The Norlin era Les Paul bashing is based on a myth or fact?

[HarleyJohansson]

Also, these snobs will go on for ages how great the "true and true" vintage guitars are, yet most of them have never touched a 50's or even 60's lester and none of them have really owned one, either.... so what's the point...? How do you know? If I have a 70's guitar, it's just as vintage as your 60's and just as full of history. Some differences that you might dislike don't make them a non-vintage guitar. How difficult is this to grasp..? ESPECIALLY the instruments still made in Kalamazoo (in my opinion), I can almost certainly say, that they were still made by hands that made the 60's and most likely 50's guitars...


ALSO, real players, who own both 50's and 70's guitars won't call their 70's instruments as "norlins" or look at them as inferior... they are old instruments. Vintage instruments. Just because you don't like certain changes don't make a guitar worse. Change in sound from different layers? Cmon! MAYBE, if we were talking about acoustic, hollowbody instruments!

[HarleyJohansson]

Yes, I might prefer a 50's over a 70's as well! the older the better, sure! is one worse than the other? no!

[acstorfer]

Inside guy

Sorry if there is any confusion with my post. At least if you are talking about my post. It wasn't meant towards anything you said. Again though, what you consider an SG being ruined, others may absolutely love what became of the SG. There was one of those SG's near me at a Guitar Center near Cleveland. There were people drooling over it. If they could have afforded it, they would have loved it for a lifetime.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by Inside Guy

Funny how you chose the word inferiority when I did not chose that word.

Anyway, here is one example of how Norlin ruined a great guitar design. The changes were not for the player but for the production line (to make their lives better not yours):

1961 SG



1977 SG




If you do not see why one would prefer one over the other, then you are a perfect Norlin customer.

the side ways vibrola was a failure & soon discontinued, you show the 1961 Les Paul Standard mint condition example in a glamorous photo and then the 1977 SG with missing parts in a less than faltering inferior photo? The 61 Les Paul was a much more expensive example than the 77 SG allowing for inflation

[marantz1300]

I wouldn't turn my nose up at either of those SG's.

[HarleyJohansson]

I would at both of them....

[HarleyJohansson]

See what I mean?

[acstorfer]

It's funny, I once owned this Gibson SG. Not vintage, but custom shop.



Truth is, if a 70's Les Paul played better/sounded better to me, what might be considered by some to be "ruined", I would consider the better guitar. Who cares what it looks like? Oh yeah, some folks here.

It's a shame the snobbery here. I can't get over how if someone personally doesn't like a guitar, it is a fact that it is inferior or ruined. So even if people love their Epiphone, Hondo, Greco, Squire, hell even Daisy Rock, it has to be considered by everyone that it isn't a good guitar. Sorry, to put down a guitar (or anything for that matter) is the very definition of snobbery. I guess some have to feel superior, I think that's a character flaw, but just like guitars, that is only my opinion.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by acstorfer

It's funny, I once owned this Gibson SG. Not vintage, but custom shop.



Truth is, if a 70's Les Paul played better/sounded better to me, what might be considered by some to be "ruined", I would consider the better guitar. Who cares what it looks like? Oh yeah, some folks here.

It's a shame the snobbery here. I can't get over how if someone personally doesn't like a guitar, it is a fact that it is inferior or ruined. So even if people love their Epiphone, Hondo, Greco, Squire, hell even Daisy Rock, it has to be considered by everyone that it isn't a good guitar. Sorry, to put down a guitar (or anything for that matter) is the very definition of snobbery. I guess some have to feel superior, I think that's a character flaw, but just like guitars, that is only my opinion.

well said

[Inside Guy]

Ok forget about the Sideways vibrato for the sake of this conversation.

My point was to examine the differences between the 2 body shapes. Norlin took all of the "sexy" out of the body lines. They did this to lower the manufacturing costs, and they didnt pass the savings on to the consumer. The Norlin body is much less graceful looking in design.

Dont get all upset, and take my statements as saying your guitar is not good. Most Norlins are fine, but many of them are not as nicely built built when compared to other years of manufacture. The 1977 SG in the picture looks like a Korean made SG when compared to the '61. What happened to the body bevels, and the cutaway bevels? The 3 pieces of mahogany are not even closely related as far as grain is concerned. They couldnt even get the glue lines straight. For God's sake, that's an SG Standard! If I ordered that at a music store and that showed up, I would have sent it back. We deserve better than that.

Norlin didnt think guitar players were smart enough to know the difference in the finer details of guitar making, but we did know the difference. This is why they almost sank the company.

Rant over.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by inside guy

ok forget about the sideways vibrato for the sake of this conversation.

My point was to examine the differences between the 2 body shapes. Norlin took all of the "sexy" out of the body lines. They did this to lower the manufacturing costs, and they didnt pass the savings on to the consumer. The norlin body is much less graceful looking in design.

