sg standard vs late 60's sg neck angle ?

Mynameisfritz · Post by **Mynameisfritz** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:46 am

The '68 has a very stable neck joint too. No worries at all here. The neck is quite big, but it's ok, not uncomfortable.

Some call these necks baseball bat because they are so big, but I get along with it very very good. As far as I know, all the '68 - '71 models have a very chunky neck, but maybe I'm wrong and the size just varies from guitar to guitar....

Nice pics. I wonder if a real '61 had that neck joint too or if they changed it on the RI models. I guess they did...

908ssp · Post by **908ssp** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:03 am

A real 62 neck joint.

electricskychurch · Post by **electricskychurch** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:39 am

no, the late 60's sg's necks (at least the 69' and maybe 68' as well ) are very narrow (nut width) .
the angus young sg is more or less based on angus 69' sg standard except the neck is even thinner (less deep) .
i think the era where the necks were the biggest were about 64' to 67 (or 65' to 67') where they were deep and wide (nutwidth) but they were constantly changing the specifications of the sg through the 60's, from a year to the next one.

Mynameisfritz · Post by **Mynameisfritz** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:20 pm

This is the back of a '71, the seller on ebay wrote that it has a remarkably big neck. The nut isn't narrow too. But I know about that fact. I once had a walnut ES 335 with a very narrow nut.

This is a '68.

Can you post a pic of the neck joint from the side, 908sp?
I'd like to see the details.

electricskychurch · Post by **electricskychurch** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:54 pm

oh man, it's not a baseball bat, it's a shovel handle or a pillar ! LOL

i don't know about early 70's neck thickness but i'm quiet sure the 69' necks are very narrow.
as you say, i think there are some 335 with very narrow necks as well.

jcmjmp · Post by **jcmjmp** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 pm

Mynameisfritz wrote:
As you can see the construction of the '74 is pretty simple here, and not as solid as the '68. They introduced walnut already at least in '68 or '69. Maybe it's a '69, I don't know exactly, but it has no volute and no 'Made in USA' under the serial number.

None of those guitars have a neck angle. I was confused when I first read this thread about neck angles on an SG.

The neck on those SG's is installed dead flat. The extra height on the top guitar (the 68?) isn't really going to contribute very much to the guitar tone wise - Its more of a comfort thing. Some people like to have a bit of extra height on the strings, some don't.

The difference in tone comes more from the wood and pickups IMHO.

electricskychurch · Post by **electricskychurch** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:38 pm

Mynameisfritz wrote:What year is your Standard? And how big is the angle of the '61 RI?

My '68 is a totally different instrument, bigger angle and although in consequence the strings aren't parallel the strings, this thing sounds so amazing.

didn't you just write that ?

no neck angle on the 68' ?

didn't you say the pu's are not parrallel to the strings ?

if so, then there is a neck angle.
i have not found some pictures of late 60's sg's but i had in mind there was a neck angle !
i might be wrong, i will verify.
i have some pictures of a 1970' sg standard that seems to have a neck angle but i will check with earlier ones.
you really surprise me saying the 68' has no neck angle, cause on the picture you uploaded they have added that extra wood that seem to be (maybe it's just perspective of the picture, and it's flat !) in v shape (lying on the right side) ,giving the feeling they elevated the neck base (then forming an angle) , but if you're sure there is no angle, it might just be the illusion given by the picture.

so, if there is no angle on you 68'neck , then the pu's angle to the strings should be nearly the same as on the early/ mid 60's SG's with small pickguard; that is to say more or less flat

908ssp · Post by **908ssp** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:57 pm

Sorry don't have any shot from the side. Next time I am taking pictures I'll try and remember to get some. This is the closest I have. You can see that in 62 there was some neck angle not a huge amount but probably the same as a LP. The neck on this is 1 11/16 wide and probably about the size of historic 59 not huge but not thin either.

Jim Seavall is the expert on these.

Mynameisfritz · Post by **Mynameisfritz** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:57 am

OK, a little bit of confusion here.

As you can see the construction of the '74 is pretty simple here, and not as solid as the '68.

That's what I'm saying about the '74.

They introduced walnut already at least in '68 or '69. Maybe it's a '69, I don't know exactly, but it has no volute and no 'Made in USA' under the serial number.

That's what I'm saying about the '68.

Both guitars have a neck angle. If there wouldn't be an angle at all, the neck PU could have almost the same height as the bridge PU, and that's not the case on both guitars.
The angle of the '74 is very very small. I first noticed this when I bought a case for that SG and the guitar didn't fit in right. I always had to put a small towel under the body to get the neck in the right position when closing the case. That's how the whole topic came to my attention.

Now it's right that the extra height of the '68 neck contributes to the extra height of the PU's, but the neck angle is definitely there too, and it's bigger than the angle on the '74. The extra wood between fretboard and body isn't parallel, it has an angle in itself - you can see it when looking closely. And the strings aren't parallel to the PU's. The bridge PU almost has the double height of the neck PU. I can put this guitar in the case I mentioned without any problems, it fits perfectly.

Mynameisfritz · Post by **Mynameisfritz** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:27 am

Hey 908sp, this guitar is a beauty. I never saw one of them before - before last week when I saw this one on ebay...
http://cgi.ebay.com/rare-original-1962- ... _47748wt_0

I should have taken a closer look to these item pics, they tell a lot already. No need for more pics of your '62 I believe.

Is it a long or short tenon model? Probably short...you gotta be careful with that axe.

So Jim Seavall is the man here, thanks!

Mynameisfritz · Post by **Mynameisfritz** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:09 am

Leave alone that neck angle for a moment and take a look at this. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_viRvjxG ... re=related

908ssp · Post by **908ssp** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:02 pm

Mynameisfritz wrote:Leave alone that neck angle for a moment and take a look at this. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_viRvjxG ... re=related

I heard that the person playing in that video is a guy.

That guitar on ebay should bring a lot more than where the bidding went.

Those early guitars with the short neck joint are all long neck tenon.

electricskychurch · Post by **electricskychurch** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:49 am

could you post a picture of your late 60's SG bridge pu's angle to the strings please ?

908ssp · Post by **908ssp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:55 am

The top of the bridge pickup frame is angled to the bottom, fatter at the bridge and thinner toward the neck. The strings are parallel to the top of the frame. Notice the front frame and pickup height are a lot lower than the bridge pickup.

I'll try and get some more pictures I just don't have one from that angle.

electricskychurch · Post by **electricskychurch** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:12 pm

sorry, i don't really understand what you mean, my english is not perfect unfortunately , that's why i asked for some pictures .

frame ?
do you mean pick up rings ?

ther are no pu's rings on teh late 60's SG's with large pickguard !?

i'm talking about the angle of the bridge pu to the strings of your late 60's SG with large pickguard .

like i posted in my pictures, you really see the distance of the pu's to the strings and if they are totaly parrallel or making an angle with the strings.