Pancake Body Reasoning?

[BoxyBrown22]

I figure of someone is going to know it'll be one of you out there! Could someone tell me the logic behind using the 'pancake' style body that Gibson used during the 70s? Here are the 2 explanations I've heard in the past, but they seemed speculative at best. The first is 'During the 70s everyone wanted a heavier guitar, Gibson would crossband the body so they could get a heavier guitar', the other is 'the little bit of maple made the Les Paul brighter'.

It may seem like it's a stupid and insignificant question, but I've been pondering it since 9th grade when I played a 1973 Deluxe for the first time. I don't have anything against the process, I think it's kinds of cool personally, but why?

[captain tightpants]

The explanation I've heard wase that the crossbanding was done to strengthen the body, although I'm still puzzled as to how or why the body needed strengthening.

The other explanation I'm familiar with, and the one that seems more plausible, is that Gibson was having a tough time finding thick enough slabs of mahogany at the time, and cross-banding was utilized to enable them to use thinner chunks of wood.

The weight issue, I believe, is related to the lumber supply problems, not a conscious decision to make the guitar heavier.

I don't really know what the real reason is, tho.

[dwagar]

the one I've read is the one to do with the thickness of the wood.

[moff40]

Originally Posted by dwagar

the one I've read is the one to do with the thickness of the wood.

Me too. And I believe the lack of decent wood supply was also the reason for going to a multi-piece tops as well.

Mind you, the cause might not have been so much a case of the wood supply "drying up", as much as Norlin deciding they could save a few bucks by buying lower-grade, thinner, and narrower pieces of maple and mahogany.

[captain tightpants]

Originally Posted by moff40

Me too. And I believe the lack of decent wood supply was also the reason for going to a multi-piece tops as well.

Mind you, the cause might not have been so much a case of the wood supply "drying up", as much as Norlin deciding they could save a few bucks by buying lower-grade, thinner, and narrower pieces of maple and mahogany.

That is entirely plausible as well.

[BoxyBrown22]

That makes more since, but why did they switch back to one piece bodies in 77? Did the supply of Mahogany increase?

Probably all of this has been lost to the records kept in the 70s, it's just weird that they actually decided to crossband the body in the first place. I get the volute and 3 piece neck, that's logical considering the headstock issues, but the pancake body seems out of left field to me.

[captain tightpants]

If I recall, they found the labor cost of cross-banding was a lot higher than expected.

The Bacon/Day book has a passage that talks about customer returns due to shrinkage at the maple sandwich, too.

There are claims that a better lumber supply came up, but I imagine the bean-counters dropped the ball and didn't take into account how much work would be involved in the cross-banding process, negating any saving with the cheaper wood.

[shtdaprdtr]

how about this....bodies cut and intended for the SG..then they re-introduce the Les Paul in 68...hey lets use the leftover SG wood and save a buck.

[dwagar]

I don't believe it was a cost issue, the extra labor would have been worth way more than the wood. I don't believe anyone would have not understood that.

IIRC, I read it had to do with using the same dimensional material for the bodies that they used for the necks, making their supply easier to control. And keep in mind the sheer volume of guitars they were making during those years. In '74 they produced something like 7500 Customs alone.

[Cookie-boy]

At the time I was given the "spiel" that this new construction "enhanced sustain". Unless I was more pissed than I thought I was I can clearly remember being told by some idiot that the "pancake" held the note within the sandwich before releasing it!!!!!!

Cosmic!

[captain tightpants]

Originally Posted by Cookie-boy

At the time I was given the "spiel" that this new construction "enhanced sustain". Unless I was more pissed than I thought I was I can clearly remember being told by some idiot that the "pancake" held the note within the sandwich before releasing it!!!!!!

Cosmic!

You gotta be kidding, did someone REALLY say that? That's freakin' funny!!!

[dspelman]

Originally Posted by captain tightpants

You gotta be kidding, did someone REALLY say that? That's freakin' funny!!!

Gibson marketing has always been a bit wonky. I wouldn't put that past them at all. There IS truth to the business about customers wanting heavier (denser) guitars back then, as part of the Search For Sustain. Most folks believe it was accidental (the weight of a Norlin type guitar) but...not so much. Yamaha and Ibanez were both heavy guitars (I've got one each of the SG2000 and the Ibanez AR300) and both had very heavy bridge/tailpieces and 10.5 oz brass sustain blocks under the bridges. Heavy was cool back then. People were actually weighing guitars and complaining if the wood was lighter than the original '50's guitars.

