question (rant, really) about recent Custom Shop ES-3x5's

[Cody]

Very informative thread.

[lpnv59]

Originally Posted by Cody

Very informative thread.

+1

I never really analyzed all the details or realized how much there was to a reissue 335's visual appeal I didn't like. My eyes would just always automatically hit the cutaways and I'd have to look away. I did notice the sunburst patterns and colors could also be inconsistent with both reissues and vintage 335's. But with reissues, some would have that vintage lush color with a perfect spray pattern that could disguise the off body shape. Some did just the opposite. The red or natural ones just always looked wrong to me. So as a result, I never considered buying a reissue.

[Litcrit]

Originally Posted by tooold

The neck isn't set deeply enough into the body. Do that, and everything else will line up.

Guitarwhiskey:
"This is because the neck is not set into the body as far on the reissue."

J45
"Wow, looks like the whole guitar is built too far north... The whole stance looks wrong and very un-Gibson like if you are used to being around the originals."


I'm with "tooold", "Guitarwhiskey" and "J45"...the feature that sticks out for me is the neck/body geometry. Notice how much closer the neck pickup on the reissue is to the cutaway: because the neck is set less deeply into the body: it throws off the rest of the geometry. That to me is a more crucial point than the others, and MUCH HARDER TO CHANGE because all of the whole structural specs of the guitar would have to be reset, no?

brandtkronholm:
"Does the re-issue design allow for better access to the upper frets?"

It should, as the neck is slightly further "out there".

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Litcrit

I'm with "tooold", "Guitarwhiskey" and "J45"...the feature that sticks out for me is the neck/body geometry. Notice how much closer the neck pickup on the reissue is to the cutaway: because the neck is set less deeply into the body: it throws off the rest of the geometry. That to me is a more crucial point than the others, and MUCH HARDER TO CHANGE because all of the whole structural specs of the guitar would have to be reset, no?

There are actually *two* basic problems with the body geometry of the reissues.

First, as you (and the others whom you specified above) are saying, their necks are set less deeply into the body — quite true.

But the other problem is that the waist on the reissues extends inward too much, while the ears extend outward too much. Either of these inaccuracies would be quite noticeable on its own, but the *combination* of an overly inward-curving waist and overly outward-curving ears, really does a lot to magnify the weirdness of the body shape. And, as regards this second 'twofold' problem, I disagree with what someone said earlier in the thread, i.e., that everything on these guitars would "fall into place" if the neck were simply set more deeply into the body. On the contrary, you'd still be left with a body outline that is shaped wrong.

As for "MUCH HARDER TO CHANGE" — I would guess that *any* change aimed at reshaping the body of an existing semi-solid guitar model would probably be a huge pain in the ass for Gibson. But this is something they have somewhat "needed" to do for decades, IMO. Don't forget, not only have they long been marketing these guitars as reissues, but on top of that they have the gall to name them with specific model years (i.e., '59 and '63). And the body shape that I'm guessing that most folks would associate with both those model years, is the Mickey Mouse–ear shape. And Gibson is clearly missing the mark on reissuing that shape. Maybe they could rename these guitars just "ES-335," and not include the word reissue or any specific "year" — then I would have less of a gripe. Anyway, as regards the Mickey Mouse ears, you had suggested earlier that for the price of a reissue, one should simply buy vintage. Well, a brand-new ES-3x5 reissue goes for what nowadays? About $4K? OK, then, if you could please point me in the direction of a vintage ES-3x5 with true Mickey Mouse ears for $4K, I would sincerely appreciate it!

It also occurred to me that the second point in my original post — the inlay — has not really been discussed further, but as tuberide pointed out in his reply on Page 1 of the thread, Gibson is already using a modern version of the correct-variant crown inlay, on their Bozeman-made acoustics. I had no idea about that until he mentioned it. But the point is, the correct crown inlay not only exists, but it is being offered on other Gibson guitar models currently in production. Why the heck, then, can't Gibson use these inlays on all their ES-3x5's moving forward? This is a company that claims to care about getting historical details right. Usually I can put up with the hypocrisy that sometimes happens within that realm when it comes to Les Paul reissues, but Les Paul reissues still look roughly like Les Pauls. Whereas these recent ES-335's do not, IMO, look terribly much like a 335. I do totally think that they are nice-looking, well-playing, and good-sounding semi-solid guitars with F-holes, but for me they do absolutely nothing to visually evoke an actual vintage 335. And given the MSRP that these reissues carry, the continued body-shape inaccuracies strike me as a bit obscene. Maybe Gibson should take some of the R&D budget already set aside for the Firebird XI [laughs] and earmark it for a complete ES-3x5 "reboot"? (And speaking of "XI" guitars, I think they could have totally skipped the Moderne XI — now THAT was a waste of budget, if you ask me.)
.

