Making some SG plans- I need your input!

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
Hey Everyone!

I'm starting work on an SG build. And I'm going to try to do a vintage accurate build, equivalent to all the fantastic 1959 Les Paul builds.

Unfortunately, there isn't the same level of information and plans available for SG's. The plans I have managed to find are all for the later style neck joint, and while they are certainly enough to build a great SG (see w666's '61 build) I'm looking for something a little more, and not finding it.

SO, since I know how to use AutoCAD now, I'm going to try and make up a good set of accurate, vintage SG plans! :dude: They are going to be based on, with his permission, Magnus's 3D model of a '63 Junior. This is the best source of information I have, since I have no access to any actual vintage SG's. In order to make the most accurate plans possible, I'm starting this thread, so everyone can have input and share any info they can. Ten heads are better than one!

So, to start off:

What year/model would eveyone like to see? I think that keeping it a '63 would be the best for accuracy. Also, it was the year it stopped being labelled a Les Paul :naughty:

Model: It would be easiest to leave it as a Junior, but I think that more people would be interested in having plans for a standard. If I do a standard, I'll need some help determining the pickup locatons and measurements, and the control cavity.

Also, regardless of model, Magnus has suggested doing some research to confirm the exact construction of the neck joint. So if anyone can help out with that as well that would be great. :wave:

I'll we working on the drawings and researching as much as I can, but I know there are some great people here that have hands-on experience with the real thing, and that is invaluable!
 

Bgetraer

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
615
Reaction score
313
Cant help much with the info, but since you asked...

1963 sounds good, and my vote is for either the standard, or (i would prefer this one :D) the SG Custom. :naughty:
Gibson_sg_Custom_1963.jpg


thanks for doing this thread! This would be a great help to ANYONE doing an sg build!

benjy getraer
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
a 68 would be nice :D

That's the thing though :hmm: A '68 would have the longer neck joint.

Cant help much with the info, but since you asked...

1963 sounds good, and my vote is for either the standard, or (i would prefer this one :D) the SG Custom. :naughty:
Gibson_sg_Custom_1963.jpg


thanks for doing this thread! This would be a great help to ANYONE doing an sg build!

benjy getraer

I tried to link the standard pic that was right beside that one and it didnt work:confused: But yes, Customs are sexy. Thats actually what I'm going to be building.:naughty:

I figure that if we make plans for a standard, the only difference would be the third pickup.
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
I'm wondering, how much did the body shape change from 61 to 65? Maybe it could be a plan for all of them?

I think there were a few suble differences around the neck joint. I believe SG Lou posted some excellent comparison photos somewhere. I'll try to find them.
 

Two Tone Guitars

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
19
I had a couple of SG guitars (63 standard and 65 special) and they both had the same outline, same shapes and the same neck joint
I made templates from both of them and got all the measurements
I'd be happy to contribute to this thread

Eliran
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
I had a couple of SG guitars (63 standard and 65 special) and they both had the same outline, same shapes and the same neck joint
I made templates from both of them and got all the measurements
I'd be happy to contribute to this thread

Eliran

That would be great! Could you PM me?

Also...
I had a couple of SG guitars

What happened to them?
 

Two Tone Guitars

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
19
What happened to them?[/QUOTE]

Sorry i didn't make myself clear, i had 2 SG guitars in my workshop
They weren't my guitars, a customer brought them
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
Ok, I've been reading a lot of conflicting information.

Does anyone know, what years/models had the larger headstock shape?
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
Ok, so I've been making some progress but there are a few more details I need to work out.

Does anyone have a good scan or pdf or dwg of a Standard contol cavity and cover plate. Right now I've been trying to use photos, and scale them using the JR cavity. This works good enough that it could work, but it's definitely not very accurate.

Also, I was wondering something about pickup routes. I would assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the HB routes would not be angled, since the pup plane is 0 and the rings hold them at an angle anyway. But it WOULD make sense for the p90 routes to be at the same angle as the neck, as the pups are screwed to the bottom of the route. This would put the pups in line with the strings.

So is that correct? Angled P90 routes, flat HB routes?
 

Jim

Banned
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
3,068
Reaction score
1,656
Ok, so I've been making some progress but there are a few more details I need to work out.

Does anyone have a good scan or pdf or dwg of a Standard contol cavity and cover plate. Right now I've been trying to use photos, and scale them using the JR cavity. This works good enough that it could work, but it's definitely not very accurate.

Also, I was wondering something about pickup routes. I would assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the HB routes would not be angled, since the pup plane is 0 and the rings hold them at an angle anyway. But it WOULD make sense for the p90 routes to be at the same angle as the neck, as the pups are screwed to the bottom of the route. This would put the pups in line with the strings.

So is that correct? Angled P90 routes, flat HB routes?

so... kinda unrelated.... but I don't get your sig.

Is it like... only the dumb canadians come to america but yet they'e smarter than the average american?
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
so... kinda unrelated.... but I don't get your sig.

Is it like... only the dumb canadians come to america but yet they'e smarter than the average american?

Essentially, yes. Its completely tongue in cheek though.

Maybe I'll make it purple :hmm:
 

JMV

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
15,444
Reaction score
15,859
Essentially, yes. Its completely tongue in cheek though.

Maybe I'll make it purple :hmm:

Is it just me, or does the fact that he didn't get it make the line THAT much funnier? :laugh2:

Best of luck putting these plans together. It looks like a great project that could help a lot of people out. These are the kinds of things I really like to see on MLP. :thumb:
 

mojotron

Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
61
Reaction score
37
Did this thread loose interest?

I would love to see a '61 SG plan, I'm thinking about making one.
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
Did this thread loose interest?

I would love to see a '61 SG plan, I'm thinking about making one.

It kind of got put on the back burner, due to school and other projects.

I was thinking about the actual layout of the drawing. I've never actually used a single plan to build a guitar, but I have Tom Barlett's Les Paul plans. Using that as a guideline, heres what I was thinking.

Top view of entire guitar- face of body paralell to view, so neck and headstock in perspective
Back and Side views of body- (to show bevels... Necessary?)
Front views of Headstock, Neck w/o Fb, amd Fretboard
Section through body and neck

Being a flat-top, it seems that many of the additional sections and views on the Bartlett plan are unnecessary for an SG plan, i.e. the pickup layout, cavity outline can be shown on the Top view.

A thought I had was to include both humbucker and P-90 layouts, So you could chose to do a Standard, Junior or Special. Along the same lines I could put both the small and large headstocks on the dwg.

Would people prefer to have a dedicated plan for each guitar, or a more all-inclusive one?
 

jonny

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
317
There's something about the neck joint that is confusing me. It's probably terribly simple, but I'm hoping someone will know the answer.

It seems like it would make sense for the sides of the mostise and tenonto follow the sides of the neck, i.e. at an angle, essentially forming a really shallow dovetail. However I've read in a few places that the portion of the neck that is in the body is square.

Neck%2520joint%2520comparison.jpg


Now, that's not where I'm stuck. Its actually a way small detail. The very end of the fretboard continues onto the body, and it would continue getting wider, right? So does the very end of the FB over hang the neck, like the right side of my crude sketch below? or does the neck continue to taper a little bit as it goes into the body, like on the left?

neck%2520joint%2520comp.jpg


As I type this, I realize that last option makes zero sense from a production standpoint. but it seems odd to have that litte bit of fretboard overhangind the neck there.
 

Latest Threads



Top