My H-150 Gets a Makeover

[Patrick]

i ran across this a few months ago and it was mentioned in passing here earlier. Gil Yaron in Israel built this beautiful '59 Les Paul Standard replica and documented it in steps. excellent reading here. an education for me on the variables and other elements (documentation, materials, etc.) involved.

 

 

(and it started out as a fret job )

 

rj . . . thanks so much for re-posting this. This was a GREAT thread. I've been looking all over the forums for it. If we're going to talk about attention to detail in making a replica . . . this guy is the cat's meow.

[Guest mgoetting]

We are on page 9 of this thread. Are we setting a record?

 

If we are getting close, I'll try to stir up a few more pages of trouble.

 

How about this? Who lengthens your tenon? Ginger vs. Mary Ann vs. Sarah Palin

 

http://hubpages.com/hub/Ginger-Or-Mary-Ann-The-Eternal-Question

[rjsanders]

We are on page 9 of this thread. Are we setting a record?

 

If we are getting close, I'll try to stir up a few more pages of trouble.

 

How about this? Who lengthens your tenon? Ginger vs. Mary Ann vs. Sarah Palin

 

http://hubpages.com/hub/Ginger-Or-Mary-Ann-The-Eternal-Question

 

vs. Tina Fey

[rjsanders]

rj . . . thanks so much for re-posting this. This was a GREAT thread. I've been looking all over the forums for it. If we're going to talk about attention to detail in making a replica . . . this guy is the cat's meow.

 

 

yeahman. completely agree. and on TDPRI to boot. who'da thunk?

[Guest mgoetting]

On a more serious note, what are the advantages of a nitro finish? Does it enhance tone?

 

I have seen Fenders, Gibsons and Heritages with crazing and cracking. Nitrocellulose is supposed to be easier to repair. But I've seen good repairs on Fenders, too.

 

If the wood is completely dry, does it matter which finish it gets?

[Patrick]

Not true. Please see all your previous assertions on the infinite variables in play to create tone.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate

 

H . . not sure I catch you drift. All of my "previous assertions on the infinite variables in play to create tone" . . . . . say that there are infinite variables in play to create tone. I think I'm missing the meaning of your post

[Halowords]

Again . . . no one knows for sure that the length of the neck tenon doesn't affect tone. No one can know for sure . It's impossible to know for sure.

 

For the sake of discussion, on Heritage's part (or any manufacturer for that matter), why bother? If you the customer can't tell the difference, and it's an added step that ends up being a PITA (one that others might then want because they just have to have it) but seems to have no real upside according to the people that actually make them, why should they? Do an added step that might make some slight difference in tone, sustain, "mojo", or might actually have a negative effect? Granted, I guess if they upcharge for it and people are willing to pay for it, great. Still, people are virtually universally saying "these guitars sound and feel great as-is" but are pretty much asking out of the just-in-case it might add something, without any real evidence except historical correctness (which o.k., has some merit, but not much without actual evidence to support its worth). It kind of sounded like they found there to be no advantage. And if none of us can tell the difference, the rationale for doing so just really is not there.

 

For their sake, it's probably a lot easier and clearer to just make them the way they make them that works in their experience. It's just one more variable out of the equation for them.

[H]

H . . not sure I catch you drift. All of my "previous assertions on the infinite variables in play to create tone" . . . . . say that there are infinite variables in play to create tone. I think I'm missing the meaning of your post

And in the post I replied to, you said that we'd never know until Heritage makes a long tenon 150. But by consensus here, and in your own previous posts, we *cannot* know whether a long tenon changes the tone because there are so many variables in the creation of a guitar's tone.

 

I was pointing out that you have contradicted yourself.

 

But I did it with a smiley so you'd know it was a good natured reposte and not just a nasty bit of troll-bait

[Patrick]

For the sake of discussion, on Heritage's part (or any manufacturer for that matter), why bother? If you the customer can't tell the difference, and it's an added step that ends up being a PITA (one that others might then want because they just have to have it) but seems to have no real upside according to the people that actually make them, why should they? Do an added step that might make some slight difference in tone, sustain, "mojo", or might actually have a negative effect? Granted, I guess if they upcharge for it and people are willing to pay for it, great. Still, people are virtually universally saying "these guitars sound and feel great as-is" but are pretty much asking out of the just-in-case it might add something, without any real evidence except historical correctness (which o.k., has some merit, but not much without actual evidence to support its worth). It kind of sounded like they found there to be no advantage. And if none of us can tell the difference, the rationale for doing so just really is not there.

