Whats with sloppy-looking older headstocks?

[BDoubleG]

This is more of a curiosity thing than it is a vent...

I picked up an ES-335 from 1990 about a month ago. I love it, but I noticed that the headstock looks god awful - to the point that if I hadn't bought it from a reputable Gibson reseller, complete with the proper case and owner's manual, I'd legit wonder if it's Chibson:

Compared to my 2016 LP< Standard, 2021 SG CME etc., it looks super sloppy, and I'm just wondering what the reason for this would be. Is this an ageing thing with the nitro? Is this what it would have looked like out of the box 31 years ago?

Again, love the guitar and it doesn't bother me, but just curious as to whether it would have been sold like this. Any insight would be great - thanks!

 

[LocoTex]

Well, it is 30 years old....

 

[BDoubleG]

Well, it is 30 years old....

That's what I'm getting at - I'm kind of a novice when it comes to nitro - would the nitro shift to do this?

Again - not complaining, just curious as to how this happens.

 

[dspelman]

Well, it is 30 years old....

Nitrocellulose lacquer is and has always been a crap finish, and aside from some traditionalist mumbo jumbo, it's never been a good choice. It's a leftover from its days as an automotive finish back in the forties.

As it ages, nitro embrittles and pulls away from materials differentially (so you'll find breaks at the surface level between mother of pearl and the holly of the headstock facing), so this will be something that will show up on a lot of Gibsons over time.

 

[BDoubleG]

Nitrocellulose lacquer is and has always been a crap finish, and aside from some traditionalist mumbo jumbo, it's never been a good choice. It's a leftover from its days as an automotive finish back in the forties.

As it ages, nitro embrittles and pulls away from materials differentially (so you'll find breaks at the surface level between mother of pearl and the holly of the headstock facing), so this will be something that will show up on a lot of Gibsons over time.

Great summary, thank you!

Definitely so easy to love and to hate nitro!

 

[MrCrowley]

Maybe what catches your eye is a combination of the finish (as mentioned) with the few tweaks made on the logo shortly after. Here's a couple of photos of mine. I do find the '98 to be a bit more refined around the edges of the inlays.

1990:

1998:

 

[BDoubleG]

Very cool!

Yeah your 1990 looks a bit like mine form the original post...

 

[Bobby Mahogany]

(....)
Again, love the guitar and it doesn't bother me, but just curious as to whether it would have been sold like this. Any insight would be great - thanks!

(....)
Again, love the guitar and it doesn't bother me, but I'm still posting a thread about it because... it bothers me. Any insight would be great - thanks!

Fixed.


P.S.: Don't worry, you have a nice GI6SOM.

 

[Rocco Crocco]

That's how you can tell it ISN'T a Chibson.

 

[Maggot_Brain]

They likely weren't using CNC machines to cut out inlays so it likely wasn't perfect every time, as shown by your example. Compare that to today, where everything is CNC cut.

There's likely a huge discrepancy between how it was done then vs now.

 

[moreles]

Yes, the Gibson method of inlaying and black-lacquering the headstock brand is insanely weird and inherently sloppy. It also ages poorly. I don't know why they did it with the inlaying, painting, scraping, and clear-coating process they used, since inlaying the logo into ebony or black-stained holly or maple is way more precise for me, but anyhoo, the result is finish creep, sloppy scraping, remelt when cleared, and movement of layers over time. Yours is a particularly6 bad case, however -- I have an '87 reissue '61 LP/SG Custom that was done the same way, but carefully and cleanly, and it looks way, way better -- just a few messy edges, not really noticeable. I suspect the later messiness is a result of the company not employing really skilled workers for this thankless task. And fewer and fewer Americans have the general physiucal skill and focus to do clean work anymore. Send it to Eastman -- they know how to do this stuff, and they actually do it beautifully. I don't value MIA when MIA means unskilled, sloppy, and underpaid.

 

[ARandall]

That logo is also thin as well.

In fact that logo type is a most solid guarantee that its not a chibson, surpassing all the other things you thought might have been guarantees.

And there is nothing about the supposed 'god awful' logo that really screams god awful. Its more that you just don't know very much about the various logo types that have been used over the years.

 

[BornToLooze]

Yes, the Gibson method of inlaying and black-lacquering the headstock brand is insanely weird and inherently sloppy. It also ages poorly.

I've got an old Spirit that, even though it's hard as hell to get a picture of, you can still see the old Epiphone inlay under the Gibson one.