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

Hard to admit this...but I think the Epiphone Elitist 335's have a better outline than the actual current Gibson ones.

Wow, I guess I missed this pic last night! Yes, I gotta say — I would agree that the Epiphone (particularly in terms of how far into the body its neck is set) is much closer to vintage-looking. The ear shape even appears to be a hair closer to Mickey Mouse ears, although to be exact I would say that these ears look more like the "anomalous" ones sometimes seen on examples from '66. What I mean is, I've seen more than one ES-3x5 from '66 that had ears that were somewhat 'close' to the earlier Mickey Mouse shape, but that were still not "exactly" Mickey Mouse ears (not that there is any one "exact" version, of course). Anyway, the ears on these Epiphones look almost exactly like those seen on this handful of miscellaneous 1966's.

Below is another pic of a recent Epiphone 335 Elitist (and these are made in Japan, no?) — as with the link/pic you posted, a lot of the other body geometry — for example, the position of the F-holes relative to the pickups — is clearly closer to vintage on the Epiphone:
.
.....
.

[John Potter]

I found this link to an interesting paper...

http://www.onlyandnothing.com/sharin...asurements.pdf

It would be nice for others to, perhaps, replicate and/or expand on this work and utilize the same methods and bring the Historics, Memphis, Fat Necks, Block Necks, etc into the equation.

[Emperor-TK]

Yeah, that's my paper. I'd love to keep expanding on it. Since I wrote it, I've acquired a '62 ES-330, but I don't expect the shape to vary much from the '59. Unfortunately I don't see myself buying a new 335 any time soon, since I've never found one that really did it for me, aesthetically or sonically (although the new 330 and Bonamassa 335 reissues look like they are moving in the right direction). If there is anyone near to central NJ with a newer 335 that wants to stop by for a visit, I'd be thrilled to take some measurements. You can also send me a tracing too, but you will need to make a platform like in my paper for accuracy.

A bigger gripe for me with the reissues than the shape is the sunburst, but I would also like to see them finally nail the shape. The new 330's look closer though in both departments, no?

[Emperor-TK]

Originally Posted by vintage58

OK, then, if you could please point me in the direction of a vintage ES-3x5 with true Mickey Mouse ears for $4K, I would sincerely appreciate it!
.

My 1969 ES-340 has dead nuts mouse ears. I can't explain why, but it does. Other early 340's seem to also. They typically fetch under $4k, but of course it's not a 335 (maple neck and birch outer-ply). Great guitar though. It is definitely not overshadowed by my other 50's/60's ES's (fat neck too if you like that).

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Emperor-TK

A bigger gripe for me with the reissues than the shape is the sunburst, but I would also like to see them finally nail the shape.

I've long agreed about the sunburst, Gibson has quite simply not offered a single sunburst shape or color that truly resembles the original black-to-yellow sunburst used on their double-cutaway ES-series semi-solid guitars from about 1959 to 1962. The 1963 sunburst shape got a bit ugly, IMO. My favorite would be 1959, but there are plenty of nice-looking sunbursts from '60, '61, and '62, too. Probably some from '63, as well, but in that year I've seen many that begin to have a more "triangular" sunburst (i.e., more of a teardrop shape), which I think looks hideous. Anyway, as regards the sunbursts on the reissues, I used to find those about neck-and-neck with the reissue body shape in terms of "irksome" — but, of late, when it comes to ES guitars, for me the reissue shape has surpassed the sunburst to occupy the top spot on my "looks like shit" ES list.
.
.

Originally Posted by Emperor-TK

The new 330's look closer though in both departments, no?

To my eye, not really (if at all). They are nice guitars, but pretty much every double-cutaway ES-3xx that the Custom Shop is producing lately ('59 reissue, '63 reissue, Bonamassa, ES-330, whatever) seems to have exactly the same body/ear shape. The sunbursts on these guitars *might* have gotten a hair better in recent years, but they still don't look "right." But that, I'm willing to forgive, because if you really wanted to, you can always have the guitar refinished. But you can't really change out the guitar's body!

I do seem to recall that Gibson used a slightly different ear shape on the Clapton 335's, though, which proves that they are indeed capable of retooling things for recent-production guitars.
.
.
.