 

For their sake, it's probably a lot easier and clearer to just make them the way they make them that works in their experience. It's just one more variable out of the equation for them.

 

Halo . . . what makes The Heritage guitar company who they are, is that they are not a "cookie cutter" mass production type of guitar producer. They are a custom shop. Custom shops thrive on these types of requests. Probably half of all the special custom build specs that Heritage receives has no provable significant rationale as it relates to tone. But, people order what they want because they want it. Thus the "Custom Shop" mentality. The idea of whether or not it is necessary is not often part of the thought process.

[Patrick]

And in the post I replied to, you said that we'd never know until Heritage makes a long tenon 150. But by consensus here, and in your own previous posts, we *cannot* know whether a long tenon changes the tone because there are so many variables in the creation of a guitar's tone.

 

I was pointing out that you have contradicted yourself.

 

But I did it with a smiley so you'd know it was a good natured reposte and not just a nasty bit of troll-bait

 

Yeah . . . I see what you're saying now. The "until Heritage makes one" was obviously an incorrect statement. I really believe that there is no way of knowing for sure if it affects the tone one way or another. However, like most others, I do have my assumptions and opinions. I think it would. . .and I'd prefer that my 150s had the longer one. But, on another matter . . . "a nasty bit of troll-bait"?? What a great reference!! How do you Brits come of with this stuff??

[H]

But, on another matter . . . "a nasty bit of troll-bait"?? What a great reference!! How do you Brits come of with this stuff??

We invented the language - it's in our gift to expand and refine it for new situations

[NoNameBand]

Mary Ann. Regarding lacquer, they say that lacquer continues to move and let the wood breath and move with humidity, expanding, contracting or bending. Polyurethane is less flexible and works against the guitars inclination to move. Additionally, Polyurethane continues to get harder as time goes on ultimately being more subject to chipping as apposed to a dent. Thats what they say... It also looks better, thats what I say.

 

By the way, no one commented on my Hide Glue post. I thought that was pretty good stuff?

[mark555]

We invented the language - it's in our gift to expand and refine it for new situations

 

I was going to say you were just being British, something many other none Brits miss - maybe our Ausie brothers get what we say, they often do. But many of my American family struggle with our language.

[ExNihilo]

Regarding the Hide Glue. At PSP III, I spoke to Marv about that and he said they have worked with both and found that the Hide glue did not achieve the same degree of bond. Over time, they have had experience of failure with Hide Glue and no failures with the glue they use. I know historical guitars used this and some current VOS use it and suggest it is superior, but not according to Marv. Based on his experience, I would yield to having done as opposed to thinking or wondering about it. Apparently, Hide glue can continue to move over time which may (even if rare) have an adverse affect of the stability of the neck. I on the other have, have not built thousands of guitars, nor do I have any comparisons. So I will stay out of it.

 

I believe that Heritage uses Tite Bond glue.

 

Hide glue comes in different variants. A fast gelling glue is difficult to work with, but is very strong. If there were and bond failures using hide glue it would most likely be due to it's application and not the glue itself. A recent edition of Fine Woodworking Magazine placed standard wood glue as stronger than hide glue. However, strength is not the only thing. A proper hide glue joint gets better and better over the years. It grips and shrinks and gets hard like glass. It is extremely resonant. And, if you ever did have a join failure (which I think would be very very rare), you could just heat it and ad more glue and off you go.

 

I view hide glue to Tite Bond as I would Poly to Nitro. Nitro and hide glue are more glass-like and therefore more resonant. They carry vibrations rather than muffle them.

[schundog]

I was going to say you were just being British, something many other none Brits miss - maybe our Ausie brothers get what we say, they often do. But many of my American family struggle with our language.

 

 

I jist wish u fellers would stop with that there sissified talk and speak Amuricin...

[Kuz]

OK, I have stayed off this topic for a while and now want to give a little input.

