A
Anonymous
Guest
null
Help Support Tokai Forum:
A
Anonymous
Guest
null
From my limited experience, the Reborns I went through, and the one I kept, played just as well as any Love Rock I went through/kept. The Reborn weighed a lot more, however. The Reborn top was plain, but a really pretty cherry-burst. The other weird part was all the Love Rocks I went through had microphonic pickups. The Reborn did not :-?! I have no idea why. They all sounded great, but I eneded up keeping a few Love Rocks with nice tops and a gold-top along with one Reborn that just had pickups from Hell (I mean that in a good way). If you are not adverse to swapping pickups (or at least potting) and/or controls, I'd go for the sexiest top. It worked for me anyway. That one Reborn I kept just had pickups, and the Les Paul 'decal' blows people away.
LondonBarry said:
Here's one point to consider; I have a 2002 Japanese LS-65 and it has a 3 piece mahogany body. I believe the Reborns had 2 or one piece bodies. Other than that I don't think there's any other difference. Some people argue that the mahogany used 20 years ago will be better than the wood used on today's guitars, due to the increase in pollution, but who knows?
>Some people argue that the mahogany used 20 years ago will be better >than the wood used on today's guitars, due to the increase in pollution, >but who knows?
The wood quality was better couple of decades ago. That time it took longer for trees to grow big and that makes them more close-grained. Today pollution makes them grow faster and that makes big difference.
Look at anything made of 50 years ago and compare it to something made of todays wood and you really can see a difference so probably you can also hear it.
The wood quality was better couple of decades ago. That time it took longer for trees to grow big and that makes them more close-grained. Today pollution makes them grow faster and that makes big difference.
Look at anything made of 50 years ago and compare it to something made of todays wood and you really can see a difference so probably you can also hear it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
null
Paladin2019
Well-known member
sihvoh said:
I can understand how 'aged' wood could sound better, but that pollution crap just sounds like vintage snobbery, and an old man's "things were better in the old days" attitude. A good guitar is a good guitar, no matter how old the wood is, where it came from, how polluted it is, whatever. A crap guitar will always be crap for the same reasons even if it was made in the 50's. I'll never buy a guitar based on 'old is better'.
Peter Mac
Well-known member
Hi Barry,
The "older is better" line is crap - I have worked on some vintage guitars that are absolute rubbish - not every guitar was made on a Wednesday you know.
My only recommendation is the '81 - 85 Love Rocks were far more consistant in the build quality than previous models. For the LS-50 and LS60 (plain Top) the body is made from Sepele mahogany whereas the Reborns used a different mahogany. A reborn LS-80 would be the best value Plain Top but any of the '80s Love Rocks are consistantly good.
regards
Peter Mac
The "older is better" line is crap - I have worked on some vintage guitars that are absolute rubbish - not every guitar was made on a Wednesday you know.
My only recommendation is the '81 - 85 Love Rocks were far more consistant in the build quality than previous models. For the LS-50 and LS60 (plain Top) the body is made from Sepele mahogany whereas the Reborns used a different mahogany. A reborn LS-80 would be the best value Plain Top but any of the '80s Love Rocks are consistantly good.
regards
Peter Mac
A
Anonymous
Guest
null
Novosel
Well-known member
I can state unequivocably (!) that the poly finish will not fade. I have tried and tried for the last 14 years with my mid-80's LR (fortunately it's done in Tokai's Vintage Cherry, so it ain't too bad to look at). If anything, the lacquer will slighty darken or yellow over time - ever see a vintage spruce top Martin? Actually, it's a myth that all old guitars fade. It was only the red analine dye used on 58-60 Les Pauls that was subject to fading - the yellow always remained. Other Gibsons before and after that era have not faded out.
Regarding what year LR to get: if I had the cash to pull the trigger, I'd wait for an earlier model to come along (80's and earlier). The quality definitley was there, but, having said that, I've never played a new MIJ Tokai - maybe they're just as good.
That didn't help much, did it?! :-?
Regarding what year LR to get: if I had the cash to pull the trigger, I'd wait for an earlier model to come along (80's and earlier). The quality definitley was there, but, having said that, I've never played a new MIJ Tokai - maybe they're just as good.
