A most unusual ultra top!

[MartyGrass]

I got this Millennium Standard Ultra from the Atlanta GC. From the pictures the top has flamboyant but disorganized flames. Since the flames are so broad, I figured that was why Heritage called it an ultra.

 

Bear with me while I explain I'm posting these pix.

 

This is how Jay Wolfe showed the top. It's beautiful in a stormy way.

 

 

 

But I didn't really appreciate how extraordinary the top is until I had it hanging up and I could see it at different angles.

 

The lower half of the top has a profound 3D appearance unlike any other I have seen. And it made me wonder if the person who selected this top as an ultra knew before finishing it how the top would come alive later. I suspect he did.

 

It's not the flames that pop out. It's those strange other markings. See if they catch your eye, too.

 

 

 

 

The 2D camera cannot capture how these lighter areas seem to stand out of the background.

 

Anyone know what these wood characters are called?

[MartyGrass]

No, they're not bird droppings.

[Keith7940236]

Very unusual, and very eye catching. I like it!

[Guest HRB853370]

Interesting. This guitar got a lots of publicity both before and after the build. Are you planning to keep it Mark?

[skydog52]

I don't know if there is a name for that type of figuring but Mother Nature worked her wonders on that tree!

 

That is the beauty of the process at Heritage. When that router starts up on that carving table, you might

and usually end up with something quite different from the raw slab that you started with.

[skydog52]

Beautiful!

[MartyGrass]

It did get a lot of publicity. The prolonged discussion about what pups to put in it was a big part of it.

 

Having played it a few hours with a fresh set of strings I can provide some comments now.

 

It's a very decent guitar. And it does a lot of things well.

 

I like the neck. It measures almost exactly what the R9 does. I also like thinner necks. Some people have stronger preferences I suppose.

 

The guitar is generally well made with the typical assortment of Heritage imperfections. The fretboard is almost devoid of toolmarks but the binding got a few. It's easy to buff those out though. The binding appears to have been scraped in a hurry with a few streaks missed. Again, that can be pretty easily addressed.

 

The electronics work very well. These pots are better than many I've had in other Heritages. The soldering work is adequate but not really impressive. There were globs of lead heaped up in places.

 

I'm not sure why Heritage switched to the current toggle switch. It works fine and may be better built than the old ones. The cap has metal in it, not just plastic. Yeah, it's the little things in life.

 

The wood seems really good to me. And the finish is top notch.

 

The frets were PLEK'd. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since it was done with 11's on it. The action is very low.

 

The bridge slots are just right. The nut needs to be reslotted, which I don't mind doing.

 

I didn't weigh the guitar but it feels that it is between 7.5 and 8 lbs. Part of the weight is the fat neck. It's a comfortable weight.

 

The Skatterbranes sound fine like PAFs should. Are they worth the extra money? While I'd like to say yes, I personally wouldn't pay the extra. I now have similar guitars with Lollar Low Winds, Seth Lovers, 59s, Gibson 57s, and Skatterbrane PAFs. They sound more similar than different really. But there is a slight difference in each of them.

 

The sustain is just great. It isn't muddy sounding at all.

 

In summary, this is an excellent Heritage. All of the small criticisms I note are what you'd expect with a hand built, non-boutique (factory) process. I'm very used to them and find them just part of the normal mix.

 

I plan on keeping this one. No greater compliment can I give.

 

On a side note, I find it interesting that pickups and guitars have not really progressed in the last 60 years, with a few exceptions. The manufacturing process has certainly moved forward though. But not the end product.

 

What other industry does a technology company charge extra to replicate something over 60 years old?

[Genericmusic]

[peterbright]

Incredible

[Gitfiddler]

That is an amazing guitar, on many levels. As for the unusual top, the first thing I noticed about it was that it is not bookmatched. With the zig zag patterns laid side by side, it gives it an even more unique look.

 

Something unusual must have occurred during the growth of the particular maple tree that your top was cut from. I'm no tree expert, but hopefully someone with more knowledge can chime in.

 

The most unusual patterns I've seen are on Roger Giffin's site. He knows good wood! http://www.giffinguitars.com/TheWoodPile.htm

 

Here's a quick shot of another very unusual top for reference. Roger calls it 'Alien Maple'.

[MartyGrass]

Half of the attractiveness of these guitars is the appearance of the woods.

