Why are 1964 - 68 Emmons better?

Joey Ace · Post by **Joey Ace** » 3 Feb 2005 6:22 am

Brother Herb stated in another post that 1964 -1968 Push-Pulls are more sought after.

I have a 1970 S-10 and a 1980 D-10.
I never had the pleasure of playing a 60s Emmons.

What am I missing?

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 3 Feb 2005 7:50 am

Joey, I think you're confusing the issue with the topic title. "More sought after" doesn't necessarily mean "better," it means more people are seeking that vintage and are willing to pay more for one when it's located. There were fewer guitars made in the early days, they sounded and looked different, and that differentiation has a certain desireability to collectors.

Same reasons why a pre-War Martin costs more than a new Martin, a pre-CBS Telecaster more than a new Fender, etc.

"Better," also, is a value judgement, totally subjective. "More sought after," on the other hand, can be fairly easily quantified as a matter of fact, with fairly minimal research.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 03 February 2005 at 09:00 AM.]

Joey Ace · Post by **Joey Ace** » 3 Feb 2005 10:01 am

Fair enough Herb, but is there something other than the "vintage vibe" that is desireable?

Pre-War Martin fans will tell you that the woods and craftsmanship were better then.

Pre-CBS Fenders had a lot features that were dropped from the CBS models due to CBS's cost cutting- 4 bolt neck, etc.

If it's just the abstract "sound and vibe is better", I can accept that, but if there's some tangeable features, I'd like to learn what they are.

Bill Terry · Post by **Bill Terry** » 3 Feb 2005 11:20 am

I bought a '67 and the fact that it was older definitely influenced my decision, but it's an early cuttail, essentially the same as the newer p/ps. Of course it did have a decal... and everybody knows about the decal = tone thing.

Herb looked at this guitar and made some comments about 'old style' bell cranks or something, he can correct me. But to my untrained eyes, it looks like every other P/P.

But.. the whole bolt-on or wraparound changer thing is where the big bucks really come into play isn't it?

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 3 Feb 2005 1:56 pm

I don't really know the earlier models, but Buddy E. himself said that the changes that were made (e.g., wrap-around, bolt-on, then cut-tail) were improvements. He especially mentioned that the bolt-on was a bad idea, because it connected the aluminum neck with the changer and caused greater temperature sensitivity problems. So I have never been envious of the earlier more expensive models. An after-market, more adjustable bell-crank on later models would also be an improvement. Unlike Fender amps and Martin guitars, I have not discovered anything that was better in the older Emmons. The push-pulls seem to have been made with great integrity and no design or material changes that weren't for the better, right up through the late '80s.

Jay Ganz · Post by **Jay Ganz** » 3 Feb 2005 3:19 pm

It's mainly the construction characteristics and
pickup specs that gradually changed over the
years with the push/pull's. That's what sort
of contributed to the difference in tone.
The ones from the 60's definitely sound
different than the 70's & 80's models. I guess
it's just a case of which you prefer.

Mark Herrick · Post by **Mark Herrick** » 3 Feb 2005 3:37 pm

I think I would prefer that my early 80's model had the 60's-70's style pedals...

------------------

Bobby Boggs · Post by **Bobby Boggs** » 3 Feb 2005 3:55 pm

Did the 64's and early 65's not have slightly more primitive type bellcranks than say the 66's.What I'm trying to say is they looked similar but more homemade.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 3 Feb 2005 5:58 pm

Aesthetically, I just like the wrap design. It looks much cleaner, and I don't think it would have been a big deal to keep the wrap, and isolate the changer from the neck. That would have fixed the temperature/tuning issue, and that was their biggest problem (according to what owners have told me).

Nick Reed · Post by **Nick Reed** » 3 Feb 2005 7:56 pm

I own 4 Emmons guitars. . . .3 are P/P's and one is a LeGrande III.
The nostalga of an original Emmons with the decal rather on the front apron rather than the plaque gives it more of a collectable edge. Two of my guitars are black '66 bolt-on's and as far as I'm concerned they're home to stay.

However, my '71 Emmons rosewood fatback with the cut-tail changer is the better playing of the two.

It plays smoother, sounds rich, and has sustain that will knock you off the wall compared to the '66'. . . (thanks again Stevie Hinson).

Nick

[This message was edited by Nick Reed on 03 February 2005 at 08:19 PM.]

