Volute in wrong spot on Lifeson ES-355

[Crappy]

Just wanted to see what you guys think.
Has anyone here ever seen a volute on a Gibson or any other neck in this spot? This is a picture of whitewood neck Memphis is using as a template for the Lifeson ES-355 Looks like the Gibson Custom Shop dropped the ball on this one All 300 are made like this.

[Bengal65]

I've never seen one like that. I see that a few owners are really pissed over on the Gibson forum. I don't really mind it as to it's location, but I can't believe they screwed up this bad. I wonder if they cut all 300 necks and found out they were all incorrect? Maybe they were trying to decide wether to release them for production and this is why the guitars were delayed?

I had a 1970 Martin D12-35 that had the bridge glued in the wrong place. I found it after playing it for 25 years with the help of a top notch luthier. He said there were many, many like that. I asked why they were not recalled. He told me that it would have darn near bankrupted Martin back then to repair or replace all those guitars.

I really would like to get an answer from Gibson on this volute location. I'm keeping mine, but really like to know why it's so far down the neck.

[Minibucker]

I heard sometime back that the original volute locations on Norlins were in the wrong place to really help prevent Headstock breaks...like they would still break and take the volute with them, cracking right under them. Maybe they analyzed it more for this model and put it in the right place? Does it really get in the way of the palm there?

[Crappy]

It does get in the way of playing anything on the 1st fret, well for me it does. I can't speak for everyone. If you have big hands you might be able to get around it.

[Bengal65]

Yeah, when I play an FMaj7 at the first fret the volute is right in my palm. A little akward, but not bad.

[Wally]

That volute is in such a place as to make playing in the first fret area near impopssible, and it is not in the correct place to strenghthen the weakness of the Gibson headstock. WTF???? They...Gibson.....need to saw 300 Custom Shop necks into two pieces and burn them for fuel.

[Rare Form]

I was wondering when this topic would come up on this forum. I hesitated to post it here cause I know what the reaction would be. I am on the Custom Forum (as Wondo) and have been raising this issue in an attempt to get some real answers from the Custom Shop. Their only answer was to see if the production guitars were made to the specs of the template and they were. For them, that is the problem solved. That's like a doctor saying to you that the prosthetic leg they put on you is correct because it conforms to the teplate they made without bothering to see if the teplate was wrong. Meanwhile you keep walking around like someone from Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks. Here is the picture I posted on the CS Forum. I pointed out the discrepancies. This is from the picture that I asked the CS Admin to post on the site.



Here is the back of my headstock:



And the headstock of a real 1976 ES 355 (Walnut):





From my headstock and the one of the 76 you can see that the volute on the Lifeson is 1" lower. However, one thing I have noticed in the difference between the two models. If you look closely at the last picture I posted, both volutes seem to ramp up at the same place (between the nut and first fret, but the Lifeson ramp is much more subtle and ends sooner. Perhaps Lifeson asked for it this way because it is less uncomfortable. But, I would think that if he wanted it more comfortable he would have just asked for no volute. Unless either Lifeson comes foward with an answer, we will never know cause the Custom Shop is playing politics as usual and we are not getting a straight answer.

[Wally]

Regardless of why the AL guitar's volute is positioned where it is, there is no valid reason for it to be there. Everything voluted Gibson Ihave seen has the peak of the volute to the headstock side of the nut. Placing the peak of the voluted in the middle of the first fret area truly validates anybody's contention that Gibson's with volutes are not worth buying. That AL neck, imho, is an unplayable neck. IF Gibson had placed the peak of the volute in that odd position when they first started reinforcing the neck back in the early '70's, they would have been out of the guitar-building business rather quickly unless they rethought that aspect. I don't have a problem with volutes as long as they are not placed in the playing area of the neck.

[Rare Form]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

I heard sometime back that the original volute locations on Norlins were in the wrong place to really help prevent Headstock breaks...like they would still break and take the volute with them, cracking right under them. Maybe they analyzed it more for this model and put it in the right place? Does it really get in the way of the palm there?

