jacco said:
Let me see if I understand you messer.
This feature where you can see a part of the maple under the binding is in your eyes sloppy craftmanship because it should be sprayed over so you can't see it?
You are driving me insane dude. Is your question serious?
Do I really need to write it for the fourth time?
Here you go: I clearly understand, that in vintage Gibsons, binding around guitar was uniform, same width in every place including cutaway. That caused maple top to be visible. That visibility of maple is not a flaw, it's a feature.
Is this some top secret knowledge about vintage Gibsons, that you think that I'm not aware of it?
Gibson decided to use thick binding in cutaway area, probably to cut finishing time, because it is problematic to finish it precisely.
Tokai is producing their guitars with thin binding, with maple top visible.
My point is:
Tokai finish in cutaway area is sloppy.
Examples of Tokais with sloppy finish:
Maple top shouldn't be visible under a "horn" binding (I marked it with red lines on the left). And what's that kink in a paint line (marked with a circle):
This drunken, wavy paint lines are not "vintage correct", "experts"...
Compare with Gibson:
Goldtop with P90:
http://www.mylespaul.com/gallery/data/2/100_03431.jpg
Probably R9:
Page copy:
The difference between finish quality is obvious.
I acknowledge that we can say the same about Tokai vs Gibson price tag in case of low end Tokai
But what about LS-320 if we know that Tokai doesn't give a f,uck about perfecting inlays in their high end Love Rocks? ->
Tokai inlays topic