Gibson Burstbuckers 1 and 2

Goldmember

Goldmember

Ambassador of Golden Yoo-Hoos
Country flag
There has been much discussion about Burstbucker pickups, with one of the hot topics being whether they are wax potted or not. So for reference purposes, I used my 2013 SG 60s Tribute as a test subject. It came stock with BB 1 and 2. Turning a screw pole from each pickup, a few half-turns clockwise, then a few counter, wax squeezed out from each, with much more coming from BB1. The pick tapping test resulted in a thud from BB1, but a more hollow sounding click from BB2. I'm concluding that both are, indeed, potted, but that BB2 may have been "lightly" potted by Gibson to reduce feedback while retaining some of the characteristics of the non-potted version.*

* Kids, don't try this at home. You'll put your eye out, or somethin...
 
Last edited:
hummm interesting.i was always of the thought that all the early BB 1,2,3s were not wax potted but the newer BB Pro Lead and Rythum are. obviously some are. i bought a Duncan Antiquities humbucker knowing it wasnt wax potted
 
good question,would see just how authentic they made the R8. so did the original 58s use un wax potted pups ???
 
So I searched the interwebs...and here is the answer!!!

Are Custom Buckers Wax Potted???

YES
NO
LIGHTLY...

So...How many bites does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop???

Three...
 
Hi, I have the same 60's tribute (2013) that Goldmember mentions in the 1st post, the pickups are indeed, potted. I believe that when they were first offered, they weren't potted but Gibson later started potting the ones that were factory installed in guitars, while those sold separately are still not potted. I currently have them in my LP where I think they're better suited than in the SG (though they were still good in the SG). I find them hot enough, they can "raunch" quite well though a BB3 in the bridge would be nice. Cheers
 
Zombie thread alert - reviving this one after 6½ years.

Web opinions are all over the place about BB potting. Apparently Gibson originally planned to make BBs sold in guitars unpotted, while selling potted ones as separate parts. Then they decided to sell the aftermarket ones unpotted, so they could market them as authentic. Then so many people complained about feedback that they started potting the stock ones in guitars for a while. After that, it gets confusing.

It's no wonder that any online claims won't be correct unless they go by the specific date of manufacture, and I bet even longtime Gibson employees would have trouble nailing down the timeline accurately.

Who knows for sure? I think the only way to be certain is to examine each individual pickup.

The unpotted BB1/BB2 set in my '05 Trad Plus squealed horribly with moderate gain, even at today's low stage volumes.
The BB2 bridge also sounded super harsh in this particular guitar, which is unusually bright-voiced for an LP.

Gibson's reissue Shaw PAFs gave me a lot of trouble too, back in the 80s.
They sounded great but I had to pull them from any guitars I was gigging.
Of course, stage levels were mighty loud back then.

~

I still feel cover fit has a lot to do with humbucker feedback issues too.
I've got unpotted PAF types that perform just fine with gain, I think because their covers are fitted nice and tightly.

When humbuckers were a new invention, guitar was played at pretty low volumes and overdrive tone wasn't a thing yet.
Covers were just for protection & dress up, and Gibson wasn't too careful about how they put 'em on.
You'd think they would've gotten it right by now, though.
 
Not a fan of BB 1 & 2 pickups my 2001 Custom Shop LPS were stock the BB2 on the bridge position sounded like mud
the BB1 in the neck position dark bass heavy not clear My 2002 Les Paul Custom Shop 1960 RO BB1 x2 still muddy
My original 1957 to 1960 Gibson guitars with real PAF pickups it's hard to describe 3D and clear
I had Jim Rolph build me 4 sets of pretender PAF pickups cloned after 1957 PAF A5 magnets they weren't cheap but the results were amazing
One point the new Gibson under wound pickups might be worth a try I think people that put over wound pickups in their guitars
have a amp issue
 
I've got the BB1 and BB2 in my ES-335. They work very well with that guitar. Not sure how they would sound in a solid body. My Flying V, Les Paul, and a couple of SGs all have custom made PAF style pickups that are between 7.3 and 7.9 Ohms and scatter wound with either Alnico II or IV magnets. With a bit of digging, one can find very good options for PAF style pickups. I agree with Steve, if you need it overwound you're probably not setting up your amp and playing style very well. I can get very good tone and creamy feedback from low output pickups and non-master volume amps.

Had to edit. Saw that 7.9 was 7.0... oops.
 
Last edited:
SG John said:
I've got the BB1 and BB2 in my ES-335. They work very well with that guitar. Not sure how they would sound in a solid body. My Flying V, Les Paul, and a couple of SGs all have custom made PAF style pickups that are between 7.3 and 7.0 Ohms and scatter wound with either Alnico II or IV magnets. With a bit of digging, one can find very good options for PAF style pickups. I agree with Steve, if you need it overwound you're probably not setting up your amp and playing style very well. I can get very good tone and creamy feedback from low output pickups and non-master volume amps.
Click to expand...
I had 57 classics in my 335 stock put a set of the Jim Rolph's no difference in sound put the 57 classics back in

Picture 333.jpg

2005 ES-335 001.JPG
 
I have the 57 Classic in the neck position, and the 57 Classic Plus in the bridge position of this SG. It sounds fantastic. It also has CTS pots and Lux Grey Tiger caps in it.

IMG_2342.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top