[captain tightpants]

Wow, I didn't know that!! You mean THAT'S why I've been lugging around that heavy-assed Deluxe for 20 years? I mean, I love that guitar, but I wouldn't bitch if it was a little lighter!!!

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by captain tightpants

Wow, I didn't know that!! You mean THAT'S why I've been lugging around that heavy-assed Deluxe for 20 years? I mean, I love that guitar, but I wouldn't bitch if it was a little lighter!!!

I hear ya bro. My 12.4lb Custom is a neck/back breaker for sure, but nothing else sounds like it.

The less the body vibrates the more the guitar sustains, this is true. A concrete guitar would, in theory sustain indefinitely.

The reality is though, how much sustain do you really need? Most people haven't got a clue. Are you really going to hold a note for 4 minutes, or the entire length of a single song? Can't most electric guitars do that anyway? Most of the actual electric sustain comes in the form of harmonic feedback from an amp. If you want your electric guitar to sustain forever while unplugged... Well... You are a dolt.

[BoxyBrown22]

Originally Posted by Cookie-boy

At the time I was given the "spiel" that this new construction "enhanced sustain". Unless I was more pissed than I thought I was I can clearly remember being told by some idiot that the "pancake" held the note within the sandwich before releasing it!!!!!!

Cosmic!

I've heard something along those line, the 2 people that got me into playing both bought there first Les Paul's in the 70's, one had a 74 Custom he bought new and the other a 78 Pro he ordered. Both told me that Gibson took pride in their Les Paul's being so heavy at the time.

I've always thought the way Gibson made guitars in the 70's was really cool, so I like learning the how's and why's. Any other pieces of info that aren't widely publicized is always cool to me

[blakem]

I actually think it was a tone and sustain expieriment for Gibson, because they put a thin peice of maple in the middle as well... I know my guitar not even plugged in just resonates better the any other electric I have ever owned..I think there may be something to it...the more mass the louder it is, take your guitar unplugged and push the headstock up against a door post or against a wood wall and strum it.. you can hear it amplify much louder...

[Cookie-boy]

Originally Posted by blakem

I actually think it was a tone and sustain expieriment for Gibson, because they put a thin peice of maple in the middle as well... I now my guitar not even plugged in just resonates better the any other electric I have ever owned..I think there may be something to it...the more mass the louder it is, take your guitar unplugged and push the headstock up against a door post or against a wood wall and strum it.. you can hear it amplify much louder...

True..........but your family may get you sectioned!

[dspelman]

Originally Posted by LoKi

The reality is though, how much sustain do you really need? Most people haven't got a clue. Are you really going to hold a note for 4 minutes, or the entire length of a single song? Can't most electric guitars do that anyway? Most of the actual electric sustain comes in the form of harmonic feedback from an amp. If you want your electric guitar to sustain forever while unplugged... Well... You are a dolt.

For starters, it's more than just sustain. When you give up string energy to the body, you don't give it up equally -- you give up certain frequencies, and that changes the tone of the guitar significantly. Plug in a solid body LP and then plug in a Strat with two 'buckers. You'll definitely know the difference.

Sustain that's native to the guitar is quite a bit different from the sustain that comes from electronics, and harmonic feedback from an amp usually requires some serious volume (and/or proximity to the amp cab). If you record, you definitely know the difference.

You can do a lot with relatively clean guitar sustain, which is why some folks put Fernandes Sustainers on their guitars (and you'd be amazed who has those things ON their guitars).

[duane v]

Originally Posted by blakem

I actually think it was a tone and sustain experiment for Gibson, because they put a thin piece of maple in the middle as well... I know my guitar not even plugged in just resonates better the any other electric I have ever owned..I think there may be something to it...the more mass the louder it is, take your guitar unplugged and push the headstock up against a door post or against a wood wall and strum it.. you can hear it amplify much louder...

I did the wall experiment last night, and sure enough the sound was amplified. Maybe there was method to the madness in regards to the pancake design we will never get the full explination.

[blakem]

Originally Posted by duane v

I did the wall experiment last night, and sure enough the sound was amplified. Maybe there was method to the madness in regards to the pancake design we will never get the full explination.

I wish people who worked there at that time could join the Forum and chime in..it would be cool to hear the stories...

[duane v]

Originally Posted by blakem

I wish people who worked there at that time could join the Forum and chime in..it would be cool to hear the stories...

You can send an email to Heritage Guitars and see if you get an answer. I emailed them in regards to my guitar to get the full story. And they had a senior tech reply to me with some info a few days later.