That didn't help much, did it?! :-?
A
Anonymous
Guest
null
I never could warm up to the rectangular blocks on the necks of the Customs. To me the trapazoids on the Standards have much more charm in the looks department. You could also solve the "faded 'burst problem" with a nice Tokai Goldtop. (Or Everest, or Dillion...) The thing on the Customs that I DO like is the bound headstock. That's an extra that speaks quality and additional effort...
Happy new year Barry,
if you decide to buy a Reborn, don’t wait, do it now, they won’t get cheaper. I have two of them, LS-60/80 and I would recommend the LS-80.
LS-80 specs :
One-piece body, big medium to fat neck, fret edged binding, 18deg headstock angle, nickel lightweight tailpiece and original style ABR-1 bridge without retainer wire. Mine has very good stock goto zebra paf’s without cover.
LS-60 specs :
Two-piece body, moderate medium neck, 14deg headstock angle, same hardware but chrome instead of nickel, no brand stamped stock pu’s with chrome covers.
Both have very dark (brazilian?) rosewood fretboards, two-piece tops and electronic circuit boards. I’ve imported them both from Japan and paid about 100$ more for the LS-80 but it’s much closer to an original ’58 plaintop than the LS-60. Both of them sound good but my LS-80 has a little more smack and better tonal articulation.
IMO the newer rosewood boards are reason enough for me not to buy a ’90 or later Tokai, even if they sound as good as the old ones. We all could have gone to the next local music store and buy any Les Paul copy after chosen one out of twenty or thirty if it was only the sound. But it’s the feel, the look, the hype, AND the sound of a Reborn or early Love Rock that makes us thinking about importing them from Japan without trying first.
I did it twice and it’s alright.
if you decide to buy a Reborn, don’t wait, do it now, they won’t get cheaper. I have two of them, LS-60/80 and I would recommend the LS-80.
LS-80 specs :
One-piece body, big medium to fat neck, fret edged binding, 18deg headstock angle, nickel lightweight tailpiece and original style ABR-1 bridge without retainer wire. Mine has very good stock goto zebra paf’s without cover.
LS-60 specs :
Two-piece body, moderate medium neck, 14deg headstock angle, same hardware but chrome instead of nickel, no brand stamped stock pu’s with chrome covers.
Both have very dark (brazilian?) rosewood fretboards, two-piece tops and electronic circuit boards. I’ve imported them both from Japan and paid about 100$ more for the LS-80 but it’s much closer to an original ’58 plaintop than the LS-60. Both of them sound good but my LS-80 has a little more smack and better tonal articulation.
IMO the newer rosewood boards are reason enough for me not to buy a ’90 or later Tokai, even if they sound as good as the old ones. We all could have gone to the next local music store and buy any Les Paul copy after chosen one out of twenty or thirty if it was only the sound. But it’s the feel, the look, the hype, AND the sound of a Reborn or early Love Rock that makes us thinking about importing them from Japan without trying first.
I did it twice and it’s alright.
A
Anonymous
Guest
null
Hi Barry,
Just to make it clear, I’ve seen a few japanese spec. sheets of tokai LS models from late’70 to mid ’80. All of those lower than LS-80, no matter if Reborn or Loverock, have a 14deg headstock angle. It’s hardly noticeable, but if you put both guitars side by side on a plain table you can see the difference. The jap. guy I bought the LS-80 Reborn from told me that one
peace bodies would only be found on LS-80 and higher designated models. But the ’81 catalog stated one-piece backs only for TLS-150/200 so it might have changed after the Reborn period.
Just to make it clear, I’ve seen a few japanese spec. sheets of tokai LS models from late’70 to mid ’80. All of those lower than LS-80, no matter if Reborn or Loverock, have a 14deg headstock angle. It’s hardly noticeable, but if you put both guitars side by side on a plain table you can see the difference. The jap. guy I bought the LS-80 Reborn from told me that one
peace bodies would only be found on LS-80 and higher designated models. But the ’81 catalog stated one-piece backs only for TLS-150/200 so it might have changed after the Reborn period.james
Well-known member
I only noticed the headstock angle thing when I bought a new case for my 81 Love Rock. In the shop I tried the case for fit with a new LR and noted that the headstock nearly touched the bottom of the case. Later when I put my guitar in there I noticed a bigger gap.
