• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Norlin years

scozz50

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
284
The Norlin years were from 1969 to 1985. There were really two periods in the Norlin ownership, the first from 1969 to about 1976 or so. Those years were not the greatest for Gibson in terms of quality guitars. They put into place a number of manufacturing processes that were not very popular. The sandwich body for one, where they put a very thin piece of maple between two slabs of mahogany for the body. This process is called crossbanding. Crossbanding allowed Gibson to use smaller pieces of mahogany, that were used for necks because of their size, to be used for the bodies. There were problems with this process, there were complaints about shrinkage around the joints. Also in 1969 Gibson changed the necks from 1-piece mahogany to a 3-piece laminate, and added a volute to the back of the neck. Also the angle at which the headstock pitched back was decreased from 17 degrees to 14. All these things hurt Gibsons reputation amoung traditionalists. Rumors started to spread that LPs were not as good as they used to be.
The second period of the Norlin ownership showed quality guitars coming back to the LP line. In 1978 Tim Shaw joined Gibson, and by 1979 he was heading up the R&D dept. The crossbanding process was stoped by this time, and the LP necks went from the 3-piece laminate to a 3-piece maple for added strength. The volute was removed by 1981. The headstock pitch returned to the original 17 degrees as it should be. Shaw designed new humbucking pickups that mirrored the original PAFs, he hand wound some himself. Today Tim Shaw pickups are highly regarded, and some say are the closet to the original PAFs. The changes mabe in the early 80s resulted in some of the finest LPs made. Unfortunately today when someone talks about Gibsons Norlin era it has a negative conotation. People seem to forget, or don't know that the end of that era, 1978 to 1985 Gibson made some fine guitars.



KEEP PLAYING
 

danny2plus2

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
697
I’m not a fan of Norlins. Having said that (and I believe I’m on record here) the maple neck Customs, The Paul’s and Deluxe are (imho) quite good. Artisans as well if you can stand the weight and loose the TP6 in favor of a stop tailpiece. But they are Norlin models. Enjoy yours.
 

kitchen

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
344
Did God create 17 degrees? Actual 14 degrees started with the SG in 1965 when Gibson still was pure. Shows evil was starting to penetrate before Norlin.
Steve
 

dwagar

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
4,451
Quote: People seem to forget, or don't know that the end of that era, 1978 to 1985 Gibson made some fine guitars.

and it appears others forget that, between 1969 and 1977, Gibson made some fine guitars.
 

Bluedawg

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Messages
894
Also in 1969 Gibson changed the necks from 1-piece mahogany to a 3-piece laminate, and added a volute to the back of the neck.


3-piece laminate?

Are you saying that these where made of plywood? I need some more verification on that.

The ones I've seen with clear neck finishes sure looked like maple.

It was my understanding that in that era they were all three piece maple necks, which from the company's stand point could be considered an upgrade. Gibsons top guitars (L5, Super 400) where 3-piece maple from day one or at least since the early 30s. These days the top arch tops are 5 piece necks including two decorative walnut(?) strips between three maple pieces.

I worked at a Gibson dealer from 80 to 84 and LPs took a major turn for the better during that period, but the 80s were the era of pointy guitars and Gibson's sales were hurt by that and their 70s reputation, despite marked improvements. As I recall things, it took Slash to revive the LP.

:hmm
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,853
1969 saw the introduction of the three-piece mahogany neck. Maple came in 75/76

Actually five (if you count the wings) pieces of wood laminated together.
 

PTate

New member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
251
The Norlin years were from 1969 to 1985. There were really two periods in the Norlin ownership, the first from 1969 to about 1976 or so. Those years were not the greatest for Gibson in terms of quality guitars. They put into place a number of manufacturing processes that were not very popular. The sandwich body for one, where they put a very thin piece of maple between two slabs of mahogany for the body. This process is called crossbanding. Crossbanding allowed Gibson to use smaller pieces of mahogany, that were used for necks because of their size, to be used for the bodies. There were problems with this process, there were complaints about shrinkage around the joints. Also in 1969 Gibson changed the necks from 1-piece mahogany to a 3-piece laminate, and added a volute to the back of the neck. Also the angle at which the headstock pitched back was decreased from 17 degrees to 14. All these things hurt Gibsons reputation amoung traditionalists. Rumors started to spread that LPs were not as good as they used to be.
The second period of the Norlin ownership showed quality guitars coming back to the LP line. In 1978 Tim Shaw joined Gibson, and by 1979 he was heading up the R&D dept. The crossbanding process was stoped by this time, and the LP necks went from the 3-piece laminate to a 3-piece maple for added strength. The volute was removed by 1981. The headstock pitch returned to the original 17 degrees as it should be. Shaw designed new humbucking pickups that mirrored the original PAFs, he hand wound some himself. Today Tim Shaw pickups are highly regarded, and some say are the closet to the original PAFs. The changes mabe in the early 80s resulted in some of the finest LPs made. Unfortunately today when someone talks about Gibsons Norlin era it has a negative conotation. People seem to forget, or don't know that the end of that era, 1978 to 1985 Gibson made some fine guitars.

Bullshit.

Traditionalists: Do you all still drive around in Model T Fords? Ride horses as transport? Live in caves? Catch your own food? No........?

Well it seems that it's OK to claim that the Les Paul should never have changed, but everything else can.........Hmmmmm.........Screw evolution then, lets all go back to living in the ocean.

69-76 Gibson Les Pauls were improved, not fucked-up. Wonder why the prices of these are on the up? Because people who listened to the "old", discrediting bullshit have realised that they were wrong. Can you direct me to the documentation that says the crossbanding/three piece necks were a cost-cutting exercise? As a qualified engineer, it generally means that there is a structural reason. Same with the volute/head angle. In very basic business terms, you don't change things to lose money, you do it to gain profit.

Mini-humbuckers are fantastic, cut nice and clean, but still have a disgruntled growl that can bite you in the ass.

Rumours, well, lets see; that is just unsubstantiated gossip; I know; I studied it for my MSc.

Remember, Don't believe the hype.
 

big-ace

Banned
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
163
if Norlin years were 70- early 80's roughly, and alot of people hang shit on the Norlin years, how come a 76 explorer is meant to be a great guitar? different people working on the explorer and flying v line or what?
 

niksi

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
74
1969 saw the introduction of the three-piece mahogany neck. Maple came in 75/76

Actually five (if you count the wings) pieces of wood laminated together.

No. It was three-piece neck and five-piece head ( as one -piece neck and three-piece head on '50s LPs ).
Let as try to be precise and not make more confusion. There are so many mis-information on co-colled "Norlin Les Pauls", and pepole tend to repeat them over and over.
 

Cody

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2002
Messages
4,494
First you say "No", and then you go on to say the exact same thing as Wilko in different words...?

:wah

Your post is adding to the confusion.
 

niksi

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
74
if Norlin years were 70- early 80's roughly, and alot of people hang shit on the Norlin years, how come a 76 explorer is meant to be a great guitar? different people working on the explorer and flying v line or what?

And '76 Explorer is vintage and '69 LP is not (WTH is Al Di Meola so fond of his '69 LP).
Also, '52 LP was made with error in neck angle, so they had to put trapezoid tail piece and bridge upside down and it is still vintage (top quality, not only old).
 

niksi

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
74
First you say "No", and then you go on to say the exact same thing as Wilko in different words...?


That is what I asked him to say: in different words - precisely.
Note the DIFFERENCE between neck and head.

I only wanted to prevent that, in some next thread, someone start talking about five piece Norlin necks.

(BTW there are some classical guitars with three-piece neck and one-piece head).
 

frank thomson

New member
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
1,500
it's Wilco. He's the trouble maker, here. He's prob one of those guys who puts a life-jacket on his dog, too!:rofl

i'm a HUGE fan of the Norlins.:applaude

anything under 10 lbs just don't feel right, imo.

my R7 is right around 9lbs, and if it wasn't so damn nice, i'd trash that POS!

I even have an '04 AAA top that weighs 7.5-8lbs...YUK. (but boy it plays niiiice!..and it's prettier than my wife!):wow

I think I'm gonna change my tagline to; If you hate your Norlin, then sell it to me!

Love,
Vickers
 

GlassSnuff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3,671
Obviously, some people put a value on the "specs" of the 'bursts. To each their own, but I feel this is misguided. A 'burst is a 'burst, and a copy isn't (unless, perhaps, it's a Max or a Keebler). To dis a guitar from any era because it's not "like they made them in the '50s" is to ignore the quality of the guitar itself, and assume there's some "secret ingredient" that defines a good instrument. I just don't think this is true.

As it happens, there was a '57 hanging in the shop when I bought my '75. I didn't buy my guitar hoping it would be like a 'burst, I literally bought it instead of one. For my preferences, my Custom is a "better" guitar. To be completely honest, I didn't want a Les Paul at all, I wanted an L5s. I just didn't want to take the chance of special ordering one. ;)
 

D'Mule

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
4,621
I once owned a '77 LP, so I have just a bit of experience with this era.

I can't comment on workmanship--it was purchased used with plenty of playwear, so it would be difficult to determine if there was a bit of extra lacquer on the nut when it came from the factory.

The general build was that of a high quality guitar. Played pretty well (but neck too thin) and it had a great tone, too.

I like the comments about some guitars in this era having generally less resonance, and more sustain. Perhaps that represents the sonic signature of the era, although of course every guitar would have its own unique qualities in this.