 

I have spoke with Marv, Jim, Ren, and even Terry McInturff on the issue of the BEST way to make the perfect LP/150. In other words, how to get the vintage perfection of the '59 LPs.

 

All have answered the same way... "We didn't put any thought into what Nitro, Glue, Hardward, ect... We used what we could get at the lowest price and if the standard finish, glue, ect was out of stock, we drove to the hardware store or used whatever was laying around."

 

Ren, Marv, and the boys laugh at all the "exact specs" people try to use to duplicate the iconic Gibsons. They told me, "We never thought about making them perfect. Everyone was different because we were under order to get them done as fast as possible."

 

Marv & Ren have also said the attention to detail from TODAY'S Heritage guitars are MUCH more exact, accurate, and overall of better quality, than almost any guitar to every be made in the 50s & 60s because of the emphasis on getting them out the door back then.

 

Do you think Gibson researched for the best wood, glue, finish, hardware, pickups, ect back in the 50s & 60s?

 

PERSONALLY, I like the thinking of Heritage, Terry McInturff, and other top luthiers that are trying to IMPROVE on the designs of old.

[MartyGrass]

But many of my American family struggle with our language.

 

 

Which language? English?

 

We do butcher it. Maybe that's why we're converting to Spanglish in the US.

[ExNihilo]

OK, I have stayed off this topic for a while and now want to give a little input.

 

I have spoke with Marv, Jim, Ren, and even Terry McInturff on the issue of the BEST way to make the perfect LP/150. In other words, how to get the vintage perfection of the '59 LPs.

 

All have answered the same way... "We didn't put any thought into what Nitro, Glue, Hardward, ect... We used what we could get at the lowest price and if the standard finish, glue, ect was out of stock, we drove to the hardware store or used whatever was laying around."

 

Ren, Marv, and the boys laugh at all the "exact specs" people try to use to duplicate the iconic Gibsons. They told me, "We never thought about making them perfect. Everyone was different because we were under order to get them done as fast as possible."

 

Marv & Ren have also said the attention to detail from TODAY'S Heritage guitars are MUCH more exact, accurate, and overall of better quality, than almost any guitar to every be made in the 50s & 60s because of the emphasis on getting them out the door back then.

 

Do you think Gibson researched for the best wood, glue, finish, hardware, pickups, ect back in the 50s & 60s?

 

PERSONALLY, I like the thinking of Heritage, Terry McInturff, and other top luthiers that are trying to IMPROVE on the designs of old.

 

 

Kuz, This is the best and coolest forum post I have ever read. Thanks very much for it. If you can get more info like this, that would be great!

[Patrick]

OK, I have stayed off this topic for a while and now want to give a little input.

 

I have spoke with Marv, Jim, Ren, and even Terry McInturff on the issue of the BEST way to make the perfect LP/150. In other words, how to get the vintage perfection of the '59 LPs.

 

All have answered the same way... "We didn't put any thought into what Nitro, Glue, Hardward, ect... We used what we could get at the lowest price and if the standard finish, glue, ect was out of stock, we drove to the hardware store or used whatever was laying around."

 

Ren, Marv, and the boys laugh at all the "exact specs" people try to use to duplicate the iconic Gibsons. They told me, "We never thought about making them perfect. Everyone was different because we were under order to get them done as fast as possible."

 

Marv & Ren have also said the attention to detail from TODAY'S Heritage guitars are MUCH more exact, accurate, and overall of better quality, than almost any guitar to every be made in the 50s & 60s because of the emphasis on getting them out the door back then.

 

Do you think Gibson researched for the best wood, glue, finish, hardware, pickups, ect back in the 50s & 60s?

 

PERSONALLY, I like the thinking of Heritage, Terry McInturff, and other top luthiers that are trying to IMPROVE on the designs of old.