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Emperor-TK

My 1969 ES-340 has dead nuts mouse ears. I can't explain why, but it does. Other early 340's seem to also.

The below-linked '66, which is currently on eBay, also appears to have ears that are pretty close:
.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI...m=260862657315
.
.
The thing is, when I was asking for the whereabouts of "true" Mickey Mouse–ear examples for $4K, I was specifically referring to guitars that were produced during the years that that ear shape was known to be available. So, even though I would concede the existence of "outliers" — such as your ES-340 (pics, please, by the way! ) — that have ears that are essentially the 'equivalent' of Mickey Mouse ears, those are not the guitars I meant. Instead, I want someone to point me in the direction of a 1958–1963 ES semi-solid guitar for $4K.

I once owned a '66 ES-345 (sold to me by Forum member OKGuitar) that also had ears that were extremely close to being Mickey Mouse ears, but despite the uncanny resemblance, I would stop short of "calling" them that because those ears technically ceased a few years earlier.
.
.
.

[Emperor-TK]

Here's the only shot of my 340 that I have handy. Man, I love this guitar. Funny thing is that it was the result of an ebay deal gone wrong. The seller listed pictures of a different 340 that was in better shape. This one was previously grovered, and was wired like a 335. But I'm glad he was shady because it's now one of my favorites.

Edit: Just noticed that they don't look that mousy in the photo because of the angle, but they are. That's a '61 next to it for reference. The ear's trace out almost identical to my '59 too.

[vintage58]

That's a nice-looking guitar, thanks for posting the pic. ..I like that they actually painted the edges of the F-holes in the lighter color, which I don't think Gibson is doing on any "TDN" ES-3x5 reissues nowadays, even though they should be.

As a side note, years ago I got a piece of original Gibson literature for the ES-340, it was a single-page product description that was printed in 1969. Anyway, the page includes a specs list that rather plainly states that the guitar has a Brazilian rosewood fingerboard. Not sure if that's true, but Gibson specifically included the word "Brazilian" in its description of this model.
.
.
.

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by Litcrit

Guitarwhiskey:
"This is because the neck is not set into the body as far on the reissue."

J45
"Wow, looks like the whole guitar is built too far north... The whole stance looks wrong and very un-Gibson like if you are used to being around the originals."


I'm with "tooold", "Guitarwhiskey" and "J45"...the feature that sticks out for me is the neck/body geometry. Notice how much closer the neck pickup on the reissue is to the cutaway: because the neck is set less deeply into the body: it throws off the rest of the geometry. That to me is a more crucial point than the others, and MUCH HARDER TO CHANGE because all of the whole structural specs of the guitar would have to be reset, no?

brandtkronholm:
"Does the re-issue design allow for better access to the upper frets?"

It should, as the neck is slightly further "out there".

I actually prefer it being set 'higher'. Interesting.

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by vintage58

Wow, I guess I missed this pic last night! Yes, I gotta say — I would agree that the Epiphone (particularly in terms of how far into the body its neck is set) is much closer to vintage-looking. The ear shape even appears to be a hair closer to Mickey Mouse ears, although to be exact I would say that these ears look more like the "anomalous" ones sometimes seen on examples from '66. What I mean is, I've seen more than one ES-3x5 from '66 that had ears that were somewhat 'close' to the earlier Mickey Mouse shape, but that were still not "exactly" Mickey Mouse ears (not that there is any one "exact" version, of course). Anyway, the ears on these Epiphones look almost exactly like those seen on this handful of miscellaneous 1966's.

Below is another pic of a recent Epiphone 335 Elitist (and these are made in Japan, no?) — as with the link/pic you posted, a lot of the other body geometry — for example, the position of the F-holes relative to the pickups — is clearly closer to vintage on the Epiphone:
.
.....
.

It does look more 'svelte' altogether, no? But as I pointed out earlier, there were variations in neck-depth setting even in the original vintage ones from the same year.

You could see it here...

http://www.es-335.net/

Some deeper with more space between the cutaway and pickguard, others not.

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

It does look more 'svelte' altogether, no? But as I pointed out earlier, there were variations in neck-depth setting even in the original vintage ones from the same year.

You could see it here...

http://www.es-335.net/

Some deeper with more space between the cutaway and pickguard, others not.

Yes, I've long grasped — and learned repeatedly through ownership and direct, in-person observation — the idea of variations existing between measurements on one example of a particular vintage guitar model, and another. But I think that the geometric differences that exist between vintage ES-3x5's and the corresponding reissues far exceed the 'range' that the bulk of such vintage-measurement variations typically occupy. For example, if one were to search for the vintage example with the "highest" neck-relative-to-body position, and then compare it with the reissue example with the "lowest" neck-relative-to-body position, I still think you'd have two very different-looking guitars on your hands. YMMV.
.
.

