The Emmons Evolution - Push-Pulls models

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 5 Apr 2009 7:56 am

I have been trying to understand the difference between the different P-P models, fat back, bolt on, cut tail, wraparound etc.
I've run a couple of forum searches, but most discussions end up in battles about what's or who's best, so i have found little or no information about it from a strictly technical point of view.
I know we have a few experts on this subject on this forum.
What's the differences?
Pro's and con's?
Value/collectability?
Pictures?

Jay Ganz · Post by **Jay Ganz** » 5 Apr 2009 8:23 am

Well....until some of the experts chime in, here's some pics of the changers.

Basically, wraparound from '64-5;
bolt-on '66-7; and cut tail from '68 till they were discontinued in the mid 80's.

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 5 Apr 2009 8:43 am

Thanks Jay. Everyone is an expert compared to me.
One of the things i don't get is the "Fatbacks". To me they seem a lot like the "cut tails". What am i missing?

Matthew Carlin · Post by **Matthew Carlin** » 5 Apr 2009 8:59 am

Hey Ulf, I am FAR from an expert as well, I think Fatback refers to the way the back side is cut or not cut in this case. Cut tail is a changer style..

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 5 Apr 2009 9:04 am

ulf, the 'fatback' relates to the rear 'body' apron...not the changer mechanism. the rear apron was cut out on the bottom to increase leg clearance after the fatback, which was the full rectangular apron. i imagine someone will post a pic!

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 5 Apr 2009 9:05 am

'Fatback' denotes a rear apron without that recess cut out of it.

You beat me to it, Chris, AND explained it better!

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 5 Apr 2009 9:37 am

Ulf, here's what I seem to remember from previous discussions by Buddy Emmons and others concerning the history of the design changes.

The wrap-around neck was first. But it was a pain for cleaning and repairs, because you had to take the strings and neck off to get to the changer. I believe also there were problems of weakening the body where the changer cutout was.

Next they tried the bolt on design. These had great tone; but tightly attaching the changer to the aluminum neck allowed temperature sensitivity of the neck to overly affect the intonation. They continued to use the bolt on design for wood necks, which were not attached to the changer plate.

But they switched to the cut-tail design for the aluminum neck models, and were satisfied with that for the remainder of the instrument's history. While die-hards value the older designs, this may be one case where both the manufacturers and generations of players concurred that older was not necessarily better. I don't think they made the design changes merely to save money. They were refinements.

robert kramer · Post by **robert kramer** » 5 Apr 2009 9:52 am

I'm no expert but I'll try to explain and I hope I get this right: A line of p/p's was introduced in the early 70's which had a solid back apron. The back apron looked like the front apron without the metal strips. Emmons guitars up to that time had the back apron cut away and contoured so you would have more room to get under the guitar.

The terms "Wraparound," "Bolt-on," and "Cut-tail," refer to different styles of changers. Some "Fatbacks" were "Cut-tails" and some were "Bolt-ons." "Wraparounds" were out of production by the mid 60's so there are no "Wraparound Fatbacks") A lot of "Fatbacks" had the Satin-Matte Formica in either Black or Rosewood. Lacquer models were also produced with either metal or wood necks. The wood necks were "bolt-ons."

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 5 Apr 2009 11:14 am

Thanks guys!
This is finally making sense to me now.
It's been said before: This forum is a wealth of knowledge!

But then the next question pops up. What was the reason for the fatback design?

Chris Lucker · Post by **Chris Lucker** » 5 Apr 2009 11:46 pm

A few corrections in my experience and opinion.

The first Bolt-ons were on November 1964 guitars 7, 8 at least, and probably 9 and 10. These Bolt-ons were wood neck guitars with the changer pillars bolted onto truncated Wraparound neck sections -- so Wraparound Bolt-ons with shallow axle pillars holding half inch axles.
The "normal" 1966 - 67 Bolt-ons actually started in late 1965 with some transition metal neck guitars that did have the ledge cut into the neck to support bigger changer pillars and 9/16ths axles.

I doubt that the reason for stopping the Wraparound had anything to do with maintenance. Granted, there may be issues with the leverages, fingers and changer support of the earliest Wraparounds, once the Wraparound evolved to its "standard" form by very late 1964 or early 1965, I cannot see what the problems were with it, frankly.

