• 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!

58-61 es 335 pickup ring question

burstman59

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
1,753
Hey all,
I've seen various post on here conserning neck angles on 335s and wanted to ask a question. some of you that have owned or currently own original 335 examples that have a more shallow neck angle that the abr-1 sits very low almost toching the body is the rear pickup ring the tall style like found on the LP Customs? or are they the middle height like the middle pickup on a 57-60 Custom? the reason I'm asking is on the more recent Historics they use a medium height ring. It dont look like a tall correct style ring would fit. I've only seen a few 335s in my life and dont remember the rear ring type. also I got to thinking is the neck really more shallow on some examples causing the abr to sit low or is do the thickness of the belly of the top at the bridge area vary on these which would explain the bridge heights? what is your opinions about this?
 

angus99

New member
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
123
For what it's worth, I've been looking at various 335 pix on ebay for the exposed "wedge" of mahogany on the side of the neck where it overlays the body. Thought maybe a wider (or narrower) wedge would indicate a different neck angle. But from the pix I've seen, they all seem fairly consistent. Wish I knew enough to answer this because I've been curious about the varying heights of bridges and tailpieces and whether they are that way to compensate for different neck angles.

Thanks

Angus
 
Last edited:

TomGuitar

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,700
There is another thread with some info about the early shallow angle 335's located here.http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122692

I just measured a 58 and two 59's and all three bridge pickup rings measure 3/8" at the highest point closest to the bridge. Don't know if that conforms to the bridge or middle on LPC's since I don't have one to compare to.

Regarding the wedge... it does not seem to vary much, at least to the naked eye, on those three guitars, but it does look a litlle bigger on a 64 that I have. I'll try to take some pics and post for comparison.
 

TomGuitar

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,700
OK, here are the pics showing the exposed "wedge" portion of the neck under the fingerboard revealed by the neck angle. You can see that a little more is exposed on the Cherry 64 than on the blonde 59.

Also, not only is the angle steeper on the 64, but the neck is set a little higher in relation to the body. You can see this where the binding ends.

59_angle.jpg

64_angle.jpg
 

TomGuitar

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,700
You could be right MapleFlame. Did you also notice that there is no 21st fret side marker dot on the 64? All my other 335s have it. I confess I never noticed before now.
 

MapleFlame

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
14,044
You could be right MapleFlame. Did you also notice that there is no 21st fret side marker dot on the 64? All my other 335s have it. I confess I never noticed before now.

isn't that something, I didn't see that. Man I'm slippen, and I'm not Deppen either:hmm
 

MapleFlame

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
14,044
OK, here are the pics showing the exposed "wedge" portion of the neck under the fingerboard revealed by the neck angle. You can see that a little more is exposed on the Cherry 64 than on the blonde 59.

Also, not only is the angle steeper on the 64, but the neck is set a little higher in relation to the body. You can see this where the binding ends.

59_angle.jpg

64_angle.jpg


How do you like the 64, compared to the 59. The sound and build different, or just the neck.
 

TomGuitar

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,700
How do you like the 64, compared to the 59. The sound and build different, or just the neck.

Boy, now you're opening up a can of worms. First, I can't really tell any difference in the build quality. Maybe someone else can, but not me.

I have 2 59s which sound nothing alike and have very diffeent necks on them. I have 2 64s which sound nothing alike and have very different necks on them.

I think the biggest difference that you could attribute to anything in particular is the pickups. The PAFs have something that the later pickups don't. They are not better, just different. I like them better, but not everyone does. They sound more complex, particularly as a note sustains. From what I've learned here on the LPF, I believe that is due to the mismatched winds in the coils of each pickup, which apparently didn't happen once Gibson was able to tighten their manufacturing processes, but I don't know that for sure. All I can say is that the PAF guitars sound quite different to my ear. Maybe a little richer. A little creamier. So other than that, there is little you can say about 59 vs. 64. They all sound great, and at loud volumes, it's pretty hard to hear the difference. It's late at night, alone in your house, that the 59s really become worth the price difference.

As for the feel of the neck, they are all over the map. One of the 59s, the blonde in the picture, is probably the closest to what most people would call a "classic 59" neck. My other 59 is huge. Bigger than most 58s. The 64s vary quite a bit as well.

Bottom line is... they are all great guitars and I'm sure anyone would be happy to have them. I can't imagine anyone not liking any of them.

I'll probably get jumped on for this, but having worked my way through around 34 335s over the last 43 years, if you have to buy one before you play it, 1959 and 1964 are pretty safe bets. Some will say anything 58-64, but I have found only a few 59s or 64s that I didn't like. I have found many more of the other "golden years" that don't live with me any more.
 

RickN

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
7,143
I wonder if what APPEARS to be a difference in the thickness of the fingerboard is more likely just wider binding. Just guessing - a little voice in the back of my head is whispering... "I can't really imagine Gibson making a conscious decision to use MORE rosewood if they didn't have to." Maybe that little voice is just talking out its ass... :hmm :laugh2:

I'll probably get jumped on for this, but having worked my way through around 34 335s over the last 43 years, if you have to buy one before you play it, 1959 and 1964 are pretty safe bets. Some will say anything 58-64, but I have found only a few 59s or 64s that I didn't like. I have found many more of the other "golden years" that don't live with me any more.

