NGD: Yammie, Yammie, yummie, I got love in my tummie (SG-3 vs. SGV-300)

[novamax]

No, I didn't exactly NEED another guitar. I seriously didn't. But when one's personal #1 shows up for a decent price - What should one do?

I've been in love with the Yamaha SG-3 in Coral Red ever since I saw it. Yamaha's mean take on the Jazzmaster, just more options (additional bridge pickup to be blended with the other one), and more aggressive looking. I don't get why those didn't get re-issued! Too me, it's the best designed solidbody I have come accross (I know it's subjective, though). Their first solidbody guitar (SG) design, their second model (after the two-pickup, otherwise identical SG-2 Link Wray is known for). This baby is from 1967, so it is more than 50 years old. No definition of vintage discussion here, I guess...

Problems for acquisition were:

• It comes in SB, Pearl White, and Coral Red (Something between Race Red and Dakota Red, I guess - really screaming in your face - I love it!). With CR being the most rare, as far as I can judge by personal observation.
• meanwhile Vintage prices (although not comparable to Fenders, this model usually has an asking price of around US$ 1700...2500 - When I started looking, they were quite a little less, ca. 900...1300 €)
• It showed up in Japan or North America, adding another ca. US$ 400 for shipping and customs.
• By 2017, it's not to be shipped to the EU at all (Indian rosewood slab board).

So when our user theworkoffire offered one in my desired color for below a grand, I took a chance (little shipping, no customs, no CITES problems) - Even though this guitar was recovered from desaster: Someone had ripped off the zero fret and gone bonkers with an orbital sander or so, to put on a grimey black color. Tuners, knobs, and the whammy bar were missing, and the whole thing in a desolate condition. As theworkoffire is a respected and obviously proficient specialist in Vintage Yamahas and must have had a box full of spare parts, he restored the whole thing to stock (except a whammy bar which is a fine replica), removing the black goo color and leaving the partially sanded original finish (where the unkown rampage clown before didn't have a go at it...). He gave it its last fret-dress (not much left for next time...), and a full set-up too. I also have to thank him deeply for providing proof of the buying history, so I can register it as CITES-legit being on EU ground pre-2017...

I finally came to string it up, and I shouldn't have bought it: I was pretty convinced that my Squier VM offsets were pretty good guitars. Well, they are - compared to this excellent thing more or less "pretty good". More muddy, less lively. I have Rose PUps with vintage spec for them lying around, will shim and improve some components. But this Vintage Beast is just noticeable more transparent and defined, the tuners are a joy, it just feels pretty natural... I will give it some time, though until the honeymoon is over to draw a conclusion there.

While I am at it, I cleaned, set, and strung up my recently (ca. 2 years ago... I guess I was pretty busy) acquired Yamaha SGV-300. It was a pretty messy, grime- and setup-wise, and had a Mexican Fender Whammy-bar-substitute. I managed to acquire one of the last original spare Whammy bars from Yamaha/EU. As a re-issue of the SG-2a (EDIT: correct is SG-5), I thought it was pretty close to the SG-3 (They even share identical PUps in identical configuration...) - except a dramatically different shape for the body (strangely revers) and the headstock ("samurai headstock" - I like the billhook headstock of the SG better). I didn't care too much for the design, but it was the closest thing to the SG-3 I could get my hands on. Well, it is in no way the same - They are two completely different guitars!

So here is what came to my face on first look/listen (based on my models - There could be hidden modifications in the SGV, whereas I'm pretty sure the SG has been restored by a knowing hand to vintage spec). I used Thomastik Infeld Swing 10s (flatwounds with wound G) for both. Actually, I was going for 11s on the SGV, but read that the vibrato springs take a maximum of 10s, so they are identically strung.

• Scale:
  The SGV is short scale.
  The SG3 is Fender Standard scale
  
• Nut:
  The SG has the Zero-fret/steel-guide I expected.
  The SGV has a bone or most likely plastic nut (although it feels pretty solid like a quality TUSQ nut).
  
• Vibrato/bridge:
  Quite different systems, especially the Vibrato and its consequences. SG looking similar to JM/Jag rocker. instead of a rocking bridge, it has a roller bridge with individually (!) adjustable saddle heights! The intonations screws are one-side-through with spring.
  The SGV has more of a Bigsby-turning shaft thing balancing a block through wich the strings are led completely straight-through. It is very sensitive to tension changes (tune down one string a bit, all others go up - when unstringing the grimey old strings, the high E popped after tuning down the others). It also sports a roller bridge that seems to be rocking to a degree, but has only two outer height adjustments (I have the feeling that the roller saddle heights are not perfectly matched to the fretboard, but a little heigher on the outer strings (haven't measured yet, though). The intonation screws are two-side-through with cap nut but without spring.
• Break-angle:
  The SG-vibrato has a flat behind-the-bridge-offset string end.
  The SGV's vibrato is angled quite steeply, probably still a bit steeper than the often criticized non-vintage-spec mexican Classic Player offset trem-placement.
  
