderstood the situation and overdid the scoring, allowing the top to separate like a bunch of little tiles: Maybe you could look at this as a magnified version of what scoring might do on a micro level. Providing "tooth" in the surfaces does have benefit for adhesives that have high cohesive strength, such as epoxy and cyanoacrylate, and it's important on nonporous surfaces for those adhesives. So, if you're supergluing a Micarta bridge to a phenolic laminate top like the Martin X series, then you really need to do some heavy surface scratching.…
- Added by Frank Ford at 11:22pm on May 15, 2011
- Comment on: Topic 'I Think I Did Myself A Mischief With Ebony Dust'
- ntexts, edged tools can significantly cut down on dust (and or time) because the waste drops to floor in wood chip form. On the rare occasion that I make an ebony nut, I find that the luthier's friend sanding station (which comes with a great dust collection system) and a block plane can do most of the work quickly with little airborne wood dust. The block plane is also a good tool for cutting down a micarta saddle (it won't melt the waste of this and similar materials to the underside of the saddle like a disc or belt sander). Placed in a vice with the sole up, you can draw the workpiece across the cutting edge. If you have a razor sharp plane iron and good glue joint between shim and saddle, I imagine that you could use this method to cut your glued on saddle shim down to .025" with no problem. A well tuned plane (paired with a wooden bench dog) can get a mahogany shim thinner than .010" so it would seem to follow that it could handle the glued on shim.…
- Added by nathan clark at 6:17am on July 3, 2009
- Comment on: Topic 'MICARTA?'
- ton by Rainier Plywood -- a privately owned company that has been in business since 1943. Richlite solid surface sheet products were the result of research collaboration between Rainier and Boeing Aircraft. Boeing engineers were hoping to find a material for their template shop that had greater strength than Plywood. So the joint team of engineers introduced paper soaked in phenolic resin and heat pressed until stable. The result was Richlite, a non-porous and very strong material. The color is solid all the way through the thickness of Richlite (thicknesses available from 1/4" up to 3"). There are ten colors to choose from, each having a warm, mat appearance -- a welcome alternative to the glare of the high gloss choices abundant today. Major Certifications of Richlite include: 1. FSC™ (Forest Stewardship Council) which means that a chain of custody is maintained from managed forests. 2. Greenguard for Children & Schools, the top safety rating test for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 3. And the popular food-safe certification, NSF 51, for commercial food prep surfaces...". …
- Added by Mark A. Kane at 4:00am on February 18, 2012
- Comment on: Topic 'Newbie here, wanted to say hi. Also, question about ideas for a work bench.'
- rta and mdf combo it lets the projects slide well like when I set up my binding jig, I do it on top of my table saw .And all the time you will see incoming tools supplies going in and out via sitting on top of this saw till I find the appropriate place to put what ever I set on to like a table work station that your thinking of .hey check this out a work bench for my bench top tools that bolt down like a sanding station space saver, I posted this cool Craftsman 3 way rotary table I just pull the chain in the middle and flip to the next station with a new sander so I can flip back and fourth like making a stat nut I flip over from my drum sander to use the disc sander back and fourth at will .hope this gives you an idea for a space saver why not build your own 3 way rotary table and a table saw comes in handy it is not just a saw it is many things i use it for good day frets…
- Added by FRANK at 11:29pm on July 27, 2010
- Comment on: Topic 'Martin DX1RGT Neck Removal'
- rank I really see this as being quite a waste of time. This guitar was built with substandard parts to begin with - plastic back and sides, and a top that is under-braced and doomed to collapse eventually even under the best of conditions. If I were rebuilding it, even if I were doing it as a hobbyist, I would have a hard time not wanting to replace these parts with something better that will stand some chance of lasting. So there you have yourself making a whole new body. As to the neck, even if the headstock has flattened out and the functional length looks pretty much okay, if it had swollen as much as I see in the pictures this would leave me with little confidence in it's future integrity. When something swells and shifts that bad, I would be very concerned about the stresses on it's many, many glue joints, and not "if", but "how much" has it been permanently compromised. So then to ensure a good outcome you might as well look at making a new neck. Which would put you at essentially salvaging a phenolic fingerboard, maybe the Micarta bridge and tuners, and building a new guitar around them, and at that point you might as well upgrade those as well. I hate to be a buzz-kill, but I really don't see any reason to try rebuilding this. It's really the Ikea end table of the guitar world, and I can't see rebuilding the sawdust core and veneer of one of those after a fire, even if it were somehow sentimental. As to the neck joint, there's one 1/4-20 screw under that serial number plate, #3 phillips head. The plate is just stuck on with some foam double sided tape and will pop off quite easily. The tenon is glued in, but barely holds without the screw and will usually come loose without any heat or steam. The fingerboard extension is glued to the top with white glue, and will come loose quite easily with a bit of heat. …
