Bindings on guitars

Love it on guitar bodies, not as much on necks. I do have 2 with neck binding and those guitars are awesome.

Isn't that like asking if you prefer blondes or brunettes? Kinda depends on the girl, doesn't it?

As long as I'm not in a Bind I think it's great.

Quote from GearJocke

So what's ppl's opinion here about bindings on guitars? Yay or nay? Some love it and some hate it. I love it.

AS long as its done well, I like it. Love it on my Les Pauls but would not want it on either of my Fenders (Strat and Tele)

My opinion, great cosmetic look and finish for LP style, hollows and semi-hollows. I’ve seen it on S-style and I think it makes them look rather clunky with the squared off edges rather than their traditional contoured. Never had any issues with neck binding but needs to be comfortable since that is a more than cosmetic location.

On the esthetic side of things, I believe the binding does emphasize the color of the fretboard, the darker, the nicer it looks with binding. Black binding is a no no for me (seen several guitars like that). Also on the body, good and well done binding is wonderful to look at, its like an small piece of jewelry embeded into the guitar.

Now, on the functional side of things, neck binding has been used to hidde proper fretwork, as normally frets do not extend to the binding border, not the case of gibsons for example as they even have to polish frets to the point of perfection for the binding to properly fit the nibs. Some chineses assembly have poor binding and poorer fretwork, then I dont liken it.

All in all, it is like the black ouline on old cartoons, it makes everything look more refined and present. I like it a lot, but I prefer it off on maple and rosewood fender-like necks that have succulent fretwork.

I'm a builder as well as a player, and even though neck binding adds more work to the build, I definitely like it as a player. Mainly because it eliminates the ends of the frets from the sides of the fretboard. I like this both visually and for feel, sometimes the ends of the frets can feel a little rough or pokey.

I'm referring to real wood binding and I understand some folks not liking the look. Builders usually go for different species of wood that really draw attention to the binding as it is commonly a contrasting colour to the fretboard. However, it does not have to be like this. I currently have a build underway that has a maple neck, maple fretboard and maple binding. Cosmetically, The binding is almost unnoticeable but you get the benefit of having no fret ends, in my view it looks way cleaner. It also adds another subtle layer of craftsmanship

Paul

This thread is nothing without pictures...

How about a 2001 McCarty with wrap around binding...

My 2 cents - I like bindings on my guitars, but only on those its supposed to be on. For example I'm just fine with strats not having a binding because most I've owned do not have it, but believe Tele's look naked without one (and Les Pauls as well). I also don't want a LP without a pickguard, as they dont look right to me without one. YMMV and that's ok too .

I honestly never gave binding, or the subsequent lack thereof, much thought. I just see the whole guitar and either dig it or don't.

I do agree that a lot of perception comes from expectations. If my Strat had binding that would just be weird. I once owned a Gibson Les Paul that had a completely blonde neck. Probably maple, can't remember, and no binding, like you might see on a Strat. This was 1970-something and that was also just plain weird, because Les Pauls just didn't do that sort of thing. Not in public, anyway.

Quote from dmatthews

This thread is nothing without pictures...

How about a 2001 McCarty with wrap around binding...

Wow, love the wood on the body. Your 2001 McCarty is prettier than my 2001 McCarty.

Quote from Chris Duncan

I honestly never gave binding, or the subsequent lack thereof, much thought. I just see the whole guitar and either dig it or don't.

I do agree that a lot of perception comes from expectations. If my Strat had binding that would just be weird. I once owned a Gibson Les Paul that had a completely blonde neck. Probably maple, can't remember, and no binding, like you might see on a Strat. This was 1970-something and that was also just plain weird, because Les Pauls just didn't do that sort of thing. Not in public, anyway.

Wow, love the wood on the body. Your 2001 McCarty is prettier than my 2001 McCarty.

Lol! Thanks.

That shot was taken in the trunk/hatch of my 1990 Celica GTS in the parking lot at work... in the morning light.

She's a 10 top with rosewood neck. Perfect lighting, much different in normal light but still nice.

Quote from dmatthews

This thread is nothing without pictures...

How about a 2001 McCarty with wrap around binding...

technically that's not a binding at all but kudos to Paul for the spin .. and you are forgiven, had forgotten how beautiful that one is, always nice to see it again

so here's another binding that's not a binding i guess, it's a pain to make but i prefer my fret tangs hidden and don't like bound fretboards, to me they just look wrong. i quiet like body bindings on LPs and ES-types however. i hate Teles but if it has to be a tele than one with double binding please.

Quote from stickman

technically that's not a binding at all but kudos to Paul for the spin .. and you are forgiven, had forgotten how beautiful that one is, always nice to see it again

so here's another binding that's not a binding i guess, it's a pain to make but i prefer my fret tangs hidden and don't like bound fretboards, to me they just look wrong. i quiet like body bindings on LPs and ES-types however. i hate Teles but if it has to be a tele than one with double binding please.

Yeah, you're right of course. I'll fix that up later. And that fretboard is killer.

Love the way the inlays peek through the sides!