Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
'52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
> alt.guitar:
>
>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>
> "Top" meaning what?
Higher as you hold the guitar - towards the bass strings.
> My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
That's the way mine came. I am assuming it was correct. That
also puts the skinny strings on those little tracks with the
setscrew, not the main saddle.
--
Les Cargill
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
> alt.guitar:
>
>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>
> "Top" meaning what?
Higher as you hold the guitar - towards the bass strings.
> My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
That's the way mine came. I am assuming it was correct. That
also puts the skinny strings on those little tracks with the
setscrew, not the main saddle.
--
Les Cargill
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
> Nil wrote:
>> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
>> alt.guitar:
>>
>>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>>
>> "Top" meaning what?
>
> Higher as you hold the guitar - towards the bass strings.
>
>> My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
>> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
>> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
>
> That's the way mine came. I am assuming it was correct. That
> also puts the skinny strings on those little tracks with the
> setscrew, not the main saddle.
But that's *opposite* of the way Ric 12s are strung.
Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
> Nil wrote:
>> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
>> alt.guitar:
>>
>>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>>
>> "Top" meaning what?
>
> Higher as you hold the guitar - towards the bass strings.
>
>> My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
>> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
>> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
>
> That's the way mine came. I am assuming it was correct. That
> also puts the skinny strings on those little tracks with the
> setscrew, not the main saddle.
But that's *opposite* of the way Ric 12s are strung.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>> Nil wrote:
>>> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
>>> alt.guitar:
>>>
>>>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>>> "Top" meaning what?
>> Higher as you hold the guitar - towards the bass strings.
>>
>>> My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
>>> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
>>> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
>> That's the way mine came. I am assuming it was correct. That
>> also puts the skinny strings on those little tracks with the
>> setscrew, not the main saddle.
>
> But that's *opposite* of the way Ric 12s are strung.
>
>
This is weird, because the last two acoustic 12s I have seen were
like your Ric apparently is - big string first. I did not look
closely - they could easily have simply been mis-strung - both
were in used guitar stores.
Waiter, more confusion, please.
--
Les Cargill
RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>> Nil wrote:
>>> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
>>> alt.guitar:
>>>
>>>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>>> "Top" meaning what?
>> Higher as you hold the guitar - towards the bass strings.
>>
>>> My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
>>> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
>>> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
>> That's the way mine came. I am assuming it was correct. That
>> also puts the skinny strings on those little tracks with the
>> setscrew, not the main saddle.
>
> But that's *opposite* of the way Ric 12s are strung.
>
>
This is weird, because the last two acoustic 12s I have seen were
like your Ric apparently is - big string first. I did not look
closely - they could easily have simply been mis-strung - both
were in used guitar stores.
Waiter, more confusion, please.
--
Les Cargill
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Nil <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
> alt.guitar:
>
>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>
> "Top" meaning what? My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
I can't be sure about the Danelectro, but for the Ric, the *lower*
string of the octave pair is toward the bass side of the neck. My
understanding is that this is opposite to the way it's done on most 12s.
Every acoustic 12 I've ever played has the same arrangement as your
Danelectro (and electric Fender 12s, if I recall correctly). And I know
my Ric is strung "correctly" because the (stock) bridge has larger and
somewhat deeper slots for the higher-gauge strings.
I don't know if the string arrangement contributes to the characteristic
sound; I can't see why it would. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the
treble-heavy Ric pickups, the semi-hollow construction, and even a bit
to that "R" tailpiece, which I think helps transfer energy to other
strings, resulting in that droning effect.
Nil <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
> alt.guitar:
>
>> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
>
> "Top" meaning what? My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
> the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
> have I reversed them by accident at some point?
I can't be sure about the Danelectro, but for the Ric, the *lower*
string of the octave pair is toward the bass side of the neck. My
understanding is that this is opposite to the way it's done on most 12s.
Every acoustic 12 I've ever played has the same arrangement as your
Danelectro (and electric Fender 12s, if I recall correctly). And I know
my Ric is strung "correctly" because the (stock) bridge has larger and
somewhat deeper slots for the higher-gauge strings.
I don't know if the string arrangement contributes to the characteristic
sound; I can't see why it would. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the
treble-heavy Ric pickups, the semi-hollow construction, and even a bit
to that "R" tailpiece, which I think helps transfer energy to other
strings, resulting in that droning effect.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
In article <PiOWj.17767$%X1.4607@trnddc08>, rpleavitt@yahoo,com says...
> Nil <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote:
> > On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
> > alt.guitar:
> >
> >> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
> >
> > "Top" meaning what? My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
> > the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
> > have I reversed them by accident at some point?
