Sigma DR7-12 (Japan)

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.

When you take out the endpin you will see the wood of the sides and you would see the laminated layers if they are laminated. See here: http://letstalkguild.com/ltg/showth...plywood-back&p=1352935&viewfull=1#post1352935
However there are laminated arched back guitars with solid sides, so even if you see in the endpin hole a solid side does not 100% tell you about the back.
Also yes, there are Guilds with perfectly matched inner and outer grain on laminated arched backs as far as I could read here.
Ralf

I don't know anything about the solid versus laminated question with these guitars, but if the guitar sounds good as is, have your tech toss that adjustable saddle right in the trash where it belongs.

Have him (or her!) fill the gap with rosewood or ebony to match the bridge, rout out a new saddle slot and make a compensated bone saddle.

I had an old Gibson with the adjustable saddle (my guitar tech refers to them as "rattletraps"); he did exactly what I described and the difference was night and day -- it was a whole different animal.

You'll be pleasantly surprised.

What I found on the web is: "DR12-7 12 String Dreadnought: Laminated spruce top. Laminated rosewood back and sides. White binding on body (w/b/w/b/w.) "Ebonized" (blackened) rosewood bridge and fingerboard on some, natural rosewood on others. Peghead and fingerboard bound in white. Pearl/pearloid position dots. Adjustable rosewood bridge to approximately 1975. High gloss lacquer finish. Adjustable truss rod. Covered "economy" tuners. High Gloss finish."
Manufactured from 1970 to approximately 1975[SUP][/SUP].

Mike Hallaron wrote here: (Even if he referred actually to a Korean made Sigma...) "They aren't solid. The Japanese often bookmatched the inside and outside veneers of their rosewood backs to give that appearance. All those "all solid" old Alvarez-Yairi guitars on eBay? Same thing - all have laminated backs and sides."

However a Newbie with only one post posted this info here (you have to scroll down to the second last post): "The original Headstock Logo was SIGMA with a sideways capital M above it. Inside on the label, it said Sigma and beneath that CF Martin and Company. Originally, they had solid rosewood back and sides and a solid spruce top."

So who knows who is right...but at the end the sound is the important think.
And I think wileypickett's advise about the saddle is right. "Adjustable saddles are considered less desirable as they did not come in full contact with the bridge and soundboard, and therefore did not offer full sound or the best quality."

Ralf

That advice about the saddle sounds excellent, and 'rattletrap' is the perfect word Many thanks. I guess until I gut up & pull the endpin, the question will be open on my particular Sigma - but I'm leaning more & more to the laminated B&S position. Whichever and whatever, the thing is good enough to warrant a decent saddle.

I still own a Sigma DR-11 that I purchased new in 1981. It was made in Japan, a very well constructed dread and the inside wood grain seems to match the outside also. I've read that they were known to have better tone than the lower end Martins (I believe, either D-18 or D-28 was referenced) of the same time period. I have seen and played other Sigmas, that in my opinion, didn't compare as well with mine. So, it's probably hit and miss when it comes to Sigma, but there some very good ones out there to be had for a bargain.

I don't really know whether or not solid back and sides make a big difference in tone but what I do know is that I own a 80 Japanese Sigma D10 Anniversary and a 72 Guild D40 and after 30+ years I still can't make up my mind which one I like the most. One thing I do know for sure is that the vintage Japanese made Sigmas are killer guitars.

I had an acquaintance once in the 1970s who had a Martin dreadnought. He walked into a store once and found a new, cheap, but good-looking, Yamaki plywood clone of his dreadnought - it played and sounded better than his Martin, an anomaly to be sure. He bought it and used it. I would imagine though, if he still has the Yamaki, that it would have encountered stability problems where the Martin would have remained largely unchanged. I have seen and played other 70s Yamaki Martins that are fit now only for recycling as toothpicks. I guess the point here is that if you close your eyes and play and the instruments plays well and sounds good/great and if it plays in tune and stays in tune, it is a good instrument. If your Sigma meets these criteria, be happy. It is a good/great instrument. Enjoy it.

I have been thinking about going and looking at this: http://vancouver.craigslist.ca/rds/msg/4670075600.html I have never played a Morris that did not have some redeeming qualities.