• 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!

RI neck angle

william tell

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
3
RI neck angle

HEllo all .. I havewoned 2 RI in the past 12 58 and 2 59's .. Saddly I have none at present although I have a cool 56 lp jr andaand 2s 225 and es 3000 so I will survive.. I am encloseing a letter I wroe toa friend of myine about the neck angle on the reissue series .. cazn any ony comment on this .. thanks william

Harris



Hi, how is it going? I have a book called ‘The Gibson’.. It is an excellent book as far as I can tell. It goes into detail on the construction of the original pauls.. and makes the statement that the original pauls started out with a 1 degree neck( not head) angle that was moved to a 3 degree angles in 53-54 with the introduction of the stud tailpiece and the last year 1960 was a 5 degree neck angle.. The book makes the statement that the current historic reissues do not have the correct neck angle of 3 degrees for the 59 RI.. I have met a guy named Mxxxxx ( yes thatis Mxxxxx) at the xxxxxxxx who claims to be one of the original 3 vintage dealers in the USA or something like that.. He says that the Japanese come and interview him about things.. Mxxx x. and xxxx xxxxxx both corroborate his statements about his place in the vintage business.. anyrate he says the book is correct and the neck angles are still not correct… the book was written in 1996 as best I can tell . What do you say about this? Is the neck angle on the 59 RI correct for the year?.. I am in the process of buying back one of the RI’s I had to sell from GC and I kind of would like to know..





regards william
 

Tonefiend

Fiendish One
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
7,656
The angle don't mean shit. It is the overall geometry and how it relates to the plane of the top, and the height of the bridge.
Like Guild said it is all about the height of the bridge being right.

If you put compass on the side of the guitar up at the front, and measure the angle of the neck, there is a probability it is different between various years due to the carve and thickness of the top, and the hand fitting.
 

william tell

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
3
somewhat more on the RI neck angle

First, let me say thank you for the responses. They are appreciated...
Second. My spelling is truly atrocious and I apologize.

To Guild let me say that I follow the method of Jack Kerouac who just sat down in moments of inspiration and simply typed. He had no concern for the common formalities of English... In fact he often said he was trying to imitate jazz bebop players
I thought it was YUCK,<grin>
As far as Bosch’s work look at Bruegels ' Landscape with the fall of Icarus.' You may like it. The little sailing ship in the distance is, in my opinion, the
finest depiction of a sailing ship I have ever seen.

On to what is important, that is Les Paul’s<grin>. I quote from the book The Gibson. On page 75 I find this statement.
The angle of the neck to the body is very closely related to sustain. As the angle of the neck gets shallower the string tension gets lower and sustain gets longer. The angle of the Les Paul was 1 degree when intorduced. The sustain of this guitar was very good because of the neck angle... In 1953 the bridge was changed to the stud type. The angle of the neck joint was changed to 3 degrees. .However sustain remained good because the neck angle was still shallow.
...In 1960 the neck angle was changed to 5 degrees and the model has less sustain but the attack is good...

In discussing reissues the authors make the point 'why didn't they go back to the shallower neck angle?
Because it increases the rate of defective guitars....Modern guitar building tools are much more precise than in the old days, so they might be able to go back to the golden 3 degree angle.


Given the book was published in 1996 I assume they are referring to the RI Les Paul's...


Both you guys are saying that neck angle has nothing to do with anything...okay thanks

regards william
 

Plankspanker

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
3,797
I beleive there is some validity about the variance angles, I know the Replicas that I've owned and those that 've handled were slightly more pronounced than the Gibson Historic issues. The Gibson book that was translated from Japanese does mention a 4 degree pitch.
They may have since corrected this measurement in their more recent issues.
 

Tonefiend

Fiendish One
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
7,656
The neck angle is a part in the whole equation on any guitar. The height of the strings off the body in relation to the workings of the bridge have a big part inthe sound.
On a Les Paul you can chase it all the way back to the carve of the top, and plane of the pickup area which dictates neck angle, which sets the bridge height, which dictates the string angle over the bridge. It all effects tone.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
That Gibson Book is bunk! Just 'cause it is written don't make it so.
 

GeetarGoul

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
5,044
I have noticed that the neck angle on my 1998 historic 335 59 RI is more than on real 1959 ES-335s.

I don't really care because really it's just a 1998 Gibson ES-335 that plays good enough for me. It's neck angle is what it is.

Are you trying to figure which guitars will sound better due to their neck angles alone?

IMHO, there's too many variables for me to consider on a technical level but when I sit down and play a bunch of them, it is pretty easy to find which ones are best............for me.....
 

william tell

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
3
Hello All once again... In response tothel ast post.. No I am not trying to determine what makes the LP sound better or get a better sounding one based on neck angle..If truth be known I choose mine on neck size and weight..

I am simply trying ot verify a statement in the book, The Gibson, that claims that the neck angle is not correct on the RI's..If Gibson is making an exact copy , I would assume the neck angle and all the details that have been mentioned in this thread such as dish and pickup cavities etc would simply be the same as on a real 59..

The one guy I know who claims to be a vintage expert.. says that it is true The neck angle is not the same..

I am aquainted with someone who is hopefully going ot meet Tom Murphey this week. She said she would ask him..


again thanks for all responses... regards william
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
My Y2KR9 had an exact neck angle and bridge height to a particular Original Tobbacco Burst 59 at the H.O.G., where I bought it. We compared the guitars quite extensivley and on that score it was right on. Top carve was different as were some other specs, but the neck angle was spot on, to that one. Yet I've seen many where the angles weren't exactly the same, even among Reissues. It doesn't make them wrong or out of spec.

There are lots of minor differences with the reissues such as the plastic, backplates, routes, and many other details. But, I do know from the Standard 80 Reissue, when Tim Shaw was doing research on Burst Spec's, that the neck angle spec was different for each guitar, and not an exact spec. It has to do with the hand fitting of the neck tenon and the geometry, as was explained. You cannot give an exact number, and claim it is THE spec for neck angle. You can only claim it is the spec for a particular guitar. You can only give it an average range for the model.

I wouldn't obsess over some spec in a book when it comes to the Historic Reissues. Ask yourself what it is you want from the guitar. Do you want the vibe, tone and playability of expensive rare vintage models at a realistic price, or a 1959 Les Paul for a mortgage. The only way to get an exact 59 Les Paul is to cough up better than 50G's and buy a 1959 Les Paul.


I happily settled for my Reissue, because I was not willing to pay the price for a real one. In 1999 I felt that Gibson had got it close enough that with careful shopping, and finding the right one, I could gain the things that I desired in an original with a new reissue. Build quality, timber, finish, tone, playability and vibe were all present in my guitar. I bought it to pursue the feel and tonal qualities of old Burst's I had once owned and sold. If I was set on an exact 100% replica or clone, I would never have bought it. It fulfils my needs and expectations and I am very satisfied with it. I have had a couple of oppertunities to directly compare it to vintage burst's and LP's, and I remain convinced that I made a wise choice. I am not saying it is better than a vintage one, but rather it gives me the things I wanted in a vintage one but was unwilling to pay for.

So you have to take stock and decide which factors are most important for you. If they can be met with a new Historic, find one you like and play the snot out of it. If you feel that they have not yet reached your expectations wait, they might. Or buy a real one, they are available.
 
Top