Are the Les Pauls better?

DeanSweden

DeanSweden

New member
I've been eyeing a new guitar the last few months and I think I made a thread bout it earlier this year?!
Anyway, the guitar in question is a Gibson Flying V '68 that once was $1300 but now at $1000.
Well, since the dollar is pretty low, it translates into a price that suits my wallet :)

But when I look around for researching purposes, almost every retailer has the Les Pauls priced higher than the
Flying V, or even the SG. I wonder ... why is that?

They're not THAT different in age(Flying V: 57/58, Les Paul: 52/53 and SG: 61) and while the LP more or less seems
musically iconic, the other 2 does have their fair share of players with iconic status. hell, Jimi played all 3.
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

Anything with a carved top and/or binding and/or flame maple (and the associated finishing of said flame maple, often some kind of burst job) is more time consuming and costly to produce.

and yes, star power counts for the Les Paul as much as anything else. originally Mr. Les Paul's name being on it would account for a higher price tag and more publicity for Gibson right off the bat. Keith Richards brought one to the UK in the 60s and it's been getting more popular for rock and roll ever since.

The sound, man. The sound! Listen to that sound. A lot of people think that unique thick growl and bite is worth more, especially when combined with the above.

So, are les pauls better? Maybe :naughty:. But they cost more *at least* for a few good reasons.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

Good or bad is subjective. They'll have a more restricted upper fret access, and a different tone....more mids focussed and thick. The V is a thinner slab of wood and has much less bulk where the strings are routed. You'd need to try both through an amp to see what fundamental tone suits your playing more.
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

Flying Vs also sound very different from each other. I think the lamination (the separate top) in the Les Pauls add quite a bit of consistency in the face of varying wood quality.

The one cut neck mount also leads to more predictable properties. The "no sides" neck mounts seem to come out "more random".

Most Vs don't even have neck binding or fancy inlays. Gibson differentiates the price heavily on these little things. The V has no body binding, no neck binding, dot inlays and doesn't need the crazy tunneling to connect the 3-way switch. Most don't even have a separate plug (plug in pickguard).
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

I think it's sort of a combination of the material/finish cost and the name of Les Paul that makes them more expensive than the V, SG, Explorer and so on.
I think people are more willing to pay more for a Les Paul than a V, even if they would cost the same for Gibson to make. Just for the Les Paul name.
That said, my next guitar will be a white Flying V. My current main guitar is an SG Special. Les Pauls are too heavy for my puny shoulders (and too expensive for my puny wallet). :P
A Les Paul Junior is on my list of wants tho, so some day I'll get a Les Paul (for cheaper than a V).
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

The Les Paul Standard is the standard of all production guitars ever made. The flying V is not.
Some people play V's, love them and I also love my Flying v, but that does not make them the standard of all electric guitars ever made.
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

Just buy them in this order.

Les Paul Std.
SG Std.
ES-335
A P-90 model
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

The Gibson Flying Vee and Les Paul Standard each have their advantages and disadvantages. To my mind, the Vee is a visual prop first and foremost whereas the LP is an entirely functional object. (Les Paul's solid body concept tailored by Ted McCarty to Gibson conventions.)

The detail that puts me off certain Vee versions is the V-shaped tailpiece. The string break angles that this creates over the Tune-o-Matic bridge invariably create an imbalance in the string tension. Obviously, juggling with gauges can partially correct for this phenomenon.

At the absolute bottom line, the deciding factor between a Lester and pretty much any other design is that "steamroller" runaway sustain under high gain amplification. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I own one Gibson Les Paul, one PRS ("pre-lawsuit") Singlecut and zero Flying Vees.
 
Re: Are the Les Pauls better?

The run-of-the-mill pointies have always been cheaper than bound Les Pauls. They are placed at a lower trim level than LP Standards and Customs. They're more in line with a Les Paul Junior or Special in terms of trim. For Gibson, they are easier (i.e. faster, i.e. cheaper) to make than carved top Les Pauls, and they don't cost as much in materials.

Well, I shouldn't say "always," as I don't know what these things cost in relation to each other when they first came out...but let's just say, "for as long as I can remember."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Van Halen's Tone : breaking the sound barrier
Replies
9
Views
2K
Pat_rocks_and_rolls
P
MetalManiac
What is ( are) the Huge Glaring Hole(s) in your Guitar collection?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
12K
TheLivingDead
TheLivingDead
MetalManiac
Les Pauls Standards are the biggest bargain !
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
DrNewcenstein
DrNewcenstein
Iron Horse
What guitar(s) are synonymic with these decades?
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
Ventilator
V
J
Which Duncan sounds the most like a Burstbucker?
Replies
8
Views
2K
claytonc
claytonc
Back
Top