The place to discuss, post photos, video, and audio of the G&L products (US instruments, stomp boxes, etc.) produced after 1991, including the amps & gear we use with them.
When Leo Fender debuted the G&L ASAT back in 1986, he poured his decades of experience into crafting the finest
single-cutaway guitar he’d ever produced. During the instrument’s design process, he reasoned that the guitar’s body was an
area of opportunity for refinement. The body really didn’t need to be as thick as his first single-cutaway guitar had been — a slimmer
body, he reasoned, could yield both increased comfort and weight savings.
Following years of R&D to optimize weight, performance, comfort and aesthetics, the ASAT was born with a body milled to a sleek 1.625” depth.
Early G&L guitars and basses also shared this sleek body depth, although in the ‘90s the ASAT body depth swelled back to 1.780” in an aesthetic
nod to Leo’s earlier single-cutaway guitar.
For years, enthusiasts have asked for the return of the original 1.625” ASAT body depth, internally referred to as OLS (Original Leo Spec)
by G&L factory craftsmen. Now, G&L is proud to announce that OLS body depth is available once again as a no-cost option on all solid-body
ASAT guitars built in Leo’s historic factory on Fender Avenue.
Sleek, comfortable, and shaving an average of 1/3 pound from the instrument’s overall weight, OLS body depth may be combined with optional
rear contour and arm contour for further weight savings and added comfort. The return of OLS body depth will surely bring a smile to ASAT and
Leo fans around the world.
rhythmicist wrote:I got this newsletter announcement as well.
Would there be a sustain difference between the thicker and thinner body depth?
I sent your question to Dave and here is his reply:
Hi Craig,
My answer is no, it won’t affect the sustain. I understand that when someone reads slimmer, a normal inclination is to think less must be less, more must be better. I’ll try a practical example that I hope will make good sense.
There are variables at work so for me to make the point, this is an all-other-things-equal example (cetaris paribus). Within a reasonable range of body depth, the primary difference in sustain will be the nature of the wood used, particularly its density. Imagine a guitar that is performing very well at the median depth of the reasonable range for that particular piece of wood and guitar design. Now, if I could magically make that particular body thicker and thicker, at some point it would begin to lose sustain. Conversely, if I kept making it thinner and thinner, at some point it would also begin to lose sustain. In the reasonable range, vibrations are happily transferred with enough body wood to promote them and not so much as to dampen them. I’m not going to put values on what constitutes reasonable, because they depend on the particular piece of wood and various design characteristics of the instrument (bridge etc.).
Leo found a spot within a reasonable range that he determined to be an ideal balance for his instruments. Aesthetics would likely be the first thing to seem off kilter, so he didn’t want the body to appear too thin. 1.625” is what we use on basses, Fallout, SC-2, LE-2 and others. So, just about every GbLer is very familiar with the spec. An OLS ASAT may be perceived as thicker than those, just because the edge radius is smaller. It may also be worth noting that this is the depth of the milled body, before finish sanding and before paint. You can take calipers to any ASAT, Tele or similar guitar and get various measurements on different parts of the same body. The point is the finished body of a 1.625” mill-depth body will be slimmer than a body that started out thicker to begin with.
Leo started with an arbitrary depth for the Fender Broadcaster / Tele largely out of convenience. He didn’t know any better at the time; how could he? It was a miracle to make the guitars work and successfully sell them. Optimization follows and in thirty years he’d learned quite a lot. In the early ‘90s we started making ASATs thicker to make them look more like an old Fender. ASATs didn’t perform better, nor did they perform worse, but they did become heavier. Now people have a choice: if they prefer the vintage aesthetic and don’t mind a bit of extra weight, that’s fine, but if they prefer sleeker and lighter, here’s your OLS.
One more thing: an OLS body won’t save money as all the body blanks are cut to a standard depth then planed down to the spec required.
Got my email announcement also and am very happy. This has been one of my biggest reason for not buying a new guitar. In my earlier post I had mentioned my discuss with the newer body thickness when I received Eric's (fumble fingers) 1998 ASAT Classic. I'm hopeful I can order the new Mango ASAT Classic in this thickness.
Now all I have to do is sell a few more of my collection and bing go.
BTW, my sustain on my 1988 ASAT is equal to my 98, the 98 is thicker.
