Here's the real thing... 1971 SG Deluxe... Time Machine

I had a 1973 SG Deluxe for long enough to break it twice; once at the headstock and once at the heel. Your example is beautiful. Mine was quite handsome, too, with the ABR and the Bigsby and the beautiful walnut finish. But mine was pretty awful. I would take your Tribute, given the choice to play one or the other.

Other than not sounding very good, the narrow nut, tiny neck dimensions, and fretless wonder frets made it a not very good player. Bends choked out and fingers dragged on the fretboard itself. The zero neck angle looked bad and played bad. It certainly had/has a lot of mojo, but I will leave those guitars to someone else.

Love the witch hats on that one. Mine had black barrel knobs, which were cool, too. :yesway:

FWIW-I had a 1967 SG Standard in my possession for a few years which played and and sounded like a million bucks. Unfortunately, the real owner later refretted it with jumbo frets and let his brother use it to experiment with refinishing techniques. :shock: There were some later regrets, especially wrt the refin experiments. :facepalm:

I had the neck broken at the head-stock on my Gibson SG Special many years back. It cost me over $200 to get it fixed. It took a month and the guy used fibre glass to fix the neck. How much did it cost for you to get yours fixed?


;>)/
 
I had the neck broken at the head-stock on my Gibson SG Special many years back. It cost me over $200 to get it fixed. It took a month and the guy used fibre glass to fix the neck. How much did it cost for you to get yours fixed?


;>)/

This was early to mid 90's, '94/'95/'96. I am thinking about $100 each time. I had only paid $300 or $350 for the guitar. The heel fix was easy. It was a clean break at the joint. The headstock was comprehensive and was done with mahogany splines. It was a work of art, to the degree I considered not selling the guitar, it was that beautiful. Ultimately, I traded it for a 1995 Firebird V "reissue" the day I got the guitar back from the heel repair. That 'bird became my #1 for a while and was only sold for financial reasons.

The SG Deluxe was never more than a backup for my 1991 SG Special. Even then, I got pretty good at changing broken strings fast instead of reaching the the Deluxe. :oops:
 
Last edited:
I have a '70/'71 SG Standard and the neck angle is about 2 to 3 degrees.

@Col Mustard: Can you post a pic on the profile on that angle?


I think this is probably right. In relative terms it feels like "no angle" and the neck relief looks like it bows out compared to the 4 to 5 degree traditional angle.
 
I think the fret board is not flush with the body, with the neck being "proud" of the body on those early 70's SG's. I had possession of a mid 70's V with a similarly "off the deck" fretboard. It actually played great and sounded pretty good, too, though I wasn't a fan of the JB/Jazz pickup combo in it. The neck was a much more normal size and shape and angle, with playable frets. :yesway:

The V was another long term loaner guitar. What generous friends I had! :cheers:

I had a roommate with a '78 or '79 SG Standard with block inlays. It was a great guitar in almost every way. Very similar in weight and feel to the '67 Standard I had previously been loaned long term.
 
I didn't get right down flat, but this shows it I believe...neck and body are parallel.
No back angle. Norlin took a lot of flak for doing this to Gibson's design... they marketed it
as the "90 Degree neck pitch" which is nonsensical, and didn't help sell guitarists on the idea.
Even the case was re-designed to accommodate this anomaly... flat topped...

The SG Deluxe was discontinued after only a year in production, along with the SG Pro.
and they abandoned the "90 Degree neck pitch" by late 1972, according to John Bulli's book.
I don't know if they made Les Paul Deluxe like this, or ES-335s or other Gibson models
or if they only did it to SGs. My guess is they only did it to SGs, trying to make the joint
stronger so they'd have less complaints about breakage. Advice from the bean counters.
But this guitar rips, in spite of all the goose honking that's been aimed at it.
body low oblique@100.jpg
I'd read Bulli's book, and had read plenty of posts by players and collectors who know their way around
old instruments. And I lived through this era, but I was in the intense baby care phase of my life at that time,
and totally unaware of anything relating to the music biz. So I had never actually even seen one of these.
Never in a store, never in the hands of a player, never in a music video, ...never. Only pictures.