- Added by David Collins at 2:45pm on January 31, 2012
- Topic: Discussion about CA gluing frets is gone
- one recognize this as their post? I'd like to get more info on your fretting procedures. Thanks. "CA is a wonderful glue for refretting. In fact, in my experience nothing else even comes close. The combination of its speed, tenacity, ease of application and easy cleanup make it a no brainer. Not a guitar leaves my shop with new frets that haven't been, in some form, glued with CA. I've been using CA for refrets for 19 years and never, EVER have a guitar returned with a fret that has moved, ever, NEVER. It simply doesn't happen. Let me reiterate: it never happens. I cannot think of a single instance, seriously. Have I made the point? Roughly 65% of my business is refrets. I've averaged about 150 a year for the past 12-13 years, so I've got this CA thing down. Like any repair technique, it requires a thorough and complete understanding of all the variables in order to make it successful, as well as a little practice. I use only Satellite City CA, mainly the Super T, only occasionally, the Hot Stuff. The frets are treated with accelerator before installation (7 at a time, as timing between CA and accelerator is key) and I use a Jaws fret press or the hammer and the Taylor Fretbuck, and often both. Squeeze out is rarely an issue and I use Super Solvent almost exclusively for cleanup in the event glue works its way out (I find that acetone doesn't break down the glue nearly as effectively). I make a custom needle applicator from a Super Tip for every job (takes about 8-10 seconds per tip) that puts the glue IN the slot, not on it, or around it, or near it. The glue goes IN the slot. I apply 3 drops per slot typically, sometimes more, or less. I LOVE the speed of the glue setup, as I know instantly if the fret is going to stay where I want it to. I don't want to wait for Titebond or hide glue because I'm busy! Of course the slots and the board are prepped before any of this takes place (I leave nothing to chance, if I can help it). If there is a problem I fix it immediately, before the next fret goes in. The fret comes right out with a little heat, the slot is easily cleaned up, the problem is diagnosed, cured, and the fret is reseated. Bound, unbound, maple, rosewood, ebony, Micarta, Plexiglas, Lucite, whatever, it makes no difference. I LOVE this technique: it's fast, cleanup is no issue, and the frets don't move, EVER. It saves my customer the frustration and time of a return visit. It saves me any diminution of my hard-earned reputation for skillful and accurate fretting. Like anything else, it may not be for you, but you can't argue with my results. CA is completely, entirely and wholly appropriate for fretting. You just have to know how to do it. For my next trick, I'll expand on the wonders of UV cured lacquer for touching up nitro. Not kidding." Mike Fields…
- Added by Michael S. Fields at 9:06am on August 17, 2015
- Topic: Fretting with Super Glue (CA)
- de in the interim, chiefly consisting of a change from using the Super Tips (from Satellite City) to Stew Mac Whip Tips. I trim about 3/8" off the end to make an applicator that puts the glue in the slot with pinpoint accuracy. Here is the updated version: Super Glue (CA) is a wonderful glue for refretting. In fact, in my experience nothing else even comes close. The combination of its speed, tenacity, ease of application and easy cleanup make it a no brainer. Not a guitar leaves my shop with new frets that haven't been, in some form, glued with CA. I've been using CA for refrets for 23 years and never, EVER have a guitar returned with a fret that has moved, ever, NEVER. It simply doesn't happen. Let me reiterate: it never happens. I cannot think of a single instance, seriously. Have I made the point? Roughly 65% of my business is refrets. I've averaged about 150 a year for the past 16 years, so I've got this CA thing down. :) Like any repair technique, it requires a thorough and complete understanding of all the variables in order to make it successful, as well as practice. I use only Satellite City CA, mainly the Super T, only occasionally, the Hot Stuff. The prepared frets are treated with accelerator before installation (7 at a time, as timing between CA and accelerator is key) and I use a Jaws fret press or the hammer and the Taylor Fretbuck, and often both. Squeeze out is rarely an issue and I use Super Solvent almost exclusively for cleanup in the event glue works its way out (I find that acetone doesn't break down the glue nearly as effectively). I make a custom needle applicator from a Stew Mac Whip Tip for every job (takes about 8-10 seconds per tip) that puts the glue IN the