>
> I can't be sure about the Danelectro, but for the Ric, the *lower*
> string of the octave pair is toward the bass side of the neck. My
> understanding is that this is opposite to the way it's done on most 12s.
> Every acoustic 12 I've ever played has the same arrangement as your
> Danelectro (and electric Fender 12s, if I recall correctly). And I know
> my Ric is strung "correctly" because the (stock) bridge has larger and
> somewhat deeper slots for the higher-gauge strings.
>
> I don't know if the string arrangement contributes to the characteristic
> sound; I can't see why it would. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the
> treble-heavy Ric pickups, the semi-hollow construction, and even a bit
> to that "R" tailpiece, which I think helps transfer energy to other
> strings, resulting in that droning effect.
>
>
>
This is correct. Except for the very first Ric 12 ever made, every one
since has the normal/thick string of the pair towards the bass side of
the neck. As you down pick and especially if you play with a thumb pick
or pick and fingers, the fat string more or less crashes into the octave
string and starts it ringing. Combined with the same neck width as used
on the 6 string Rics and low action made possible by double truss rods,
you can play all kinds of leads on a Ric 12. Carl Wilson used to play
Chuck Berry covers on his 12, out-of-tune bends and all.
Reversing the stringing on a 12 requires a new nut, so it's not easily
done. A few of the original Fender 12 prototypes were reverse strung and
those had changes at the bridge as well. I wouldn't be surprised to find
some Dano's or other electric 12's that were converted, once it became
known that Rics were reversed.
In article <PiOWj.17767$%X1.4607@trnddc08>, rpleavitt@yahoo,com says...
> Nil <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote:
> > On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in
> > alt.guitar:
> >
> >> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
> >
> > "Top" meaning what? My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
> > the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
> > have I reversed them by accident at some point?
>
> I can't be sure about the Danelectro, but for the Ric, the *lower*
> string of the octave pair is toward the bass side of the neck. My
> understanding is that this is opposite to the way it's done on most 12s.
> Every acoustic 12 I've ever played has the same arrangement as your
> Danelectro (and electric Fender 12s, if I recall correctly). And I know
> my Ric is strung "correctly" because the (stock) bridge has larger and
> somewhat deeper slots for the higher-gauge strings.
>
> I don't know if the string arrangement contributes to the characteristic
> sound; I can't see why it would. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the
> treble-heavy Ric pickups, the semi-hollow construction, and even a bit
> to that "R" tailpiece, which I think helps transfer energy to other
> strings, resulting in that droning effect.
>
>
>
This is correct. Except for the very first Ric 12 ever made, every one
since has the normal/thick string of the pair towards the bass side of
the neck. As you down pick and especially if you play with a thumb pick
or pick and fingers, the fat string more or less crashes into the octave
string and starts it ringing. Combined with the same neck width as used
on the 6 string Rics and low action made possible by double truss rods,
you can play all kinds of leads on a Ric 12. Carl Wilson used to play
Chuck Berry covers on his 12, out-of-tune bends and all.
Reversing the stringing on a 12 requires a new nut, so it's not easily
done. A few of the original Fender 12 prototypes were reverse strung and
those had changes at the bridge as well. I wouldn't be surprised to find
some Dano's or other electric 12's that were converted, once it became
known that Rics were reversed.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On May 14, 11:42 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> I can't be sure about the Danelectro, but for the Ric, the *lower*
> string of the octave pair is toward the bass side of the neck. My
> understanding is that this is opposite to the way it's done on most 12s.
> Every acoustic 12 I've ever played has the same arrangement as your
> Danelectro (and electric Fender 12s, if I recall correctly).
YES.
Ric heavy strings are on top. I was grudgingly tolerant of that on
mine.
> I don't know if the string arrangement contributes to the characteristic
> sound; I can't see why it would. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the
> treble-heavy Ric pickups, the semi-hollow construction, and even a bit
> to that "R" tailpiece, which I think helps transfer energy to other
> strings, resulting in that droning effect.
A lot of that Ric "chime" goes away when you mute the strings between
the bridge and tailpiece. I think there are a lot of trademark
overtones generated there.
-dave-----:::
www .myspace,com /geetardave
On May 14, 11:42 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> I can't be sure about the Danelectro, but for the Ric, the *lower*
> string of the octave pair is toward the bass side of the neck. My
> understanding is that this is opposite to the way it's done on most 12s.
> Every acoustic 12 I've ever played has the same arrangement as your
> Danelectro (and electric Fender 12s, if I recall correctly).
YES.
Ric heavy strings are on top. I was grudgingly tolerant of that on
mine.
