1970s Yamaha FG-260 12-String Guitar
This "oversized dreadnought" (16" lower bout) 12 string really is not bad at all. It's one of the Taiwan-made Yamahas with a 7-digit serial number that's essentially meaningless (many Yamahas can be dated to the day of manufacture) and despite my usual inclinations to skip over any old Asian-import 12-string... I did take this one in trade without rolling my eyes!
It was just -- rather clean! After a fret level/dress, tiny bridge shave, string ramp additions, and a new bone saddle and strings... she plays great with standard 3/32" bass and 1/16" treble action at the 12th fret. I did tune it all the way up to concert E-E pitch with the set of 10s on it (smooth sailing), but I still always suggest folks keep these tuned down a step anyway on long-scale models (like this one).
The guitar is all-laminate in build (spruce over mahogany) and the finish is rather thin, thankfully, which means that the lightweight laminate resonates well. 12-strings have the advantage of generally sounding at least decently good regardless of material as long as the underlying bracing is well-executed (which this is).
For a mid-70s guitar, I think this has held up very well and aside from some buckle rash or weird scratching on the back, it's relatively clean. It could be a 10-15 year old instrument.
If it were a little bit smaller (00 size or similar) I might be suckered into keeping this guitar for recording with. I just don't get along with dreadnought bodies these days, though, as they tire my right arm out with the way my attack has evolved after playing archtops for years.
The slotted headstock and functioning truss rod are nice to have. I'll have to measure for real but the nut width felt just a little over 1 3/4" though the neck's shape is a medium D with a good amount of heft. That's probably why it doesn't have odd twisting over time.
Radiused, rosewood board with faux-pearl dots.
Adding string ramps and switching the saddle out to bone significantly improved clarity and punch with this guitar.
The neck is one big hunk of mahogany except for the stacked heel design.
As you can see, despite many years of tension the top has remained stable.
The "appointments" are vaguely after Martin style 18 in inspiration.
Comments
I think overall top thickness, neck stability, and bracing style contribute way more to good sound than whether or not a top is solid wood.
It's also about the laminate you do use, too: some stuff is junk that warps and falls apart more easily and some stuff is just fine.
I'm -still- wanting to build a nice mandobass for myself and I'm certainly going to use lam for that... on such a big surface you're bound to just get a ton of cracks otherwise.
the bridge is intact, but it has a big tilt and bowed the body out.
i plan on using a JLD bridge doctor to repair this problem.
Would you advise against this ?
or would you suggest any other idea?
I hope my comment is not too long.
I've had my FG260 for +20 years; I must say I don't play it a lot, only at home.
When I bought it in the 90's, I confess it was because it was cheap, and I loved the look of it and I didn't have a XII.
Slotted, viper head with sparrow bout cut. It is a real beauty.
It is very, very light, which is nice.
The sound is not very powerful, but it is very airy, full of chime that gives it a really unique nice tone. Low end is limited, but the sound is overall well balanced.
I once played it with only with 6 strings like a regular guitar, just to have an idea of the general quality of it. I was quite disappointed, it really sounded cheap. But as a XII, it sounds good, for some mysterious reason.
Now, in 2019, March I bought another XII, a cheap (200€) ThreeS Suzuki, also slotted head. The ThreeS's are close to perfect Martin copies from the 70's. I've already own for 15 years a parlor 0021 Martin copy, that sounds so good (all massive top and back! sides I don’t know), so I bought without hesitation that XII ThreeS.
The ThreeS are powerful guitars. When I jam on my Parlor 0021 copy with friend, that tiny guitar is punchy, louder that all the others together. And the XII ThreeS follows the rule: it has a very loud, powerful, rich sound. And the build quality is excellent.
.../...
When I sing, with the Yamaha, I can just sing at a normal speech volume; With the Suzuki, I need to raise my voice close to shouting. That is how different they are.
So, now I have 2 XII. Which should I keep?
The Suzuki XII is twice the weight as the Yamaha 260. Quite a neck diver, not too much though.
Aesthetically, I still prefer the Yamaha. The Suzuki is quite anonymous. Like comparing a nice 60’s Italian car and a 70’s Volvo 244.
Undoubtedly the Suzuki shows a better building quality, the back of my Yamaha e.g. shows the plies (I think that "peeling" is original, looks cheap, ugly), but the Yam is still good looking from the front. Tuners are good, even funny looking.
The rosewood on the Yamaha shows a better quality grain (bridge and the neck). On the Suzuki, the rosewood on those 2 parts is more porous, sign of a lesser quality wood.
The sound is objectively better on the Suzuki;
It is on the whole more masculine, while the Yamaha is delicate, feminine sounding.
And to end this comparison:
- The Yam truss rod is rattling on certain notes, which is a drag.
- The spacing between the 2 strings (in a same pair) is broader on the Suzuki. As I play finger picking on some compositions of mine, the spacing on the Yam appears to be more suitable for me.
- Both guitars (like many MIJ acoustic) show quite a top belly under the bridge. But that is easily solved by lowering the bridge nut, grooving a canal in the bridge between the pins and the nut to lower the stings and keep a correct angle, for sustain and against buzzing should the angle be to too open. If necessary lower a bit the whole bridge by filing (as explained by StewMac on You Tube)
I am in a real dilemma.
I got to the conclusion they are both different guitars. The Yamaha is probably good for studio recording or homely use.
If I had to go on stage with a XII (which is not on my current musical agenda) I'd use the Suzuki which feels more reliable.
Also, by experience, thin sounding guitars that sound good acoustically, can sound bad once amplified.
So I thought I'd keep the ThreeS and let go the Yamaha.
I put it in sale on a local sales network, and I was surprised by the number of answers, people wanting to offer me more money to beat other bidders. I finally closed the deal with a buyer, but the day I was to meet him, but ....that's ridiculous, ... I couldn’t leave home, because I was so emotionally overwhelmed for the Yamaha, I was paralyzed, like struck by a panic attack, in front of my door and couldn't go out. I called the guy and told him I wasn't able to go out. He laughed, raised his bid again, and again, and again, which I declined explaining how I felt, and he laughed again, as he also is a guitar lover he told me he understood. I told him I needed more time.
Now weeks have passed and I was wondering if I was not in possession of a real sleeper, because I only read positive comment about it. So I made an ultimatum to myself: I decided the Yam would get a correct set-up: for the head nut, currently a nasty plastic one resting on some plastic cardboard sheet, and the bridge nut. And solve that rattle.
Hopefully it will sound a bit better, and I then will make my decision.
That is what I wanted to share!
Cheer!
I also have a Yamaha FG-260 that has been siting in my closet for 20 years with a missing saddle. I don't know if you have heard of Stewmac however, they are a large supplier of guitar and luthier parts, tools, etc. I have just ordered a bone saddle from them and plan to do a minor restoration o the guitar.
Alan F.
Mike C