[Minibucker]

But the height of more recent models' neck-mounts don't really look any higher or different than the high ones of old. And we even seem to have that same degree of variation today....

http://www.wildwoodguitars.com/produ...oryID=341&n=39

http://www.wildwoodguitars.com/produ...oryID=341&n=40

...as in days of old....

http://www.es-335.net/335/A33409.html

http://www.es-335.net/335/A34231.html

Actual build quality may be a different story, but again to me it lies mostly in cutaway 'ear' shapes. Neck angle is also something that you'd probably have to measure specific examples comparatively as well.

[J.D.]

Those wildwood guitars are Memphis production, not Historics

[Litcrit]

"Anyway, as regards the Mickey Mouse ears, you had suggested earlier that for the price of a reissue, one should simply buy vintage. Well, a brand-new ES-3x5 reissue goes for what nowadays? About $4K? OK, then, if you could please point me in the direction of a vintage ES-3x5 with true Mickey Mouse ears for $4K, I would sincerely appreciate it!"

http://www.ebay.com/itm/120897406136... 4.m1423.l2649

I'm not saying clean and original, but over the years I've bought a number of husks, projects, etc (for pretty much the price of new "Custom Shop" guitars), that have the most important ingredient: THE OLD WOOD IN THE RIGHT SHAPE. I'll take old wood with new pups, and reissue parts, for the same money over reissue anyday..


My '60 345: bought without pickups..(at the right price)..

Look, like most people, I"ll never be able to afford a real 'burst, so I've bought Historics and Specials and changed '68's instead.
BUT I can afford ES "Players", they're much more in the ballpark compared to new ones. If you can spring 4K on an incorrect "reissue" guitar, you're not that far from the real thing.
AND: if the like late 60's ES guitars (w/ stop tp or trap), they currently can be had in clean shape for the same money or less..

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by J.D.

Those wildwood guitars are Memphis production, not Historics

Are we only talking historics, though, 'cuz they're all from the Custom Shop, no?

Anyway...here are two historics.....

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...01R2IPKM-1.jpg

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...0365FJUM-1.jpg

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Litcrit

the most important ingredient: THE OLD WOOD IN THE RIGHT SHAPE.

F*ck, yeah! Right on. I actually did already see that ES-355 with the body inlay, but I just don't have enough patience to fix the various things on it that need fixing, so I kinda tuned out earlier on that one.

Originally Posted by Litcrit

I'll take old wood with new pups, and reissue parts, for the same money over reissue anyday..

Agree, +1.
.
.

[Minibucker]

This one is literally making my eyes water and my knees shake....


http://solidbodyguitar.com/cleanest_...ace_of_the.htm

[Little Jake]

Originally Posted by vintage58

There are actually *two* basic problems with the body geometry of the reissues.

First, as you (and the others whom you specified above) are saying, their necks are set less deeply into the body — quite true.

But the other problem is that the waist on the reissues extends inward too much, while the ears extend outward too much.
.

After comparing two historic 335's (2006, 2009) to two vintage 335's (1963, 1965), it's clear to me that the narrower waist is an illusion created by the the distance between the peak of the two ears being slightly greater (quarter-inch or so) on the historics in combination with the slightly exaggerated outer curve of the ears--this makes the waist look like it extends inward too much, but actual waist measurement doesn't differ between historic and vintage (within normal margin of variation).

Although the less-deep neck set on historics is consistent, I believe the gestalt that historics are mis-shapen is primarily driven by the differences in ear shape.

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by Little Jake

Although the less-deep neck set on historics is consistent

Not entirely (as a couple of earlier repliers pointed out). See, for example, the below Historic '59 reissue, which I'm pretty sure was/is owned by Forum member D'Mule. If I'm not mistaken, this guitar is a VOS model from 2009. Check out how "low" the neck is set on this guitar, as well as the consequent — and slightly "better" (a/k/a more "vintage"-looking) — position of the pickups, bridge, tailpiece, and F-holes. IMO, this reissue looks better than most others that I've seen thus far:
.
...
.

[John Potter]

Emperor-TK - Thanks for the paper and all the hard work you've done. It'd be nice to get more guitars measured... but I know that's a lot of work! Hmmm, if you lived close enough to a vintage dealer, I wonder if they'd be game???

