orvilles vs gibson LP standard

Discussion area for Orville and Orville by Gibson guitars

Moderator: ned

Koubayashi
Guitar God
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: orvilles vs gibson LP standard

Post by Koubayashi » Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:35 pm

Sir Punk wrote:so I am wondering what are the differences between a Gibson LP standard and an Orville/OBG.

The standard's have fret binding and it seems to me that Orville don't.

Also some Orville have 2 piece necks but I don't know if that's true for standards.

what else?

I spent half a day trying a 58 and a 59. The 59 was dead. It was a horrible guitar that any simple Greco EG500 would beat.

I have some ObG reissues and some ObG Std's (that is funny if think about it) and they are more or like the same in the quality. I have scrutinized in various pragmatic ways without finding any major differences in the quality.

It's the same with the Squier and Fender JV's. A friend of mine has a fully original 1961 Strat but his work guitar is a beaten up JV Strat.

There is no general truth that A is better than B. In the end of the day it all comes to each guitar, no matter name or country of origin.
Though, in my personal opinion the Japanese tend to be more consistent. If I buy a ObG I know what to expect but when I buy a Gibson LP Std I never know.

MIJvintage
Guitar God
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:08 am
Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota USA
Contact:

Re: orvilles vs gibson LP standard

Post by MIJvintage » Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:30 pm

Koubayashi wrote: I spent half a day trying a 58 and a 59. The 59 was dead. It was a horrible guitar that any simple Greco EG500 would beat.

I have some ObG reissues and some ObG Std's (that is funny if think about it) and they are more or like the same in the quality. I have scrutinized in various pragmatic ways without finding any major differences in the quality.

It's the same with the Squier and Fender JV's. A friend of mine has a fully original 1961 Strat but his work guitar is a beaten up JV Strat.

There is no general truth that A is better than B. In the end of the day it all comes to each guitar, no matter name or country of origin.
Though, in my personal opinion the Japanese tend to be more consistent. If I buy a ObG I know what to expect but when I buy a Gibson LP Std I never know.

A 'dead' electric guitar is dead because of the physics of the lumber, just as one that is 'alive' is alive because of the physics of the lumber.

Many people seem not to understand, or even refuse to accept the fact (some here on this forum even) that LUMBER and its' inherit characteristics, play the greatest role in the construction of any given solid body instrument (namely guitars) as it relates to the instruments' ability to produce vibration aka sound.

In a thread from another forum I posted the below reply, in response to a question about Fender style solid body guitars but the last statement of my reply is true for Gibson style solid bodies as well.

IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber



"of all of the Strat bodies I have personally owned, between ash & alder, ash IMO is the winner hands down

I prefer two piece/center seam with tighter growth ring structure on the bass side & wider GRS on the treble side ........................

I don't see why pine would not be a good choice; IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber"
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl ... ij_vintage

"Yeah, yeah. We're in the bureau of beer and fire and cigarettes. And maybe some chicks, too." - Beavis

Koubayashi
Guitar God
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: orvilles vs gibson LP standard

Post by Koubayashi » Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:49 pm

MIJvintage wrote:
Koubayashi wrote: I spent half a day trying a 58 and a 59. The 59 was dead. It was a horrible guitar that any simple Greco EG500 would beat.

I have some ObG reissues and some ObG Std's (that is funny if think about it) and they are more or like the same in the quality. I have scrutinized in various pragmatic ways without finding any major differences in the quality.

It's the same with the Squier and Fender JV's. A friend of mine has a fully original 1961 Strat but his work guitar is a beaten up JV Strat.

There is no general truth that A is better than B. In the end of the day it all comes to each guitar, no matter name or country of origin.
Though, in my personal opinion the Japanese tend to be more consistent. If I buy a ObG I know what to expect but when I buy a Gibson LP Std I never know.

A 'dead' electric guitar is dead because of the physics of the lumber, just as one that is 'alive' is alive because of the physics of the lumber.

Many people seem not to understand, or even refuse to accept the fact (some here on this forum even) that LUMBER and its' inherit characteristics, play the greatest role in the construction of any given solid body instrument (namely guitars) as it relates to the instruments' ability to produce vibration aka sound.