  
• Pickups:
  The neck Pickup is slanted lightly with the SGV.
• Controls:
  The SG has a rhythm circuit. The third roller weel is the bridge mix blender.
  The SGV doesn't have a rhythm circuit but a third shaft pot for the mix blender.
  
• Last but not least: Sound: The SG sounds like a little warmer version of the JM. The SGV too me, sounded quite piercingly with strong trebble. Not sure if I like it, I'll have to let it settle and see about PUp height etc.. although I already gave it a full setup including a cardboard neck shim (temporary, but was required to get the action down).

[HH1978]

Sounds great, but the pictures don't work

[novamax]

Thanks for the feedback. I used the pictures in another forum where I wrote an almost identical post abs that hosts pictures. Strangely, the URL doesn't use my login, and I can see the pictures (maybe rom browser cache).

I will research a solution.

[Embenny]

Wish I could see the photos! And that is one of the most hilarious titles I've seen on a NGD thread in a long time

Edit: I quoted your post so that I could look at the file locations. You've linked photos that are attachments on a Squier-Talk thread. You can't view those photos unless you're logged in to S-T...they do that to prevent loading their servers with requests from other forums like ours. You'll need to upload them to an image-hosting site like imgur if you want to post them here.

[novamax]

You've linked photos that are attachments on a Squier-Talk thread. You can't view those photos unless you're logged in to S-T...they do that to prevent loading their servers with requests from other forums like ours. You'll need to upload them to an image-hosting site like imgur if you want to post them here.

Thanks, you actually did help me a great deal to cut through a problem hard to identify oneself... I will see to it that you'll have the pics soon viewable!

[novamax]

Edited: I hope the fotos work now... Sorry for the hassle, it's my first media based post.

[selectomatic]

Congratulations on your new acquisition! I remember following the thread on your SG-3's restoration and have no doubt you've bought yourself a really solid guitar from a solid guy.

You're right about the SG-3 and the SGV300 being very different guitars: different frets, different radii, different scale, and different electronics. The blender on the SGV works a lot better than that on the '67s; it really does blend, rather than just switching from one sound to another. The SGV is not a short-scale, though, as it uses the normal 'Gibson' length of 628 mm/24.75 inches (which I've always thought was an improvement on its long-scale predecessors). Out of your two Yammies, which one are you finding more playable?

[frelonvert]

the sgv300 is a modern take on the yamaha sg5 from the 60's. Those were also made with the 24 3/4 sclale lenght.

All infos: https://screamingyamahas.wordpress.com/

[novamax]

Congratulations on your new acquisition! I remember following the thread on your SG-3's restoration and have no doubt you've bought yourself a really solid guitar from a solid guy.

Yeah, it helped me decide quickly trusting his proficiency and having a thread of the re-animation surgery with all details . After building replicas and restoring many, he knows what he's doing and is a pleasure to deal with. Such is the guitar.

You're right about the SG-3 and the SGV300 being very different guitars: different frets, different radii, different scale, and different electronics. The blender on the SGV works a lot better than that on the '67s; it really does blend, rather than just switching from one sound to another. The SGV is not a short-scale, though, as it uses the normal 'Gibson' length of 628 mm/24.75 inches (which I've always thought was an improvement on its long-scale predecessors).

I didn't know about some if those details, buy it makes definitely sense, thanks. So it was good not to go to 11s like on my Jag, then. The blender pot with snap-in middle position is definitely much comfortable with the SGV.

Out of your two Yammies, which one are you finding more playable?

It's an unfair comparison, but the SG3. The SGV came with bad truss rod bow, sky high action, electronic outs (either switch defective or loose solder joint or shorty, have to check), and dark brown strings whose overlength was rolled to coils behind the peghead, and the pickups won't come up all the way (probably needs new foam). So it needed and still needs a lot of work to get basics down.

Still, the bridge doesn't match the fretboard radius, to my perception, and cannot be adjusted; the truss rod is loose now with hardly any gap (is it dual action?); the whammy is short and flat, the break angle steep (To me, the JM trem's feel together with third bridge and flat break angle makes 90% of what an offset is... ); the thick edged body is uncomfy compared to the body-soothing lightness of the SG. And the SG sound is ATM too trebbly metallic for me, missing wooden warmth. I'd have thought a shorter scale would make it a little more woody due to string tension. I know I can dumb it down with the tone knob, but then it's less transparent, too. I will meet what makes this as they are supposed to have very similar if not identical pickups - different pots? Or is the overall construction doing that?