Vintage58 - I think you have a LOT of valid points and I think a selling point. They've done a lot to update the Historic LPs over the years and people keep buying the incremental stuff.

I think Gibson should be able to put together two body shape templates: one for dot-necks (mickey-mouse) and one for block-necks.

If they market it correctly and do some of the other changes you've mentioned, they'd keep selling them to all of us AGAIN!

What's sad/short-sighted to me is that Gibson markets the heck out of their Historic LP changes, then does the same for the rest of the range but doesn't say a word.

I purchased a '58 Explorer Anniversary and it came with a no-wire ABR. I purchased several 335s that came with 50s wiring.

In other words: HEY GIBSON WE'RE OUT HERE! (and we've got money to spend, too!)

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by vintage58

Not entirely (as a couple of earlier repliers pointed out). See, for example, the below Historic '59 reissue, which I'm pretty sure was/is owned by Forum member D'Mule. If I'm not mistaken, this guitar is a VOS model from 2009. Check out how "low" the neck is set on this guitar, as well as the consequent — and slightly "better" (a/k/a more "vintage"-looking) — position of the pickups, bridge, tailpiece, and F-holes. IMO, this reissue looks better than most others that I've seen thus far:
.
...
.

Let's put it this way...the variation of deeper/less-deep neck seating seems to be as consistent/inconsistent on the newer historic reissues as it was in the originals......

http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg...0-es-335td.jpg

It also seems the the natural-finish ones are generally seated lower than the sunburst and red ones.

Aesthetically...I actually prefer the higher neck-seating. But from owning both 'cuts', I've also found that the lower neck-seating also leaves the ABR bridge lower to the body because it's placed on a higher part of the top's arch, which is lower in the 'teardrop' main part of the body, if you will.

This is one of the first things that jumped out at me when I owned a few modern-issue 335's...at first I thought the 'lower' seating was a mistake...and a glaring one, too. But the I started finding lots of pics of both from all the way back in its inception. But I can't tell whether to this day there's any clear explanation to the variation.

[CoolGuitarz]

Originally Posted by Minibucker

Let's put it this way...the variation of deeper/less-deep neck seating seems to be as consistent/inconsistent on the newer historic reissues as it was in the originals......

ok,,in that case can u please post pic's of '59-'63 es335's with the neck set really not deep???
i wanna see that (just one, really-

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by CoolGuitarz

ok,,in that case can u please post pic's of '59-'63 es335's with the neck set really not deep???
i wanna see that (just one, really-

1959's

http://www.es-335.net/335/A29056.html

http://www.es-335.net/335/A30251.html


1960

http://www.es-335.net/335/A34231.html


1961

http://www.es-335.net/335/21423.html


It seems that the not-deep ones were mostly sunburst, and the deep ones were natural...with reds being either/or...or maybe even in-between...?


Here's a natural '59 that's
deep'.....

http://www.es-335.net/335/A29940.html


...and one that's sort of 'medium'.....

http://www.es-335.net/335/A30883.html


Weird. You could also notice the stop tailpiece line compared to the height of the toggle switch. Sometimes it's clearly above it, sometimes closer.

[CoolGuitarz]

alright, so is the family feud "strike" sound available on this forum??

sorry, i dont see a single one of those guitar's as having the neck set 'really' in the opposite direction of deep........ when i said really not deep, i meant like this:

http://davesguitar.com/wp-content/up...02/A92007C.jpg

anyway.. show me just ONE vintage 59-63 es335 with the end of the fretboard up THAT high & i'll shut up, lol-

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by CoolGuitarz

alright, so is the family feud "strike" sound available on this forum??

sorry, i dont see a single one of those guitar's as having the neck set 'really' in the opposite direction of deep........ when i said really not deep, i meant like this:

http://davesguitar.com/wp-content/up...02/A92007C.jpg

anyway.. show me just ONE vintage 59-63 es335 with the end of the fretboard up THAT high & i'll shut up, lol-

http://www.es-335.net/335/A31585.html

Yes...no....? ;-)

It's pretty close.

The other thing is, I think the older bridge pickups were generally mounted 'lower' on the body length than today's, if you look at the gaps in the bottom pickguard cutouts and the distance between the bridge and bottom edges of the pickup. So if you're using the top part of the f-hole to see how high the bridge pickup screw is...it's always going to seem higher with new ones if the pickup itself is a mm or so higher today than in '59-63, even if the neck-mounting 'depth' is comparatively the same.

[J.D.]