In a thread from another forum I posted the below reply, in response to a question about Fender style solid body guitars but the last statement of my reply is true for Gibson style solid bodies as well.

IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber



"of all of the Strat bodies I have personally owned, between ash & alder, ash IMO is the winner hands down

I prefer two piece/center seam with tighter growth ring structure on the bass side & wider GRS on the treble side ........................

I don't see why pine would not be a good choice; IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber"
I agree. Pickups can be changed but not the soul (the wood) of the guitar.
Hagstr?m (aka Goya) used pine for their guitars. They sound crappy :D

duff
Guitar God
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: antwerp, belgium

Post by duff » Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:07 pm

pine is ok. First nocasters were pine, the new squier classic vibe tele is pine and people love it.

MIJvintage
Guitar God
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:08 am
Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota USA
Contact:

Post by MIJvintage » Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:18 pm

the body wood on one of Eric Johnson's most favorite Strats (a '54 named 'Virginia') was actually spruce, which is a close genetic cousin to pine :wink:

If ANYONE knows about & is particularlly sensetive to 'tone' I believe it would be EJ :) ..............
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl ... ij_vintage

"Yeah, yeah. We're in the bureau of beer and fire and cigarettes. And maybe some chicks, too." - Beavis

Dave_Mc
Guitar God
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by Dave_Mc » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:49 am

japanstrat wrote: The other difference between Gibson and Japanese guitars is that Gibson mostly use Honduras Mahogany (but that might have changed a bit recently) and the Japanese makers mostly use African Mahogany.
i thought gibson changed to south american mahogany? isn't honduran pretty rare/protected/expensive now (bit like brazilian rosewood)? could be wrong, though. :)

mrsuspend
Guitar God
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mrsuspend » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:10 am

The problem with pine (trust me, I'm Swedish :wink: ) is quality. Pine is available from low quality which you can easily dent with your fingernail to incredibly hard core wood. Pine has to grow a long time to get this hard however, and it's almost impossible to find top grade pine lumber nowadays. The low grade pine would be about as resonant as a wet sponge... Maybe the situation in Canada is better?

/Magnus

soundcreation
Guitar God
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:07 am

Post by soundcreation » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:33 am

I've got an orville by gibson 89 terada with a neck heel piece and a 3 pce body and it is absolutely phenomenal. Beautiful 60's slim profile neck Resonates like crazy, and is very round sounding with balanced lows mid and highs....soooo smooth. I've played old gibson's and some new ones that don't sound anywhere near as good. So multi piece guitars can get it done...

Having said that, I think it's probably true that you would increase your chances of getting a good guitar by limiting the number of pieces of the body; finish, type of wood etc...

I would say the best ObG's are probably equal too most standard USA models but a cut below the Historics.

And even comparing them to Factory USA Les Pauls us Orville owners need to be honest....New gibsons are using long neck tennons again; they use 1 piece Honduran mahogany bodies...something the japanese builders choose for only their high end models as well; like Navigator. All of these features make them more desirable than an even the best ObG's (just going by specs). The one big flaw they have is the chamber though....if you want a historically accurate LP. So again I'd say the ObG's are probably even with the USA gibsons,..some better features..some worse.

But as mentioned above..it seems with LP's the only way to know is to play them. [/list]

leadguitar_323
Guitar God
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Brisbane Australia

Post by leadguitar_323 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:01 pm

I think you'll find all the gibbo standards are African Mahogany and the Honduras is used on Historics and Custom shop guitars. African mahogany is usually heavier than Honduras mahogany, thats why they chamber them to weight relieve them. I have both Honduras and African mahogany and the Honduras is lighter hands down.

Mick
so many guitars....so little money...

MIJvintage
Guitar God
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:08 am
Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota USA
Contact:

Post by MIJvintage » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:05 pm

then OF COURSE there are the Orvilles, which are a better value than the OBGs :P ............................
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl ... ij_vintage

"Yeah, yeah. We're in the bureau of beer and fire and cigarettes. And maybe some chicks, too." - Beavis

Koubayashi
Guitar God
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Koubayashi » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:14 pm

mrsuspend wrote:The problem with pine (trust me, I'm Swedish :wink: ) is quality. Pine is available from low quality which you can easily dent with your fingernail to incredibly hard core wood. Pine has to grow a long time to get this hard however, and it's almost impossible to find top grade pine lumber nowadays. The low grade pine would be about as resonant as a wet sponge... Maybe the situation in Canada is better?

