Author Topic: Lacquer lines in the nitro finish on a new guitar - issue? (Read 26034 times)

noodleplugerine · « **Reply #75 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:38:40 AM »

That Surpeme looks stunning.

Twinfan · « **Reply #76 on:** April 25, 2007, 08:55:10 AM »

Indy - yep, it's a Faded G400. They no longer have neck bindings but there are a few old spec ones knocking about in shops.

Phil/Jonathan - yep, the nut isn't even finished off properly I know. I told Peter Cooks to leave it so my luthier can sort it all out as I trust his work.

The original nut was replaced by a Rosetti numpty because the original was cut too low and it failed QC. Well and truly fails it now! Saved me a bunch of cash though which is cool ;)

LazyNinja · « **Reply #77 on:** April 25, 2007, 09:13:09 AM »

Nice score Twinfan. I'd love an SG myself. I've been looking into the Japanese line Epiphone SGs which have nice lacquer finish and they are only about £450 shipped 8) Can't afford a 61 and I haven't yet come across a faded special that I liked.

WezV · « **Reply #78 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:08:29 PM »

Look really nice . . . and the flame in that mahogany neck would not be enough to make me worry about stability.

I hate the nuts on factory made guitars, its forgiveable on cheaper brands but gibson should really be getting this right by now!! The lacquer chips are just a sign of laziness - it would have taken less than a minute to fetch a sharp razorblade and score around the nut before removing it. Luckily its a relatively easy fix and the guitar will be better with a proffesionaly cut nut anyway

Twinfan · « **Reply #79 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:13:11 PM »

Thanks Wez - that's what I thought. I think I'll get a Tusq one while I've got the opportunity.

WezV · « **Reply #80 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:36:08 PM »

Tusq's works pretty well, i like it a lot - but real unbleached bone is where it is at for me at the moment. . . well, apart from the awfull smell it gives off when you cut it.

_tom_ · « **Reply #81 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:53:53 PM »

I have rather strong GAS for one of these SGs (thought it'd be better with the smaller pickguard, bigger looks kinda cheap to me), or one in creamy vintage white.

I'll have to get one soon, but I also want a V - want to try to start up a UFO tribute, but you cant do that without a V! :lol:

Are the neck joints/headstocks on SGs really as weak as I've read?

Twinfan · « **Reply #82 on:** April 25, 2007, 08:17:16 PM »

They are weaker than a Les Paul, but they're not paper weak! Like everything, if you look after it, it'll be fine :D

WezV · « **Reply #83 on:** April 25, 2007, 09:03:35 PM »

Quote from: _tom_

Are the neck joints/headstocks on SGs really as weak as I've read?

Its weak compared to other designs but still perfectly adequate - just dont drop it!!!

Gibson are notorius for broken headstocks because they insist on making the necks out of one peice of wood which means the grain is not going the best way at the headstock transition. Problem is - if they did it any other way people wouldnt buy it, most gibson buyers are after a gibson built the traditional way!!

Older SG's had more serious problems because the neck stuck completely out of the body and the neck tenon (the bit thats glued in) was quite short and had a neck pickup routed into it so there was actually very little wood holding the neck in place. After a while gibson moved the neck into the body a little more to streghthen this area but it can still be a little more flexible than other designs. Les paul himself thought it was a less stable design and thats one of the reasons often quoted for him wanting his name taking of of them.

I still want one because there is nothing quite as cool as an SG in that beautifull red!!

Twinfan · « **Reply #84 on:** April 25, 2007, 09:25:09 PM »

Quote from: WezV

I still want one because there is nothing quite as cool as an SG in that beautifull red!!

Ain't that the truth ;)

It wasn't Angus that actually got me really interested in SGs, I always preferred the Les Paul (thanks to Slash). It was Paul Weller:

LazyNinja · « **Reply #85 on:** April 26, 2007, 08:37:14 AM »

Hey, just wondered what SG stands for. I've never really thought about it.

Kilby · « **Reply #86 on:** April 26, 2007, 09:23:28 AM »

Quote from: LazyNinja

Hey, just wondered what SG stands for. I've never really thought about it.

I was always told Solid Guitar

On the mention of nice (current) SG versions, I really like the Goddess range, though I would lose the chrome controls (and the stock pickups)

Rob...

Twinfan · « **Reply #87 on:** April 26, 2007, 10:12:53 AM »

Yep, solid guitar is right.

Goddess? Isn't that the girls version :P

Kilby · « **Reply #88 on:** April 26, 2007, 10:43:09 AM »

Quote from: Twinfan

Yep, solid guitar is right.

Goddess? Isn't that the girls version :P

Yeah, me like girls :)

WezV · « **Reply #89 on:** April 26, 2007, 04:34:53 PM »

i have heard 'standard guitar' spouted as the meaning of SG as well as the more common 'solid guitar'.