slot, not on it, or around it, or near it. The glue goes IN the slot. I apply 3 drops per slot typically, sometimes more, or less. I LOVE the speed of the glue setup, as I know instantly if the fret is going to stay where I want it to. I don't want to wait for Titebond or hide glue, because I'm busy! Of course the slots and the board are prepped to the highest degree possible well before any of this takes place (I leave nothing to chance, if I can help it). Click here for a video of how I clean out fret slots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M2ozrt_OAg The dremel works great but like any other technique requires practice, as well as the correct bits. What you need are micro endmills. I buy them 15-20 at a time in sizes from .018 through .025". They are available on the web starting at around $12-15 each. I buy the carbide 2 flute, with a cut length of ~.080". I do a LOT of refretting and this method offers repeatable, consistent accuracy and speed. I use the dremel for almost every fret job I do, excluding (but sometimes including) compression refrets on old Martins. I've used the same dremel and Stew-Mac base since 1991 or so, with satisfactory results consistently. The much-talked about runout is a non-issue, but the key is practice and developing the feel for the tool. http://www.microendmill.com/ http://www.american-carbide.com/MicroEndMills/MEStandardProducts.php I get around 15-30 fret jobs per bit. I clean the goo and glue off if it builds up after each pass. It takes 4-8 seconds, with practice, so your work speed is not slowed down. The bits eventually become more difficult to pull through the slot; that's when I reach for a new one, but I keep the old ones (they're easy to store). As for working around binding, the cutter will simply pass right through it! So be careful around binding! The best advice I can give is to cut at at slowest rotary speed the dremel is capable of, while pulling the tool through the slot relatively quickly and with authority. Back to the fretting methodology: If, during fretting, there is a problem with a fret I fix it immediately, before the next fret goes in. A problematic fret will come right out with a little heat, the slot is easily cleaned up, the problem is diagnosed, cured, and the fret is reseated. Bound, unbound, maple, rosewood, ebony, Micarta, Plexiglas, Lucite, whatever, it makes no difference. I LOVE this technique: it's fast, cleanup is no issue, and the frets don't move, EVER. It saves my customer the frustration and time of a return visit. It saves me any diminution of my hard-earned reputation for skillful and accurate fretting. Like anything else, it may not be for you, but you can't argue with my results. CA is completely, entirely and wholly appropriate for fretting. One last thing. With the recent discussion about neck jigs still rattling around in my skull I thought I'd throw a little gasoline onto the fire. I use a neck jig about 75% of the time, mainly as a holding fixture for when I'm sanding etc, but often for the more complex reasons Dan Erlewine designed his for, and for which he explains fully in his videos and books. I have a surrogate body for bolt-on necks, and I strap Martins directly to the jig. It, like any other tool, requires developing a feel for, and it's myriad uses are often not realized until one has used it for awhile. I can refret a guitar without it, but because it provides a stable platform on which to work, and more importantly, provides repeatable results I can go to the bank on, I choose to use it the majority of the time. Your mileage may vary with any of this :) It's just what works for me.…
- Added by Mark A. Kane at 7:59am on August 18, 2015
- Comment on: Topic 'Black Buffalo Horn Nut, good or bad?'
- tboard. He heard a video on YouTube, and played it for me, and I have to agree it does sound good in the lower registers." Russell. Fender Basses use a White Micarta Nut. It basically seems that the Issue is Tonal and Cosmetic. But I would be handling this issue in a completely different manner. There would be two fundamental points that I would be respectfully focussed upon. I would focus upon them, by asking pointed and pertinent questions of the client, and showing them that I was listening hard and taking in their answers. But I be pretty sure that I would already know the answers I was going to get, and would shape the questions I put to them, so that I it was fairly inevitable I got the answers that would steer the client, in the direction I felt would be most beneficial to them. Basically, I would want to order the conversation in such a manner that the client themselves, thought that the idea for what we would agree to enact, actually came from themselves; rather than following a suggestion from me. Or at the very least, that we arrived at these conclusions mutually, together, as a result of the consultation. There are many excellent reasons for taking this approach. First of all, making decisions like this based upon YouTube Videos is not a good idea. The Videos are often made by people with limited knowledge and experience and often have as poor recording equipment as the listeners have sound. Whereas some of these Videos if well done and highly informative can be