Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

"Swiss Cheesing" is NOT weight relieving. Most people call it that now though looks like.
Unless I am mistaken, Gibson was caught with X-Rays putting just horrible random and nasty holes in their guitars- nothing neat like the the "chambering" was shown in the xray early in this thread. ;
THAT is "Swiss Cheesing".


swiss.cheese.jpg
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

^ who cares? the holes are covered by a slab of maple then painted.

stop crying; play guitar. ****
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

"Swiss Cheesing" is NOT weight relieving. Most people call it that now though looks like.
Unless I am mistaken, Gibson was caught with X-Rays putting just horrible random and nasty holes in their guitars- nothing neat like the the "chambering" was shown in the xray early in this thread. ;
THAT is "Swiss Cheesing".

You keep talking about these photos as if they're not in this thread. There are two photos in the original post, one of the chambered version, and one of the weight relief version, which has the swiss cheese look. The weight relief photo is the one that got Gibson in trouble with customers, and it's been going around the net for years now. I am not aware of any other photos of x-rayed weight relieved LP's.

I don't understand why you say swiss cheesing is not weight relieving. Of course it is, because:

1) Wood is removed. Wood weighs far more than no wood. Thus the guitar's weight is reduced.

2) If it's not for weight reduction, then WHY ON EARTH DO IT? To vandalize their own guitars for no reason at all? Or in the hopes that x-ray photos will show up on the net and harm their reputation?

It's extra work that takes extra time and thus costs Gibson more money because they have to pay their employees to do it. It would be a little easier, faster and cheaper just to just glue the maple cap on and not bother with grinding out those holes. Apparently they think it has some positive effect in either altering the tone for the better or reducing the weight, or both. Whether it actually results in a better tone is another question and in the ears of the beholder. But there's no question that it reduces the weight.
 
Last edited:
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

"Swiss Cheesing" is NOT weight relieving. Most people call it that now though looks like.
Unless I am mistaken, Gibson was caught with X-Rays putting just horrible random and nasty holes in their guitars- nothing neat like the the "chambering" was shown in the xray early in this thread. ;
THAT is "Swiss Cheesing".

"Swiss Cheesing" is a term I first heard FROM A GIBSON EMPLOYEE, so It is a term used at Gibson...the 2nd pic in the 1st page of this thread is what Gibson calls Swiss Cheesing and FWIW, thats the same pattern they have been using since 1983.

They never drilled random holes in random places and if you can find proof I'd love to see it.
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

They never drilled random holes in random places and if you can find proof I'd love to see it.


This is news to me too..........I know the nine hole pattern as "swish cheese" they've been doing since 1983. I've never heard about the random method thats being mentioned. I beleive it to be internet folklore. Although, it should be noted the Les Paul Class 5 has something like 17 weight relief holes. I have one and it's tone is incredible! One the other hand, I play, I never cared as long as the tone is there. I sold a 78' becuase is was a total dud. No holes in that one! Not a pancake either, just a heavy solid body dud tone wise!
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

I wonder whether those who liked the chambered Les Paul compared it to a 339?
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

I have a chambered LP Classic Antique. (8lbs 4 oz) and an ES 335 (8lbs 11oz) and the ES 335 sounds better. Warmer, sweeter in tone. The LP lacks a little bit in the low end.
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

The 335 (and 339) is also made mostly of maple. Not entirely a 1:1, though would certainly look at both if I was in the market for something Gibsony...and as a matter of fact, I am.
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

I wonder whether those who liked the chambered Les Paul compared it to a 339?

Not at all the same thing. My buddy has a 339, and it's very much a semi hollow body, which is nothing like a chambered guitar. Completely different sound and feel.
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

Part I

I consider myself a Strat (G&L Legacy) guy, but I've had some kind of LP or clone continuously since 1973. After all my gear was stolen in 1972, I bought a great little Univox '59 Sunburst copy. I got a killer deal on a six-month old 1975 Les Paul '55 Special Reissue, and bought my first LP 1960 Classic Plaintop in 2002. I sold it to get a better Les Paul, and I've been obsessed ever since. I play classic rock, blues, jazz and country in a cover band.