It can get in the way. The only time I notice it is when doing something like an open F maj 7 or an F maj 9 or if you are playing an open E major chord with the pinky, ring, and middle finger as sometimes you do when moving into that position from a bar chord. Other than that it is fine. It is surely something to get used to but it is not that bad. The volute is actually very subtle.

[Rare Form]

Originally Posted by Wally

Regardless of why the AL guitar's volute is positioned where it is, there is no valid reason for it to be there. Everything voluted Gibson Ihave seen has the peak of the volute to the headstock side of the nut. Placing the peak of the voluted in the middle of the first fret area truly validates anybody's contention that Gibson's with volutes are not worth buying. That AL neck, imho, is an unplayable neck. IF Gibson had placed the peak of the volute in that odd position when they first started reinforcing the neck back in the early '70's, they would have been out of the guitar-building business rather quickly unless they rethought that aspect. I don't have a problem with volutes as long as they are not placed in the playing area of the neck.

I agree with you about the con-voluted neck. I have been studying this very closely with a 76 355 and my conclusion is in part what you have said. The peak of the volute ends about 1/4 of the way between the nut and the first fret. (between the nut and the dot) But, the volute is no where near as steep as the traditional volute. Thus, the volute starts in about the same spot as the 76, but ends much sooner. The 76 starts to ramp up in the same spot but then continues to ramp up and the peak of the ramp ends behind the nut. So, essentially the volute on the Lifeson is very small and ends up being like a bump in the neck before the neck ends. The volute on the 76 is rather tall but you don't feel the bump because the peak is on the headstock not on the neck. In case Gibson does not know this...there should not be a bump on the neck of any guitar. It is like having the bell of a clarinet start sooner so that it gets in the way of the last key. Crack is cheap in Memphis these days my friends.

[plaintop60]

The original volutes used on Gibsons in the 70's did absolutely nothing to strengthen the neck and resist breaking. The one on the AL guitar neck shown in the pic is even more useless because it's even further towards the bridge. This is obviously a production mistake. As for interfering with playing the original ones actually feel pretty good when playing in the open position but this new position for the volute certainly would be in the way of playing in the first position. Something I've noticed on alot of historics, R-9s, R-8s, R-0s is that the neck shaping is wrong and often the flat back of the headstock actually extend past the nut into the first position playing area. While this error will not have as much of an adverse effect on playability in the first position as the volute being placed in the wrong place, it certainly is unacceptable. The neck profile should continue all the way from the bridge end of the neck right down past the nut. There should be no flat area or volute between the nut and the first fret. Many historics have poorly shaped necks. It's not too difficult to recarve the neck to improve the neck profile and/or move the neck/headstock transition area to where it belongs. The only drawback is that then the neck must be refinished. The cure for that mis-located volute is fairly simple...just shave it off and refinish.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

I heard sometime back that the original volute locations on Norlins were in the wrong place to really help prevent Headstock breaks...like they would still break and take the volute with them, cracking right under them. Maybe they analyzed it more for this model and put it in the right place? Does it really get in the way of the palm there?

There are two weaknesses in the construction technique of a Gibson peghead. One is the result of removing wood for the truss rod adjustment. The other weakness is 'runout' that occurs when an angled peghead is built from one piece or even laminates. The grain runs out where the angled peghead takes off from the line of the neck. That is, the grain opens on that angle and weakens the wood in the peghead.
The volute should be thickest behind the cavity for the adjustment nut, imo....that is, on the peghead side of the nut, right? This strenghtens that area by adding wood. A volute does not and cannot address the problem of runout. Only a scarf joint as in classical guitar construction addresses this issue. ASian built guitars use scarf joints to strenghthen this area. Taylor uses a finger-type joint to achieve the same result.

All I can say is that a Gibson with a volute is hard enough to sell. I don't see how I could buy or sell a guitar that has a volute in the middle of the first fret area.

[Wally]

plaintop wrote: "The cure for that mis-located volute is fairly simple...just shave it off and refinish."

+1 Voila...no volute at all as should be on a good Gibson Thinline.

