eb3 body measurements

sniper · June 05, 2010, 09:38:46 AM

could anyone please tell me the thickness of an early model
SG bass as they are called now and, were the early models SG's actually guitar bodies?

i was wanting the measurements of a 61-65 era EBO or EB3.

Grog · June 05, 2010, 02:27:02 PM

My 1965 EB-0F measures about 1.340 thick. It was refinished years ago so it may have been sanded down a bit.

Dave W · June 05, 2010, 02:44:59 PM

The basses have always had the same body as the companion guitars.

The nominal body thickness is 1 3/8" (then and now) but they weren't being popped out on CNC machines back then.

sniper · June 05, 2010, 03:37:23 PM

Thanks to both of you guys. All i have is my present Epi as the Lacewood/Mahog body (pictured) is in storage right now. I will have to drag it out as I sold it this week end with the Great Dealz neck fitted. I ordered a Warmoth body after the computer hung on that bid for the Gibby body. I was PO'd to say the least and I spec'd a new body at 1.5 inches in talking to Spike. He thought I was crazy as I wanted no neck pocket or neck holes (they have to drill one to locate it for programming in the the CAD machine...(upper left as you look at the front but I can cut that off), no holes, no bridge route and no pup route with only the control cavity and cover.

It should be light enough. Their guitar SG body is a little shorter than their bass body.

JFSAG (just for sh-ts and giggles) it is posting 111 F here in Pecos today, the snow is melting.

Highlander · June 06, 2010, 05:24:05 AM

Just a question here... so, my early 70's SG special (six string) could have the neck removed and with the right components... not saying I would; just thinking in text...

Chris P. · June 06, 2010, 05:33:02 AM

Noo! Keep it a guitar! Didn't you have the P90 one? Post some pics at the guitar section!

Highlander · June 06, 2010, 06:00:59 AM

Mini humbuckers, a-la-Firebird... don't worry, only joking... there is a pic posted way back when in that department but I intend to do a proper refin at some point... you know what I'm like... (old Scottish Hebridean laid back accent) Aye well... we'll get aroond tae it some-time...

Lightyear · June 06, 2010, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: Kenny Five-O on June 06, 2010, 05:24:05 AM
Just a question here... so, my early 70's SG special (six string) could have the neck removed and with the right components... not saying I would; just thinking in text...

Step away from the saw.........put your hands in the air! Lay the SG, carefully, on the ground!

Dave W · June 06, 2010, 01:41:44 PM

To answer your question, yes, you could. But don't.

Highlander · June 06, 2010, 02:09:21 PM

Good grief, don't you guys trust me...?

uwe · June 07, 2010, 05:27:15 AM

Quote from: Dave W on June 05, 2010, 02:44:59 PM
The basses have always had the same body as the companion guitars.

The nominal body thickness is 1 3/8" (then and now) but they weren't being popped out on CNC machines back then.

True almost always, but also with the maple neck bigger body EB-0s, -3, and -4 of the early seventies when the pup moved back, the maple neck came and the body grew fatter and heavier? I've never seen an SG guitar like that (the fat body must have looked weird with the skimpy guitar neck), but then perhaps I never looked closely enough. Also, by 72 SG guitars went pretty much out of fashion so you don't see a lot from that era.

uwe · June 07, 2010, 05:34:37 AM

Quote from: Kenny Five-O on June 06, 2010, 02:09:21 PM
Good grief, don't you guys trust me...?

Ken needs protective confinement and restraint.

If you tolerate this, your basses will be next.

Dave W · June 07, 2010, 12:08:05 PM

Quote from: uwe on June 07, 2010, 05:27:15 AM
True almost always, but also with the maple neck bigger body EB-0s, -3, and -4 of the early seventies when the pup moved back, the maple neck came and the body grew fatter and heavier? I've never seen an SG guitar like that (the fat body must have looked weird with the skimpy guitar neck), but then perhaps I never looked closely enough. Also, by 72 SG guitars went pretty much out of fashion so you don't see a lot from that era.

The 70s SGs looked like the 70s EB-0/EB-3s. Both the guitars and basses looked thicker thanks to the different beveling, although I think this came up before and Jules said they weren't actually thicker. They were certainly heavier thanks to the maple.

Highlander · June 07, 2010, 12:31:26 PM

Ah... Cold-Bitz... I like the decor they have in the soft room...

a skinny early seventies SG with Bigsby - this one will get the proper treatment in time - no TEQUILA's for her...

EvilLordJuju · June 07, 2010, 12:37:27 PM

I know we did look at this is some detail once upon a time... and although I can't remember exactly what we found out, I recall some of the catalogue details were simply not updated from the previous catalogue when they should have been. I think the post 72 basses are different, although I don't have a 70s SG guitar at hand to compare. My 69 EB3 and 69 SG special certainly do match.

The 1975 Gibson bass catalogue, and the 1975 Gibson solid body catalogue both give the dimensions as length 16" width 12 3/4" thickness 1 5/16" for the EB3 and SG standard respectively.

This may be correct for the guitar, but is WRONG for the bass.... the post 72 EB3 is a shade under 1.6" (whatever that is in 16ths, it is more than 1 5/16"). This data is merely copied from previous catalogues, with the error persisting right up until the end with the 1978 Gibson catalogue.