seller says '1968 SG Standard' but what do you think?

.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-Gibson-SG-Standard-/201437314587?ssPageName=ADME%3AL%3ACOSI%3AUS%3A1123&nma=true&si=f7aSNQ%252BG28fRDB%252FIAAlX5u%252BibRw%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Saw this SG and wondered what it is, exactly.

No 'Maestro' tailpiece.

I wonder what year it is?

Also, it looks like maybe the neck has been replaced?

Hard to say given the photos.

:jim

Very little body contouring, volute say to me 1970-ish? Looks just like my '70 standard, same neck p/u route, same neck joint, same everything, but mine does have the 'made in USA' stamp.

It is hard to make out the color. If it is walnut, I think that color was introduced in 1970, someone correct me if I am wrong.

I see it ended. Did you pick it up?

Sure looks like the '70 Gibson pearl inlay..
Pot codes are 137 70 18.
'68 my ASS...yet i already somehow knew that it wasn't a '68 before I looked..:dang
Nice price though, and really a '70 isn't inferior to a '68 in the tone department, the '68 just has some sleeker lines..
JUST like a direct comparison to the classic Dodge Charger..a '68 has slightly different body lines than a '70, but both bad ass in their own right.

A few months back i had a 67 SG with 69 pots. all solder joints looked original and untouched....but everything else other than the pots was 67. Heel, 000XXX serial number, reflector knobs, no volute, crown inlay placement...
was odd for sure. Maybe left over body finally assembled in 69? who knows...

I had a '67-68 Standard back in the day. Definitely didn't have the volute

Clearly a 1970 one. Could be great sounding guitar though with those early T-Tops. But 70 has significantly lower value then 68. Today are many 70 SGs late sixties ones and for example nearly all 74 or 75 Les Pauls are 70s too.

Progrocker111 said:

Clearly a 1970 one. Could be great sounding guitar though with those early T-Tops. But 70 has significantly lower value then 68. Today are many 70 SGs late sixties ones and for example nearly all 74 or 75 Les Pauls are 70s too.

Click to expand...

Yep, seems all large guard SG Standards are "68's , as if that's some kind of pinnacle year for the SG, when in reality, a '71 is basically the exact same thing...with some slightly different body lines..

Kris Ford said:

Yep, seems all large guard SG Standards are "68's , as if that's some kind of pinnacle year for the SG, when in reality, a '71 is basically the exact same thing...with some slightly different body lines..

Click to expand...

This, 70/71 SG is nearly the same except three piece neck and a bit less contoured body. Even the electronics are the same.

I love the look of those '67-'69s for sure, but my favorite of all time, my baby...a '70:

DaveSG said:

I love the look of those '67-'69s for sure, but my favorite of all time, my baby...a '70:

Click to expand...

For all practical purposes, they're the same in my book, just different body lines...(AND 3 piece neck, volute, but I DO NOT believe that these detract from tone one bit..):yah

Kris Ford said:

For all practical purposes, they're the same in my book, just different body lines...(AND 3 piece neck, volute, but I DO NOT believe that these detract from tone one bit..):yah

Click to expand...

From a theoretical standpoint, I think the volute and 3 piece neck are really good features, with the volute giving (in theory) a stronger headstock joint (even though mine snapped:laugh2 and a 3 piece neck can better resist warping. What is funny is that the lack of contouring on these 1970+ SGs lends itself to the costcutting idea, whereas I think it would be more work to construct a 3 piece neck versus a 1 piece...but maybe they were trying to get by using smaller wood pieces/thinner boards?

I have always felt that the SG should have been a neck through design, but perhaps Gibson was worried about wood costs with how big of a piece is needed for a neck through and then the leftover wood generated. Oh well, one can dream:jim

DaveSG said:

From a theoretical standpoint, I think the volute and 3 piece neck are really good features, with the volute giving (in theory) a stronger headstock joint (even though mine snapped:laugh2 and a 3 piece neck can better resist warping. What is funny is that the lack of contouring on these 1970+ SGs lends itself to the costcutting idea, whereas I think it would be more work to construct a 3 piece neck versus a 1 piece...but maybe they were trying to get by using smaller wood pieces/thinner boards?

I have always felt that the SG should have been a neck through design, but perhaps Gibson was worried about wood costs with how big of a piece is needed for a neck through and then the leftover wood generated. Oh well, one can dream:jim

Click to expand...