> I don't know if the string arrangement contributes to the characteristic
> sound; I can't see why it would. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the
> treble-heavy Ric pickups, the semi-hollow construction, and even a bit
> to that "R" tailpiece, which I think helps transfer energy to other
> strings, resulting in that droning effect.
A lot of that Ric "chime" goes away when you mute the strings between
the bridge and tailpiece. I think there are a lot of trademark
overtones generated there.
-dave-----:::
www .myspace,com /geetardave
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On May 13, 9:10 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965: http :// i170.photobucket,com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
Yowsa... You're single-handedly keeping the toggle switch industry in
business.
BTW, Is that a Kahler trem? How do you like it? I had one on an SG
years ago, and I'm thinking of getting one for an LP copy I'm
modifying. It seems much easier to install than a Floyd (limited
routing, etc.).
- Rich
On May 13, 9:10 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965: http :// i170.photobucket,com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
Yowsa... You're single-handedly keeping the toggle switch industry in
business.
BTW, Is that a Kahler trem? How do you like it? I had one on an SG
years ago, and I'm thinking of getting one for an LP copy I'm
modifying. It seems much easier to install than a Floyd (limited
routing, etc.).
- Rich
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Dr. Zontar <drzontar@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 13, 9:10 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in
>>
1965: http :// i170.photobucket,com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.j
pg
>
> Yowsa... You're single-handedly keeping the toggle switch industry in
> business.
>
> BTW, Is that a Kahler trem? How do you like it? I had one on an SG
> years ago, and I'm thinking of getting one for an LP copy I'm
> modifying. It seems much easier to install than a Floyd (limited
> routing, etc.).
>
> - Rich
Yeah, it's a Kahler, I like it better than the trems I have on other
guitars. A lot of this has to do with the condition of the nut and
bridge, but I can dive bomb that thing to the point where the strings
are almost totally slack yet still have it come back to tune. Actually,
I find that a slight *upward* yank on it after a dive bomb tends to
correct any pitch errors.
Dr. Zontar <drzontar@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 13, 9:10 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in
>>
1965: http :// i170.photobucket,com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.j
pg
>
> Yowsa... You're single-handedly keeping the toggle switch industry in
> business.
>
> BTW, Is that a Kahler trem? How do you like it? I had one on an SG
> years ago, and I'm thinking of getting one for an LP copy I'm
> modifying. It seems much easier to install than a Floyd (limited
> routing, etc.).
>
> - Rich
Yeah, it's a Kahler, I like it better than the trems I have on other
guitars. A lot of this has to do with the condition of the nut and
bridge, but I can dive bomb that thing to the point where the strings
are almost totally slack yet still have it come back to tune. Actually,
I find that a slight *upward* yank on it after a dive bomb tends to
correct any pitch errors.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
"Dr. Zontar" <drzontar@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:bb0c8e09-4626-439c-86e1-35ccf582098f@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
> in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
> appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
> Fender amp" for $125.
>
> It had been stored under his bed for years. It had lots of hairline
> cracks in the finish, along with the usual scratches and dings. They
> appraised it at $15,000 - $20,000.
>
> Good thing it wasn't mine. I would have gotten rid of the stupid
> trapeze bridge/tailpiece, swapped out the P90's and repainted it,
> totally ruining the collector's value.
>
> - Rich
Unfortunately that wouldn't have been enough. That year's production also
required a neck reset.
-pk
"Dr. Zontar" <drzontar@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:bb0c8e09-4626-439c-86e1-35ccf582098f@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
> in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
> appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
> Fender amp" for $125.
>
> It had been stored under his bed for years. It had lots of hairline
> cracks in the finish, along with the usual scratches and dings. They
> appraised it at $15,000 - $20,000.
>
> Good thing it wasn't mine. I would have gotten rid of the stupid
> trapeze bridge/tailpiece, swapped out the P90's and repainted it,
> totally ruining the collector's value.
>
> - Rich
Unfortunately that wouldn't have been enough. That year's production also
required a neck reset.
-pk
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Dr. Zontar wrote:
> I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
> in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
> appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
> Fender amp" for $125.
>
>
Damn .. I would have told the guy that it was just
an old guitar that Gibson quit making because it had
a record of poor finish jobs ... offered him *good deal*
on it.. double his money for $250 ! along with the crappy tube amp !
Dr. Zontar wrote:
> I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
> in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
> appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
> Fender amp" for $125.
>
>
Damn .. I would have told the guy that it was just
an old guitar that Gibson quit making because it had
a record of poor finish jobs ... offered him *good deal*
on it.. double his money for $250 ! along with the crappy tube amp !