wonderful to watch, many are at best unhelpful, and can indeed be completely misleading. So unless they are made by an Experienced Expert (like Dan Erlewine or David Collins for example), it is best to view such amateur media, as simply a starting point for a conversation, with someone of Real Experience. Let's be clear. According to your post, the client has heard a cheap Tele Clone Electric Guitar, Played with several different types of Nuts, and on the basis of those comparisons is persuaded that a Buffalo Horn Nut would be ideal for his Fender Precision Bass? That's Nuts! Think about it for while. So rather than the client coming with a predetermined conclusion and accepting that as a concrete proposal. When the notion was based upon poor and limited information, little knowledge, and a complete lack of empirical experience. I would want to ask questions and listen, drill down deeper into the clients driving motivations, and have a conversation that clarified to both of us, what he was really after. In other words, by the time we finished chatting which wouldn't take long, the client would understand and know themselves, far better than they ever did, when they first walked through the door. Having made that point about the Videos and talked together. Knowing I have listened and understand them, I would finally be clarifying whether the Primary Motivation for changing out the Nut was to achieve a Tonal Difference? Whether it was a Deeper, Fuller more Vintage Precision Bass Sound, that the client was really trying to achieve, perhaps a "Classic Bass Sound" he had heard on many of his Favourite Albums? My hunch would be. That the answer the client would give to this question would be "Yes!" Presuming that was clearly established as the Primary Objective, I would explain about the likely negative issues regarding lack of wear ability of a Buffalo Horn Nut. The requirement of regular replacement, and the constantly growing ongoing cost that would gradually amalgamate, constantly building up over time. I would also make points regarding the risks of too frequent, unnecessary replacement to this sensitive area of the Instrument. There are also Economic Disadvantages to Changing Nuts simply for Colour, Altering Traditional Cosmetics. With a Direct Impact on Instrument Devaluation. These are all things the client should take into consideration. Just before his Brain began to Boggle with the Negatives. I would give him what I felt was the Ideal Answer to such Problems. By way of Fully Achieving his Primary Objective, with an altogether, Better Solution. I would throw a little history in too, as one of the things I liked about Leo Fender is the same thing I like about Rupert Neve. Rupert as you may know Invented the Recording Console as is found in Studios, but the point is they both picked their components, very carefully, by Ear. Technical specification sheets alone didn't impress them too much. They Listened Carefully with their Ears, and finally settled on the Components they believed gave the Best Sound. I like this approach, its more Art than Science. And Great Instrument Designers and Luhiers are primarily Artisans. When Leo first developed the Precision Bass. Bands featured far more Musicians, and Arrangers ensured that Musically, lots was going on with all of them. The Violin Families, Double Bass was the Reference, with its Pure Deep Sound and Bass Players typically provided a Musical Foundation. Later when more Dynamic Players that used Complex, Pulsating Rhythmic Patterns like James Jamerson and Carole Kaye came along, to name just a couple. Using the Instrument busily, in most popular styles, along with Jazz, the Fretboard suddenly became a rather busier place altogether. And many Bass Players seek that Vintage Fender Tone. Along with the Advent of Powered On Board Electronics, and the Strident Music Man Basses. There had also been a Huge Reduction in the Average Number of Musicians Playing in the Typical Band. On Record and Live, Bass Players were being asked to Fill the Gap, Contribute More, and bring New Chops to the table in Range, Compass, Number of Notes and Also Variability in Playing Styles with Popping and Slap et all. Here's the thing. For the reasons detailed and explained above. A Modern Precision Bass Player will be expected to deliver Upper Mid Range Clarity and Cut Through with more "Edge". Whereas the Vintage Instrument has been Tailored by Design to Deliver a Fundamental Musical Foundation, far more akin to a Traditional String Bass. So the Electrical Components in the Modern Precision Bass typically feature a Capacitor of .05 uf which allows enough roll off of the treble, to give a nice Warm Tone but not lose much "Edge", so it's a quite subtle roll off. However, it doesn't give the Fullest, Deepest Rounded Tone, that one might expect to find on a Vintage Precision Bass. This will feature a Capacitor Value of 1 uf which will roll off DOUBLE the amount of treble, compared to a Modern Bass of the Same Model. So. If the Primary Reason for changing out the Nut is to achieve a Tonal Difference? If the Client wants a Deeper, Fuller more Vintage Precision Bass Sound, he had heard on many of his Favourite Albums? Then the best way to achieve that in my opinion, is