I also doubt the Bolt-on was discontinued because of tuning issues. I suspect that assembly line issues played the greatest role in moving on to the Cut Tail. For example, you can assemble a Cut Tail even if you are waiting for necks to come from the buffer. You cannot do that with a metal neck Bolt-on.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 6 Apr 2009 7:01 am

You may be right, Chris. I have no real knowledge of the manufacturing details. I'm just going on memory of what I've read here by BE and possibly others at Emmons. I don't have time now to search for those old threads. It would be interesting if someone can dig them up. They might not contradict the facts you've described, and you've supplied some additional information, but I seem to remember a little different spin on some of it. I'm always a little skeptical about the "older is always better" attitude of vintage snobs, and I remember being impressed by what I read that the manufacturers were genuinely after design improvements rather than merely cost cutting. I came away feeling cut-tail owners had nothing to feel inadequate about.

As I've said on other Emmons p/p threads, I'm always curious about the silence concerning the tone differences between wood and aluminum necks. Both kinds of owners swear by their tone, but never describe the differences, if any. Much has been made about the aluminum necks and the tension with which they are attached being one of the secrets of the p/p tone. In fact, it was to compete with the "aluminum neck tone" that spurred Sho-Bud to put aluminum necks on the Pro III. Their advertising claimed this gave brighter tone. Yet I have never heard much of anything about how the Emmons p/p wood necks and their method of attachment affect tone. If the bolt-on changer had the best tone, as some claim, pairing that with the wood necks may have compensated for any change in tone compared to aluminum neck wrap-arounds and cut-tails. But that would imply that maybe aluminum neck bolt-ons had the best tone of all, or at least the brightest. Any comments on that?

Chris Lucker · Post by **Chris Lucker** » 6 Apr 2009 8:39 am

There are too many other variables at play when comparing wood necks and metal necks. For example, how is the changer attached? Is the neck open and hollow, or heavier and ribbed?
Early cast Emmons necks are hollow with no ribs. This means that to attach the necks the screws had to hit the thin neck edge -- I imagine this was problematic in a manufacturing situation without jigs. Some of the tapped holes for these early neck mounting screws can be seen on the outside of the polished necks. In 1965 -- I am estimating late Summer or early Fall, Emmons started using ribbed necks so the mounting screws could hit a rib that is both wider than the neck's outside wall and won't leave a visible mark if the tapped threads slightly expand the neck material.
These underside neck ribs may have an effect on limiting overtones that existed with hollow, ribless necks.
I know of one hollow neck Emmons made for a famous player that had the hollow filled with maple to control overtones.
How the changer is mounted is a big variable. Some will say that a Wraparound and a Cut Tail are essentially the same with the difference being in the way the tail of the neck is cut out in a Cut Tail. A Wraparound is the only Emmons where the changer is not attached to the endplate. That big block at the tail of a Cut Tail that squares the axle pillars is bolted to the endplate tabs.
Anyway, some people like the sound of a Les Paul, and some people like the sound of a Stratocaster.
To my ears, I think less sounds better than more on an Emmons. Meaning, the less stuff firmly attached to the cabinet, the better the overtones and the better sound. I have Emmons #2 that is 8/0. I imagine it sounds better in that configuration than if it loaded with eight knee levers.
My best sounding Emmons, to my ears is #5, though, and it has 5 knees. #8 sounds great, and it has wood necks.
I have a number of Wraparounds and Bolt-ons. They all sound good. If I can find one constant it may be that the guitars set up by Mike Cass sound really good. Mike Cass has even undone fresh "restorations" performed by other mechanics.
All my Emmons guitars sound great, just different. But to my ears, I like the sound of the pre-jig, hand-fitted, lighter constructed, less rigid, Emmons guitars from 1965 and earlier. But I also prefer the sound of a Stratocaster over a Les Paul, and a Permanent over a Pro II.

Chris Lucker · Post by **Chris Lucker** » 6 Apr 2009 8:40 am

I will summarize what i tried to state above that I think Emmons guitars with lots of overtones sound better than those with fewer overtones.

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 6 Apr 2009 9:18 am

Anyone know the reason for the intruduction of the fatbacks?
I would have thougt that to be an earlier design.

