• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Opinions on the '66 -'67 335s??

burstone

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,748
I have this circa '66/'67 335 coming in a few days for a trial and wanted to ask those of you who have tried or owned these what you thought. This one's all original except for the pro-done tailpiece conversion. Originally a bigsby model...

335front.jpg

335back.jpg

335top.jpg
 

vintage58

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Messages
3,958
That guitar looks like it falls into the "one of the good ones" category. I think 1966 is somewhat of a turning-point year for the ES-series thinlines. I currently own a 1966 ES-345 and a 1969 ES-335, and there are very noticeable differences between the two, feel-wise.

Anyway, the guitar you posted has the narrower F-holes, a cherry finish that actually looks the way a cherry finish should (which cannot, at least in my opinion, be said of cherry finishes from only a couple of years later), and the cooler pickguard with the wider bevel. Not to mention cooler knobs and crown-inlay placement that's roughly the same as it was in the late-1950s.

So going on looks alone, that guitar does appear to be a nice one. In an ideal world, I guess that the cutaways could be a little rounder, but that's just a personal preference of mine.
.
 

keef

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,006
Ditto that.

Since it is a conversion anyway, slap on aged nickel parts, a wide bevel truss rod cover and tell people you got a '64...

Never knew about the wider f-holes - got any pics?
 

burstone

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,748
Since it is a conversion anyway, slap on aged nickel parts, a wide bevel truss rod cover and tell people you got a '64...

A friend of mine thought it was a '63/'64 when I sent him the pix. He said it looks just like his '63...
 

burstone

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,748
A '66 will have a narrow nut width (1-9/16")

Yes, I was told that by the seller (he said 1 5/8"), but he said that the back has enough meat on it that it kinda makes up for the difference in the width. Very comfortable neck, he said. We'll see...
 

Michael Minnis

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
1,597
That guitar looks cool. It's the nut width that would be a problem for me. Although certainly worth a shot.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,319
Can somebody comment on how a stoptail 335 compares to a stock '66-'68 model with a trapeze tailpiece? How does the trapeze affect tone, tuning, and tension?
 

burstone

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,748
That guitar looks cool. It's the nut width that would be a problem for me. Although certainly worth a shot.

I'm thinking if it has not been a problem for Larry Carlton with his '68 335 (doesn't that one also have narrower width?) all these years, then maybe it won't be a problem for me either... :)
 

Michael Minnis

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
1,597
I'm thinking if it has not been a problem for Larry Carlton with his '68 335 (doesn't that one also have narrower width?) all these years, then maybe it won't be a problem for me either... :)

Good point. Maybe the narrower nut is the key! I need to go out and buy stockpiles of mid-late 60s Gibsons immediately. :)
 

vintage58

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Messages
3,958
Obviously Larry's playing has something to do with it, but to me, the guitar sound he got on The Royal Scam or Those Southern Knights is like the "ultimate" 335 tone. Aside from the stop tailpiece conversion, replaced nut, and replaced tuners, his '69 ES-335 is completely original, electronically. Which means that the sound heard on those albums is basically patent-sticker T-tops into a Princeton Reverb or tweed Vibrolux, with few (if any) effects. So I don't really get why the late-60's ES guitars are generally looked down upon. If it's the nut width, then that's something that is blown way out proportion, in my opinion. Seriously, it only takes a minute or two to adjust to it. I have large hands and my '69 ES-335 has an extremely narrow nut, so I'm speaking from direct experience.
.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,854
The nut width was back to normal by the end of 1968, so Carlton is likely playing a full width neck.
 

Litcrit

New member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
5,990
The nut width was back to normal by the end of 1968, so Carlton is likely playing a full width neck.

Not on the ES guitars I've seen and owned. The narrow nut continued into the 70's. The necks got chunkier (back to front) with the '69 3 piece change.
 

AtomEve

Les Paul Forum Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
4,666
I have an all original 1968 ES-335 and it is one of my favorite players. I'd describe it as thick, rich and down right lush. It does rock, jazz, blues whatever. I also have a 61 Dot neck which is incredible but the 68 gets played more because I don't mind dragging it all over.....

Mine is the thinner nut width.....doesn't bother me. I'm as at home on a Strat as an LP or whatever....... :hippy
 

keef

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,006
Here ya go.....
............
guitar-00009.jpg

Wow - thanks!

What the HELL happened at Gibson after 1964 - and especially after Ted left in '66?

Even in the pre Norlin years everything started to look less attractive - the chrome parts, the narrow bevel pickguards and truss rod covers, the cherry finishes, witch hat knobs, large pickguards and oversized control cavities on the SGs, etcetera.....or became less functional - trapeze tails, maestros instead of Bigsbys, narrower nut width, different pickups, headstock angle.

I'd like to know who 'masterminded' this all.:hmm

Nonetheless some great music was made on these 'inferior' instruments.
 

RickN

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
7,143
I have this circa '66/'67 335 coming in a few days for a trial and wanted to ask those of you who have tried or owned these what you thought. This one's all original except for the pro-done tailpiece conversion. Originally a bigsby model...
Looks sweet, Don. Nice score. It also looks like the bridge was changed from an ABR type over to a Nashville arrangement, not that I'd throw 'er out of bed! :spabout Very, very nice. I hope she's all you could ask for.
 

burstone

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,748
Looks sweet, Don. Nice score. It also looks like the bridge was changed from an ABR type over to a Nashville arrangement, not that I'd throw 'er out of bed! :spabout Very, very nice. I hope she's all you could ask for.

Thanks Rick! I hope so too...

What's it like being back in Phoenix? Don't you miss the east coast?? :)
 

rays44

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
2,911
Can somebody comment on how a stoptail 335 compares to a stock '66-'68 model with a trapeze tailpiece? How does the trapeze affect tone, tuning, and tension?

I have a trap on my 335. The action feels slinkier. I have an aggresive string bending style of playing and have pushed the strings out of the saddles. Personally, I don't care for the reduced tension and am sure it has an impact on tone and response. The only way to know for sure is to convert this to a stop which I never will. It is what it is.
 

Litcrit

New member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
5,990
Wow - thanks!

What the HELL happened at Gibson after 1964 - and especially after Ted left in '66?

Even in the pre Norlin years everything started to look less attractive - the chrome parts, the narrow bevel pickguards and truss rod covers, the cherry finishes, witch hat knobs, large pickguards and oversized control cavities on the SGs, etcetera.....or became less functional - trapeze tails, maestros instead of Bigsbys, narrower nut width, different pickups, headstock angle.

I'd like to know who 'masterminded' this all.:hmm

Nonetheless some great music was made on these 'inferior' instruments.

Different reasons for different changes. Here's what I've heard:
Chrome: buyers were complaining about the tarnishing of the nickel (no one thought "aging" looked cool then). Solution? CHROME: shiny for life. Considered an absolute improvement.
Narrow nut width: Gibson and Fender were chasing each other trying to create "easier-playing" necks (as per customer demand). Thinner, narrower necks were considered IMPROVEMENTS in playability (many players still feel that way).
Witch-hat knobs: Considered an improvement because the taller knob with ridges made them easier to grab "on the run". Clearly inspired by Fender's amp knobs...
Volutes: Trying to strengthen the headstock against breaking (didn't work too well..)
Other stuff: mostly money driven: less materials/less labor.
 
Top