simply to remove the existing Capacitor and keep it for replacement in case he ever sells the Instrument. And replace the Capacitor for one of Double the Existing Value (assuming he has a Modern Fender Bass rather than a specific Vintage Fender Instrument) and this will more closely approach, the Characteristic, Killer Tone, that Jamerson, Kaye, Dunn and so many other Legendary Players had. Kaye used a heavy pick so getting that sound is simple enough though that probably not what he's after. Zeroing the Tone Controls Value gives him all his treble "Edge" back, so in effect he has lost nothing whatever, if he still wants to cut through the Upper Mids. You could also fit Potentiometers with a By Pass, so that the Volume and Tone Controls can be set in a Completely Neutral Position, so that they didn't have any effect on the Bass Sound at all. One of my Pals, (he Mixed the Sound on "I Will Always Love You by Witney Houston" the 25th Best Selling Hit of all time, amongst many other Legendary Hits many of which were Recorded at Stax Studios with Donald Dunn another Precision Player) and has Two Good Ears, and maintains that the Best Tonality that can be got out of a Precision Bass is by omitting the Volume and Tone Pots Altogether. My argument against this viewpoint is that it is too radical, and that Players need to adjust their Tone to the Song more readily, however the same can be achieved by using Pots that By Pass the Signal. I like CTS Pots myself. So there are plenty of options and things that can be done to improve the Tone and Give the Player the Killer Vintage Tone. And all this can very easily be achieved, without changing the Nut, at All. Although Graph Tech do make a Black Tusk for a Precision Bass. A Buffalo Horn Nut is not something I would not encourage. Clearly Black will simply devalue the Instrument. No one will notice but the Player himself. Bone is Best, Forget the Rest. I'm glad to get that. Off my chest! With a White Bone Nut, the Cosmetics are Maintained. The Tonal Projection will be Fuller and Clearer, with a Better Treble. Whilst Fitting a .1 uf Capacitor will DOUBLE the Roll Off in the treble frequency range, giving a Warmer, Fuller, Rounded Vintage Bass Sound. He will get the best of All Worlds with this Combination! P …
- Added by Peter Poyser at 7:40am on April 25, 2016
- Comment on: Topic 'GIBSON MK-35 Advice/Thoughts'
- much..." This made me laugh! It reminded me of a friend of mine, a Record Producer who was invited onto a Yacht to meet Recording Star, Brian Adams. My Pal was wearing a Vividly Loud Hawaiian Shirt along with his Short Pants, and I'm not sure if it was the Motion of the Boat, a Negative Reaction to the Sight of the Loud Shirt, or the fact that Brian had been consuming a Copious Amount of Beer Probably all three. For as they were introduced, and in the middle of a Hail and Hearty Handshake, the Boat suddenly swayed, causing Brian to react by lurching forward towards my Pal, whereupon he Spewed Up all over him and his Loud Shirt. Perhaps as a Sensitive Man and Performer, it was some kind of Artistic Statement. The Worst Problem of this type I know of, is years back, in the old days, when Graham Nash was with the Hollies and Touring in the U.K. They were foolish enough to be Sharing the Bill and a Dressing Room with a Crazy Comedian called Freddie Starr. When everyone was out of the Dressing Room, Freddie loosened the Strings on Grahams Gibson Acoustic, Happily Defecated into the Sound Hole, and then helpfully Re-Tightened and Tuned the Strings, before putting the Guitar back precisely into place for Graham to find. You had to have a Good Sense of Humour to work with Freddie.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVbslxmDzfU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AoUFF6T1KQ At least, your Client was Apologetic! I remember Englebert Humperdick coming out of his Dressing Room rather upset. It turned out, Freddie has been in there, and gone into the Wardrobe where he kept all his Smart Stage Costumes... To Urinate in the Corner of the Wardrobe! He was always lots of fun... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnN3nD6pCus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nI_5AoHvc I have a slightly different take on these Guitars. And remember well the time when they were Launched onto the Market. Being a Great Believer in Scientific Research, one held out Great Hope for the possibilities of this Model. However, Innovative Ideas and Scientific Research in and of itself, is simply not enough. This has been proven time and time again by Manufacturers . That Research has to be Incorporated into a Larger Program of Product Development to be of Effective Use, and then Implemented into a Well Conceived, Properly Engineered Concept for Practical Series Production, to Market an Attractive, Well Designed Product. My take on it, is that in an Era of Scientific Breakthrough. When Competitor Manufacturers like Ovation where having Considerable Success, Marketing "Stadium Solution" Instruments, utilising Radical Materials and Construction. Staying at the Forefront of the Guitar Industry meant coming up with Scientific and Technical Solutions, to Impress and sometimes Bamboozle the Hoi Polloi. A Good Gibson Execution of