Official Luthiers Forum!

Is there any design reason as to why Gibson Les paul bound fretboard have a smaller fretboard, with the frets cut and trimmed flush to the wooden part of the fretboard, then the binding is simply glued around the fretboard and the binding follows the frets rather than having the binding installed before fretting and the fret tang had to be undercut to fit the binding?

Or is it simply a cost cutting move, because it would take less time to fret a smaller fretboard like it was unbound then simply glue binding right over it.

Given how much they charge for a les paul custom why are they even cutting corners?

_________________
Cat-gut strings are made from kitten guts, stretched out to near breaking point and then hardened with grue saliva. As a result these give a feeling of Pain and anguish whenever played, and often end up playing themselves backwards as part of satanic rituals.

Typhoon Guitars
http://www.typhoon-guitars.com

Because they're Gibson, and they've gotten away with it for decades. Also, anyone paying $4K+ for an instrument functionally identical, even in construction details, to a $600 Epiphone Les Paul (instead of buying an instrument with reason to be >$4K) isn't likely to be the kind of customer that has a clue.

I've seen a J200 (from the custom shop!) with the bridge glued on off-center and a patch of bare wood showing at one side.

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

The procedure Gibson uses to bind the fretboard eliminates the hand craftmanship of dressing the metal ends of the frets....which speeds up their production process. The frets are installed and then the edge of the binding groove and the frets ends are finished flush together in one operation. Finishing the plastic binding to create the faux fret end can be automated whereas finishing fret ends that are metal must be done by hand.

Yeah....it saves lots of time, I imagine.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

I've heard it postulated on several forums that Gibson does this because it is "cheap". Economically that is probably true, but, for me, it is also something that kind of sets Gibson apart. I know of no other company that does this, even the really cheap asian ones, so I'm not so sure I buy the "it's cheaper" argument, but what do I know? I'm just a player, and haven't even finished my first scratch build. It is true however that Gibson's quality control is lacking, and has been for a while. And this is coming from someone who really loves Les Pauls, warts and all. Fit and finish could be a whole lot better, especially for the price, but nothing else quite sounds or feels like a Les Paul to me. MHO, although I haven't played a newer one. Also, as a personal preference, I like the look and the feel of the LP binding and if I ever decide to do a bound fretboard in the future, chances are I'll attempt to duplicate it, at least on my personal instruments.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

If it was faster and cheaper to do it that way, then wouldn't we see epiphone guitars with binding nubs and Gibson guitars with beveled metal fret ends?
Gibson profiles, inlays, radiuses and frets their guitars before binding them. The binding is installed, the fretboard is glued on, and then the binding is trimmed flush to the fretboard, and the nub bevelled.
The way it was done originally was way more time consuming then laying the frets over the binding, the way it is done on cheaper guitars nowadays, and I'm not convinced that even today binding nubs are faster. I think from a production standpoint, metal fret ends are faster, and can be bevelled quickly and easily, and why couldn't it be automated?
What I DO know, is that having binding nubs eliminates the sharp metal fret ends (usually), and insulates somewhat the metal fret from being exposed when the fretboard ineviteably shrinks and expands. I've never played a Les Paul with binding nubs and said "Man, these frets feel a little sharp."
Logical, IMHO.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Sorry to disagree, but binding nibs are just an inferior way to build. The nib is plastic and will never hold up to string wear. So they effectively leave less real estate on the fretboard for playing. After the plastic shrinks in a few years there will be a little ledge where string benders will get hung up. Also, they make refretting much more difficult. There is no good reason to build this way other than tradition.

The only cheap way to refret would be to remove the binding nub and refret using the traditional method (undercut the frets) unless you can cut and grind each fret to exact length and install them in a way as to not damage the binding.

_________________
Cat-gut strings are made from kitten guts, stretched out to near breaking point and then hardened with grue saliva. As a result these give a feeling of Pain and anguish whenever played, and often end up playing themselves backwards as part of satanic rituals.

Typhoon Guitars
http://www.typhoon-guitars.com

Inferior to what, sharp metal fret ends that lift and catch the strings and have to be glued down and dressed?
Each method has it's drawbacks and plusses.
I've worked on PLENTY of older guitars with intact binding nibs that don't catch the strings. In fact, I rarely see any Gibson guitars with broken binding nibs. Not saying they don't exist, mind you, but the ones I do see with shrunken cracked binding and missing nibs are the Japanese copies.
I could be wrong too. Maybe my experience is unique in this area.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I agree with guitarwhisperer... Much more time consuming and to me (a former 100+ gigs a year player) much more comfortable. The smoothness of fret/binding combo is second to none IMO. There is no real "loss of real estate" because even metal ends are chamfered and unusable at the very tips. As wekkm great tecs can replace the frets and not loose the nibs either.

You either like them or you don't. To claim inferior, cheaper or whatever is just nieve and makes me wonder what experience others actually have with them. Players love them, builders hate them cause they take time to produce, repairman don't know how to work around them...but no one can disclaim the smoothness of the fingerboard edge when done this way.

JRE

_________________
Joe

Finishing the plastic binding to create the faux fret end can be automated whereas finishing fret ends that are metal must be done by hand.

You can't 'automate' fret beveling? Ever see those videos of the Taylor factory?
I agree that the 'nibbed' binding is a terrible idea (mostly looked at from a builder/fixer perspective) but it wasn't done to make things easier.

I don't like the way they look, don't like the way they feel. It's an inferior design, like a lot of Gibson's design choices when it comes to necks (be it sloppy neck pockets, break-prone headstocks or truss rod access). There's plenty to go wrong (plastic shrinks over time if exposed to the elements, and not everyone babies their guitars, it's pretty much impossible to do a clean refret - poor repairability is a design flaw). There are plenty of great guitars built by gibson, flawed and all, but that's no reason to keep doing things the same way when better alternatives are available.