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by dspelman

For starters, it's more than just sustain. When you give up string energy to the body, you don't give it up equally -- you give up certain frequencies, and that changes the tone of the guitar significantly. Plug in a solid body LP and then plug in a Strat with two 'buckers. You'll definitely know the difference.

Sustain that's native to the guitar is quite a bit different from the sustain that comes from electronics, and harmonic feedback from an amp usually requires some serious volume (and/or proximity to the amp cab). If you record, you definitely know the difference.

You can do a lot with relatively clean guitar sustain, which is why some folks put Fernandes Sustainers on their guitars (and you'd be amazed who has those things ON their guitars).

Of course the wood and shapes affect the tonality of the instrument, but if you are talking pure, usable sustain from an amplified instrument, regardless of tone, how much do you actually need access to?

I have done a lot of work with wood, and I own enough guitars to know the differences in their tone, but any and all of them sustain just as well when amplified when setup properly. We can talk bolt on vs. set neck vs. neck through ect, but in the case of why Norlin decided to make pancakes, the reality is probably a financial decision, not an R&D one.

They do sustain quite well, and the maple in the middle keeps the guitar from being too dark in the tone department, but if you ask me, they figured they could off load some cheaper maple by burying it into these guitars. Unfortunately while it meant for less waste wood, it cost more to do so they didn't gain anything and scrapped the idea a few years later.

But I really don't know if that is the reason, and Gibson will never tell. Oh! Henry considers the Norlin period to be the 'dark days' of Gibson *which was also marketing hype on his behalf* and he will never open the book on methods or reasoning behind construction.

Oh well. Pancakes are heavy as lead but they sound great, and play like a Les Paul should.

[Cookie-boy]

I'm with Loki. Purely a financial decision. Some suit walked around the factory, saw a mountain of off-cuts and blew a fucking fuse.

[Cookie-boy]

Suit - "How can we sell this to the public?"

Boss - "We can sell anything to the public provided it says Gibson on the headstock!"

Suit - "Fuck yeah! Hadn't thought of that!"

[LPinmydreams]

I decided to be artistic to speak my opinion

[duane v]

I'm not sure about the last few post that hint Gibson had a disregard for making a quality instrument, or the mighty dollar was the tail-wagger, especially back in the 70's and 80's. Musicians that were purchasing Gibsons or any guitars back in those days actually played them before purchasing, unlike today where people will purchase a $2000 plus instrument based on only seeing an image of it. So if there was a quality issue with a certain instrument back in the 70's or 80's, you can bet that it didn't get purchased, or you would get a smoking deal on it..... In other words, people today are more likely to get sucked into something based only on sizzle, rather than the bacon.

Gibsons survival depends on repeat customers, so there must be a certain level of quality today as in any other era at Gibson to keep customers coming back. I would dare to say that most within this thread has more than one Gibson in their stable??? And if so, there must be something bringing us back, especially when we can procure 10 Agile Les Pauls for the same price as one Gibby LPC..

[Cookie-boy]

You're right, Duane. It's because, in my opinion, they are the best. But I have to say from a branding point of view Gibson has done very well.

[blakem]

Originally Posted by duane v

I'm not sure about the last few post that hint Gibson had a disregard for making a quality instrument, or the mighty dollar was the tail-wagger, especially back in the 70's and 80's. Musicians that were purchasing Gibsons or any guitars back in those days actually played them before purchasing, unlike today where people will purchase a $2000 plus instrument based on only seeing an image of it. So if there was a quality issue with a certain instrument back in the 70's or 80's, you can bet that it didn't get purchased, or you would get a smoking deal on it..... In other words, people today are more likely to get sucked into something based only on sizzle, rather than the bacon.

Gibsons survival depends on repeat customers, so there must be a certain level of quality today as in any other era at Gibson to keep customers coming back. I would dare to say that most within this thread has more than one Gibson in their stable??? And if so, there must be something bringing us back, especially when we can procure 10 Agile Les Pauls for the same price as one Gibby LPC..

If Agile didn't change the bottom horn and make it shorter, I would probably have a few

[duane v]

Originally Posted by blakem

If Agile didn't change the bottom horn and make it shorter, I would probably have a few

nothing like good ol vanity that makes us spend our hard earned pay

[blakem]

Originally Posted by duane v

nothing like good ol vanity that make us spend our hard earned pay

LOL!!! Excellent point! but, I do like looks as well as quality..I had an Agile before they changed the looks, I wish I still had it...