Help needed: photos of early '60 SG body sides

[Satellitedog]

Hello dear SG folk!

I'm in need of photos of two specific views of early '60s SG bodies, as reference for a luthier.

The reason is: I want to have my player grade SG refinished professionally, and while it's down to bare wood, I'd like to have some modifications made to the bevelling of the horns, to make it a bit more similar to a '61 (or other early SG). As it is, it's pretty close to a '61 shape, the basic form is along that template, but not quite there, and it's different enough to bother me.

So I gathered pictures of some nice exemplars, including custom shop VOS reissues, but came up empty handed on exact side views of the body, which would explain the thickness change of the sides from the lower bout to the horns. I mean the remaining unbevelled edge strip of the body side, most importantly from the waist to the tip of the horns.

I mean these sections, from an exacting side view.

Thank you for your time, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Satdog

PS: this is going to remain my player guitar, the changes are purely to satisfy my obsession with the original design, not trying to counterfeit a vintage Gibson.

 

[Kris Ford]

Custom shop reissues do not have a correct body shape compared to early 60's originals FWIW..wrong horn shape, chorn is too thick and comes to wrong point shape, carve, bevel is wrong, body sides are wrong too.

You're better off with an original as your example IMO.

 

[Satellitedog]

Thanks Kris! I didn't know that. I saw differences between the standardized carves of the VOS and originals, but I thought they went for a happy medium of sorts...

My guitar has the "cold-chisel" shaped upper horn tip, not the thinner pointier one, and I don't know whether or not this design was introduced later in the SG's run, or if it was a paralel design with the early '60s models. That's my main uncertainty about the re-sculpt, which horn shape to go for, and what thickness to aim for. The current shape would likely lend itself easier to the VOS' thicker horn design, but I'm undecided which one I like more. The most important thing is to have crisp lines and angles, and a thinner finish.

Another problem, and why I like the VOS design is that old ones are a lot more inconsistent with regard to cutaway bevelling shapes, some are almost circular, others are more teardrop shaped, and I've seen very pointy (meaning thinner slab height) upper horns, and somewhat chunkier, yet still low profile ones. This is why I need the side-view pics, to help determine the thickness and the sloping of the horn bevels.

Here's my guitar from the horny end to illustrate the chisel shape of the upper horn. It's about 1" thick.

Here are the two full on side views, where you can see the otherwise nice and deep bevelling of the waist turn into the bulky upper horn and the lower horn's similarly bulky profile, which I want re-shaped.

 

[bossaddict]

I have this one that I took when I first got mine. It's an early '61 Standard. Sorry it's kind of a tease, but it's all I have "on me." If you still need some, I can try and take one that shows the body more fully.

 

[Danelectro]

I'm a little late to the party, but here are some views of a 1961:


























The carve on the Historic SG is actually pretty close, although the edges are all harder and should have been softened more. Here's the 1961 compared to a 2007 Historic:

 

[Kris Ford]

This shot is perfect for the point I was going for:

Looks great from every view...except looking down from the actual playing POV..
Here's a horn shot of my old '65 JR if it helps:


And a cousin, a '65 EB0: