Do 60 bursts sound better then 58's and 59's?

Red Pharoah

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
272
Reaction score
141
Do 60 bursts sound better then 58's and 59's? Read this quote from my Vintage Guitar magazine dated June 2014 page 101...

"I call it "The Runt" because everybody wants a '58 or '59, but I think the 60's sound better. They have a really great ping to the note; the thinner neck and slightly shorter neck tenon definitely play into it..."

Is Joe on to something here? He does have a great ear and has played a bunch of bursts from all three years. Something tells me that late 60 burst at Rumbleseat wont be there for very long. Nice late 60 even with the body repair!
 

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,680
Do 60 bursts sound better then 58's and 59's? Read this quote from my Vintage Guitar magazine dated June 2014 page 101...

"I call it "The Runt" because everybody wants a '58 or '59, but I think the 60's sound better. They have a really great ping to the note; the thinner neck and slightly shorter neck tenon definitely play into it..."


:facepalm:

As the saying goes "long tenon, short tenon - when the drummer comes in what the fvck does it matter?"
 

Howard2k

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
24,490
Reaction score
43,527
Maybe I'm wrong, but I somehow doubt that many could tell the difference in sound between a 59 and 60 in a blind test.
 

Tidewater

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
718
Reaction score
1,060
'9 for the number and '0 for the feel. It's always been that way, secretly.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,751
Each Guitar is different, no matter what year it was built.

:cheers:
 

yeti

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,577
Reaction score
3,511
Each Guitar is different, no matter what year it was built.

:cheers:

Sounds reasonable enough but I don't believe it. I think there are many guitars that are indeed not at all different from each other in any meaningful way.
As to '60 sounding better, yeah sure, why not.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,751
Sounds reasonable enough but I don't believe it. I think there are many guitars that are indeed not at all different from each other in any meaningful way.
As to '60 sounding better, yeah sure, why not.

Each Guitar is different IMHO.............neck shape, top carve, PU outputs, pot values, top color & the list goes on. Similar yes Werner but in reality they are all different in some way, whether a small difference or a big difference but I get where you are coming from. :)

Next up, we have differences I can & cannot tell vs. you or another player which is why we all like different Guitars to a different degree.

Splitting hairs I know but most of the crap on this website is really splitting hairs. :)

Cheers, Rudi
 

Tidewater

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
718
Reaction score
1,060
You find '9s with reshaped necks. You don't find 0's with reshaped necks.

haha
 

Danelectro

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
4,093
Reaction score
7,013
1960's sound really good because they were made with leftover 1959 bodies.

:cool:
 

Stoneburst

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
93
Reaction score
89
Maybe I'm wrong, but I somehow doubt that many could tell the difference in sound between a 59 and 60 in a blind test.

Always relevant: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpfs1M4HV6s[/ame]

it's virtually impossible to tell the difference blindfolded between a good modern Les Paul and a burst: how could there possibly be the slightest sonic difference between a 59 and a 60? (Bearing in mind that we still can't be sure, just from listening to the Beano album, which of the two Clapton's famous burst was.)
 

LPPILOT

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
688
Always relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpfs1M4HV6s

it's virtually impossible to tell the difference blindfolded between a good modern Les Paul and a burst: how could there possibly be the slightest sonic difference between a 59 and a 60? (Bearing in mind that we still can't be sure, just from listening to the Beano album, which of the two Clapton's famous burst was.)

So what are the results ?
 

JJ Blair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,361
Joe has said that he really notices the difference on the unwound strings.

I have not played enough '60s and pre '60s side by side to give you an informed opinion, but based on my own '60 and the dozen or so '57 - '59s I've played, it does make sense to me. Less neck mass should mean less resonance and overtone, in theory. If this translates into something snappier, maybe because it's less harmonically complex, I get it. Some of the '58s and '59s I have played definitely sound thicker and richer, but it can make them feel less articulate, and also make it harder to cut through the rest of the instruments.

Joe has some really good ****ing ears for tonal differences, in my experience. This applies to amps as well as guitars. Any observation he makes merits investigation.

I do know that a number of the English guys reportedly feel the same way, with Clapton being the most notable.
 

JJ Blair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
1,361
Always relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpfs1M4HV6s

it's virtually impossible to tell the difference blindfolded between a good modern Les Paul and a burst: how could there possibly be the slightest sonic difference between a 59 and a 60? (Bearing in mind that we still can't be sure, just from listening to the Beano album, which of the two Clapton's famous burst was.)

Wrong. It's hard to tell in Doug and Pat's completely failed methodology. If you can't tell the difference in person, I will tell you as somebody who owns both, and has played many of both, then you're deaf.

You don't even have to plug them in to hear it, and it's even more obvious once you do.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,751
Joe has said that he really notices the difference on the unwound strings.

I have not played enough '60s and pre '60s side by side to give you an informed opinion, but based on my own '60 and the dozen or so '57 - '59s I've played, it does make sense to me. Less neck mass should mean less resonance and overtone, in theory. If this translates into something snappier, maybe because it's less harmonically complex, I get it. Some of the '58s and '59s I have played definitely sound thicker and richer, but it can make them feel less articulate, and also make it harder to cut through the rest of the instruments.

Joe has some really good ****ing ears for tonal differences, in my experience. This applies to amps as well as guitars. Any observation he makes meTits investigation.

I do know that a number of the English guys reportedly feel the same way, with Clapton being the most notable.

JJ I totally agree with the Neck mass thing, as I have seen it myself many times but the theory probably goes out the window when you listen to Page's No. 1 which has the shaved down ultra skinny Neck.

I would also think that the PU's have a major impact on what you are hearing, not to mention the Amp.

So now I tend to think that Neck shape, Neck mass & Neck Tenon are not the be all & end all. :)

Cheers, Rudi
 

LenPaul

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
4,305
a 1960 is a year newer than 1959,,,, man,, of course it is gonna sound better.
Isn't that the case ? 2014 better than 2013 , 2013 better than 2012 .
Surely that hasn't changed, newer is better.

ha ha, I just figured out how to work text colours. woot
 

Latest Threads



Top