[Hamish5178]

This is just crazy, I'm usually the one who thinks everyone needs to shut up and play, but on a 3 grand CS axe they should not make mistakes in DESIGN!

Poor QC doesn't bug me that much, but if you design something wrong you're just an idiot.

Also, it's only 300 necks, what would it cost gibson to have tossed them? A couple thousand?

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by Wally

There are two weaknesses in the construction technique of a Gibson peghead. One is the result of removing wood for the truss rod adjustment. The other weakness is 'runout' that occurs when an angled peghead is built from one piece or even laminates. The grain runs out where the angled peghead takes off from the line of the neck. That is, the grain opens on that angle and weakens the wood in the peghead.
The volute should be thickest behind the cavity for the adjustment nut, imo....that is, on the peghead side of the nut, right? This strenghtens that area by adding wood. A volute does not and cannot address the problem of runout. Only a scarf joint as in classical guitar construction addresses this issue. ASian built guitars use scarf joints to strenghthen this area. Taylor uses a finger-type joint to achieve the same result.

All I can say is that a Gibson with a volute is hard enough to sell. I don't see how I could buy or sell a guitar that has a volute in the middle of the first fret area.

Yeah, I could see the grain issue being the major cause regardless of volute location. I guess quarter or rift sawn was just too expensive and in shorter supply? Or maybe it would make no difference.

[Walter Broes]

The volute in the pic posted looks very strange.

[Crappy]

Originally Posted by Walter Broes

The volute in the pic posted looks very strange.

You think it looks strange, try playing it with that volute in the way.

[Crappy]

I will say this guitar sings and plays like a dream. even with a major flaw like this.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

Yeah, I could see the grain issue being the major cause regardless of volute location. I guess quarter or rift sawn was just too expensive and in shorter supply? Or maybe it would make no difference.

No matter the method of cutting the log, when you fashion a neck with an angled peghead in this manner, the grain will runout in that angle.

[ES345]

Putting the Volute where they did was an error with their design, template, even if alex's is like this, it would mean they just duplicated the error. Playability/common sense has to be part of the equation.

But it did give them a little more area to place their Custom Shop Decal. I think a recall is in order. I am sure it sounds good, it certainly looks good, but we are always concerned about the size and shape of the neck of any guitar we are considering, and this (volute) would certainly not be something i would have ever expected, in fact if you knew this before purchasing it, you and many others would have passed.

I think you should escalate the issue so you are sure that those in charge are really aware of this.


peace

[Crappy]

Here is a shot of my neck. My neck doesn't look as bad as the template neck.

And the CS template neck

[VRob98]

Looks from that pic of the production neck as though the 'ridge' of the volute is even closer to the middle of the first fret than it is on the template neck. Definitely a more subtle 'bump' than the template would have been though. Still an odd placement for it.

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by Wally

No matter the method of cutting the log, when you fashion a neck with an angled peghead in this manner, the grain will runout in that angle.

Yeah. They should probably do the scarf/finger joint thing. If it's fitted right, shouldn't it be just as good as the same piece of wood, but stronger?

[Wally]

LEvel that volute down to a proper line and refin like plain top suggested. OR...if you can play it keep it that way....but it sure doesn't look like a friendly guitar to me. My thumb has to be in the position of that volute at times.

[ES345]

Originally Posted by Wally

LEvel that volute down to a proper line and refin like plain top suggested. OR...if you can play it keep it that way....but it sure doesn't look like a friendly guitar to me. My thumb has to be in the position of that volute at times.

""My thumb has to be in the position of that volute at times""


Exactly, I have a George Benson GB10, it has a volute, and it is about 1/2 inch behind the nut, it amazes me that Gibson wouldn't provide a remedy for this if the issue was run up the flag pole. It just does not make sense to me that it would be there, interfering with the playability of an otherwise wonderful guitar.


peace

[Mike Shaw]

Hmmm... let's see - 300 made... design flaw... Gibson Managenment ....

Don't let Gibson know or they will up the price for this "Limited Edition"!