/Magnus
Are you trying to say that the old Hagstrom guitars aren't great in the sustain???

Koubayashi
Guitar God
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Koubayashi » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:17 pm

MIJvintage wrote:then OF COURSE there are the Orvilles, which are a better value than the OBGs :P ............................
Not the K-series. They are good for the money but not really on the same level as the rest. I hold the ObG's with Nitro the highest though.

My personal favourite is one of my EGF1200. It beats all LP's I ever had or tried. Of course it is like a girlfriend, even if there are hotter girls it is not a reason to leave her.

Koubayashi
Guitar God
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Koubayashi » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:22 pm

soundcreation wrote:I've got an orville by gibson 89 terada with a neck heel piece and a 3 pce body and it is absolutely phenomenal. Beautiful 60's slim profile neck Resonates like crazy, and is very round sounding with balanced lows mid and highs....soooo smooth. I've played old gibson's and some new ones that don't sound anywhere near as good. So multi piece guitars can get it done...

Having said that, I think it's probably true that you would increase your chances of getting a good guitar by limiting the number of pieces of the body; finish, type of wood etc...

I would say the best ObG's are probably equal too most standard USA models but a cut below the Historics.

And even comparing them to Factory USA Les Pauls us Orville owners need to be honest....New gibsons are using long neck tennons again; they use 1 piece Honduran mahogany bodies...something the japanese builders choose for only their high end models as well; like Navigator. All of these features make them more desirable than an even the best ObG's (just going by specs). The one big flaw they have is the chamber though....if you want a historically accurate LP. So again I'd say the ObG's are probably even with the USA gibsons,..some better features..some worse.

But as mentioned above..it seems with LP's the only way to know is to play them. [/list]
The long tenon has no impact on the sound in my experience. It just makes the neck a bit more stable and is vintage correct. Obviously Gibson had to notch up their Std models a bit cause they were so crappy between 1993-present. The thing that makes me dislike modern Gibson is the tone chambers. Makes them sound Jazzy. Well, I have to admit that it can sound nice sometimes as well but I prefer solid bodies.

In general a ObG is better than a LP Std and if you concider the price they are much better.

One great weakness among the American guitar builders is their shifting quality. If I try 10 LP's then 1 is a good one and the rest in general suck. The Japanese are more consistent in the quality. If I buy a ObG on the net I get just what I expect in 9/10 guitars. If I buy a Greco EG800 I know what I get and so on. I would never buy an American Fender or Gibson without try them out first. But not said that there aren't great Gibson and Fender standard models.

mrsuspend
Guitar God
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mrsuspend » Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:42 am

Koubayashi wrote:
mrsuspend wrote: it's almost impossible to find top grade pine lumber nowadays. The low grade pine would be about as resonant as a wet sponge...

/Magnus
Are you trying to say that the old Hagstrom guitars aren't great in the sustain???
Well, it depends on the model, Hagstr?m used a lot of different woods (and in some cases pearloid!), but in the 60's wood quality in general was considerably better than today.
Just for the record we should note that all present day Hagstr?ms are manufactured in China.

/M

stratman323

Post by stratman323 » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:54 am

mrsuspend wrote:The problem with pine (trust me, I'm Swedish :wink: ) is quality. Pine is available from low quality which you can easily dent with your fingernail to incredibly hard core wood. Pine has to grow a long time to get this hard however, and it's almost impossible to find top grade pine lumber nowadays. The low grade pine would be about as resonant as a wet sponge... Maybe the situation in Canada is better?

/Magnus
Pitch pine is the good stuff, isn't it? My house was built around 1900. About 100 years later, I had new windows put in, so the original pitch pine sash windows were removed. That was some beautiful wood that was thrown away. :cry: It's heavy with resin, & closer to hardwood than anything else. Can anyone imagine modern pine windows lasting 100 years in UK weather?

As a carpenter said to me once, about some pine he had just bought:

"trouble is, that door was in a forest in Finland two weeks ago"

So why can't we get decent pitch pine anymore? Does it just take too long to grow?

Mike

Post Reply