Dont get all upset, and take my statements as saying your guitar is not good. Most norlins are fine, but many of them are not as nicely built built when compared to other years of manufacture. The 1977 sg in the picture looks like a korean made sg when compared to the '61. What happened to the body bevels, and the cutaway bevels? The 3 pieces of mahogany are not even closely related as far as grain is concerned. They couldnt even get the glue lines straight. For god's sake, that's an sg standard! If i ordered that at a music store and that showed up, i would have sent it back. We deserve better than that.

Norlin didnt think guitar players were smart enough to know the difference in the finer details of guitar making, but we did know the difference. This is why they almost sank the company.

Rant over.

they bought the company at the end of 69 to save them from bankruptcy

[HarleyJohansson]

Originally Posted by Inside Guy

Norlin didnt think guitar players were smart enough to know the difference in the finer details of guitar making, but we did know the difference. This is why they almost sank the company.

That's where I allow myself to be a snob and prefer Kalamazoo guitars myself. Move to Nashville- new staff, different weather conditions etc (right after the move) nearly sank the company. That's what I've always said and always will, and I'm not the only one.

And it's got nothing to do with this imaginary "norlin era".

Edit: also what hot-brit said...

[acstorfer]

Harley

I don't think you're a snob by your statement. It doesn't come close to snobbery. The point most of us are trying to make is that we all have our own preference. That's why there are so many models, especially true of Gibson Les Pauls. Personally, I am in the Kalamazoo camp myself. Other lovers of this era love their maple necks and so on. That's completely cool. It's not for anyone to say those guitars are "inferior" or "ruined". When statements are said like that, which your comment is nowhere close to that, that is the absolute definition of snobbery.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by Inside Guy

Funny how you chose the word inferiority when I did not chose that word.

The implication of inferiority is very clear from the context of your words:

Originally Posted by Inside Guy

Many players do not like the Norlin differences for specific reasons. Some reasons are asthietic, some reasons have to do with playability.

Now, I was asking a valid question, and out of honest curiosity; given your status as a Gibson employee, I certainly hold your opinion in esteem. But players don't dislike guitars because the playability is improved. I've never once heard any guitar player say, "You know, this guitar just plays too damned good for me. I think I'll go buy this plank over here." No, it is clear that you are implying an inferiority in playability.

Now, if you care to answer my question, why, in your opinion, do these players believe that the playability of a Norlin is undesirable?

Originally Posted by Inside Guy

Ok forget about the Sideways vibrato for the sake of this conversation.

Why? It is a feature of CMI SGs, and it is perfectly valid to consider it as a feature of the guitar -- just as much as, say, harmonica bridges and non-PAF humbuckers on Norlin-era Gibbys.

My point was to examine the differences between the 2 body shapes. Norlin took all of the "sexy" out of the body lines. They did this to lower the manufacturing costs, and they didnt pass the savings on to the consumer. The Norlin body is much less graceful looking in design.

Indeed, I share your taste in aesthetics. However, that isn't "better" or "worse" -- that is a subjective judgement.

Dont get all upset, and take my statements as saying your guitar is not good. Most Norlins are fine, but many of them are not as nicely built built when compared to other years of manufacture. The 1977 SG in the picture looks like a Korean made SG when compared to the '61. What happened to the body bevels, and the cutaway bevels? The 3 pieces of mahogany are not even closely related as far as grain is concerned. They couldnt even get the glue lines straight. For God's sake, that's an SG Standard! If I ordered that at a music store and that showed up, I would have sent it back. We deserve better than that.

I agree, again, that it isn't as svelte. But again, you strongly implied that CMI buffs had valid reasons for disliking the "playability" (your word, not mine). What are those objections?

Norlin didnt think guitar players were smart enough to know the difference in the finer details of guitar making, but we did know the difference. This is why they almost sank the company.

Rant over.

I can understand your frustration ... and it does bother me to see things like off-center seams and such. I'm interested in your opinion as to why vintage buffs think Norlins play different.

[HOT-BRIT]

I own Gibson guitars fro the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's and 2000's but would I look down on one particular Gibson era claiming the guitars from this era are inferior? no it would be foolish to do so, all era's have there own characteristics and appeal.
We have been dictated too by snobs and cork sniffers for to long!
Vintage in other fields is internationally categorized as over 30 years old is described as vintage and antique is over 100 years old, now is the time to start calling your over 30 year old Gibson guitars vintage and don't let the cork sniffing minority dictate what you do!

[HOT-BRIT]

I own Gibson guitars fro the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's and 2000's but would I look down on one particular Gibson era claiming the guitars from this era are inferior? no it would be foolish to do so, all era's have there own characteristics and appeal.
We have been dictated too by snobs and cork sniffers for to long!
Vintage in other fields is internationally categorized as over 30 years old is described as vintage and antique is over 100 years old, now is the time to start calling your over 30 year old Gibson guitars vintage and don't let the cork sniffing minority dictate what you do!

[acstorfer]

I still think it's funny that some here can't face up to two absolute points.