So overall, the SG3 is what I was looking for. YMWV, though, and I haven't dug deep so far - You seem to have have both, too: What are your findings? Maybe that helps me what to look out for in the SGV...

@frelonvert: That makes sense! I just compared pics of the SG2a and the SG5 - I wasn't aware of those separate models... Yamaha was really productive and innovative in the 60ies, it seems...

[selectomatic]

So overall, the SG3 is what I was looking for. YMWV, though, and I haven't dug deep so far - You seem to have have both, too: What are your findings? Maybe that helps me what to look out for in the SGV...

I like and respect the SGV300, but I've never been able to bond with it. The controls are well-placed and responsive, and the vibrato is a work of art -- perhaps the best part of the guitar. The frets are bigger than those the '60s Yamahas came with. It also has a flatter radius and that Gibson scale length on a pretty slender neck. All of these are things that I personally like. In addition, the single coils sound great with reverb -- these beasts make awesome surf guitars -- there are lots of sonic options, and the neck pickup sounds huge. They're generally well-made and reasonably priced, and mine stays in tune no matter how much whammy action it gets. The bridge is rock solid, and you don't have to spend weeks studying and applying nail varnish to it. I should be madly in love with the thing, but somehow it always falls between the cracks, if you get my drift.

So what's wrong with it? Nothing, really, but the vibratos on my Jag and SG-3 are about as nice as the SGV's (which is superb), and they give your right hand more room to move around down around the high E string. The neck width, string spacing, and neck profile are decent, but not as comfy as the Jag and SG. It sounds good, but the Jag sounds better. It looks wild, but the SG-3 is wilder and has more gizmos. The stock 'modern' frets are fine, but my SG and Jag are refretted, so that advantage disappears. I always felt that switching from my Danelectro to the SGV was like going from a pickup truck to a sports car, and yet the Dano is more fun, lighter, and has the best neck I've ever played. The SGV is a fine guitar, but I guess it's wasted on me. Still, most of this stuff is subjective; who's to say which neck or pickups are 'the best'?

As for the SG-3, I can honestly say I love the thing. It does have its shortcomings, though. I'd rather play a shortscale or a 24.75, but this dude is scaled like a Jazzmaster. It also shares the old 7.25 inch radius, which always seemed like a bad idea to me; I've learned to live with it on the Jag and the SG, but it's less than optimal.

The SG is less strongly built than an SGV. There's been a lot of adulation for the SG on this board and other places, and it's well-deserved, but there are things that Yamaha could have done better. The tuners are one weak point: the ratio is on the slow side, for one thing. What's worse, however, is their delicacy. Two of the original tuners on my SG-3 have stripped, and I don't think this is just bad luck; keep watching for these guitars ('60s Yamahas in general) on the web, and you'll see examples with non-original tuners on them, or posts from guys asking where they can get replacements. I own an SG-2 as well, and part of me is just waiting to hear that dreaded 'thunk' when I'm tuning it up, as the string goes slack and another tuning machine gives up the ghost. Also, look at the way an SG's vibrato is attached to the body (inside and out), then compare it to a Fender offset or the SGV; look at the size and number of screws holding it all in place and draw your own conclusions. It was also a disappointment to open up an SG and find plastic-coated wiring throughout -- I mean, it's vintage, right, so where's the nice cloth-covered stuff?

With that said, I would sell the SGV300 and feel good about the buyer getting a great guitar. I would never sell the SG-3 -- it just feels, looks, and sounds too amazing. Sure, it's weird, complicated, and doesn't feel as solid as a Fender, but it is a joy to play. It's like being married to a supermodel; you know it's going to be trouble, but in the meantime, you're going to enjoy the hell out of it!

[frelonvert]

I had a sgv300 and I have an SG-2.
The sgv is a great budget guitar. More in the range of a Squier imo. Thin neck, easy and fun to play. The pickup configuration is great but the pickups in themself are so so... you can match the surf/link wray sound but not much more.

The SG-2 is a far better guitar. I think that it is a guitar above his time. The focus to detail is amazing. The bridge is a piece of art, way more well thought and build than any other bridge at the time. In comparation the jazz/jag bridge is laughable. The trem is great. the nut +zero fret are perfect. I don't have any issue with the tuners (pristine guitar so it may age badly, I don't know). Very effective guitar. Yamaha wanted to made a guitar for pro players and I think it was very much it.

[selectomatic]

That's right, I forgot about the SG's zero fret and chrome string guide, another advantage over the SGV. And although the pickups on the two guitars are similar at a distance, they are indeed different in sound and construction.