[roadhog96]

Sorry but I've been told this before, if you buy a guitar without trying it first who's to blame. No excuse for a major screw up like this but if you had tried it first, you would have known it wasn't right. Just because something comes from the Custom Shop everyone automatically assumes it's quality. I've seem my share of crap from there.

[VRob98]

Originally Posted by roadhog96

Sorry but I've been told this before, if you buy a guitar without trying it first who's to blame. No excuse for a major screw up like this but if you had tried it first, you would have known it wasn't right. Just because something comes from the Custom Shop everyone automatically assumes it's quality. I've seem my share of crap from there.

Does that apply to Alex Lifeson too? His personal copy of the guitar also has the volute in the wrong place. You'd think he'd have noticed, playing all those gigs with it...

[dtw576]

Originally Posted by roadhog96

Sorry but I've been told this before, if you buy a guitar without trying it first who's to blame. No excuse for a major screw up like this but if you had tried it first, you would have known it wasn't right. Just because something comes from the Custom Shop everyone automatically assumes it's quality. I've seem my share of crap from there.

I totally agree except there were none in Houston to my knowledge when it came out. It doesn't affect my playing to any great extent but it is a strange feeling when the occasion arises that my thumb hits the volute. I doubt that Gibson will recall and fix these guitars and that almost makes me happy. I can only imagine how they could screw it up if I send it back to them. I would really like to see the neck volute on AL's original 355 to see if this is truly a copy of an old mistake or just a new mistake on Gibson's part. Still a great guitar that I plan on keeping.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

Yeah. They should probably do the scarf/finger joint thing. If it's fitted right, shouldn't it be just as good as the same piece of wood, but stronger?

But...then it wouldn't be a Gibson, would it? It would look like a '70's MIJ lawsuit guitar. Those break, too, by the way.
I have had Gibsons since I was 12 years old and have never broken one yet...knock on wood. I repair a lot of broken necks on various brands of guitars. Usually, the break happens when people are not playing the guitar and the guitar is not in the case. Occassionally a player is getting rambunctious and bangs a headstock while playing and breaks it. That is not the norm. The norm is...it fell over, I put it on the bed/couch/floor and someone lay/sat/stepped on it....I ran over it (seriously) during/after loading/not loading.
I was made aware of how fragile a Gibson neck is when I was first taking lessons. Treat 'em with care, and they won't break.
Re: this Custom SHop guitar.... imho whoever oversaw this and signed off on the template and production should be fired or at minimum reassigned to clean up duties. Take the Gibson logo off and remove the custom shop sticker. Show that to some Gibson players and they will say that except for the volute being in a bad place the guitar looks like a really good made in ASia copy of a 355. They will laugh at the volute placement. IT isn't sellable for Gibson's price without the Gibson logo and the CS 'AL-355" designation.
I would buy it ony at a much lowered price...and then shave the volute and refin the area.....unless of course the guitar becomes collectable as one of Gibson's biggest goofs ever.
Maybe someone can play it without negative effects. I need that space behind the first fret, and it just doesn't look like a high-dollar Gibson guitar neck to me....it doesn't look like any Gibson gutiar neck, to me.

[Rare Form]

Originally Posted by dtw576

I totally agree except there were none in Houston to my knowledge when it came out. It doesn't affect my playing to any great extent but it is a strange feeling when the occasion arises that my thumb hits the volute. I doubt that Gibson will recall and fix these guitars and that almost makes me happy. I can only imagine how they could screw it up if I send it back to them. I would really like to see the neck volute on AL's original 355 to see if this is truly a copy of an old mistake or just a new mistake on Gibson's part. Still a great guitar that I plan on keeping.

1meanmalibu posted a picture over at the Custom Shop Forum about this issue. Here is a picture he got from a recent show on the S&A tour. It is a bit hard to see, but if you look closely you can see the white 355 to the left is the original and the one to the right is the sig. model. The volute on the original looks like the volute on the 76 355 I posted earlier in this thread. The one on the right looks like the new sig. model from the CS. That proves that Alex's guitar is made just like any other 76 355 and the new one has the con-voluted design.

