RSS

Early 58 to Early 59 Evolution: Part 2

 

Small stuff to be sure. The "crown" inlay is slightly lower in 58 and the truss cover is significantly higher. By the mid 60's, the TRC sits right on top of the nut

Small stuff to be sure. The “crown” inlay is slightly lower in 58 and the truss cover is significantly higher. By the mid 60’s, the TRC sits right on top of the nut

 

OK, this is where I get really geeky. If you’re interested in the really little teeny details, the read on. Does it matter that the headstock inlay is a couple of millimeters lower in 58? Nope. But it is and I’m going to talk about that fact and some other silly little details that set our geeky little hearts aflutter. Just like the Les Paul guys.

Gibson moved the “crown” inlay a few times over the years. The most notable was in late 66 when they lowered it about 3/4″. But between the earliest 58’s and the earliest 59’s the inlay was raised slightly. Not by much-maybe 1/8″ or less but this is what we do.  I can’t imagine why they would do this but I’m sure it had something to do with the ease of the manufacturing process.

There is a block of spruce between the maple center block and the top. Kerfed by 59 but not kerfed in 58. I'm not even certain that it's spruce in 58.

There is a block of spruce between the maple center block and the top. Kerfed by 59 but not kerfed in 58. I’m not even certain that it’s spruce in 58.

The invention of the semi hollow body guitar is a watershed event, I think. Even though the 335 was designed by Ted McCarty, the real credit should probably go to Les Paul. His “log” was, essentially, a 335. The maple center block-which makes a semi hollow what it is, underwent all sorts of changes over the years. It got shorter in the 70’s and lost it’s mahogany end blocks in the late 60’s. It also had a notch cut out of it in the early 60’s to make it easier to thread the harness into the guitar. But in 1958, another change occurred and I thought it might be related to the change in the number of plies in the top. A 59 ES-335 has a kerfed layer of spruce between the maple block and the top (and back) of the guitar. Again, this was probably done to make the manufacturing process more streamlined and thus more cost efficient. This layer is visible inside the pickup routs but that layer in 58 doesn’t appear to be kerfed. Same with my early 59 with the thin top. But my later thin top 59 ES-355 does have the kerfed spruce insert. So my thin top theory is out the window.

It's easy to see the difference in the size of the heel. 58 is the only year they looked like this until the 80's.

It’s easy to see the difference in the size of the heel. 58 is the only year they looked like this until the 80’s.

Another small change is the size of the neck heel. The 58 is taller and rounder. By 59, the heel gets very short and more squared off. There is a fair amount of variation in heel sizes in a given year but they rarely are as large as a 58. I have a 65 that’s as tall but it is square across the top like most 59 and later examples. I don’t think the size of the heel makes a particle of difference in the stability of the neck join or in the tone of the guitar. It’s just another small change that the brass at Gibson thought was an improvement. I’ve read where folks think tenon is larger in these 58’s but it doesn’t appear to be. You can see the tenon in the photo that shows the non kerfed layer in the center block. It looks like most other years to me.

Something that does make a difference to some players  is the fret size. If you’re lucky to have a 58 with its original frets, you will see that they are pretty small. Not as small as “fretless wonder” frets but smaller than your average 50’s Fender by a little. Players who like big jumbo frets probably won’t like the 58’s but even the bigger frets from 59 onward aren’t as large as a modern “jumbo”. I find that if the guitar is properly set up, then the big bends don’t fret out but then I’m not a big bender. I’ve been on a few big benders but that’s another story.

Oh, and something you probably never noticed…the tuners. Both 58 and 59 have single line single ring Klusons but the 58 is more likely to have the patent applied for designation rather than the patent number on the back. No difference, you say? Not true. It seems that someone at Kluson changed the formulation of the plastic for the tip around that time. Almost every 58 I’ve had still has it’s original tuner tips and nearly every 59 has those mummified, shrunken, falling apart tips. So much for improvements.

Also pretty obvious. Little 58 frets frets next to bigger 59's.

Also pretty obvious. Little 58 frets frets next to bigger 59’s.

5 Responses to “Early 58 to Early 59 Evolution: Part 2”

  1. RAB says:

    Charlie, we love the geeky details! More, we want more!

  2. Rod says:

    Has the inlay moved down or is it that the machine heads have moved upwards? Or is that an optical illusion?

  3. cgelber says:

    I think it’s a little of both, actually. I’ll do some measuring.

  4. Rod says:

    Both sets of machine heads appear to be (just about) in line with the top TRC screw but, of course, the 58 TRC is set quite a bit higher. So it looks like it is the machine heads moving to me.

    Ooooh, doesn’t the 58 look clean! In my dreams…..

  5. cgelber says:

    Actually, the headstock on the 58 is longer which is where the space under the truss comes from. Next post will discuss.

Leave a Reply

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)