Differing Thickness and Weight of SGs?

Discussion in 'Guitars in General' started by nb_fan, Mar 29, 2008.

  1. nb_fan

    nb_fan Member

    Messages:
    372
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON Canada
    Is there a considerable difference in the thickness of wood used in the SGs over the years?

    Are there any particular eras that the bodies of SGs were significantly thicker than others?

    I just noticed that my 2005 SG looked thinner than some of the current reissues, but I did not do a side by side comparison - just from memory.

    were the old ones thicker? I'm guessing the thicker wood would have given it a lot more sustain and warmth to the SG as well.
     
  2. Frankee

    Frankee Wartime Consigliere

    Messages:
    25,496
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Location:
    Santo Poco
    My SG standard is one of the more recent ones, '94 I believe. I think with the advent of better and more precise manufacturing equipment such as CNC and their ilk, The cutaway contours of the SG have a slightly higher degree of accuracy when contrasted to the genaral body dimensions. Giving a more streamlined feel to the guitar when compared to their 60's and 70's counterparts.

    Reading that, I don't know if I conveyed exactly what I was going for, but you get the picture...
     
  3. scottlr

    scottlr Member

    Messages:
    22,865
    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Location:
    Born & raised in Texas; stranded in Iowa
    Lack of sustain? That was never a problem on all of the SGs I have owned. As for weight, most all I have had/played were pretty light weight, EXCEPT for the 62 RI I have now, which is at least 8 pounds (hefty for an SG). But damn, it sounds great, and plays well, so the hell with the weight. As for the thickness, i can't say I have noticed a big difference over the years, but to me, IICR the "sharpness" of the contours seems more pronounced these days, compared to my mind's eye from the past. I'd have to have a vintage one in front of me to be certain, but mine seems to be much more sharp at the "cuts."
     
  4. nb_fan

    nb_fan Member

    Messages:
    372
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON Canada
    so the thicknesses are all the same, but the beveling on moderns are just more pronounced?

    that's interesting... I always wanted to get a cross between the SG and the LP,.. the thick, fat sound of the LP with the usability and weight of the SG, but still punchy, haha.
     
  5. Frankee

    Frankee Wartime Consigliere

    Messages:
    25,496
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Location:
    Santo Poco
    You said it a whole lot better than I did.
     
  6. jtees4

    jtees4 Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Location:
    NY
    I do not know about thickness...but I do know that the weight can differ by a decent amount. I had a 97 that was considerably lighter than my 2002 and 2004. Don't have a clue why. Sounded better too. All were SG Specials.
     

Share This Page