- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 9,545
- Reaction score
- 15,131
Ok, I just wanted to wipe the slate clean, and get back to discussing inlays…without all the other baggage that goes along with such a discussion (if possible).
For those in search of the ultimate fingerboard inlay for your guitar, there are several options available. For those not particularly concerned about vintage specs, then Mother of Pearl (MOP) is a great option…as is abalone, etc. There are any number of suppliers of MOP inlays, pre-cut to fit your Les Paul, including Stew-Mac: Inlay Sets for Les Paul at Stewart-MacDonald and Luthier Supply (a favorite of many of the luthiers on this forum): Block Frame Inlays
If you’re looking for inlays with a vintage look, your choices are more limited. The inlays on vintage Les Pauls were made of Cellulose Nitrate, which is a highly flammable substance. Only a few suppliers carry this type of inlay now, but there do appear to be differences in each of their products. I will show…and tell what I know about each. Anyone else wishing to throw in their 2 cents’ worth in a rational and respectful manner is welcome.
First, a photo showing inlays from the three better known suppliers, namely HM/Dave Johnson (left), Buzz (middle) and Zamm (right):
Description of the Big Three:
Dave Johnson gets his inlay material from the original OEM Italian (I believe) manufacturer who produced the material for Gibson back in the ‘50s. Dave contracted with this manufacturer to do a sizeable run for him. He went through a couple of iterations of the material before arriving at the current specs (material, overall look and pattern).
Buzz has been selling inlays for several years now, and his inlays are highly regarded by many. I believe he gets his material from old, recycled items such as accordians, pickguards, etc., which is one of the reasons why his inlays are more aged looking than most. And it’s also probably why Buzz is often out of stock.
Zamm is a relative newcomer, and I don’t know much about them or their inlays…even though I bought several sets from them for my smaller scale builds. I’m not even 100% sure theirs are Cellulose Nitrate, but they look pretty darn close to the others, so for purposes of this comparison, we’ll treat them as such.
Comparison of the Cellulose Nitrate Inlay Products (note: I’m no inlay expert…most of the info below is based on opinions I’ve heard and read over the past few years):
For years, Buzz’s inlays (along with Uncle Lou’s) were the ones to get if you wanted a vintage look for your Historic, or if you wanted/needed to replace inlays on a vintage guitar. When Dave Johnson began offering his inlays, it was then (I believe) that people began scrutinizing the available products a bit more closely. Mostly because of the “inlay pattern”, Buzz inlays became more known for their closeness in look to the early to mid ‘50s LP inlays; whereas DJ’s inlays were regarded as being closer to that of the late ‘50s/’60 specs.
The inlay pattern is somewhat different from the standpoint that the vein pattern in the DJ inlays tend to run a bit more parallel to the overall fingerboard (and perpendicular to the frets). Whereas, both the Buzz inlays and the Zamm inlays are a bit more mottled (going every which way). I believe this is what makes many people say that the HM/DJ inlays are more accurate to ’58, ’59 and ’60 specs.
Another thing to look at when comparing these inlays is the color. The Buzz inlays usually have more of a richer, amber/aged look to them, because of the fact that these are made out of old material. They lighten up a bit when sanded, but then quickly darken again afterward. The HM/DJ inlays are much whiter, although I’ve notice that my sets are beginning to amber a bit on the edges, even though they have been in a box since I received them. You may notice this ambering of the edges in the photo. The white of the HM/DJ inlays is a somewhat soft white. The Zamm inlays are an even brighter/harsher white, and some say they even have a slight bluish hue to them. They have a white plastic backing to them, which can be sanded off easily. Both the HM/DH and Zamm inlays will accept a dye which can help cut the white appearance right out of the box.
Another characteristic of the inlay material is the transparency. From my observations, the transparency of both the Buzz and Zamm inlays are pretty similar, but hard to tell because of the stark difference in color. Plus, once the Buzz inlays are installed, they tend to look much more transparent; whereas, I didn’t notice as much change in appearance with the installed Zamm inlays. I have yet to install any HM/DJ inlays myself, but the installed inlays I have seen (including 3 of my guitars), look a lot more 3D and transparent than the non-installed ones.
The last thing to note when comparing these inlays is the shape/cut and fit. Here I can’t really comment much. Both the HM/DJ and Buzz Historic spec inlays I compared are very close in shape, with negligible difference. The Zamm inlays, on the other hand, I found to be quite a bit different in shape from the other two. I’m not sure why this difference, but for me it doesn’t matter much because I cut down these inlays anyway for my small scale builds. I can’t really comment on how the shape of the HM/DJ and Buzz vintage cut inlays compare since I haven’t purchased any of these, and am unfamiliar with how vintage inlays differ from Historic cut inlays.
My bottom line assessment is, that to me, both the HM/DJ inlays and the Buzz inlays are very high quality products that would look great in any Historic guitar or replica build. The HM/DJ inlays may be a little more historically accurate appearance-wise for your ’59 replica. Each carries a somewhat high price tag, but worth it for those looking for a true vintage look. The HM/DJ inlays are much more readily available than are the Buzz inlays. The Zamm inlays are also nice, much lower priced than the other two, and are a definite upgrade from the stock Gibson inlays. But I wouldn’t put them into that ’59 replica I hope to build some day.
