The madness of loving SGs...

Barquentine

My main (only) gigging guitar for over 20 years was a heavily modified '63 SG Junior. Converted to twin humbuckers. Wonderful guitar, sadly retired due to one too many headstock accidents. The only vintage guitar I've owned was an all original '69 standard. It was the worst playing, worst sounding guitar I've owned. A friend bought a new standard back from the US in the mid 90's that was an amazing sounding guitar. I've played way more bad SG's than good ones but a good one is a wonderful thing.

photek

SGs are my spirit guitar, unfortunately I didn’t find out until I had been playing strat’s and Les Pauls for 20 years and now I can’t bloody play SGs stood up without being a tone out due to the neck position  

Jota

Barquentine said:

My main (only) gigging guitar for over 20 years was a heavily modified '63 SG Junior. Converted to twin humbuckers. Wonderful guitar, sadly retired due to one too many headstock accidents. The only vintage guitar I've owned was an all original '69 standard. It was the worst playing, worst sounding guitar I've owned. A friend bought a new standard back from the US in the mid 90's that was an amazing sounding guitar. I've played way more bad SG's than good ones but a good one is a wonderful thing.

Care to share some pics of the 63?

stickyfiddle

photek said:

SGs are my spirit guitar, unfortunately I didn’t find out until I had been playing strat’s and Les Pauls for 20 years and now I can’t bloody play SGs stood up without being a tone out due to the neck position  

You’re holding it wrong. 

An SG should sit on your hip, not directly in front of you. Then it’s supercomfy 

Winny_Pooh

I love the tones, hate the balance and the look. Bought a PRS S2 Mira

Philly_Q

Winny_Pooh said:

I love the tones, hate the balance and the look. Bought a PRS S2 Mira

Yes, the Mira's a good SG alternative.  And again it has those comfy bevelled contours.

AK99

Barquentine said:

 I've played way more bad SG's than good ones but a good one is a wonderful thing.

I've heard that more than once. Are SGs more prone to having a higher clunker:cracker ratio than other Gibsons - and if they are, why so ?

HandwrittenHero

stickyfiddle said:

RandallFlagg said:

The SG is Gibson's Tele.

Nuff said imo. 

They’re typecast as “the Angus guitar” but they’re super versatile and really sweet at the cleaner end. 

Also kinda agree. The spankiness that mine has from less sustain does make me think big fat tele, which is amusingly what some people look for from a good Les Paul.

TTBZ

I wouldn't say I love it but I've learnt to like and appreciate my SG now. When I first got it I was always comparing it to my LP and was just disappointed with the tone and sustain. Fixed that bit with a Bare Knuckle Warpig, now it sounds huge and has enough compression to help the sustain. Now it's my only decent electric I've really got used to it and most other guitars feel too heavy and bulky now. Mine doesn't neck dive at all and the position on a strap feels great if you hang it a bit to your hip and angle the neck up - actually a lot comfier than strats to me as it brings your left hand in and up rather than out. Also I prefer the neck pickup tone to an LP which I'm not a huge fan of - an SG is much clearer and less muddy.

Bigsby

sixwheeltyrrel said:

Aren't SGs the biggest selling of the Gibson range?

I'm certain they were at one point.

AFAIK, the only evidence for this was a short and insubstantial blog-style post on their web site in 2009, written by Dave Hunter. It had the bold click-bait title: The Best-Selling Gibson of All Time: The SG Standard - but contained absolutely no information relating to this claim. Which is odd, as the title is so surprising - most people would expect it to be the Les Paul, which Gibson produce a larger range of, and in many colour options, unlike the SG. I mean, if it's such a big seller, why only cherry on many models??? Why aren't dealers stuffed full of SGs, with a few Les Pauls lurking in the shadows?

Except there was this snippet of sales figures relating to just three years out of many decades of sales:
“In each of its first three years of availability, the model (officially renamed the SG Standard in 1963) sold more than 6,000 units — swamping the total of approximately 1,700 Les Paul Standards sold between 1958 and ’60.”

The problem with this is simple: It would equal a minimum sales figure of 18,003 SG Standards by end of 1963, however, Gibson's production figures indicate they didn't actually build their 18,000th SG Standard until 1970! In fact, build numbers went down in some years during the 60s, and peaked in 1970, when I think they built almost as many as they'd made in the previous three years. Kinda odd if they had a seven year waiting list...

