Is this the standard for "The Heritage?"

[Thundersteel]

Here's a pic of an H150 I am interested in buying. Well, I was interested until I saw this picture. 

 

The funny thing is, every H150 I have seen (even mine) are the same way!

 

Why are there sanding marks around the neck? Why the missing finish between the neck and the neck pickup?  None of my non-Heritage-brand guitars have this!

 

Is this sloppy workmanship, or is this how it was done in the 50s?

 

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4757/95448962sj5.jpg[/img]

[tulk1]

Not seeing the sanding marks. Wonder if there is finish but just not buffed between the neck and neck pup. I'll have to look at my 157 and see if it's the same.

[Thundersteel]

Not seeing the sanding marks.

 

Look at the area immediately to the left side of the neck. The area looks very rough.

[tulk1]

I see the rough area you're talking about. I would not have known those were sanding marks. Just looks like wood grain, to me. Then again, I doubt I'd have scrutinized so much as to catch the lack of finish at the end of the neck, either.    I'd have to wonder if either of those two finds (holding off on saying "defects" or "faults") affect the playability or long term stability of the guitar.

 

I do have to wonder, however, about whether our guys are actually seeing these things or not when they let a guitar out. Who does the final inspection, etc? I'd also have to wonder how they could miss putting finish on that spot, since that is all done before the neck is attached. I could see it missing a final buffing.

 

I do understand what you're saying, tho'. Once you see those bits, I know the eye will always be drawn right back to them. I was really jonesing for a Korean import guitar, won't mention the brand, until my wife pointed out they had misspelled a word on the headstock. Didn't effect the way the guitar played, but I couldn't get around that. Good thing, too. Since ultimately it lead me to getting the H157

 

So, I can see how that has spoiled this guitar for you.

[GuitArtMan]

Take a look at some G word guitars some time and tell me they are any better.  I've seen G word custom shop guitars that looked worse that than at the fingerboard/body junction.

[Gitfiddler]

Take a look at some G word guitars some time and tell me they are any better.  I've seen G word custom shop guitars that looked worse that than at the fingerboard/body junction.

 

+1

[Kuz]

Take a look at some G word guitars some time and tell me they are any better.  I've seen G word custom shop guitars that looked worse that than at the fingerboard/body junction.

 

+2 saw it a week ago

[jacques]

So what happens to your Heritages if you take them out to play, Thundersteel? Your nickname has some really rough connotations, so while shredding away you may occasionally hit something and damage the headstock a little or you just get the usual wear & tear, don't you? Imho even Heritage guitars are meant to be played and not scrutinized.

[Thundersteel]

Take a look at some G word guitars some time and tell me they are any better.  I've seen G word custom shop guitars that looked worse that than at the fingerboard/body junction.

 

I've never seen a G*%#@n  look like that.

 

So what happens to your Heritages if you take them out to play, Thundersteel? Your nickname has some really rough connotations, so while shredding away you may occasionally hit something and damage the headstock a little or you just get the usual wear & tear, don't you? Imho even Heritage guitars are meant to be played and not scrutinized.

 

Of course my guitars have their fair share of dings & scratches, etc. This thread wasn't intended to disparage Heritage; far from it. I was just curious as to why those marks are there in the first place. Do they sand the body after the neck is attached, and then spray the lacquer? I was just wondering how they are put together to cause those marks in the first place, that's all!

 

I always thought that when someone spends upwards of $2000 for a guitar, it should be flawless, whether it's hand made or not. I would consider those as finish flaws; a lot of you might not. I don't know, maybe I'm just being too picky.

[Cryoman]

All my Gibsons and Heritages have some, varying degree of this. I think it is simply a product of how tightly / closely you can mask,  spray, level sand, wet sand and then buff up to the edge of the binding on the neck/fretboard when spraying 20+ coats of lacquer on the body.  Typically you level sand the 1st XX (10?) coats of sealer/lacquer - this is hand work.  You then shoot the 2nd XX (10?) coats of lacquer, wet sand (by hand again). The ability to sand as perfectly well into that corner as the rest of the surfaces of the top is a bit more difficult (you can only sand in one direction by virtue of running into the fretboard).  The corner is more likely to retain dust, debris during processing.  Lastly, the "step" of the fretboard is going to create a little protected space from the large diameter buffing wheels that both Gibson and Heritage use when they final polish out the lacquer (again, you can only buff in one direction along the length of the fretboard edge..).  This is very labor intensive and I can see the difference in time / effort spent in this area one guitar from the next....

 

I'm learning a lot of this 1st hand from my project of building 4 CryoCasters  (Telecaster clones) for my lifelong buds...

 

Cheers, Cryoman

[davesultra]

+2 saw it a week ago

+3

[Kuz]

I've never seen a G*%#@n  look like that.

 

Of course my guitars have their fair share of dings & scratches, etc. This thread wasn't intended to disparage Heritage; far from it. I was just curious as to why those marks are there in the first place. Do they sand the body after the neck is attached, and then spray the lacquer? I was just wondering how they are put together to cause those marks in the first place, that's all!

 

I always thought that when someone spends upwards of $2000 for a guitar, it should be flawless, whether it's hand made or not. I would consider those as finish flaws; a lot of you might not. I don't know, maybe I'm just being too picky.

 

I love this forum and all the varying opinions and nobody goes out to belittle someone else. So please don't take this the wrong way, but to say you have never seen a Gibby like that is almost unbelievable to me. I live 10 miles from the only Gibby dealer in OH and I can tell you that 90% of the Gibbys I see are MUCH worse than that! Overspray bleaching all the binding, thick finish, sharp frets, won't stay in tune- ARE THE NORM. I think Gibson Custom shop guitars very closely approach Heritage quality (at 2-3x the cost).

 

Now I WILL AGREE that that Heritage pic you showed is not their best work.

 

I DO however expect a slight finish flaw ( spec of color or say dust in the clear coat or on the binding, ect) when this is a HANDMADE PRODUCTION guitar. If you compare Heritages to maybe a luthier like Thorn who makes 20 guitars a year to Heritage that make over 1000, I feel that is an unfair comparison.

 

I cherish my Heritages because they are handmade (tiny blemish and all), beacuse they sound incredible, and because they are totally playable!

 

Good conversation and I value your input :)

[VJonathan]

Gentleman:  The workmanship on that P90 H150  is inexcusable.  It's sloppy.  Looks like a Monday morning guitar. Unfortunately, such flaws exist with production instruments.  However, if it sounds great and feels good in your hand, that would not be a good enough excuse to pass on it.  If anything, I would ask the dealer for a break on the price.    I checked my H150 and the neck is flush  against the pickup case with no gap or sanding marks.  The same goes for my P90 LP '54 GT.    Heritages' still rule!

[Kuz]

I think the point is (to answer the original question) this is the exception, no the rule!