Re: A Question for the Real Les Paul Experts
I by no means consider myself and expert but I have and do own quite a few Gibsons. Obviously the 50's models are the holy grail of guitars. Then you have the 60's which saw some great guitars but also a long period without the current Les Paul model.
Short of that, I believe the 70's and most of the 80's should be periods to avoid, this is when cost cutting measures went over the top in my opinion. I'm sure their are good guitars in this era but if you had to choose a somewhat unfavorable time, this would be it. The very late 80's through the 90's gave us some nice Gibsons and I believe that what Gibson is putting out today, in most cases, are very nice guitars. The cheap guitars are cheap, ie faded's and etc, but the higer end, especially Custom Shop stuff is great.
I think most of Gibsons current issues are cosmetic, overspray, odd bumps and dimples in the clear, not things that make the guitars sound bad or play poorly, just little things that'll drive you partially insane, knowing that otherwise you have a great guitar. Every manufacturer makes duds, you can't tell how a guitar is going to sound by smelling the wood, you first have to make a guitar out of it. For whatever reason, Gibson gets a bad wrap for their dud guitars, as if they're the only company that makes them.
Where Gibson takes things to the next level is the Historic line which is second to none, anyone who tells you differently either, hasn't played one, can't afford one or is a blatant hater of Gibson. These guitars are everything that you could want in an instrument, beautiful craftsmanship, amazing tone, and effortless playability. If you haven't experienced the Historic line I urge you to spend some time with a few guitars, you'll be happy you did.
