|
Author
|
Topic: What defines a LeGrande II or LeGrande III?
|
Jerry Clardy
Member From: El Paso, Texas, USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 03:20 AM
profile
On the Emmons LeGrande models, can a single neck guitar be a LeGrande III? When I ordered my D-10 LeGrande II awhile back, Jim, the owner then, said the difference between the models was that both necks had counterforce compensation for the LeGrande III and only one neck had counterforce compensation for the LeGrande II. This was in 2001. Can someone clear this up for me?Thanks,
Jerry[This message was edited by Jerry Clardy on 12 December 2003 at 04:45 AM.] [This message was edited by Jerry Clardy on 12 December 2003 at 04:48 AM.] [This message was edited by Jerry Clardy on 12 December 2003 at 04:49 AM.] [This message was edited by Jerry Clardy on 20 February 2004 at 11:50 PM.] |
Eddie Thomas
Member From: Macon,Ga.,USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 03:41 AM
profile
Hello Jerry, the difference between a Legrande II and a Legrande III, is the III has a counterforce on the E9 neck to prevent cabinet drop. As far as compensators on both necks,I am not sure about that. I hope this helps. Eddie |
Eddie Thomas
Member From: Macon,Ga.,USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 03:42 AM
profile
Hello Jerry, the difference between a Legrande II and a Legrande III, is the III has a counterforce on the E9 neck to prevent cabinet drop. As far as compensators on both necks,I am not sure about that. I hope this helps. Eddie------------------
Eddie Thomas 82' Push-Pull 98' Legrande II 99' Legrande II, and Evans Amps. |
Jerry Clardy
Member From: El Paso, Texas, USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 05:06 AM
profile
What would be the difference between a LeGrande and a LeGrande II? |
C Dixon
Member From: Duluth, GA USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 06:13 AM
profile
The difference between a LeGrande II and a LeGrande III is the III has the counterforce mechanism on either or both necks and the II does not have the counterforce mod at all. In MOST cases the counterforce mod is added to only the E neck by player choice. The mod is expensiv; and most choose to have it installed only on the E neck. There is NO other difference between the two guitars. For those of you who do not know what the counterforce mod does, it simply solves the problem of so-called "cabinet drop", IE, unpulled strings lowering in pitch as others are raised in pitch. When properly adjusted, cabinet drop is ZERO! The terms LeGrande, LeGrande II, LeGrande III and Lashley LeGrande have been confusing since the II's and III's came out. To the best of my knowledge the following is correct. When Emmons came out with their first "LeGrande" guitar in the 80's, it was their first venture into the world of all pull PSG's. Prior to that day, ALL Emmons' PSG's were Push-puls, meaning raises were accompished by pulling the changer finger and lowers pushed the changer finger. This all new "all pulL" was called the Emmons' LeGrande. It was short lived in that it had a short keyhead stock and the changer fingers were supported between each finger. It also had "prototype" bellcranks that did not survive either. Very quickly (not sure how soon) they came out with the Lashley LeGrande and it had a different style keystock (longer) and a changer that was not supported between each finger. It also had newer type 4 hole bellcranks. The guitar was a bit longer in length. Other than than, it was basically the same guitar as the original. Some say it has a different (better) sound. Not sure about this. Shortly thereafter, they came out with the 14 hole bellcranks. IMO, the single greatest change to the PSG since its inception. It was not long after that the late Ron Lashley invented a way to get around cabinet drop; by installing a "counterforce" mechahism under the guitar to counteract strings dropping when other strings were raised. This mod was available on all single necks and one or both necks (on D-10's). To distinguish whether or not the guitar had the mod or not, Ron coined the "II", "III" designations. III's had it and II's did not have it. Since that time, some have referred to the Lashley Legrandes as "I's" although this was never the case from the factory. Jack Strayhorn would be THE expert on this. And anything he says that is different from the above I respectfully stand corrected. carl
|
Jeff Agnew
Member From: Dallas, TX
|
posted 12 December 2003 07:32 AM
profile
quote:
Since that time, some have referred to the Lashley Legrandes as "I's" although this was never the case from the factory.
Just to expand and clarify a point on Carl's excellent response.The guitars debuted in this order: - Push/pull
- LeGrande (short headstock, compact body, all-pull)
- Lashley LeGrande (longer headstock and body dimensions, all-pull)
- Lashley LeGrande III (same as Lashley LeGrande, plus counterforce on one or both necks)
After the LIII debuted, the Lashley LeGrande (without counterforce) was renamed as the Lashley LeGrande II to differentiate it.So although the guitar itself preceded the LIII, the LeGrande II name was the last one introduced. And to further confuse the discussion, Buddy stated several years ago that before its introduction, he wanted to call the original, push/pull model... yep, the LeGrande. |
BobbeSeymour
Member From: Hendersonville TN USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 10:15 AM
profile
The difference between a LeGrande II and a III is I, (or one.) Basic math.
The difference between a Peavey "Nashville 400" and a "Nashville 1000" is 600.
This applies to several other situations as well. bobbeseymour |
John McGann
Member From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 10:21 AM
profile
Bobbe, can you help me out with my taxes this year?  |
C Dixon
Member From: Duluth, GA USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 10:40 AM
profile
So iS a Fender 2000 worth twice as much as a Fender 1000?  carl |
Lyle Bradford
Member From: Gilbert WV USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 10:49 AM
profile
Bobbe went to the old school! LOL! |
Jack Strayhorn
Member From: Winston-Salem, NC
|
posted 12 December 2003 09:51 PM
profile
Carl is correct. The Legrande II was out with the name change prior to the III being designed. But the II was on the market for about a year before Ron had the decal changed. There were a couple of other changes that made the guitar a II other than just the 14 hole bellcrank. The changer was repositioned to get the fingers in a more upright position. This was a request from Hal Rugg along with the 14 hole bellcrank. We also changed the location of the pedal stop bar to enhance the mechanical advantage on the pivot of the bellcranks. The same thing was done to the pedal mounts to gain mechanical advantage. |
Jerry Clardy
Member From: El Paso, Texas, USA
|
posted 12 December 2003 09:55 PM
profile
Hey Bobbe,
What's the base of the basic math here?Thanks everyone for the input. /jc |
James Morehead
Member From: Durant, Oklahoma, USA
|
posted 13 December 2003 04:46 PM
profile
Sounds like cabinet drop math to me!!!  |
David L. Donald
Member From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
posted 14 December 2003 03:31 AM
profile
I suspect Bobbe's working in base 1. But he likes a wide wheel base and
basically goes for 36-24-36![This message was edited by David L. Donald on 14 December 2003 at 03:33 AM.] |
J Hollenberg
Member From: The Netherlands
|
posted 19 December 2003 12:24 PM
profile
In the catalog of 1993 stands that the axle of the Lashley LeGrande is a 1/2 inch.
In the catalog of 1996 stands that the axle of the Lashley LeGrande II is 9/16 inch.
So the axle of the changer from the Lashley LeGrande II is a fraction thicker.------------------
|
The Steel Guitar Forum