which was for example, the Bass Player in a Band I was Conducting had a LAB Series Amplifier with Moog Designed Active Electronics in his Gibson Bass. I liked all that and thought they were extremely Good Sounding used Together as a Single Unit. But here we are talking about a straight forward Acoustic Guitar. In other words, I am suggesting that although Good Scientific Principals were underlying the Guitar. The Owners of Gibson themselves had no Genuine Dedication to The Pursuit of Scientific Truth as and of itself. This is always where the Men are separated from the Boys, whereas Companies I have "an interest" in, Fund Pure Scientific Research Programs that seemingly have no link to any Direct Commercial Gain, which later turns out often to have a Valuable Use. Gibson "Contracted In Scientific and Technical Expertise" and saw both the Science and the Scientists as nothing more than Providing an Expedient Excuse and Opportunity to Push Through a Marketing and Sales Drive that could Entice and Attract Consumers away from their Successful Competitors Products. I am not one of Life's natural skeptics, but base my evaluation on, the Then Owners of The Company. So that was my take on it. Richard Schneider, an Excellent Luthier, was used to Add Verisimilitude to the Concept. But without taking away anything from the Gentleman's Tremendous and Renowned Skills and Talents. They don't really make him an Ideal Development Engineer, or at all and most especially, a Factory Process Engineer. One who can tell and show everyone how to Manufacture the Product using Existing Tooling Solutions wherever possible, and do that not only to a High Quality and Solidly Reliable Consistency. But of course, most especially, in a way that provides the Owners of Gibson, with the most Substantial Profit Possible. This is really what it all was about. Selling Guitars and Making Profit. I have to come completely clean with everyone here. It's just my view. But although The Scientific or Innovative Idea underlying a Design Concept is Extremely Important, perhaps the Single, Most Vital Element, Involved. In my experience, the Place where a Product is Made or Broken, is always at the Development Stage, where the Product is exhaustively put through its paces and Has to Prove Itself. And do that to people with the Experience and Intuitive Nouse to appreciate what Changes need to be Enacted to bring the Product to Complete Fruition as A Mature Design, fully capable of Trouncing the Competition. So although Gibson would obvious lay great emphasis on people like the Scientists and Luthiers in their Promotion of these Instruments, personally, what I would always want to know was, who was involved in the Practical Implementation of the Factory Processes, and everything about, that to me, seemed something of a "Fish Out Of Water Scenario". My understand was that Richard Schneider was pretty unhappy about Gibson's Final Implementation of his Design Ideas. And the kind of Scenario that springs to my mind, is that of Manufacturers that take a Sound Design Idea, and gradually, By Committee, strip it so bare and removed from the Original Concepts of the Main Figures involved, that it becomes "Lost" in terms of its Virginal Purity, its Real Self Identity. Although few were made, along with the Factory Production Models, The Mark Series did feature a Top of the Range, Hand Crafted, Luthier Model. There were altogether, eventually Five Models in all, of which the Bottom of the Line Model was the Mark-35. Peoples experience of these Guitars may differ widely, dependant on which of the Models they have encountered. Usually they mostly remember them simply as a Mark Series. I see that Lack of Identification as a Problem. The Bottom of the Series were Manufactured with Mahogany Backs and Sides. The Middle Models of the Range featured Maple Backs and Sides and the Top of the Range had Rosewood Backs and Sides. Some of the Better Models came with a variety of Extra Bridge Saddles, Manufactured from a Variety of Materials. Along with an Additional Stick On Pickguard should in future one ever be required, but which was virtually guaranteed to wreak havoc with your Finish, with cheap double sided Circular Blobs here and there. Perhaps that Improved the Sound? Usually, there were Three completely different Bridge Saddles, supplied with these Higher End Models like the Mark 99 and Mark 81. So along with the Saddle fitted to the Instrument as Standard, a Micarta Saddle was included along with a Bone Saddle fitted to an Ebony Insert that slid into the Bridge Slot. The Bridge Saddle Inserts appear to be an attempt to provide "Alternative Tonal Tailoring" to accommodate the Most Demanding of Guitar Owners with preconceived expectations. The thinking amongst us might be wondering, Why, if the Guitar was So Good? Was it necessary at significant additional cost, to provide these Extra, Alternative Tonalities, to make the Instrument Acceptable to Potential Purchasers? By Direct Comparison to the best Traditional Designs of the Day, did the Instrument Not Sound Distinctly Better? And Required "Adjustment" to Accommodate the Demands from People whose Musical Genre and Timbre are well Established by Recording Traditions. Furthermore, the really