Why don't PRS guitars have binding?

[k4df4l]

Originally posted by GuitArtMan Gibson Les Paul Custom before refret. You can clearly set the fret does NOT go to the edge of the fingerborad but stops at the binding (you can also clearly see the fret nib) - sucky, sucky, sucky: Gibson Les Paul Standard after a Pro refret with the frets going over the binding - ah, now it plays like it should: Every damn Gibson I've seen with a bound neck was like this. (before being refretted). And every damn Gibson I've seen with a bound neck would benefit from a refret (if it hasn't been done so already). Oh yeah. You can also see how the Gibson frets are filed flat on top - shame, shame, shame. You can see how the refretted Les Paul's frets are rounded - sweet. You can also see that from the low E string to the edge of the fingerboard on both Les Pauls is about the same distance. But from the low E string to the edge of the available fretting surface is not - the refetted Les Paul has more fretting/playing surface. This simply plays better - plain and simple. They do look like they could use a polishing now though...

 

Plenty familiar with the binding on Gibsons however my point was that on my bound SG, there is no "rough" transition between the fret end and the binding nib so it does not present an issue or interupt my playing. The majority of other bound Gibson necks have been similar...perhaps this is due as much to differences in playing style as anything else.

['56Goldtop]

 

Originally posted by GuitArtMan Gibson Les Paul Custom before refret. You can clearly set the fret does NOT go to the edge of the fingerborad but stops at the binding

 

 

It doesn't stop at the binding. It goes to the edge of the fingerboard and is covered by the binding.

 

It doesn't reduce the playability either, at least not for me.

[wsaracen]

 

Originally posted by EC1000 me personally..I think a binded fretboard is nicer to play and I like the look of it. I know that it is harder/more expensive to add binding..that is why I can't figure out why some of the cheaper SE models have it. as far as the little "nibs" on the gibsons..I have those on my les paul custom and never thought that the fret ended there but rather the binding just went over the frets , creating the "nibs"

 

 

 

i dont build guitars but maybe its on the cheaper models because it is easier to throw on some plastic crap than it is to make sure the ends of the fingerboard and the frets are finished off real nice.

 

DOWN WITH BINDING!!!!!

 

 

now if they made a flame maple pinging ona rosewood neck, that would be kinda nice

[k4df4l]

 

Originally posted by wsaracen i dont build guitars but maybe its on the cheaper models because it is easier to throw on some plastic crap than it is to make sure the ends of the fingerboard and the frets are finished off real nice. DOWN WITH BINDING!!!!! now if they made a flame maple pinging ona rosewood neck, that would be kinda nice

 

 

I would actually suspect that it's cheaper to bind under the frets since the binding and fretwork/finishing can be performed as entirely "independant" processes. I am not aware if any other major companies bind over the frets. Gibson's cheaper models don't have binding at all. A few builders who bind over the frets have commented that it's not really all that much more work.

[HackedByChinese!]

I would think it all depends on personal preference. If the fret job is good, then I would much prefer bare wood running under my fingers than a strip of plastic, no matter how good it looks.

if PRS' philosophy is not to use binding, then so be it. I guess it's a "modern v. classic" issue as to appearance.

 

Alembic never binds their guitars-and they can cost over $10,000. Price, then, is not really a factor-be it a PRS or otherwise.

 

Who needs binding when you've got this? Talk about "natural" binding!

 

 

[Paul Buerk]

FWIW, I prefer wood binding on bodies and fingerboards, but I can understand why manufacturers don't do it. It's a hell of a lot more work. But you do get to invest in cool tools like this (one of my favorites):

 

[bspears]

Frets over the binding on my Keith Holland Custom S Strat.

 

[NITEFLY182]

if the resonance is the issue they should be using wood binding like a mcnaught or some of the new taylors.

[georges]

 

Originally posted by NITEFLY182 if the resonance is the issue they should be using wood binding like a mcnaught or some of the new taylors.

 

 

That stuff looks so nice.

[exhaust_49]

I don't know about anyone else here but I want as little plastic on my guitar as possible. Don't get me wrong, I think binding makes a guitar look classy and sexy, but wish more guitars used actual wood instead of plastic. Oh well, maby down the road when I have a custom guitar built for me.

[BrokenRomeo]

I like fretboard binding, it helps me see where I'm at on a dark stage!!

[EC1000]

Originally posted by bspears Frets over the binding on my Keith Holland Custom S Strat.

 

that guitar looks very interesting -how about a pic of the whole thing?

[Sordid1]

From what I have read Paul doesn't do anything on his guitars without a reason so i'm sure there is a reason he doesn't do it. I personally have had both kind of necks and I don't really have a preference. I do prefere my PRS to any Gibson I have ever played but it's not because of bindings.

[Fyngercuffs]

I think binding was originally added to guitar necks to hide shoddy fretwork. PRS, strictly in theory, should not need the binding since those guitars are supposed to offer superior quality.

 

Now, both the PRSi and the Les Pauls (and one Howard Roberts Fusion III) that I have owned have had good fretwork - but nothing STELLAR!

 

Point is....if the fretwork is up to snuff you shouldnt have to HAVE binding to get superior playability. With superior fretwork, binding is purely cosmetic ( IMO ).