I've never been able to find any other source for this claim, and all the evidence points to it being wrong, including sales figures into the 70s, where comparisons with Les Paul models are possible. So I think this might all be down to a maths error - perhaps the author had a note of the total sales for the first three years, then mistakenly wrote it up as the sales for EACH of the first three years. From that he extrapolated over many decades. And as a result, we've got an urban myth.

Leiversalone

I have Angus to blame for SG's being my first love. I've owned many, although the flaws mentioned do bug me enough to never keep one for longer than a year or so. Recently I've found that a good PRS standard is (for me) like a better SG. One-piece mahog body, 22 rosewood 'board (some times brazzers) , 'buckers nicely spaced and tapped so more versatile, no neck dive, less likely to lose a neck/headstock, and available in cherry red. It's not an SG but it's bloody close and can be had for similar money. I still look at SG's and always feel like I should have one in my collection, but these days I usually talk myself out of them by remembering the annoying bits.  

Philly_Q

Leiversalone said:

I have Angus to blame for SG's being my first love. I've owned many, although the flaws mentioned do bug me enough to never keep one for longer than a year or so. Recently I've found that a good PRS standard is (for me) like a better SG. One-piece mahog body, 22 rosewood 'board (some times brazzers) , 'buckers nicely spaced and tapped so more versatile, no neck dive, less likely to lose a neck/headstock, and available in cherry red. It's not an SG but it's bloody close and can be had for similar money. I still look at SG's and always feel like I should have one in my collection, but these days I usually talk myself out of them by remembering the annoying bits.  

It's a good point, although you don't see too many of them around.  It's a shame PRS no longer make the Standard, but I suppose there are (fairly) near equivalents in the S2 range.

I had a Standard 22 Satin which I kind of regret selling.  Having said that, I did buy it, sell it, buy it back then sell it again... so I'd probably have sold it a third time by now, if I'd kept it.

Blueingreen

Never owned an SG but 3 years or so ago I went to a festival that had both Gary Clark Jr and The Roots (feat "Captain" Kirk Douglas) on the bill, both playing SGs.  Clark is a phenomenal player, much more than just a blueser, but Kirk is a monster:  he played jazz, blues, country, rock, shred, fusion, funk, metal - sometimes all in the same solo.  Nowadays when I think SG these are the guys who come to mind. They left me in no doubt that there's virtually nothing you can't do on an SG.

DrCornelius

Would it be rude to mention my ‘96 Standard with Catswhisker low wind PAFS is yours for £825 if anyone wants to scratch an SG itch....

Barquentine

Jota said:

Barquentine said:

My main (only) gigging guitar for over 20 years was a heavily modified '63 SG Junior. Converted to twin humbuckers. Wonderful guitar, sadly retired due to one too many headstock accidents. The only vintage guitar I've owned was an all original '69 standard. It was the worst playing, worst sounding guitar I've owned. A friend bought a new standard back from the US in the mid 90's that was an amazing sounding guitar. I've played way more bad SG's than good ones but a good one is a wonderful thing.

Care to share some pics of the 63?

I don't have a mobile so can't do pics. Here's a clip of it live but you can't see it too well. The only thing remaining from '63 is the wood - everything else has been replaced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXUka4V1GLc

TTBZ

I really dislike the Angus association, for me an SG is always about Iommi or Ian Mackaye. Also I wish I got mine in ebony, cherry red is just so bloody dull.

Philly_Q

TTBZ said:

Also I wish I got mine in ebony, cherry red is just so bloody dull.

The colours are certainly boring.  If the SG is Gibson's Tele, then cherry is Gibson's butterscotch blond.

Cherry, Black, White... they all look good but they're not very interesting.  You do see the odd SG in a metallic colour like Pelham Blue or Silverburst.  But I think my favourite SG colour (although I don't particularly like it on LP Juniors or Specials) is TV Yellow.

PonchoGreg

Pfff, boring schmoring...

TTBZ

@Philly_Q yep I like that trans TV yellow! The SG-X in seafoam/Caribbean blue is cool too.

PonchoGreg

Fail on my boring schmoring post earlier, but this is what I was trying to paste: https://images.reverb.com/image/upload/s--0vRRXt6o--/a_exif,c_limit,e_unsharp_mask:80,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_south,h_620,q_90,w_620/v1369711569/yhlw9rhu8zlwqhm0iiwm.jpg