My 81 ES100J must have the 18 degree angle, as its notably steeper than the LR, whic I suppose fits with the 18 degree angle only being on the higher end models. Wonder why they did it though? Is it a significantly more expensive process to make a more angled headstock?
As to the number of pieces on bodies and tops I don't think there are any hard and fast rules, just as with Gibson, Fender, etc. For example, my LR is black and as such, by common consensus, should be a 3 piece top, but its definitly a centred-seemed 2 piece.
My 81 ES100J must have the 18 degree angle, as its notably steeper than the LR, whic I suppose fits with the 18 degree angle only being on the higher end models. Wonder why they did it though? Is it a significantly more expensive process to make a more angled headstock?
As to the number of pieces on bodies and tops I don't think there are any hard and fast rules, just as with Gibson, Fender, etc. For example, my LR is black and as such, by common consensus, should be a 3 piece top, but its definitly a centred-seemed 2 piece.
Hi James
a) The case thing can sometimes depend on the neck shaping, headstock thickness or neck to body angle, so measuring will be safer I think. But anyway, the headstock angle doesn’t affect the sound IMO. It affects the string tension and playability.
b) I’m not quite sure when they introduced ES-models. As far as I can refer about ‘80/’81. The spec. sheet of the ’81 catalog states 18deg headstock angles for each ES-model, 100J or R and 150J or R.
The process is more expensive because you need more wood and that’s exactly why Gibson changed from 18 to 13 at the end. At a quantity of 10k to 100k a year you can save a lot of production costs even on a half inch less of wood. Gibson, as usual, argued, that people wanted flatter angles due to headstock crashes. IMO it’s the ‘where can we save money thing’, nothing else. Tokai simply offered highend and less expensive models and therefore needed to reduce (woodpieces, headstock angle, fret edged binding, pcb, Pu’s …).
c) I own a black 1990 Loverock as well. Three-piece back and two-piece top. The complete guitar except the cavities had been stained with a cherry red sealer. The mahogany neck is a lot darker than the bodies’, so the decision of the top finish could have been made due to asthetic reasons.
I would only prove the rule thing during the first years refering to catalogs specs but I’ve seen and closewatched exceptions as well, e.g. a highend solid flametop (definitely no wallpaper, you doubters!) with a two piece back, assumingly being made of honduras mahogany.
a) The case thing can sometimes depend on the neck shaping, headstock thickness or neck to body angle, so measuring will be safer I think. But anyway, the headstock angle doesn’t affect the sound IMO. It affects the string tension and playability.
b) I’m not quite sure when they introduced ES-models. As far as I can refer about ‘80/’81. The spec. sheet of the ’81 catalog states 18deg headstock angles for each ES-model, 100J or R and 150J or R.
The process is more expensive because you need more wood and that’s exactly why Gibson changed from 18 to 13 at the end. At a quantity of 10k to 100k a year you can save a lot of production costs even on a half inch less of wood. Gibson, as usual, argued, that people wanted flatter angles due to headstock crashes. IMO it’s the ‘where can we save money thing’, nothing else. Tokai simply offered highend and less expensive models and therefore needed to reduce (woodpieces, headstock angle, fret edged binding, pcb, Pu’s …).
c) I own a black 1990 Loverock as well. Three-piece back and two-piece top. The complete guitar except the cavities had been stained with a cherry red sealer. The mahogany neck is a lot darker than the bodies’, so the decision of the top finish could have been made due to asthetic reasons.
I would only prove the rule thing during the first years refering to catalogs specs but I’ve seen and closewatched exceptions as well, e.g. a highend solid flametop (definitely no wallpaper, you doubters!) with a two piece back, assumingly being made of honduras mahogany.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes James, definitely a 2 piece top on that Blackie.
james
Well-known member
I guess you're right supernout, I hadn't thought about it really. And the string tension is definitly lower on the LR than on the ES100. Makes it easy to play but sometimes its a bit too elastic. The ES is harder work but a bit more rewarding.