Yeah, they obviously had the demand to NEED to make more, so I can see where things could be tightened up, but the volute, and laminated neck DEFINITELY cost more time and labor to manufacture, so the idea that these changes were done to "cheapen" or "cut costs" is quite ignorant and absurd. Guarantee you that NO ONE could hear this on a recording..:ganz
These were to address the HUGE amount of warranty claims..as was ultimately a deeper inset neck on the 1971-72 SG Deluxe and '73 to '91 SG Standard...which incidentally DID cure the "neck joint as vibrola" malady that plagued MANY 61-67 SGs. I love them ALL, ('60-'80) but I can say with all honesty that I sure can't play my '65 SG Junior as hard as I do my '74 SG Standard.
As for the contouring, it definitely came back in 1973..
My '74 for reference..

Kris Ford said:

Yeah, they obviously had the demand to NEED to make more, so I can see where things could be tightened up, but the volute, and laminated neck DEFINITELY cost more time and labor to manufacture, so the idea that these changes were done to "cheapen" or "cut costs" is quite ignorant and absurd. Guarantee you that NO ONE could hear this on a recording..:ganz
These were to address the HUGE amount of warranty claims..as was ultimately a deeper inset neck on the 1971-72 SG Deluxe and '73 to '91 SG Standard...which incidentally DID cure the "neck joint as vibrola" malady that plagued MANY 61-67 SGs. I love them ALL, ('60-'80) but I can say with all honesty that I sure can't play my '65 SG Junior as hard as I do my '74 SG Standard.
As for the contouring, it definitely came back in 1973..

Click to expand...

That's a great looking '74. How do you like it? How do those tarbacks compare to the earlier SGs? Were they still using the thin nut widths and slim necks from the late 60s? I've entertained the idea of an early 70s Standard, but still don't know too much about them. Would love to hear from an owner!

DaveSG said:

That's a great looking '74. How do you like it? How do those tarbacks compare to the earlier SGs? Were they still using the thin nut widths and slim necks from the late 60s? I've entertained the idea of an early 70s Standard, but still don't know too much about them. Would love to hear from an owner!

Click to expand...

Thanks Dave! Well, not to hijack the thread or steer it into the dreaded N word territory, but it's my most played/picked up guitar at the moment...even more so than my '65 Junior! Heresy, I know...that pic was taken when I had tarbacks in it, but after some experimentation, those went into the '74's younger sister, my '76 SG Standard. (both had un original pickups when I got them...) This SG currently has a set of unpotted BB 1 and 2 that just WORK so well for it, that I will probably leave them..makes it a flat out nasty HARD ROCK monster!
I equate the tarback to a T Top, but darker and smokier, but not in a bad way at all! I parked the original wiring harness and installed a tightly spec'd 500K CTS set, and the TBs work very well with those..as do the Burstbuckers! Did I say it was time to ROCK?:yah:yah Mid '73 sometime is when the switch from 4x 500K to 300K volume/100K tone happened, for whatever reason, but using these pickups with the 500ks restores some fullness and top end if that makes sense..I put 500K pots in both the '74 and '76. HUGE improvement. My other 2 SGs (the '65 Jr and the '71 Deluxe {with Patent Sticker T Tops}) have 500K pots stock.
As for the nut width, this one has the unbound ebony board with pearl blocks to the first fret, I haven't measured, but would guess it may be closer to 1 5/8 than 1 9/16..the profile is pretty thick, definitely not a pencil neck..feels good in the hand, as does the '76. Switching from my '65 SG junior to this one is almost unnoticeable, but I'm used to it..small adjustment period, then I forget they're even different. Certainly nothing that would ever make me not buy one, which is why I can not understand the deep hatred for these..and there had to be a reason that the widths were changed, and remained from late '65 to 1979..until the wider 1 1/16 width came back on SGs..

Mark, wow I sure do appreciate that information, thank you!:salude

I'm glad to hear that they went back to a slightly larger neck, although the thinner necks of the earlier SGs don't bother me as much as I thought they would. I do like the look of those early 70s standards and I don't really see anyone playing one!

I remember when I was a kid, back in San Diego I was talking with a tech at Muzik Muzik (El Cajon) and he had one of these (72-74 SG Standards) on the table. I was asking about it. He said he got it for about $700 and figured he'd pick one up before prices started to rise more. Well, I suppose they did definitely rise! I'm seeing these for about 1.5-2k or so, but I love beat up, player's guitars so I bet I could find one on the cheap if I was looking hard. I suppose its almost a good thing to hear that I wouldn't miss an original wiring harness if that was changed out.

I do love the way these look and I'd love to test drive one if I ever see one in a store! Thank you for sharing your guitar. It makes me wish we had a Norlin subforum here!

And to get things back on track, to the OP - did you end up picking the guitar in the original listing or know what happened with it?