 

Great post Kuz. That's the point I was trying to make when mark555 made that long post quoting all of the scientific hoopla from "The Beauty Of The Burst". These guys just built guitars back then. The things you alluded to above are representative of the inconsistencies from one '59 burst to the next. That's one of the things that made them so interesting. "Back in the day" no one at Parsons Street considered the ultimate consequences of many of their choices of materials or even build techniques for that matter. Some of materials and build techniques, certainly . . .but not the vast majority. Gibson just built guitars. The magical outcome was more by accident or consequence than it was by design or plan. Most of these modern day talented luthiers who make clones of the '59 burst usually get one to copy from. If they make 100 clones, they're all going to be a clone of that one particular original '59 burst. I think Gibson built some 2,800 of them. They were each and every one . . . a different guitar. Even the current H150s can't lay claim to that. Because, while there are still variances from one guitar to the next, the H150s produced today are much more consistent than the Les Pauls of the late ,50s and early ,60s.

[Patrick]

Great post Kuz. That's the point I was trying to make when mark555 made that long post quoting all of the scientific hoopla from "The Beauty Of The Burst". These guys just built guitars back then. The things you alluded to above are representative of the inconsistencies from one '59 burst to the next. That's one of the things that made them so interesting. "Back in the day" no one at Parsons Street considered the ultimate consequences of many of their choices of materials or even build techniques for that matter. Some of materials and build techniques, certainly . . .but not the vast majority. Gibson just built guitars. The magical outcome was more by accident or consequence than it was by design or plan. Most of these modern day talented luthiers who make clones of the '59 burst usually get one to copy from. If they make 100 clones, they're all going to be a clone of that one particular original '59 burst. I think Gibson built some 2,800 of them. They were each and every one . . . a different guitar. Even the current H150s can't lay claim to that. Because, while there are still variances from one guitar to the next, the H150s produced today are much more consistent than the Les Pauls of the late ,50s and early ,60s.

 

A last thought . . the reasons you stated above are why nothing will ever be just exactly like an original original '59 burst. Not even another original '59 burst

[H]

I jist wish u fellers would stop with that there sissified talk and speak Amuricin...

It's happening, believe me! American culture is firehosed at us in everyday life and we absorb and assimilate it, both the good and bad elements. For every Heritage there's also a McDonald's

 

However, we all come from the same stock and we are more alike than we are different.

 

Is Amurucin a brand of painkiller?

[ExNihilo]

So..... I changed the headstock on my H-150...... :laughing4:

[mark555]

I jist wish u fellers would stop with that there sissified talk and speak Amuricin...

 

What you have to understand here are the subtleties of the British in what we are REALLY saying. For example, in my post about the Boss peddle for making a long tenon guitar effect. As an American you would not always understand we Brits and the subtleties of what is going on, just as there are times when we do not perhaps understand other cultures as we are not immersed in the nuances.

[mark555]

And in the post I replied to, you said that we'd never know until Heritage makes a long tenon 150. But by consensus here, and in your own previous posts, we *cannot* know whether a long tenon changes the tone because there are so many variables in the creation of a guitar's tone.

 

I was pointing out that you have contradicted yourself.

 

But I did it with a smiley so you'd know it was a good natured reposte and not just a nasty bit of troll-bait

 

Spot on Howard - good man. Lets get some British influence in here!

[mark555]

OK, I have stayed off this topic for a while and now want to give a little input.

 

I have spoke with Marv, Jim, Ren, and even Terry McInturff on the issue of the BEST way to make the perfect LP/150. In other words, how to get the vintage perfection of the '59 LPs.

 

All have answered the same way... "We didn't put any thought into what Nitro, Glue, Hardward, ect... We used what we could get at the lowest price and if the standard finish, glue, ect was out of stock, we drove to the hardware store or used whatever was laying around."

 

Ren, Marv, and the boys laugh at all the "exact specs" people try to use to duplicate the iconic Gibsons. They told me, "We never thought about making them perfect. Everyone was different because we were under order to get them done as fast as possible."

 

Marv & Ren have also said the attention to detail from TODAY'S Heritage guitars are MUCH more exact, accurate, and overall of better quality, than almost any guitar to every be made in the 50s & 60s because of the emphasis on getting them out the door back then.

 

Do you think Gibson researched for the best wood, glue, finish, hardware, pickups, ect back in the 50s & 60s?

 

PERSONALLY, I like the thinking of Heritage, Terry McInturff, and other top luthiers that are trying to IMPROVE on the designs of old.

 

Thank you John for this common sense, I have long believed that many of the so called vintage guitars are nothing but the kings new clothes. I think you have given us a definitive answer here.