Bobby Boggs · Post by **Bobby Boggs** » 3 Feb 2005 9:12 pm

Donnie wrote:

Aesthetically, I just like the wrap design. It looks much cleaner, and I don't think it would have been a big deal to keep the wrap, and isolate the changer from the neck. That would have fixed the temperature/tuning issue, and that was their biggest problem (according to what owners have told me).

The wrap around didn't have temperature/tuning issue.It's the bolt on changer that's so infamous for that.Right?? I know the cut-tail followed the bolt-on.

Nick are you saying your cut-tail will out sustain your bolt-on? That is unusual if that's the case.The great sustain is the only thing I like about a bolt-on.The temperature/tuning issue drives me nuts.Regards.........bb [This message was edited by Bobby Boggs on 03 February 2005 at 09:19 PM.]

John Lacey · Post by **John Lacey** » 4 Feb 2005 8:30 am

Several "heavies" in the industry have told me that the desireable years were around '67--68. Why, I don't know.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 4 Feb 2005 12:14 pm

"Desirable" for collector's value is not the same as better for tone or playability. I think it is the latter, and the supposed reasons for it, that we are interested in here.

Nick Reed · Post by **Nick Reed** » 4 Feb 2005 10:09 pm

Bobby Boggs,
Maybe it's just my ears, but yes my (Rosewood) '71 cut-tail will sustain better than my (black) '66 bolt-on. The E-9th pic-up on the '71 is wound at almost 1870.

Nick [This message was edited by Nick Reed on 04 February 2005 at 10:12 PM.]

Bobby Boggs · Post by **Bobby Boggs** » 4 Feb 2005 10:37 pm

Thanks Nick.Which one sustains the best unplugged??That's one of the ways I test for sustain. Did you pull a gun on Steve or what?

............bb

John Fabian · Post by **John Fabian** » 5 Feb 2005 3:09 am

'64 wrap arounds do not have the neck connected to the changer as you can see in this picture of my '64 wrap around Emmons.

------------------
John Fabian
Carter Steel Guitars

www.steelguitar.com
www.steelguitarinfo.com
www.carterstarter.com [This message was edited by John Fabian on 05 February 2005 at 03:12 AM.]

Steve Hinson · Post by **Steve Hinson** » 5 Feb 2005 5:55 am

Bobby...I kept the REALLY good ones...

Bobby Boggs · Post by **Bobby Boggs** » 5 Feb 2005 7:33 am

I hear ya Steve.

Now John knows how to get his point across.Thanks for sharing the pix...............bb

Jim Smith · Post by **Jim Smith** » 5 Feb 2005 7:39 am

Hey John, what's up with those four cup-sized cutouts in the body of your '64? I don't think I've ever seen an Emmons with the necks removed, but I know I've never seen anything like that!

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 5 Feb 2005 7:51 am

I think John had some drink holders installed. It's an improvement, IMHO.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

John Fabian · Post by **John Fabian** » 5 Feb 2005 10:26 am

This guitar was originally a stereo guitar. the cutouts were to enable access to what I believe were the tone and volume controls and wiring. The history of this guitar indicates that it was returned to the factory in '65 for some work.

Originally 8P & 0KL, it now sports 8P & 5KL.

Restoration by the inimicable Charles Reece with my humble assistance. I spent a wonderful week workng with Charles learning eveything he had to teach me.

Jim Smith · Post by **Jim Smith** » 5 Feb 2005 11:00 am

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 5 Mar 2005 6:00 am

I have it from a very good source that the wrap-around was Buddy's idea, while the bolt-on and cut-tail were both Ron's ideas. As to the temperature/tuning problem, I stand corrected, it was the bolt-ons that saw most of these problems.

Bill Ford · Post by **Bill Ford** » 5 Mar 2005 6:19 am

Hey John,
I thought I recognised those white shoes, you do know a first class pp teck when you see one, don't you. He also builds a fine CLR, I have one.

Don't you just love to watch him install the rods.

Bill[This message was edited by Bill Ford on 05 March 2005 at 06:21 AM.]

Gary Ball · Post by **Gary Ball** » 6 Mar 2005 4:07 pm

Don't think anyone has pointed out yet that the expansion/contraction tuning problem, if it exists, occured with the metal neck bolt ons and NOT with the wooden necks. Herb can correct me but I think they only made metal neck bolt ons two years. I think 66 & 67. Is that right Herb? And, what has been pointed out many times before all wooden necks had bolt on changers.