Michael Pierce · Post by **Michael Pierce** » 7 Apr 2009 4:17 pm

This weekend, I had the opportunity for the first time to get a close look at a p/p "fatback" and was wondering if those who have actually owned or played one ever had any problems with bumping up against the full back apron, especially with the right knee? I sat at my '78 non-cut out p/p tonight and it seems like the left knee would be fine, but the right knee might require a low profile volume pedal. Also wondering if the equation changes if a vertical knee lever is introduced (e.g., LKV)? Any thoughts or experiences?

Ulf, I've been told that the reason for introducing the fatbacks was an attempt by Emmons to reduce cabinet flex, but Emmons went back to the cut-out design (with a cross brace) when players complained about the clearance (hence my question above). I'm sure more learned minds will weigh in!

Cliff Kane · Post by **Cliff Kane** » 7 Apr 2009 4:31 pm

I wouldn't not buy one because of that. I am 6'2" and I use a standard height volume pedal and it's not a problem on my fatback Emmons, nor is it a problem on my "fatback" EMCI. A lot of steels have a full rear apron. If you need more clearance you can just extend the rear legs a bit or get an extension/lift kit. BTW, my Emmons fatback has anti-bow strips on the bottom edge of the aprons, plus it has the anti-bow cross brace. I don't know if these things really do anything other than make guitar heavier.

Michael Pierce · Post by **Michael Pierce** » 7 Apr 2009 5:23 pm

Thanks for the info, Cliff. Does your Emmons have a vertical knee lever?

Tony Glassman · Post by **Tony Glassman** » 7 Apr 2009 5:28 pm

I had an older fatback lacquer cab p/p about 20 years ago. I always hated the back apron. I had to rake the guitar up in the back for my right leg to clear the rear panel.

When I was working at Sierra guitars, Danny Shields and I made a jig to firmly hold the guitar and used a mill to cut-out the back apron. It worked great. The end result was a nice clean cut w/ no finish flaking. I then painted the cut-back surface black to match the factory edges. We did have to make a new dog-legged cross brace......but it was much more comfortable for me.

Cliff Kane · Post by **Cliff Kane** » 7 Apr 2009 6:31 pm

Hi Michael,
no, my Emmons does not have a vertical lever. My EMCI has a left knee vertical, and it's not a problem; I don't know if it would be different on an Emmons, though.

Tony: did you notice any change in tone when you changed the apron? I know that may seem like an absurd question, but some people have claimed that the fatbacks sound different than the cutaways (lot's of variables at play, of course).

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 7 Apr 2009 10:56 pm

I think the early Carters were "fatbacks".

Glenn Suchan · Post by **Glenn Suchan** » 8 Apr 2009 4:13 am

Regarding the "fatback" apron: My first p/p had that design. As Tony G. and Cliff K. have said, it's a bit of an ergonomic problem, if you're tall. I'm 6'1" and when playing the "fatback", I had to raise the back legs a coupla' inches to clear my legs. It always looked like I was trying to show my audience what the fretboard looked like. Other than that, I loved that guitar. It was an S10 from the early 70's (s/n 1184) with the cut-tail changer design, and had wonderful tone. Here's the kicker: I bought it, slightly used for $525!!!! I wish I still owned it.

Keep on pickin'!
Glenn

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 8 Apr 2009 8:25 am

Well Glenn, they do have quite tasteful fretboards

Cliff Kane · Post by **Cliff Kane** » 8 Apr 2009 8:45 am

Fatback:

Glenn Suchan · Post by **Glenn Suchan** » 8 Apr 2009 9:47 am

Ulf Edlund said about the Emmons fret boards:

Well Glenn, they do have quite tasteful fretboards

Ulf, that's for sure! I like to sprinkle a little cayenne pepper on mine whenever I need to "spice-up" my pickin'.

I think Buddy said he selected the "atom" motif because of the cool appearance. Personally, they look kind of exotic compared with playing card symbols. A few years ago I contemplated just what kind of atoms they were. The closest I could figure was a lithium atom with a slightly wrong electron orbit/arrangement. Hmmm, lithium atom? No wonder Emmons pickers are so laid-back.

Keep on pickin'!
Glenn

Ulf Edlund · Post by **Ulf Edlund** » 8 Apr 2009 9:59 am

MMMMMM!

Lithium? That's the kind of information you only can get here! I'm impressed Glenn

The Steel Guitar Forum

The Emmons Evolution - Push-Pulls models

The Emmons Evolution - Push-Pulls models

Thank you all

Push Pull Fatbacks