So you can imagine how fascinated I was to get this baby in my sweaty hands, and tune it up and
play it. Did I tell you all that this guitar plays and sounds stunning? The feel is silky smooth, not awkward at all.
The T top pickups are like nothing else I've ever played. (I have never got my hands on a sixties SG, or on a
fifties Les Paul, or been close enough to perceive one as such). I ran the signal through a Honeytone 15 W amp
plugged into a Black Heart 12" speaker cab. No pedals. That's all I had around the shop at the time when Gene
came in with the two cases. *grins This SG balances perfectly.

What a fine, powerful sound. Both pickups had real energy, each was distinct but neither was "better..."
So the middle position seemed really fine, combining the two. The bridge pickup is full
and powerful, no tinny overtones, no ice pick, no loss of energy like some bridge pickups suffer. Just rock an roll...
I could play a whole set just using that. But I'd be missing so much!
The neck p'up has an in-your-face jazzy vibe that's smooth and seems kind of... inevitable. If that's a word that can describe music tone. I believe it is. Plenty of latent power, like a race horse waiting for the signal. Love to stomp an overdrive
with either one.

My main impression after getting to play this instrument was to wonder what all the negativity was about.
Just more clap trap from closed minded musicians. Really, a closed mind is nothing to be proud of. It's actually
a crippling handicap IMHO. Anyway, this instrument illustrates what we think of as an evolutionary dead end in
the Gibson SG story. Players urged Gibson to return the designs to their origins... SG and Les Paul. ...and gradually,
kicking and moaning and groaning, they did.

And it took them a long time to get it right. Some of our members
don't think they've ever got it right. That's not my opinion. To me, it's all about the music.
And this beast has a lot of music in it. This guitar growls, and jangles, and shrieks with raw power.]
But if you know how, a guy can play some devilish jazz on this instrument. Gene knows how. He's just
out of practice.
 
I didn't get right down flat, but this shows it I believe...neck and body are parallel.
No back angle. Norlin took a lot of flak for doing this to Gibson's design... they marketed it
as the "90 Degree neck pitch" which is nonsensical, and didn't help sell guitarists on the idea.
Even the case was re-designed to accommodate this anomaly... flat topped...

I don't think Norlin took such a granular hands-on approach to the design of the guitars. They told the day-to-day to save money, yes, but it's not like they replaced everyone there or brainwashed them to forget how to make guitars. I don't think there is any inherent problem with the lack of neck pitch, works for Fenders after all, and I suspect it was done just to lower assembly costs. I'm just saying I doubt the South American brewers were the ones that spec'd this directly.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt the guitar plays well and screams,
moans, cries and whispers with the best of them.

My guitar that has done more jobs than all the others
combined is a beat to s#!t heavily modded '72 SG special.
Batwing, quasi why did they even bother bevels, volute,
huge neck heel, the whole Norlin enchilada.
None of that matters because it's a good guitar
and you know what they say...

but...(there it is again.)

The top mounted control plate and the LP style pickguard
are very much not my cup of tea. I'm not saying they are bad.
I just I don't like the way they look.
(but then again I wear green pants and a purple guitar together)
 
I have no doubt the guitar plays well and screams,
moans, cries and whispers with the best of them.

My guitar that has done more jobs than all the others
combined is a beat to s#!t heavily modded '72 SG special.
Batwing, quasi why did they even bother bevels, volute,
huge neck heel, the whole Norlin enchilada.
None of that matters because it's a good guitar
and you know what they say...

but...(there it is again.)

