Early 1970s Gibson SG or reissue flying V specs?

[wing]

According to Make Your Own Electric Guitar by Melvyn Hiscock it mentions that some early 1970s SGs and reissue flying Vs were made with no neck angle and the fretboard was just raised flush above the body. It has a picture of the SG but it doesnt actually say how much it is raised by.

Does anybody have one of these guitars or know where i can get information on them?

[MzI]

there is a website that is dedicated to flying v's off hand i dont know the name of the site go to google and type in flying v, as for one with no neck angle im pretty sure they all had neck angles as far as ones with a tom, there was some produced durign the 80s that had kahlers and gibson trems on them so they prolly dont have neck angles

MzI

ps if ur looking for a 67 reissue plan its on the guitarbuild website

[LukeR]

Well, I actually own a 71 Gibson SG, without the neck angle.

I would NEVER make a guitar like that- it has great tone, but I have had to spend HEAPS of time strengthening the neck joint. The strings are a fair way off the body, but it doesnt seem to make much difference.

feel free to ack me any questions, but sadly, I dont have a digital camera.

Luke

[litchfield]

I guess I wont be buying that book.

First off the SGs with no neck angle are rare. Mainly because they tend to break. Seen a few myself. The Vs without an angle had kahlers, not the reissues. The kahlers were an 80s thing. Thirdly, either choose a design without a TOM (ie, flatmount hipshot), or angle the neck, or recess the tom like Wes suggested.

[LukeR]

HI,

Yeah, the book says that these are not good guitars- it is an example of pretty much what NOT to do when designing a guitar.

Correct, Litch, my SG has had its neck broken off at the body join- it has been well repaired, but it still has a bit of a 'whammy bar' effect.

I have done SO much repair and structual reinforcement on that guitar that I realised that I have most of the skuills to actually build a guitar from scratch (I was actually advised that it would be far easier to build a new guitar than repair it).

Hundreds and hundreds of hours working on it- that said, it is the best sounding guitar (in my opinion) that I have ever played or heard.

I could do more to fix it even more, but it would involve taking off the fret board, and the neck, then attaching carbon rods into the neck/fingerboard cavity that extends deep into the body.

Too much work, and because the guitar sounds great, i would hate to ruin it (which would seem VERY easy to do)

Anyway,

cheers,

Luke

[litchfield]

Yea, if you can just build her a new bod, do it. Better in the long run, the wammy effect you speak of will only worsen, it is a sign of a wak joint

[wing]

Ive decided not to make a guitar with no neck angle now, im going to glue on the wings at an angle to get the neck angled back. It seems more sensible like that now that i think about it.

[litchfield]

Agreed. thx for heeding advice.

[LukeR]

For what its worth, I concur I wouldnt make a guitar like that.

Thanks for the suggestion, Litch, but its just too much work. The neck was broken at the heel, although the body is in perfect shape. (only the neck was damaged).

However, the Neck humbucker is close to the neck, making the joint weak.

So really, both the body AND neck have issues- I have fixed it ALOT (I guess 'whammy bar' is a strong euphorism), so I dont plan to do anything more on it.

Thanks for the advice, though

Luke