You are here

Gibson The Sg

For all things relating to guitars, basses, amps, pedals & accessories.

Re: Gibson The Sg

Postby Daniel Mellor » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:16 am

Also thanks to Steve 77 for the Harmony Central Reviw.

Dan
Daniel Mellor
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:00 am

Re: Gibson The Sg

Postby John the Bass » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:02 pm

Daniel Mellor wrote:
Wonkey Wabbit wrote:The Paul and The SG were part of the 'Firebrand' range (the Gibson logo was burnt into the headstock). There was a 335 Firebrand as well, but it came out a bit after the other two.

My Tony Bacon '50 years of the Les Paul' book strangely excludes 'The Paul' as it doesn't have the full Les Paul name.

The firebrand came out after and your right it was burnt into the headstock and I think off the top off my head it was just called the SG Firebrand. It was the exact same body and I think it also had the Velvet Brick humbucker in the bridge but just had the burnt head stock.

I think it is a wallnut body though on the guitar, it's what I was told anyway and always took it as gospel.

Dan

Plus the one - my dad has a 'The Paul' from 1978 and this isn't marked as Firebrand - it's walnut and is considerably thinner than an LP, with an ebony fingerboard, proper MOP dot markers and a pair of Dirty Fingers pickups. The selector switch is down next to the controls, rather than on the top bout on the Les Pauls. I've seen Firebrands which seem to come out a little later and also a second generation of 'The Paul' which seemed to appear in the 90s and had solid colours and didn't appear to have a carved top either.
John the Bass
Regular
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Gibson The Sg

Postby p_lev » Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:47 am

'79 was the only year model for the "SG". It was indeed solid walnut and the logo was gold foil. I've had mine for over 20 years and it's loud and raucous. Some people say they sound weird but I think that's mostly attributed to the 100k and 300k pots they had in them, thanks to Norlin. The year after they went to the Firebrand, with the burned in logos.

I'd never sell me, it's got tons of character. Some of the issues people have with it are the 3-piece neck and the volute, which is the thickening of the neck near the headstock. Both moves were intended to strengthen the neck, old Gibsons had a habit of snapping the headstock off when they fell over due to a lack of material at the neck/headstock connection. I think the volute was an elegant solution but allot of people didn't like it for some reason.

The three-piece neck also was done for the same reason. I'm an architect and I know that wood is stronger in one direction, rotating it increases strength and dimensional stability, much like the concept behind glue-laminated wood beams and plywood.

But what I like about "The SG" most is that it's a player's guitar. While it's a vintage guitar, it's not celebrated to the point where it becomes sacrosanct to maintain the original hardware. This guitar you can thrash and not worry about wrecking an Uber-collectible, and the neck is strong as nails. My brother ran mine into a wall and it was fine. I'm in the process of replacing the bridge pickup and the pots in mine, and I'm looking forward to years more of use out of this one and eventually handing off to my kids. I'll let them fight over it.
p_lev
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:15 am

Re: Gibson The Sg

Postby Sam Spoons » Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:37 pm

A mate (very recently deceased) had a "The Paul" since the end of the '70s. It would definitely have been his 'desert island' guitar. He was never quite satisfied with it but he never found another guitar he liked as much either. Decent workmanlike guitars which struggled to capture the imagination of the guitar buying public.
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 13855
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Manchester UK
Finally taking this recording lark seriously (and recording my Gypsy Jazz CD)........

Previous