I think Wilco, Glassnuff, Scozz, and Sparta, have made great points.

PTates idea that changes in the '69-'76 specifications were 'improvements' seems indefensible. I think a lot of people would like to believe it, to defend their beloved Norlin guitar. So maybe you could argue the 3-piece neck and volute were a design change to reduce neck breakage. In all the years I have been reading about Gibson LPs, I've never seen any evidence of fewer headstock breaks on Norlin-era LPs. So maybe there were good intentions there, but it just didn't turn out to be an improvement.

I just don't see how anyone can argue the pancake multipiece body was designed as an enhancement. What was the deficiency they were trying to 'improve'? And we are then to assume this was another failed engineering exercise, despite good intentions, and that's why they did away with it in the late '70s? Or they were simply catering to the fickle whim of the guitar-buying public?

Perhaps if we all thought like PTate, Gibson could go back to the Norlin archives, pull out the '70s LP specs, and start making their 'improved' guitars once again?

So if you are to believe PTate, you must assume that Gibson will build whatever the public wants, and in general the public wants an inferior guitar modeled after some old 50's LP.:hmm
 

GlassSnuff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3,671
Actually, I do think the pancake body was meant to improve the tone. It seems to increase the focus and sustain, two thing Lester himself appreciated. And you'll note, for many years he played a Norlin, himself. Obviously, Les and myself are in the minority.
 

big-ace

Banned
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
163
D'Mule;1548147 Or they were simply catering to the fickle whim of the guitar-buying public[/QUOTE said:
isnt that what the current ' i have to have a reissue model' wank is all about?
gibson will sell to the public what they think they want,... for whatever price.
 

D'Mule

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
4,621
Actually, I do think the pancake body was meant to improve the tone. It seems to increase the focus and sustain, two thing Lester himself appreciated. And you'll note, for many years he played a Norlin, himself. Obviously, Les and myself are in the minority.

Fair enough. It is true that music was entering a high gain era that could benefit from more focus and sustain, and couldn't really take advantage of harmonic resonances (which reduce to mush). But where is the cause and effect? Maybe the high gain era simply benefited and was shaped by the tone of the guitar at that time?
 

D'Mule

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
4,621
isnt that what the current ' i have to have a reissue model' wank is all about?
gibson will sell to the public what they think they want,... for whatever price.

To some extent, yes, but at this price point the guitars also need to be perceived as toneful. And there are plenty of good guitars to compare to, so I don't think the public is just imagining reissues are good guitars.
 

PTate

New member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
251
PTates idea that changes in the '69-'76 specifications were 'improvements' seems indefensible. I think a lot of people would like to believe it, to defend their beloved Norlin guitar. So maybe you could argue the 3-piece neck and volute were a design change to reduce neck breakage. In all the years I have been reading about Gibson LPs, I've never seen any evidence of fewer headstock breaks on Norlin-era LPs. So maybe there were good intentions there, but it just didn't turn out to be an improvement.

Lets see. Indefensible.......Why exactly would Gibson start to use offcuts? More work? Harder to shape/cut? Delamination issues? Or it could be an attempt to improve an "already" failing product line by re-introducing an updated "modern" re-issue; hence the mini-hums; why not leave the P90's/'buckers on there as well?. A very, very basic marketing technique. Let's not forget that Gibson was going down the shitter at the end of the 60's. Everyone wanted a Strat/Tele as the "latest" guitar heroes were using them.

Let's all see the research to back-up your headstock break hypothesis when it's concluded. May be enlightening.

I just don't see how anyone can argue the pancake multipiece body was designed as an enhancement. What was the deficiency they were trying to 'improve'? And we are then to assume this was another failed engineering exercise, despite good intentions, and that's why they did away with it in the late '70s? Or they were simply catering to the fickle whim of the guitar-buying public?

Lets spell it out for the numbskulls:

Crossbanding = tougher/more solid material = more sustain = less flex = less resonance (sounds like a Deluxe to me- I've got two 1970 models!).

Perhaps if we all thought like PTate, Gibson could go back to the Norlin archives, pull out the '70s LP specs, and start making their 'improved' guitars once again?

Funny how they keep "improving" their re-issues, isn't it? What's the BFG? Do you hate all of the other Les Paul models? Should they only make the R8,9, or 0 then? Nonce.

So if you are to believe PTate, you must assume that Gibson will build whatever the public wants, and in general the public wants an inferior guitar modeled after some old 50's LP.:hmm

Idiot. Never heard of marketing and supply chain dynamics? A company progresses by d-e-v-e-l-o-p-m-e-n-t, understand? I know it's a big word for you. However, all business tries to change things for the better. If they don't, they go tit's-up. Ever see the SG Les Paul?

Go live in a cave and chase dinosaurs.
 
Top