Right - you've dropped those two Carvin stories on us before. The skinnier you are, the more you'll appreciate a tummy cut.ĥ'11', 165 pounds. Tummy cuts have nothing to do with fat - they have to do with ribs. That's why I said at this point it's all about what you prefer I've never cared for the Gibson '50's baseball bat and have always preferred a thinner neck. ]Neck shape is, again, a subjective choice. It is possible for both companies to do good work.įurther Gibson's LPs generally come set up with a fairly high action as a factory default if you prefer that, fine, but if you try to lower the bridge you'll usually find that you have to re-cut the nut as well to avoid buzzing on frets above the 12-15th fret positions. There you go doing what I initially accused the other poster of doing. Every Gibson I've had except for on faded SG has had flawless fret work also. Carvin's fretwork *without* a PLEK machine in sight is better than Gibson's with their PLEKs.Ĭarvin does good fret work. Gibson does its PLEK jobs completely differently from the way they're supposed to be done, and they do them before there's hardware, strings or even PAINT on the guitars. I can set the action lower than I can comfortably play without any fret buzz The LP's PLEK'd fretboards are laughable - I had to have my Axcess re-PLEK'd to eliminate fretbuzzing The first thing that struck me when I got my DC127 was how small it was

My 'hollowed out thing' weighs 9.5 pounds. Honestly, I prefer a substantial guitar as well, and prefer a solid body to the hollowed-out things that gibson is selling. Look at where I came in and who I was addressing. You don't GET personal preferences on a Traditional, for example, other than what, a choice of three or four colors?Īnd I didn't say 'it blows the gibson away' so don't put words in my mouth.įollow the thread. The quality of build on a carvin is often better (certainly if you compare guitars at the same price) * and* you have a huge number of options.

Dating carvin guitars