brilliant amongst us, will be wondering? As The Whole Science behind "The Jet" Bridge, The Bridges Plate, and the Bracing of that Whole Area of the Top, was supposed to be Scientifically Determined "Impedance Matching" of the Respective Parts, to attain a Superior Performance previously unobtainable from the Instrument. An "Idea", by the way, with which I have no quarrel with, in principal. How that Significant Improvement in Dynamic Mechanical Efficiency is Accomplished or even Enhanced By a Significant Decoupling of the Major Components involved, and placing Vibration Inhibiting Barriers, between those to Change the Sound to make it better meet Players Expectations of Timbrous Response, I don't know? Neither does anyone else in my experience. They can only make the Transfer of Vibration, Less Efficient, so Debunking the Entire Illusion of Science and Technology upon which the Entire Product Range and its Marketing was Based. I see that as another problem. If someone here can explain to me, how Placing this Additional Mass of Differing Saddle Material at the Bridge, Given that Reducing Bridge Mass is usually the Route to Efficient and Optimal Performance? And THAT being the Whole Principal of the Science behind the "Jet" Design of Bridge? How it is in any way possible for this Implementation of the Design Concept, to be More Efficient? Than a Well Designed, Optimally Structured Traditional Bridge. I would be very interested to Learn. The Whole Execution of a what was essentially a Great ldea. Actually Contradicted Itself, by means of its Implementation. Does this mean it was a Bad Instrument? No, not in my opinion, and the opinion of Session Musicians that tried it. The Tamed Boominess and General Tonal Character solved certain common Micing Problems. So for people that want to Mic a Guitar that "Sits in the Mix" well whether Recorded or in Live Performance it would seem useful. But such problems could always be Solved in Other, Cheaper and Easier Ways with Traditionally Designed Guitars anyway, that already provided "The Right Sound" as long as the Recording or Live Engineers were up to Snuff. Two Aesthetic Design Aspects that were a great mistake in my opinion. Was messing with the Overall Shape and Design of the Headstock. This is a Brand Trademark. And a considerably valuable Marketing Asset. I would have immediately sacked anyone who suggested altering this. Now if you understand the Science behind this Design correctly, you will realise that it calls for Some Differences in the Headstock. The Idea behind the Science, suggests that by adding Extra Mass to the Headstock, and Improving the Necks Vibrational Characteristics. The Transfer of Tonal Quality via the Vibration of the Strings and Neck to the Acoustical Body of the Instrument, can be Further Increased in Efficiency. All this is O.K. with me, I have no problem at all with that Idea in principal, but the Issue I have, is Gibson's Headstock is a Factor, that makes Gibson's Identifiable as Gibson's. It is a Straight Forward Marketing, and Legal Protection of Registered Trademark World Wide Issue for the Company. And a Consumer Brand Marque Identification Issue for Loyal and Potential Customers. Heck, I worked for a Company once that spent a cool £1,000,000 in looking for a Name for its next New Product. It's funny how many words like "Elegance" in one language Translate to )@X& when you want to Market the Same Product in another part of the World. If you examine the Portfolio's of most of the Huge American Corporations that struggle with Huge Losses on an almost cyclical basis. And you see just how many Different Brands, Marques, Trademarks and Models go up to make their Impressively Huge Portfolio's. You can understand, how confusing Brands and Trademarks are and all that can quickly become foxing to the Consumer, when they are considering a New Purchase. Own A Great Trademark. Keep it Absolutely Consistent. And Build on Quality & Reputation. Whilst Enforcing Protection World Wide. This is something some Great Guitar Manufacturers have Learnt only by Hard Lessons. O.K. I'm waiting for someone to shoot at me, but Gibson have produced, several Six in a line, Fender Style Models. Again, I would have sacked anyone that suggested we Sell Guitars, by Advertising our Fiercest Competitors Products, on our very own Headstock. Can you see? How utterly stupid this whole idea is, when you think in terms of Brand Consistency. Establishing a Clear Brand Identification to a Large and Growing Consumer Market. From a Brand Trademark point of view. It is rather akin, to Shooting Oneself in the Foot, with Both Barrels of a Shotgun. Reloading, whilst stood on one leg, and using Both Barrels again on the Other Foot, for Good Measure! Now I realise that some people will Own and Love Gibson Instruments. With Modern Headstocks that have been Widely Accepted having been around for a Great Many Years. Furthermore Gibson Owners coming from Fender Style Instruments may well be used to and even prefer the supposedly Straight String Pull Idea. None of that is an Issue, neither do I take issue with anyone with such a Preference. One Company I have "an interest" in, has had the same Trademark throughout virtually its entire life, and the same Advertising