G-3 in some new clothes

neepheid · February 27, 2014, 04:31:20 AM

Anyone spot this?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/121283388326

I think it looks pretty nice. Certainly makes for a highly unusual 3 pickup bass

Denis · February 27, 2014, 06:30:28 AM

That's pretty neat!

66Atlas · February 27, 2014, 07:20:02 AM

i dont know much about G3's but didnt the truss rod adjust at the headstock on them? So this must have had the fretboard replaced and the truss rod converted to adjust at the body?

The whole thing had to be a ton of work, pretty cool looking but I'm way to cheap to consider it!

Granny Gremlin · February 27, 2014, 07:33:14 AM

Love the idea, but with 3 pups you think they'd spread them out a bit more for more tonal options. At least put one of them in front of P position for heaven's sake.

I wouldn't think that's a G3 neck at all. That's a lot of expensive work (remove fretboard, replace truss rod, fill old truss rod route at headstock, refin etc) for little benefit. Pointy headstock necks can be found elsewhere. Those do look like real Bill Lawrence G3 pups (which are great, one of my faves).

gearHed289 · February 27, 2014, 08:29:41 AM

This - " It sports genuine 1970s Gibson G3/Grabber pickups & has a similar feeling fast sleek neck"

And this - "fretboard is Ebony bound in rosewood, with figured maple/mahogany neck, the G3 is straight maple neck which often breaks where the headstock is glued to neck"

And a roll of the eyes about the headstocks breaking on maple necks.

Dave W · February 27, 2014, 12:36:45 PM

An interesting idea, even though the only G3 parts are the pickups. Looks nice at a distance, maybe a little rough at the body seams. I doubt he'll get near what he wants for it.

doombass · February 27, 2014, 03:02:25 PM

Without a backplate, I suppose the pickups were mounted before the top was glued on to the body. A PITA if you need to replace a pickup.

Aussie Mark · February 27, 2014, 03:06:26 PM

Maybe it's just my eyes, but the pickups do not seem to be aligned very well

Rob · February 27, 2014, 07:58:18 PM

Quote from: Dave W on February 27, 2014, 12:36:45 PM
An interesting idea, even though the only G3 parts are the pickups. Looks nice at a distance, maybe a little rough at the body seams. I doubt he'll get near what he wants for it.

PArt of the odd seaming is the transition in grain he should have used a dark veneer or something. . . .well the router burns in the F holes too

uwe · February 28, 2014, 06:16:43 AM

Quote from: gearHed289 on February 27, 2014, 08:29:41 AM
This - " It sports genuine 1970s Gibson G3/Grabber pickups & has a similar feeling fast sleek neck"

And this - "fretboard is Ebony bound in rosewood, with figured maple/mahogany neck, the G3 is straight maple neck which often breaks where the headstock is glued to neck"

And a roll of the eyes about the headstocks breaking on maple necks.

I think he is referring to those scarfed necks typical for G-3s and Grabbers coming off at the scarf joint under stress (or the glue getting old) which is really down to the scarfed construction and not whether it is maple or maho. The repair of that joint via re-gluing is certainly easier than if a one-piece maple neck breaks at some arbitrary area though. And the stability of the neck/headstock area as such is actually greater on a scarfed neck than on a regular one with an angled headstock, the scarfed neck allowing longer (= straight) grain fibers that are more stable to sudden impact. Of course, if you go Fender and avoid back-angled headstocks altogether in exchange for string holders, you don't even have that issue with the grain fibers in that area being shortened to enable the angle.

gearHed289 · February 28, 2014, 08:44:43 AM

Ah, I did not know they had scarf joints. That makes more sense now.

uwe · February 28, 2014, 09:56:45 AM

They only gave up on that in the early 80ies final run Grabbers and G3s when they started to employ three piece necks en vogue at Gibson at the time (Victory). I have lots of scarfed neck instruments (always popular with Ibanez budget models too as well as Epiphone and Dean), never had an issue with that type of joint ever.

Granny Gremlin · February 28, 2014, 10:23:07 AM

I have. But I suppose it depends on where the scarf is. This one was stupid and pissed me off (a friends guitar) - it wasn't even an impact that caused it but just string pull over time (no weird tunings even):

FrankieTbird · February 28, 2014, 05:08:46 PM

Quote from: Granny Gremlin on February 28, 2014, 10:23:07 AM
I have. But I suppose it depends on where the scarf is. This one was stupid and pissed me off (a friends guitar) - it wasn't even an impact that caused it but just string pull over time (no weird tunings even):

That is an odd location for a scarf joint. The main purpose is to reduce wood waste, and that one's not helping a whole lot. Still, it shouldn't have come apart like that, probably wasn't clamped properly.

Dave W · February 28, 2014, 10:06:13 PM

I've seen a number of scarf joints made further down from the headstock. They can and do sometimes fail under string tension over the years. And sometimes they're fine indefinitely.

The supposed advantage of scarf joints in making the headstock more stable is exaggerated. To eliminate the end grain effect you have to cut it at an 8 to 1 angle. For example, on a 1/2" thick headstock you'd have to have a 4" long scarf, and that would leave you with only a 7.5 degree headstock angle. So you compromise and still have some end grain effect, plus now you have a glue joint that's subject to string tension.