Fender question

[Basher]

The 2000 and 3000 have a sustain block. The 1000 doesn't

Ah haa. Then I didn't make it up!
Thanks for the confirmation.

[evilmags]

I must weigh my SG3000 and see if I'm a wuss. I have stood up with it for one gig, and didn't feel too bad. Mind you, the stage-diving antics have long-since ceased....

I should perhaps add that I'm not an accountant, and I don't drive an Audi.

I had a 76 sg 2000 in the house for a bit. Weighed a tonne. You see a lot of older players switch to lighter guitars. Walter Trout and Scott Goram to name but two.

[littlegreenman]

The 2000 and 3000 have a sustain block. The 1000 doesn't

I seem to recall we have Carlos Santana to "thank" for that. He liked the Yammie SG's but wanted more sustain, so they added the block.*





* I may be incorrectly remembering/ inserting folklore there though!

[Neil.C]

Around that time people were adding brass to everything guitarwise claiming it had magical sustaining properties.

Funny how tastes change.

[chillidoggy]

The 2000 and 3000 have a sustain block. The 1000 doesn't

I can't see a sustain block on mine, what's it look like? I thought they dropped them after a while?

[ICBM]

I can't see a sustain block on mine, what's it look like? I thought they dropped them after a while?

A brass block that the bridge posts go into. I think they might have dropped them after a while too, I don't remember seeing them on later 2000s, although I could be wrong.

I played a 3000 once that I think is the heaviest guitar I've ever picked up (apart from double-necks), even heavier than the worst late-70s/early-80s Les Paul Custom I've come across.

What's even odder is that I don't gig so it actually makes no bloody difference as I sit down to play them 99% of the time.

Some of these guitars are so heavy they're actually uncomfortable to play sitting down as well, even with a strap and it resting on your leg at the same time to try to divide the pain!

I'm not really a fan of light guitars from a tone point of view usually, and I don't mind a bit of solidity either, but there is a limit. Over about 11lbs for a Les Paul is getting too much, for me. A Strat or Tele starts to feel too heavy at a bit less than that, probably about 9lbs.

[stonevibe]

I think it is because blokes spend more time talking about guitars than playing them.

So with Gibson there is a lot to talk about and some of the time it seems a way to justify their prices i.e More to talk about the more you spend. Detailing minute differences and searching for tone in weight, wood and wire coils.

[monquixote]

I can't see a sustain block on mine, what's it look like? I thought they dropped them after a while?

I think it's buried under the maple cap and the bridge posts screw into it.

The Yamaha site suggests they still have them.

[chillidoggy]

A brass block that the bridge posts go into. I think they might have dropped them after a while too, I don't remember seeing them on later 2000s, although I could be wrong.

I played a 3000 once that I think is the heaviest guitar I've ever picked up (apart from double-necks), even heavier than the worst late-70s/early-80s Les Paul Custom I've come across.

Some of these guitars are so heavy they're actually uncomfortable to play sitting down as well, even with a strap and it resting on your leg at the same time to try to divide the pain!

I'm not really a fan of light guitars from a tone point of view usually, and I don't mind a bit of solidity either, but there is a limit. Over about 11lbs for a Les Paul is getting too much, for me. A Strat or Tele starts to feel too heavy at a bit less than that, probably about 9lbs.

I've just had another look, and there is definitely nothing under the bridge. The posts screw down into the body, but there's no sign of any bushes either, it's like they just screw into the lacquer. Now I'm intrigued and will probably worry about it before taking the strings off later and having a look!

Oh, and to the best of my bathroom scales abilities, my SG3000 weighs 10lbs, but I can't say how accurate they are. I agree that the 70's SG's weighed a tonne, having tried them at the time, but the heaviest LP I have tried is my mate's 25/50 anniversary which I think is a 12 pounder.

[ICBM]

I've just had another look, and there is definitely nothing under the bridge. The posts screw down into the body, but there's no sign of any bushes either, it's like they just screw into the lacquer. Now I'm intrigued and will probably worry about it before taking the strings off later and having a look!

I wouldn't bother, if it was there you'd see it as a lump of brass/gold plated neutron matter set into the top - it's about the same size as the bridge and isn't under the finish.

Oh, and to the best of my bathroom scales abilities, my SG3000 weighs 10lbs, but I can't say how accurate they are. I agree that the 70's SG's weighed a tonne, having tried them at the time, but the heaviest LP I have tried is my mate's 25/50 anniversary which I think is a 12 pounder.

The heaviest I've ever held was a 3000 that I think weighed 14lbs, and I've come across a couple of Gibsons that must have been close to that. The only heavier guitar I've ever come across is an Ibanez 'Jimmy Page' doubleneck copy that weighed 16lbs .

They really do feel like they're not made of wood when they get up into that range.