1. Until the day he died, Les Paul played a Norlin era Gibson Les Paul. The man had his choice to play any Les Paul, he chose what he chose. This is the man who could have played any Les Paul he wanted to. Hell, he freakin' invented the Les Paul. If there is an absolute authority on the matter, it is him.

2. No time in music history was the Les Paul such a MAJOR player than it was in the 70's. Almost every classic rock song that I love was made with a Les Paul. Sure, several players of these guitars played their 50's models. But just as many, if not more, who's contributions were just as great played them new (for the 70's) Les Pauls.

If the Norlin era Gibsons aren't your cup of tea, that's cool. However, anyone who claims to be objective can't argue with the above facts. If you can't sleep at night unless you feel everyone has to share your opinions regarding if the Norlin era were the horrible, inferior or ruined guitars they claim them to be, then that's an argument I am done with. No point debating someone who won't accept simple facts.

[acstorfer]

I still think it's funny that some here can't face up to two absolute points.

1. Until the day he died, Les Paul played a Norlin era Gibson Les Paul. The man had his choice to play any Les Paul, he chose what he chose. This is the man who could have played any Les Paul he wanted to. Hell, he freakin' invented the Les Paul. If there is an absolute authority on the matter, it is him.

2. No time in music history was the Les Paul such a MAJOR player than it was in the 70's. Almost every classic rock song that I love was made with a Les Paul. Sure, several players of these guitars played their 50's models. But just as many, if not more, who's contributions were just as great played them new (for the 70's) Les Pauls.

If the Norlin era Gibsons aren't your cup of tea, that's cool. However, anyone who claims to be objective can't argue with the above facts. If you can't sleep at night unless you feel everyone has to share your opinions regarding if the Norlin era were the horrible, inferior or ruined guitars they claim them to be, then that's an argument I am done with. No point debating someone who won't accept simple facts.

[acstorfer]

Two double posts in a row. Oooohhh spooky!

[acstorfer]

I'll tell y'all what the most frustrating thing is here. Those mega large pics that make every other post too damn tiny!

[HarleyJohansson]

Double post: so the cork sniffers can read it twice.

[HarleyJohansson]

Either way, I'm calling my Kalamazoo guitars vintage, end of story.

Or as hot-brit said, 30+ year old instruments... even better!

I don't care what anyone thinks, they simply ARE vintage and that's that.

[LPanon]

Originally Posted by HOT-BRIT

...led to the bad feeling towards Norlin era Les Paul's. when in fact these changes took place before Norlin took over the ownership at the end of December 1969. ..

New rule.. all "Norlin era" guitars will be praised for their commitment to sticking with the 60's styling, even though Gibson was now under new management.

Originally Posted by HOT-BRIT

... I say it should be 30 years like in other fields, I say we change that now! and call all Gibson's over 30 years old vintage ...

NEWer rule... All pre-1982 (as of today) Gibsons will be known as "vintage", and the name "Norlin" will be dropped entirely.

Mods, please move this thread to the "Vintage" section.

Originally Posted by Cookie-boy

...We had all grown up on secondhand/handmedown inferior crap and wanted NEW, NEW, NEW!!!! A new Gibby or Fender was the Holy Grail ....

Newer = better, back in the the days that we now refer to as "vintage". Weird how you have to wait for that to come back around.


Oh, and nice work, Inside Guy, you found the nicest possible pic of a '61 SG, to compare to an ugly '77. Now, compare two nice examples, and tell me which is "better". (Hint, you can't tell which is better, without playing each).





EDITED TO ADD... I started this post over an hour ago, and just got back to post it. A lot has been added in that hour. I actaually agree with Inside Guy, in that Gibson chose to make many cuts and compromises in the 1970's. A lot of companies (then and now) have entire departments that exist only to try to give the customer less for their money.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by HarleyJohansson

Either way, I'm calling my Kalamazoo guitars vintage, end of story.

Or as hot-brit said, 30+ year old instruments... even better!

I don't care what anyone thinks, they simply ARE vintage and that's that.

if every one douse the same that is what they will be

[LPanon]

Originally Posted by HOT-BRIT

if every one does the same, that is what they will be

He's right, people.... just using the term will cause this change.

Merge this sub-forum with "vintage". Do a find-and-replace in the database (swap "vintage" for "norlin")(sure, sometimes it won't fit, but in a lot of cases it will).

AND, while we're at it.... you can all drop the term "cork-sniffer" and replace that with the term "us" or "we".

[acstorfer]

You know what would be kinda funny as hell? Everyone here with a Norlin era Gibson Les Paul starting a new thread about our guitars in the vintage section.

Wow, I'm thinking that will drive several people INSAINE.

[HarleyJohansson]

Originally Posted by acstorfer

You know what would be kinda funny as hell? Everyone here with a Norlin era Gibson Les Paul starting a new thread about our guitars in the vintage section.

Wow, I'm thinking that will drive several people INSAINE.

I'm actually pretty sure I did that... not knowing... I knew right!

[acstorfer]

Harley

How quick were you schooled?

[HarleyJohansson]

I can't remember, it might have been moved

[acstorfer]

Dang