I hope this info helps. Your further input is welcome; but please, let’s keep it clean, fair and objective.
Happy building!
Frank
For those in search of the ultimate fingerboard inlay for your guitar, there are several options available. For those not particularly concerned about vintage specs, then Mother of Pearl (MOP) is a great option…as is abalone, etc. There are any number of suppliers of MOP inlays, pre-cut to fit your Les Paul, including Stew-Mac: Inlay Sets for Les Paul at Stewart-MacDonald and Luthier Supply (a favorite of many of the luthiers on this forum): Block Frame Inlays
If you’re looking for inlays with a vintage look, your choices are more limited. The inlays on vintage Les Pauls were made of Cellulose Nitrate, which is a highly flammable substance. Only a few suppliers carry this type of inlay now, but there do appear to be differences in each of their products. I will show…and tell what I know about each. Anyone else wishing to throw in their 2 cents’ worth in a rational and respectful manner is welcome.
First, a photo showing inlays from the three better known suppliers, namely HM/Dave Johnson (left), Buzz (middle) and Zamm (right):
Description of the Big Three:
Dave Johnson gets his inlay material from the original OEM Italian (I believe) manufacturer who produced the material for Gibson back in the ‘50s. Dave contracted with this manufacturer to do a sizeable run for him. He went through a couple of iterations of the material before arriving at the current specs (material, overall look and pattern).
Buzz has been selling inlays for several years now, and his inlays are highly regarded by many. I believe he gets his material from old, recycled items such as accordians, pickguards, etc., which is one of the reasons why his inlays are more aged looking than most. And it’s also probably why Buzz is often out of stock.
Zamm is a relative newcomer, and I don’t know much about them or their inlays…even though I bought several sets from them for my smaller scale builds. I’m not even 100% sure theirs are Cellulose Nitrate, but they look pretty darn close to the others, so for purposes of this comparison, we’ll treat them as such.
Comparison of the Cellulose Nitrate Inlay Products (note: I’m no inlay expert…most of the info below is based on opinions I’ve heard and read over the past few years):
For years, Buzz’s inlays (along with Uncle Lou’s) were the ones to get if you wanted a vintage look for your Historic, or if you wanted/needed to replace inlays on a vintage guitar. When Dave Johnson began offering his inlays, it was then (I believe) that people began scrutinizing the available products a bit more closely. Mostly because of the “inlay pattern”, Buzz inlays became more known for their closeness in look to the early to mid ‘50s LP inlays; whereas DJ’s inlays were regarded as being closer to that of the late ‘50s/’60 specs.
The inlay pattern is somewhat different from the standpoint that the vein pattern in the DJ inlays tend to run a bit more parallel to the overall fingerboard (and perpendicular to the frets). Whereas, both the Buzz inlays and the Zamm inlays are a bit more mottled (going every which way). I believe this is what makes many people say that the HM/DJ inlays are more accurate to ’58, ’59 and ’60 specs.
Another thing to look at when comparing these inlays is the color. The Buzz inlays usually have more of a richer, amber/aged look to them, because of the fact that these are made out of old material. They lighten up a bit when sanded, but then quickly darken again afterward. The HM/DJ inlays are much whiter, although I’ve notice that my sets are beginning to amber a bit on the edges, even though they have been in a box since I received them. You may notice this ambering of the edges in the photo. The white of the HM/DJ inlays is a somewhat soft white. The Zamm inlays are an even brighter/harsher white, and some say they even have a slight bluish hue to them. They have a white plastic backing to them, which can be sanded off easily. Both the HM/DH and Zamm inlays will accept a dye which can help cut the white appearance right out of the box.
Another characteristic of the inlay material is the transparency. From my observations, the transparency of both the Buzz and Zamm inlays are pretty similar, but hard to tell because of the stark difference in color. Plus, once the Buzz inlays are installed, they tend to look much more transparent; whereas, I didn’t notice as much change in appearance with the installed Zamm inlays. I have yet to install any HM/DJ inlays myself, but the installed inlays I have seen (including 3 of my guitars), look a lot more 3D and transparent than the non-installed ones.
The last thing to note when comparing these inlays is the shape/cut and fit. Here I can’t really comment much. Both the HM/DJ and Buzz Historic spec inlays I compared are very close in shape, with negligible difference. The Zamm inlays, on the other hand, I found to be quite a bit different in shape from the other two. I’m not sure why this difference, but for me it doesn’t matter much because I cut down these inlays anyway for my small scale builds. I can’t really comment on how the shape of the HM/DJ and Buzz vintage cut inlays compare since I haven’t purchased any of these, and am unfamiliar with how vintage inlays differ from Historic cut inlays.
My bottom line assessment is, that to me, both the HM/DJ inlays and the Buzz inlays are very high quality products that would look great in any Historic guitar or replica build. The HM/DJ inlays may be a little more historically accurate appearance-wise for your ’59 replica. Each carries a somewhat high price tag, but worth it for those looking for a true vintage look. The HM/DJ inlays are much more readily available than are the Buzz inlays. The Zamm inlays are also nice, much lower priced than the other two, and are a definite upgrade from the stock Gibson inlays. But I wouldn’t put them into that ’59 replica I hope to build some day.
I hope this info helps. Your further input is welcome; but please, let’s keep it clean, fair and objective.
Happy building!
Frank