[H]

That may be medullary rays. It's prominent in the figure of quartersawn oak.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medullary_ray_(botany)

[MartyGrass]

I'm familiar with medullary rays in spruce. They run at right angles to the grain on the top. In the tree they run from the center to the bark like spikes. The grain runs from the base of the trunk to the top.

 

Here's a Heritage showing medullary rays in spruce. They are the horizontal stripes. Slow growing spruce has tight grain and prominent rays.

 

I don't know if any of this has something to do with the Millie top.

 

[peterbright]

another beauty

[Kuz]

It did get a lot of publicity. The prolonged discussion about what pups to put in it was a big part of it.

 

Having played it a few hours with a fresh set of strings I can provide some comments now.

 

It's a very decent guitar. And it does a lot of things well.

 

I like the neck. It measures almost exactly what the R9 does. I also like thinner necks. Some people have stronger preferences I suppose.

 

The guitar is generally well made with the typical assortment of Heritage imperfections. The fretboard is almost devoid of toolmarks but the binding got a few. It's easy to buff those out though. The binding appears to have been scraped in a hurry with a few streaks missed. Again, that can be pretty easily addressed.

 

The electronics work very well. These pots are better than many I've had in other Heritages. The soldering work is adequate but not really impressive. There were globs of lead heaped up in places.

 

I'm not sure why Heritage switched to the current toggle switch. It works fine and may be better built than the old ones. The cap has metal in it, not just plastic. Yeah, it's the little things in life.

 

The wood seems really good to me. And the finish is top notch.

 

The frets were PLEK'd. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since it was done with 11's on it. The action is very low.

 

The bridge slots are just right. The nut needs to be reslotted, which I don't mind doing.

 

I didn't weigh the guitar but it feels that it is between 7.5 and 8 lbs. Part of the weight is the fat neck. It's a comfortable weight.

 

The Skatterbranes sound fine like PAFs should. Are they worth the extra money? While I'd like to say yes, I personally wouldn't pay the extra. I now have similar guitars with Lollar Low Winds, Seth Lovers, 59s, Gibson 57s, and Skatterbrane PAFs. They sound more similar than different really. But there is a slight difference in each of them.

 

The sustain is just great. It isn't muddy sounding at all.

 

In summary, this is an excellent Heritage. All of the small criticisms I note are what you'd expect with a hand built, non-boutique (factory) process. I'm very used to them and find them just part of the normal mix.

 

I plan on keeping this one. No greater compliment can I give.

 

On a side note, I find it interesting that pickups and guitars have not really progressed in the last 60 years, with a few exceptions. The manufacturing process has certainly moved forward though. But not the end product.

 

What other industry does a technology company charge extra to replicate something over 60 years old?

If it is something that has not been replicated appropriately for the last 60 years then I would call it a huge technical advancement and worth the price. Have played Throbaks? Until you have, maybe you will change your mind. Other say how great brand X or Y is , and how they are as great as Throbaks. Until you try a truly great set of original PAFs, Throbaks, Holmes, ect you won't know the difference. SO to answer your question, I think it is worth the price difference and an extra $200 difference over standard pups can really show the true potential of a guitar. Just my .02, where for others " good enough" is good enough.

[gpuma]

 

What other industry does a technology company charge extra to replicate something over 60 years old?

Harley Davidson

[volhoo]

Nice chatoyance.

 

 

Google it!

 

 

-

[MartyGrass]

Love it!

[Gitfiddler]

And this one>>>

[hinesarchtop]

You should show a pic of the back of the back of the neck. The grain orientation is flat instead of quartered. I saw some pics of this and thought it was odd but cool too. Mahogany is very dimensionally stable though.

[MartyGrass]

Here's the unusual neck.

 

[Coabey]

Hi Marty, congratulations on your Millenium , it looks fantastic and it must sound that way too, enjoy !!! I purchased a similar Millenium , this one has Trobak 102 and nickel hardware . Marty how is your Millenium neck When I received mine the neck felt fatter that expected and what I am used too . Well, started using it all the time and started getting used to the neck , but then, I started getting some pain in my left hand which had never happened while using my Sadowsky semi ( damn.... getting too old !!!! )

Got back to the thinner neck and the pain is receding slowly ( getting younger? je,je ...... I dont think so)

Now, to play it safe for my hand, the Millenium is in a great luthier shop being evaluated . Contacted Ren at Heritage and he will send info (truss rod depht , paint ect ) and give advice the luthier to do the job .