 

Tom.FC

[k4df4l]

 

Originally posted by Fyngercuffs I think binding was originally added to guitar necks to hide shoddy fretwork. PRS, strictly in theory, should not need the binding since those guitars are supposed to offer superior quality. Now, both the PRSi and the Les Pauls (and one Howard Roberts Fusion III) that I have owned have had good fretwork - but nothing STELLAR! Point is....if the fretwork is up to snuff you shouldnt have to HAVE binding to get superior playability. With superior fretwork, binding is purely cosmetic ( IMO ). Tom.FC

 

 

so your theory is that adding a bunch of additional work to building the guitar is done to hide not wanting to do a little bit of work on the frets?

[Steve Matthews]

In a way I think the PRS binding is cooler.

 

Or maybe it's just that it is different.

 

Instead of wrapping a piece of plastic around the edges of the wood, they painstakingly leave the edge of the wood its natural color, avoid overspray or paint bleeding that would color the wood.

 

This leaves you with a little bit of the beauty of the natural wood color showing through the top stain.

 

Although this doesn't give you the protection factor of a plastic binding material, you've got to appreciate the craftsmanship it takes to produce it.

 

The traditional method is just routing, plastic and glue.

 

I would admit I prefer a custom multi ply binding, but the natural binding look of a PRS is totally cool as well.

[k4df4l]

 

Originally posted by Steve Matthews they painstakingly leave the edge of the wood its natural color, avoid overspray or paint bleeding that would color the wood. This leaves you with a little bit of the beauty of the natural wood color showing through the top stain. Although this doesn't give you the protection factor of a plastic binding material, you've got to appreciate the craftsmanship it takes to produce it.

 

 

How do they painstakingly do this?

[Jimi Ray Halen]

My Korean made Dean V Select has some of the most beautiful binding I've ever seen. Triple bound all the way around - at least as good as any Gibson I've ever seen or played. So I don't think it's a money issue.

I think he wanted to be different but close to the big two, Fender & Gibson. His scale lengths are right in between at 25". And instead of no binding (Fender - usually) or full plastic binding (Gibson - usually) he did the natural wood thing.

Every detail is well thought out on a PRS. As I said yesterday, my CE 24 is the most well-constructed guitar that I have - but I end up playing my strats and my LP more often now that the honeymoon is over. Why? Tone. More distinctive.

[GuitArtMan]

The binding (on the fingerboard) is cosemetic and is there to hide the ends of the frets, the fret tang, and the fret slots.

[Darkstorm]

Because they dont need binding. Thats a cosmetic thing. I've seen plenty of guitars with bound necks with the fretedges sticking outover the binding out the sides of neck. Mainly on Gibsons and occasional Jackson & ESP's. The binding on those did nothing to eliinate fret edges out sides of neck. So is trully only cosmetic. Myself prefers unbound necks with no fret edges out sides of fretboard.

[k4df4l]

 

Originally posted by Darkstorm Because they dont need binding. Thats a cosmetic thing. I've seen plenty of guitars with bound necks with the fretedges sticking outover the binding out the sides of neck. Mainly on Gibsons and occasional Jackson & ESP's. The binding on those did nothing to eliinate fret edges out sides of neck. So is trully only cosmetic. Myself prefers unbound necks with no fret edges out sides of fretboard.

 

 

 

sorry man, but this comment still could use an explaination from the last time this basic topic came up:

 

 

Originally posted by Darkstorm Has examined plenty of Gibsons with neck binding where fret edges & sharp ones at that, still stuck out sides of fretboard over the binding. Pathetic at even 1/4 the asking price. Doesnt like gibson pups either.

 

[GuitArtMan]

 

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen My Korean made Dean V Select has some of the most beautiful binding I've ever seen. Triple bound all the way around - at least as good as any Gibson I've ever seen or played. So I don't think it's a money issue.

 

Poor example. A newbie at PRS probably starts at around $8 or $9 an hour. He also gets health benefits, vacation, and maybe even some retirement benefits. A newbie in Korea is probably lucky to make $8 in a day, with little or no benefits.

[Mistersuperfly]

 

Originally posted by GuitArtMan Poor example. A newbie at PRS probably starts at around $8 or $9 an hour. He also gets health benefits, vacation, and maybe even some retirement benefits. A newbie in Korea is probably lucky to make $8 in a day, with little or no benefits.

 

 

I think they were hiring sanders a while back for over 10$ an hour...

[billywade]

 

Originally posted by BrokenRomeo I like fretboard binding, it helps me see where I'm at on a dark stage!!

 

 

I agree with this one. I play PRSi, Gibson, Fender and others but I do find it easier to see the dark dots on white binding or dark dots on maple necked guitars. PRS chooses not to offer that as a regular option (maybe on the SAS?). I still like PRS guitars and especially like their sound, playability and trem. While PRS is figuring out how to bind those fretboards maybe they could throw on an extra dot at the 12th fret.

[JimboJ]

 

Originally posted by Darkstorm Because they dont need binding. Thats a cosmetic thing. I've seen plenty of guitars with bound necks with the fretedges sticking outover the binding out the sides of neck. Mainly on Gibsons and occasional Jackson & ESP's. The binding on those did nothing to eliinate fret edges out sides of neck. So is trully only cosmetic. Myself prefers unbound necks with no fret edges out sides of fretboard.

 

 

No one answered my question. If binding is not cosmetic, what is it's purpose? What exactly is being bound?