Tom - that's actually good advice for someone like me who hasn't dabbled in vintage ES guitars (yet). I'll file that info away for what I hope is the not too distant future... :salude
 

burstone

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,748
I'll probably get jumped on for this, but having worked my way through around 34 335s over the last 43 years, if you have to buy one before you play it, 1959 and 1964 are pretty safe bets. Some will say anything 58-64, but I have found only a few 59s or 64s that I didn't like. I have found many more of the other "golden years" that don't live with me any more.

I too consider '59 and '64 as the two magical years for the 335s. :salude
 

TomGuitar

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,700
I wonder if what APPEARS to be a difference in the thickness of the fingerboard is more likely just wider binding.

You know Rick, that was my first thought as well. I hesitated to post it for fear of looking stupid. But I have no problem looking stupid with you. Puts me in good company.

:salude my friend. Breakfast in Dallas?
 

Jeff West

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
877
Burstman- On my '61 dotneck the original black bridge PU ring is not a full 3/8" in height at the back, I'd call it closer to 5/16". The body of the ABR is off the maple top, but not by too much, couple or three mms. The tailpiece is screwed all the way down, but all strings clear the back of the bridge handily. The "wedge" looks most similar to the blonde '59 pictured above. The juncture of the wood to the binding at the end of the neck is at almost exactly the same height as the top edge of the neck PU ring on mine, unlike either that '59 (where it appears to be lower than the top of the front edge of the PU ring) or the '64 (where it appears to be a little higher). Maybe this chalks up to what was normal variation on hand finished guitars.

I'm happy for anyone who prefers '59s or '64s, but I've gotta say I've loved this '61 from the moment I first played it, and many who have tried it say the same. It's got the wide flat neck, but it's as solid as a piece of petrified wood. However, along the lines of TomGuitar's comments, I've played at least three other stoptail sunburst '61s extensively over the years that looked very similar, and all were good but none seemed quite as good. I've heard many express the thought that, even compared to other Gibsons, each vintage 335s is an individual.
 

RickN

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
7,143
You know Rick, that was my first thought as well. I hesitated to post it for fear of looking stupid. But I have no problem looking stupid with you. Puts me in good company.

:salude my friend. Breakfast in Dallas?

I look stupid much more often than I look smart. :laugh2:

And breakfast in Dallas sounds great. Have your people contact my people... :dude:
 

RickN

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
7,143
Burstman- On my '61 dotneck the original black bridge PU ring is not a full 3/8" in height at the back, I'd call it closer to 5/16".

Just gonna pass on some info about the medium-height black pickup rings from back in the 50s and early-60s that was told to me by Terry Mueller. At one of the recent Texas shows I was hanging out in his booth and brought this up.

I've only seen a few medium-height black M69s in my own hands, and in every case, the bottom of the ring looked sanded. I'd never seen a medium-height ring that has the molding marks on the bottom edge like the short and tall rings have. I started thinking that Gibson may have decided to NOT have a dedicated medium-height mold made up for something that was a low-volume part. Medium-height black rings weren't used on too many guitars back in the late-'50s. I suspected that they just used the same molds for the black parts that they did for the creme parts, and sanded down a tall bridge ring when necessary.

Terry told me that I'd guessed right - when they needed a medium height ring, a factory worker would hold a tall pickup ring on a belt sander for 'x' seconds to get the ring down to the required height. Since this was done by hand, that would account for the observation that not all of the medium height rings are exactly the same height, like the tall bridge rings, or the short neck rings. Apparently, the dedicated molds for medium-height rings came in the late-60s or early-70s.

So that's just info; take it at face-value. But it makes sense to me. :salude
 

Jeff West

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
877
That's interesting, Rick. It's been years since I had that mounting ring off, I'll have to check.

I've got '64 and '65 SG Standards, the '65 is still small guard and old neck attachment but has chrome parts, and the mounting ring for bridge PU is much shorter than the one on the '64, which is 7/16" at the tall edge, if memory serves, on the '65 the lead PU sticks up way above the ring . I've had those off a lot, and am positive that neither is sanded on the bottom. So, possibly late '65 is a time when new ring moldings were happening.

Jeff W.
 

RickN

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
7,143
I've had those off a lot, and am positive that neither is sanded on the bottom. So, possibly late '65 is a time when new ring moldings were happening.

Jeff W.

That would be cool if we could kinda figure out when Gibson went to that (in a minute trivia kinda way... :hee)

See? Just when we think that AVH symptoms have leveled off, we find something new to investigate. :rofl There is NO end. :dude:
 

burstman59

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
1,753
Now this is some cool shit.I like to stir up something every now and then but I'm glad you all chimed in because I know both my early SG standards I've owned 63 and a late 64 and lets not forget my old 58/63 Explorer like the one that just brought over a half mil have had the taller rear ring. But I knew Gibson couldnt have used the tall ring on alot of the 58 to 64 Es Guitars because of the neck angle. Do 345's and 55s from the same period follow the same type pattern as far as neck angles and rear ring height go?
 
Top