I know..... could sell it and order a new one with the correct specs , but the advice of Mr Ramos ( Classic guitar builder ) is that the neck is going to feel great and the finish will be as new, no rocket science .

Some pictures of mine.......

 

[MartyGrass]

I can give you a little history of fat necks in guitars. This history is somewhat based on the truth.

 

Prior to the 1920s guitars had no truss rods. Fatter necks were expected to hold their straightness better and were the norm.

 

Gibson introduced truss rods sometime in the 1920s but still used fat necks. After all, too much change at once is very upsetting by definition. I owned a 1920s Gibson L5, and it had a baseball bat neck.

 

Classic guitar playing involved keeping the thumb on the center of the back of the neck. So a fat neck didn't really matter. And there was no reason to move toward a thinner neck until amplification emerged.

 

In the 1950s, guitars with pickups really took off. Jazz, which was cool then, now had guitar solos. Chord melody soon developed. This required wrapping the thumb over the 6th, 5th, and occasionally the 4th string. A fat neck was now a problem.

 

In the early 60s thin necks in electric guitars became the norm. They were easier to play and created less strain on the base of the thumb with prolonged playing.

 

Those who have owned earlier Heritage archtops will note the thin necks. This is not by accident at all. That's what professional players wanted. The 1960s-80s Gibsons also tended to be the same way. Then the madness began.

 

Somewhere around the launch of Led Zepplin, rock began worshiping the Les Paul, which was no longer made. The available LPs had fat necks because Gibson didn't know any better in the late 50s. Guitarists felt that the fat neck somehow contributed to the sustain, growl and crunch. These guitarists also thought the vestigial long tenon and the type of neck glue must be important too. The PAFs, retro at the time, became icons and were emulated at great cost even though Gibson had abandoned them because of their shortcomings.

 

Heritage recently went back to the long tenon only because they thought it would help sell guitars. It was actually slightly easier to make guitars with long tenons. I know from inside conversations that the owners of Heritage thought it was quirky to do long tenons, and they resisted for at least several years. None of them thought it added anything of importance to the product.

 

They also are making fatter necks due to customer demand, which gets us to the point of this post.

 

The human hand in relaxation has the thumb touching the index finger. Every time you bring the thumb away from your palm, you put traction on the base of the thumb. If you hold your guitar neck like a bat, it doesn't much matter if the neck is fat. But if you are doing a lot of barre cords or for other reasons you keep your thumb in the center of the back of the neck, a fat neck requires more traction on the base of the thumb with a fat neck every time you change position on the neck.

 

Here is a reference on the medical complications of a fat guitar neck. I chose this article because of the pictures. Look at the images on the left side that show hand position vis a vis fat and thinner necks.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859209000163

 

 

 

 

I have a couple of guitars with fat necks, and I'm not complaining. But I do understand the risks and will switch to a thin neck if I develop pain in the base of the thumb.

 

The history of the fat neck of the guitar and the rest that I posted above is a Kalamazoo perspective clearly. That is, it is based on the Gibson/Heritage point of view in the balance between the production of a quality instrument and meeting the peculiar and ever changing demands of the market.

 

If a customer thinks a fatter neck sounds better on an electric guitar and is willing to pay for it, fine. I don't think there is any credible evidence to support that, but that doesn't stop most consumers. Just watch the average TV commercial. If someone finds it feels better in his hand, then that's what he should get. It's not complicated.

[Number8]

 

 

If a customer thinks a fatter neck sounds better on an electric guitar and is willing to pay for it, fine. I don't think there is any credible evidence to support that, but that doesn't stop most consumers. Just watch the average TV commercial. If someone finds it feels better in his hand, then that's what he should get. It's not complicated.

 

Interesting post for a couple reasons: 1) I never considered that anyone would ever assert that a fatter neck would impact the sound of the guitar, and 2) I prefer a fatter neck because it mitigates thumb discomfort (at the knuckle) that I experience with thin necks (not the opposite). Note: My finger length is average/normal but my fingers and hand are wider than normal, so maybe it comes down to hand shape.

[Coabey]

Great post Marty , will check this further. Yes, it is at the base of the thumb , thanks.