Slogan for its Brand for over 35 Years. That's Brand Identification and Consistency. When you mess with that, you create unforeseeable problems. And without realising it, put at great risk, the future well being of your Company. The other Aesthetic Design Aspect I didn't like was a Plastic Sound Hole Rosette. In an area Traditionally Reserved for Hallmark Shows of Great Craftsmanship and Skill. It was DOOMED to Disappoint and disaffect all Traditionalist Artists, at a point following a period when (courtesy of Ace Craftsman Mike Longworth), Martin had already redefined "Guitar Bling". The Plastic was a "Nod "to New Materials, and Innovative thought, and perhaps a "Royal Wave of the Hand" to Competitors like Ovation, but itself completely against the whole Ethos of Traditional Craftsmanship. Heck, I can't even stand the Yamaha Plastic Sound Holes, even Today, let alone the Plastic Backs. At that time, I think you have to see it as another Design Implementation Disaster, for if you think about it, it's a repeat of the earlier problem. Gibson were Marketing these Guitars, as involving the Great and Indubitable Skill of ACE Luthier Richard Schneider, so tremendously increasing expectation of an Up Market, Premium, High End Work, whilst Producing an Instrument that Featured a Cheap Plastic Ring in the very area one would expect to see Inlaid Work by a Craftsman. Can you see? The Design Ideas and Marketing, Directly Contradicted the Factory Produced Implementation of the Concept. When someone tries to Sell You an Idea. If they Appear to Directly Contradict Themselves. In Finality. How Strongly are you Likely to Believe Them? Putting Cheap Parts on a Guitar. That is Supposed to be "Special" is never a Good Way to Go. If you Charge a High Price for a Better Level of Quality, people don't mind, IF they get Quality. The Extra Premium to the Customer allows for the Extra Cost in Manufacturing, so there's No Excuse for this in my Book. It is just Bean Counting, Plain and Simple. Save us from the Surfeit of Managers that Can't Manage, Administrators that Can't Administrate, Bureaucrats and Bean Counters. This is a Simple Matter of Lack of Leadership in the Company. Clear Ideas. Properly Implemented. By the Steering of Clear Leadership. Lastly. Overwhelmingly, Consumers do not buy Guitars. Because of some Scientific or Technical Innovation, unless its Genuinely Helpful in a way that is Practical. In others Words, it Solves a Problem, like Ovations at a time when Artists were Appearing to Huge Audiences in Stadiums, not designed for Acoustical Concerts. Now most of the people that bought Ovation Guitars, did not Play in such Stadiums. But none the less found the Easy Amplification of Acoustic Instruments, to be a Very Useful, Additional Facility. Most people buy Guitars as an Emotional Purchase. Perhaps because they Associate the Brand of Instrument, with a Great Artist or Performer they Aspire to Emulate and Increasingly Become, More Like in many Respects. They have Hero's, and believe that owning the same Brand of Instrument and Equipment as the Artists they Admire, will significantly help them to Sound and Perform Better, additionally, sending a Bold Statement to others, Regarding their Personal and Professional Stature in the Industry. They are Bathing. In a Kind of Reflected Glory. Majestically Shone from the Talent of Others. But few, if any at all, Great Artists used these Instruments on Recording or Stage. Clearly preferring the Traditional Instruments that had the Recorded Sound Quality Gibson was Renowned Throughout the World For. This Gratifying Validation by the Greatest Artists and Performers of the Day, is the "Missing Link" that potentially could have launched the Product into the Stratosphere, but then as today, remains "A Missing Link". To those that feels my post is Critical of the Product. That is not my Intention as the Last Guitar I purchased, was indeed a Gibson. Rather, I do wish to be Historically Accurate whilst keeping my response as concise as possible, but always have been and remain, a Gibson Fan. The good news is, that if you can find a well looked after example. For a Parsons St. Kalamazoo Instrument, Manufactured with Highly Sought After Brazilian Wood, this Instrument Range is very much on the Cheap Side of what you might otherwise expect to Pay. If you are prepared for the Tonal Difference, with the possibility of a Fast Neck that may seem Ideally Suited for an Electric, and fitted with Jumbo Frets. A Collector of Guitars, and every Good Guitarist has something of that in them. And could find they Pick up something of a Bargain. That's how I would look at it. Mark Knopfler has the Best Example I have come across. But it has a White Inlaid Dot either side of the Bridge, so probably screwed. The main thing is, not to get placed in a similar position, if you decide to buy, these Instruments. Happy New Year to Everyone! P P.S. Roger I have distant relations in Ipswich. And some Close Relations in nearby Woodbridge Suffolk. With Pal's in Martlesham Heath where they make BBC Vision Mixers etc. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/26/geeks_guide_adastral_park/…
- Added by Peter Poyser at 10:13am on December 31, 2013
© 2025 Created by Frank Ford.
Powered by