I just don't see the big deal here. The dimensions ("ear" shape. body countour, f-hole position, etc) on the originals varied as indicated by TomGuitar and shown on the guitars posted on the ES-335.net website and they vary on the reissues in a similar fashion. The reissues are pretty damn close as shown in the trace comparisons (just one example anyway). There's no question as to what guitar Gibson is reissuing here and a couple of minor details that don't affect playability of a pretty darn good production by most evaluations is really nit-picking IMO. I'd say all things considered Gibson got these pretty close

[Minibucker]

Originally Posted by J.D.

I just don't see the big deal here. The dimensions ("ear" shape. body countour, f-hole position, etc) on the originals varied as indicated by TomGuitar and shown on the guitars posted on the ES-335.net website and they vary on the reissues in a similar fashion. The reissues are pretty damn close as shown in the trace comparisons (just one example anyway). There's no question as to what guitar Gibson is reissuing here and a couple of minor details that don't affect playability of a pretty darn good production by most evaluations is really nit-picking IMO. I'd say all things considered Gibson got these pretty close

Kinda' what this place is all about, no? ;-)

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by J.D.

There's no question as to what guitar Gibson is reissuing here

I agree. It's perfectly clear that they're reissuing the 1980s-era Tokai Seville....
.
....
.

[vintage58]

....and hopefully they'll get around to reissuing 335's someday.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Minibucker]

...and change it every two years or so....different ears, trapeze, etc. An 'era-reissue', if you will. ;-)

[J.D.]

Tokai was arguably making more vintage accurate guitars than Gibson in 1980, hence the now infamous lawsuit. V58, you don't like Gibson 335s, we get it. Alot of people do however. Not everyone is hung up on a few little details.

[J.D.]

Tokai was arguably making more vintage accurate guitars than Gibson in 1980, hence the now infamous lawsuit. V58, you don't like Gibson 335s, we get it. Alot of people do however. Not everyone is hung up on a few little details.

[Minibucker]

I still think it's just the ear-shape that's making the real difference, looks-wise. And it's only very slightly different on paper...but it's enough to somehow feel really strange when looking at it some times.

[vintage58]

Originally Posted by J.D.

I just don't see the big deal here. The dimensions ("ear" shape. body countour, f-hole position, etc) on the originals varied as indicated by TomGuitar and shown on the guitars posted on the ES-335.net website and they vary on the reissues in a similar fashion. The reissues are pretty damn close as shown in the trace comparisons (just one example anyway). There's no question as to what guitar Gibson is reissuing here and a couple of minor details that don't affect playability of a pretty darn good production by most evaluations is really nit-picking IMO. I'd say all things considered Gibson got these pretty close

Originally Posted by J.D.

Tokai was arguably making more vintage accurate guitars than Gibson in 1980, hence the now infamous lawsuit. V58, you don't like Gibson 335s, we get it. Alot of people do however. Not everyone is hung up on a few little details.

J.D., you sound kind of irritated over the idea of these body-shape inaccuracies being pointed out and/or discussed. I have to ask, do you work for Gibson? Or are you a Gibson Custom dealer? Just curious, because you seem to be taking this thread topic a bit, uh, "personally."
.
.

[J.D.]

Let me change your perspective a little. Since the mid-'60s until the Historics arrived in the '90s, the ES-335s aren't great, they made substantial changes. '80s are ok but I don't care for the Nashville TOM bridges they installed. Even the Memphis production isn't very good with the slim necks and hit and miss playability. The Historics got alot of things right, they have the big necks with thinner binding, the ABR-1 bridge, good pickups, Historic hardware, and they play and sound great. These little things like exact f-hole placement, "ear" shape, and "flower pot" inlay really aren't a big deal in the bigger picture. I'm just glad they finally got 'em this close as a pre-'65 is not practical for alot of people. Could they be closer? Sure, as could the Les Pauls. But they are reissues, not replicas.

[Minibucker]

But....those ears.....

j/k


I think one way to look at it is that this isn't the result of the utmost effort and just not being able to get the dimensions et al right within the limitations of today's technology, labor costs or what not. Some feel they very much can without involving some sort of exorbitant retooling and added cost...but they don't...they settle for 'close enough'. I guess one angle is that the people to whom these guitars and issues matter most are those most likely to covet and pony up the premium costs. So Gibson is ultimately being negligent on a measure in which they're assumedly fully and easily capable of correcting....a measure that some feel should be taken for guitars that retail for thousands of dollars. Even if it doesn't change playability and construction quality per se...some might see it as a matter of 'protocol', if you will.