The top mounted control plate and the LP style pickguard
are very much not my cup of tea. I'm not saying they are bad.
I just I don't like the way they look.
(but then again I wear green pants and a purple guitar together)

Definitely not a look for everyone. I would personally like to have one because the ones I have played I liked, but I do think they are pretty ugly.
 
this one's NOT ugly! this one's hardly got a mark on it...
the Gibson Deep Gloss is all there, and the wood is lovely and
even the lack of beveling seems forgivable when you get this
thing in your hairy paws.

ah me... I never cared for the look either, until now. I always thought these
were pointless "improvements' to a design that was already a classic, and
didn't need improving.

I still think that, but it sure looks different when you're looking down at it
resting on your leg. This is a unique SG, and offshoot of the traddie favorite,
and a fore runner of some of the other hair-brain versions we've seen
of our favorite guitar.

And yes, I like my "tribute" better. My tribute is one hell of a guitar, and players
have come to realize that since it's been re-issued. But I'm looking forward to
playing this one through a real amp, like maybe my Vox VT-30 or my Orange
Micro Terror, and try some of my pedals on, and then play some parts on some
songs I'm working on.

I'll update this thread at some time in the future if I get a chance to play something
on this instrument.
 
this one's NOT ugly! this one's hardly got a mark on it...
the Gibson Deep Gloss is all there, and the wood is lovely and
even the lack of beveling seems forgivable when you get this
thing in your hairy paws.

ah me... I never cared for the look either, until now. I always thought these
were pointless "improvements' to a design that was already a classic, and
didn't need improving.

I still think that, but it sure looks different when you're looking down at it
resting on your leg. This is a unique SG, and offshoot of the traddie favorite,
and a fore runner of some of the other hair-brain versions we've seen
of our favorite guitar.

And yes, I like my "tribute" better. My tribute is one hell of a guitar, and players
have come to realize that since it's been re-issued. But I'm looking forward to
playing this one through a real amp, like maybe my Vox VT-30 or my Orange
Micro Terror, and try some of my pedals on, and then play some parts on some
songs I'm working on.

I'll update this thread at some time in the future if I get a chance to play something
on this instrument.

I stand corrected. "Ugly" was not the correct word. I find the Gibson guitars of that period quite beautiful in their construction and finishing, I just don't like the appointments/details of this model. The combination of the LP pickguard and the control plate is too much - I would have preferred a single large scratchplate, even if it also hung the pickups like the Sonex one, from an aesthetic standpoint. Other than that, I would all over that guitar.
 
Are ya'll sure there isn't, at least, some neck angle? I would think that if there was absolutely no angle at all the action would be unacceptably high by the time the strings passed over the bridge.

My '74 SG is built much the same way as the '71 and it is pretty flat...noticeably flatter than my 2014 SG. I could see someone feeling like my '74 has a flat angle, especially if they were used to playing other SGs. But, there is still a slight angle to it.

I mean, I've never held a '71, so I'm not going to insist dogmatically that there must be an angle to the neck. But, it seems there has to be somewhat of an angle.

My 2016 SG has a very steep neck angle. It took a couple of shims in the faber TP-59 kit to get the strings off the bridge, but action is good and it plays fine....I don't know, maybe 7° or so???

2016 Gibson SG Corrected Pickup Angle.jpg
 
I stand corrected. "Ugly" was not the correct word. I find the Gibson guitars of that period quite beautiful in their construction and finishing, I just don't like the appointments/details of this model. The combination of the LP pickguard and the control plate is too much - I would have preferred a single large scratchplate, even if it also hung the pickups like the Sonex one, from an aesthetic standpoint. Other than that, I would all over that guitar.

Exactly.
 
this one's NOT ugly! this one's hardly got a mark on it...
the Gibson Deep Gloss is all there, and the wood is lovely and
even the lack of beveling seems forgivable when you get this
thing in your hairy paws.

ah me... I never cared for the look either, until now. I always thought these
were pointless "improvements' to a design that was already a classic, and
didn't need improving.

I still think that, but it sure looks different when you're looking down at it
resting on your leg. This is a unique SG, and offshoot of the traddie favorite,
and a fore runner of some of the other hair-brain versions we've seen
of our favorite guitar.