[Wally]

"con-voluted design"...LOL
Does this mean that Gibson has conned people into thinking that this CS AL-355 has unencumbered access to all fretted areas of the neck?

[Wallace]

Originally Posted by Rare Form

[C-4]

I noticed that the volute appeared lower on the neck when I first saw pictures of the Lifeson 355 on line at a forum dealer's website, but I figured that it could possibly just be the angle at which the photo was taken.

Now that I know my eyes did not deceive me, it does not surprise me at all that Gibson f%cked up again!

How much time should it actually take to check on your work and make sure everything is totally correct anyway? Obviously at the Custom Shop, they must feel that they are infallible!

It also did not surprise me when I found a limited run (at the time) production LP by accident, in a local GC (of all places) that made every one of my historics sound bad by comparison.
Needless to say, I unloaded all of the historics and bought that stock LP, which just goes to show that no one Gibson shop has a monopoly on making all the best guitars... or the worst either

[dtw576]

Originally Posted by Rare Form

1meanmalibu posted a picture over at the Custom Shop Forum about this issue. Here is a picture he got from a recent show on the S&A tour. It is a bit hard to see, but if you look closely you can see the white 355 to the left is the original and the one to the right is the sig. model. The volute on the original looks like the volute on the 76 355 I posted earlier in this thread. The one on the right looks like the new sig. model from the CS. That proves that Alex's guitar is made just like any other 76 355 and the new one has the con-voluted design.

Well between that pic and Elliot's, I'm all for Gibson having truly f*ucked this one up. Nice guitar anyway and I'll just get used to the volute. Luckily my small hands are just large enough that it really isn't a problem, or affect my playing. Better feeling than sharp fret ends, but those are far easier to fix than a screwed up volute. Now I get to have the fun of installing my RS kit and Holmes 450/455's. That'll blow the better part of a Saturday.

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by Wally

But...then it wouldn't be a Gibson, would it? It would look like a '70's MIJ lawsuit guitar. Those break, too, by the way.

They chmnbered/weight-relieved Les Pauls, and recently gave them compound neck-shapes. Are those no longer Gibsons, either? I think some 'Gibsons' even have multi-piece necks. If those other headstock joints are proven to be stronger/more resilient, why not use it if it doesn't change the function/playability, or even the overall look of the instrument? You can break anything if you try hard enough. But if one version resists breakage better than the other, and no-one can tell/hear which is which when not broken without actually looking for the seams/joints under the finish...why not go with the better of the two?

Or you could just make sure the guitar is never dropped or hit, if that's easier.

[Crappy]

You can see on the template neck and my neck that the volute starts to ramp up at the first fret and reaches it's high point at the fret marker.

On Elliot's neck it starts at the marker and it's high point is behind the nut.

I'm happy mine doen't look like the template neck.

[treeofpain]

Makes you wonder if those reverse Flying V's were just a design flaw as well...

[Bengal65]

Here's a back shot of mine playing an FMaj7. The hand clears but barely. It does feel strange. I wonder if we will ever find out why Gibson did this? I guess if Alex is playing one of these, I guess it's good enough for me.

[Bengal65]

Elliot,
I wouldn't doubt it. Other manufacturers have the same problems. I had a new 1970 Martin D12-35 I bought new that never seemed to play in tune. I almost got canned in the acoustic group my college music professor ran. (for never playing in tune) The guitar had been returned to Martin numerous times over the years for repairs and nothing was ever said about the tuning. When I took the guitar in for repair at a very good luthier and builder in Wisconsin in 1996, he told me I had one of "those". What? What do you me, those? He told me Martin had quite a few 12 strings that the bridge was located in the wrong place! I asked why weren't they recalled. He laughed, and said, "it would have bankrupted them". Apparently, there were many, many with the bridges in the wrong place. The saddle was a 1/4" too far forward. So, playing above the 3rd fret, the guitar would be noticeably off. I didn't notice it much since most of my 12 string playing was within the first 3 frets