Early 80's 360 thick top

[jdogric12]

Hey gang. Would a '81 360 have a thick top, with a carve similar to the 381 German carve on the inside of the sound hole? Thanks, JD

[BobKat]

Yes, indeed. Many hollow-bodies from this era have very thick tops. I can only surmise that this was about the time they started hearing about caved-in tops on the older hollow-bodies.

[paologregorio]

My AZ WB with a November `84 manufacture date has that. It's noticeably heavier than my MG WB. Kenny Howes picked it up at last year's So. Cal confluence and the weight was one of the first things he commented about. I had no idea, because it was the only WB I owned for a long time, until I bought my MG finish from `91 in `05.The tone is slightly different to the ear as well when played unplugged. Not sure how to describe it; less resonant, maybe?

The fretboard should have a more curved radius than the newer models as well.

[kennyhowes]

My AZ WB with a November `84 manufacture date has that. It's noticeably heavier than my MG WB. Kenny Howes picked it up at last year's So. Cal confluence and the weight was one of the first things he commented about. I had no idea, because it was the only WB I owned for a long time, until I bought my MG finish from `91 in `05.The tone is slightly different to the ear as well when played unplugged. Not sure how to describe it; less resonant, maybe?

The fretboard should have a more curved radius than the newer models as well.

I agree with all of this, except that I've found the 360 models from that period to have a flatter radius than...well, certainly than sixties models.

[jdogric12]

This 81 BG has a very 60s curved radius.

[paologregorio]

The radius on my WB does not have as curved of a radius as some of the 60s models (the 60s models have a 6' radius, yes?), but it is more curved than the radius on either of my 381s, or that of my `91 WB.

[jingle_jangle]

The '60s have a 6 inch radius. My WBs have a 9.5.

[jcreasy]

Hmmm. I've owned and played 360s almost exclusively since about 1984. I had a 360 new style with grovers do not recall the serial number and date (70's), an early '90's JetGlo 6 string (my number 1), an early 90's MapleGlo 12, early 90's JetGlo 12 (my number 2), BurgandyGlo 12 and a BlueBoy 6. They all seemed to have the same thickness on the tops. I've never held a Carl Wilson with the supposedly thinner top.

I know I can be the Forum Goofball, Jackass, but now I am seriously curious. Did the thickness of tops really vary? I always thought they did not. By the bye, I had a 360 12/6 Convertible at one time and I do not remember it being thinner or thicker than any of my others...

All feedback appreciated.

Thanks,

JKC

[jdogric12]

Apparently, I'm learning, there were thick tops in the early 80's.

[paologregorio]

My early 80s WB has the thicker top as described by JDog in his initial post. My `91 WB has a thinner top that appears to be uniform in thickness throughout the top surface, at least so far as I can tell by sliding my finger inside the sound hole and checking. The latter guitar is also audibly more resonant when played unplugged, which would reinforce this assessment. Also the step or rout where the top increases in thickness on my `84 WB is visible through the soundhole when the soundhole is viewed at an angle.

I don't know what the fretboard radius is on my `84 AZ WB; I have a radius gauge, but I almost always change strings one at a time, so I've never had all the strings off and checked the radius. It is visibly more curved than the radius on my `91 MG WB, as well as to the touch, but obviously it doesn't have as pronounced/curved of a radius as the 60s models. I imagine since our WBs are only a year or two apart, Paul, that it is highly likely that my `84 WB has a 9.5 radius as well. If so, it's interesting that a .5 difference from the flatter, 10' radius is visibly noticeable to my eye, as well as to my fingers while playing.

[eggman]

Howdy,

I learn so much on this forum. Regarding the early '80's 300 series and thier thicker tops..who else can compare the amplified tone differences between the modern thinner tops and the older thicker topped models?

Eggman

[jdogric12]

There is definitely a difference unplugged, possibly plugged too. All I know so far is, I played it at the beginning of rehearsal the day I got it, and didn't pick up any other guitars that night, and lots of our songs require a 12-string. It made for a very nice mix with two voices, an acoustic 6-string, drum kit, bass, and congas. I ran it Rick O Sound through a Fender Princeton Chorus (neck) and Roland JC120 (bridge). Very bright, full, needed no compression to sit just right.

[kennyhowes]

thicker top = less feedback?

[paologregorio]

Not sure about that; both the older, thick top AZ WB, thinner top MG WB, and 381/6 seem to be equal opportunity feedbackers at about the same volumes, IIRC from recent experience. I'll double check at the next rehearsal and get back to y'all at that one.

[BobKat]

A thicker top hollow-body, from my experience, sounds much more focused, if that makes sense, with less shimmering overtones, and more of a darker, organ-like tone. Almost like a 620/660. The sound seems to come from a single point instead of from a cloud. Make sense?