And yes, I like my "tribute" better. My tribute is one hell of a guitar, and players
have come to realize that since it's been re-issued. But I'm looking forward to
playing this one through a real amp, like maybe my Vox VT-30 or my Orange
Micro Terror, and try some of my pedals on, and then play some parts on some
songs I'm working on.

I'll update this thread at some time in the future if I get a chance to play something
on this instrument.

Col, I am curious about the nut width and neck dimensions on the one in your possession. I don't need anything exacting, just generally speaking.

I liked the funkiness of mine. But even now, when there is nothing on the line, performance wise, I can't see myself enjoying playing my old Deluxe. It reminded me of my Teisco and my Sekova; really cool looking, funky guitars, but not much fun to play. Not after a few minutes of curiosity, anyway.
 
I didn't measure the neck thickness, but the nut width is the 1 & 9/16" that was standard for the time
period. This got started in about 1965 according to sources I've read... before that all Gibsons had
a nut width of 1 & 11/16", just like now. Gibson made guitars with the narrower nut width until about
1979 when they went back to their old standard size, and it's been that ever since. I never understood
why it was changed to the narrow gauge, but I think it was changed back under pressure from
players who wanted everything changed back to the early specs.

I don't think any Gibson made later than 1979 has that narrow width, except maybe an Angus Young re-issue.
The neck felt slim and fast when I played the instrument... I didn't measure it but it was different from my 2012
Silverburst SG special which has what Gibson describes as the "70s thin to thick neck carve" what ever that is.

Whatever it is, I do love the neck on my Silverburst. And it's unique like the rest of the instrument.
But the 1971 SG Deluxe has more of a '60s slim neck IMHO. I played it just long enough to satisfy my
curiosity about how it would feel. I was thinking that with my big square fingers, I wouldn't like the neck.
But I liked it. Hey Mikey! He likes it!. And it felt way different from the "SG rounded" neck of my '07 SG special.
I'd call it a slim neck on the '71.

I confess to being a guitar slut. I'll wrap my trembling fingers around any shape neck, from a 64 Silvertone banjo
to a rescued and rebuilt '97 ex-Squier Precision bass or my girlfriends Ukulele. No problems. Acoustic, electric, bass,
I'll caress some music outa them. Guys who complain about neck shapes always leave me wondering WTF...
But I did wonder if I'd have to eat my words and join the ranks of the neck shape complainers with this '70s relic.

But I didn't. The darn thing felt great to me... I want to play it some more.
 
I stand corrected. "Ugly" was not the correct word. I find the Gibson guitars of that period quite beautiful in their construction and finishing, I just don't like the appointments/details of this model. The combination of the LP pickguard and the control plate is too much - I would have preferred a single large scratchplate, even if it also hung the pickups like the Sonex one, from an aesthetic standpoint. Other than that, I would be all over that guitar.

Thanks for that. I would have been the first to line up among the neigh-sayers too, until I actually got to
hold this individual instrument. I can't understand why the designers felt that they needed to install the LP
pickguard... SGs look great with either the large or the small guard, or with none! And I've always regarded the
half moon control cover as an abomination... Until I flipped this instrument over and fell in love with the lovely
grain of the back. *shrugs

I know... guitar slut. So my friend brought his old instrument to the right guy. Imagine his feelings if he brought
out his prized and beloved Gibson to show some cork sniffer who would immediately laugh and snort and say,
"OMG! You bought the Edsel of all Gibsons! Look at that honking plastic junk! The body's all wrong, and the
headstock's too big and the necks too slim, and the bigsby never worked right..."
... and on and on and on until he hung his head with shame and walked back out into the fog and the snowdrifts.

IMHO the instrument is beautiful in spite of Gibsons "improvements" and there's a basic elegance to it that can't
be denied. And I admired it repeatedly to my friend. There's time enough for him to hear that it was an unpopular
model. His feels and sounds great, and that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
 
Thank you, Col! :yesway:

I think mine was just extra small. It almost felt like a Tenor guitar. Which I have played and really enjoyed.
 
Back
Top