comradebob
Junior Member
This is a subject that, while minor, has intrigued me for some time. A few years ago I was looking for a decent but relatively cheap 12-string acoustic. A Guild would have been my 1st pick, but 'cheap' was really the operative word at the time. Anyway, after a good deal of poking around, I ran across a thread on some forum I can't recall just now (I have it saved somewhere if anyone's curious), & the OP was an older gent who claimed to have owned, repaired, dissected, etc., a whole bunch of early-mid-70's Sigmas. He said that based on his eyeball experience, the higher-level Sigmas from that period (say, suffix "5" up through "7"), while made in small batches by different Japanese factories, were usually solid wood. I also ran across a disclaimer of that elsewhere by a fellow currently employed by CFM - but, he also admitted that little or no documentation existed within CFM regarding Sigma manufacture from that far back, so I regarded the subject as still open.
Anyway, I bought a Sigma DR7-12 off eBay, the "R" standing for RW, logically enough. Price was a bit under $300, so I figured what's to lose? From certain stigmata (a Gretsch-style 'zero fret' and screw-adjustable saddle, for instance), it dated to the early-to-mid-70's, played quite well with good tone, and was as clean & solid as could be, with lovely RW back & sides. Stout as could be, too - the proverbial 'tank-like' - which at first made me think 'lam', but then I noticed that the overall weight was substantially more in the neck than the body. I naked-eyed & then mirrored-and-flashlighted the inside and outside grain on the body, and damned if I could see any variation between inside & outside.
I then subjected it to an inspection by my long-time picking buddy, a Martin fanatic who was inclined to believe the current CFM position. He spent the best part of an hour on it & was likewise unable to find anything indicating that the B&S were anything besides solid RW. So, I'm still wondering. I still have the instrument & am most happy with it, whatever its construction, but I've remained curious about this. (Not curious enough to saw into it, I hasten to add!)
The story I originally ran across by the fellow claiming they were often solid wood was this: in the early 70's, the Japanese makers found themselves with a surplus of RW, this being before they had started producing large quantities of instruments on contract for foreign (e.g., US) companies, with their existing markets too small to use up the supply - and that CFM, having gotten in on the ground floor as far as having a deal with Japanese makers, ended up with a few years' worth of solid-wood Sigs. I have no idea of the accuracy of that.
One thing that I've pondered: looking at it from an economic point of view, would it have made sense to have very carefully matched the inside and outside grain in a laminate (as would have been the case judging from my guitar), at that time & considering that Sigs were to be marketed at a low price point? How many potential bargain-range buyers in the early 70's were going to be concerned with the solid-wood vs. lam issue? And what would have been the labor cost of doing such careful matching? Here again, I have no answers, just questions.
Anyway, sorry to have gone on so long, but if anyone has any info/opinions, I'd surely like to hear them.
Anyway, I bought a Sigma DR7-12 off eBay, the "R" standing for RW, logically enough. Price was a bit under $300, so I figured what's to lose? From certain stigmata (a Gretsch-style 'zero fret' and screw-adjustable saddle, for instance), it dated to the early-to-mid-70's, played quite well with good tone, and was as clean & solid as could be, with lovely RW back & sides. Stout as could be, too - the proverbial 'tank-like' - which at first made me think 'lam', but then I noticed that the overall weight was substantially more in the neck than the body. I naked-eyed & then mirrored-and-flashlighted the inside and outside grain on the body, and damned if I could see any variation between inside & outside.
I then subjected it to an inspection by my long-time picking buddy, a Martin fanatic who was inclined to believe the current CFM position. He spent the best part of an hour on it & was likewise unable to find anything indicating that the B&S were anything besides solid RW. So, I'm still wondering. I still have the instrument & am most happy with it, whatever its construction, but I've remained curious about this. (Not curious enough to saw into it, I hasten to add!)
The story I originally ran across by the fellow claiming they were often solid wood was this: in the early 70's, the Japanese makers found themselves with a surplus of RW, this being before they had started producing large quantities of instruments on contract for foreign (e.g., US) companies, with their existing markets too small to use up the supply - and that CFM, having gotten in on the ground floor as far as having a deal with Japanese makers, ended up with a few years' worth of solid-wood Sigs. I have no idea of the accuracy of that.
One thing that I've pondered: looking at it from an economic point of view, would it have made sense to have very carefully matched the inside and outside grain in a laminate (as would have been the case judging from my guitar), at that time & considering that Sigs were to be marketed at a low price point? How many potential bargain-range buyers in the early 70's were going to be concerned with the solid-wood vs. lam issue? And what would have been the labor cost of doing such careful matching? Here again, I have no answers, just questions.
Anyway, sorry to have gone on so long, but if anyone has any info/opinions, I'd surely like to hear them.