I currently have ten Les Pauls. Five are chambered: two Les Paul Supremes in Root Beer and HCSB; two GOTW Classic Antiques, a Fireburst and the Tom Morgan Artist; and a Custom Shop Peacock Blue Elegant. Three are solid: a 2005 Gloss Washed Cherry R8 '58 Historic Plain-top, and two Guitar Center G0 1960 VOS Plain-top Tobaccobursts. Two are "swiss-cheesed": a 1996 HCSB 1960 Classic Premium Plus and a 1995 Honeyburst 1960 Classic Premium Plus. I also have a 2007 Antique Sunburst ES-335. I got the '58 Historic from GC, another blowout--the last of the GLOSS '58s before the VOS guitars came in. The first the Tobaccoburst VOS fulfilled my desire for a Historic with a smaller neck; but the second one had some minor store damage, er... "relicing", and was sold to me at cost. Too cheap to pass up, especially since I liked the first one so much.

I have been very lucky in finding some great deals on these guitars. some were bought with an eye for investment, others for their functionality, others becasue they were too good a deal to pass up. I bought the Supremes after their headstocks had been broken and repaired, for virtually pennies on the dollar from Guitar Center. The 1960 Premium Plus Classics were also Guitar Center blowouts, new guitars that they'd bought from a local shop that had gone out of business. The two Classic Antiques were bought from different dealers, but also at blowout prices. (Most guys think the Tom Morgan Artist is a hideous finish, but I love it.) I bought the Elegant used, also a great score, almost $1,000 under book value.

So, my two "beater" guitar are the $3,500 LP Supremes, LOL. I actually do take all of the guiitars out and play them, though there's a couple I'm tring to make sure they don't get too damaged. I do have favorites, and I suppose if I had to cut it down to one LP, it would be either one of the Tobaccoburst G0 VOS Historics. I polished off all the VOS gunk with Virtuoso Cleaner and Polish, and they now have a beautiful shine and patina. I am very lucky indeed to have so many wonderful guitars.

I've made only a few changes to them. All of them get Schaller Strap locks, and most get a metal jackplate for reliability. I've added Gotoh LW tailpieces to the 1960 Classics, the Supremes and soon to the Elegant. The 1960 Classics have Antiquitys and Anniversary A2 Seth Lovers; one Supreme has Seths (the other one is getting a set of Pearlys); and the rest all have stock pickups. Weights run from one Classic Antique at 8.2 lbs. to the Elegant at 9.4 lbs. (even though it's chambered!)

Bill (to be continued...)
 
Last edited:
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

Part II (continued)

Now when it comes to the tone of the chambered guitars, it's hard to get a handle on the situation. The Supremes have the ebony fingerboard and maple caps on both front and back. They seem to have a tighter, more focused attack than the Historics--they pretty much sound like a LP Custom, and that's basically what the Supreme is: a chambered Custom.

I don't hear much differerence between the chambered Elegant and the 1960Premium Plus Classics. The Grovers, the Nashville Tune-O-Matic, and the ebony board of the Elegant seem to offset it's chambering. All of these guitars have the short tenon, and Slim-Taper necks; but other than pickups there's not much to choose from tonally. (The Classics have ABR-1 bridges, btw.) The Elegant hits at 9.4 lbs., but the weight-relieved Classics hit at 9.1 and 9.2 lbs. Go figure.

The chambered Classic Antiques are where the fun starts. They just don't have the weight we associate with a Les Paul. One is 8.2 lbs, the other 8.7, yet they sound identical. They have the open-top Classic '57/'57 Plus pickups, and I think the '57 Plus bridge pickup is a great sounding rock and roll pickup. They have the 1960 Slim taper neck, and Nashville Tune-O-Matics. The lack of weight makes the feel..., shall I say, "cheap", but they have a great tone--Les Paul thick with great sustain and resonance.

What I find so interesting comes down to that one word: resonance. Pickup any one of the Historics and strum a chord. You'll feel the entire guitar vibrate. Touch the headstock and you can feel the guitar vibrate all they way out to the tip. That is one of the things I look for in an acoustic guitar, and I can almost instantly tell if a new guitar is going to be a great one. I played a BUNCH of Norlin-era Les Pauls a few years ago when I started looking for a new LP, and NONE of the them had any resonance at all. They just felt like dead, inert rocks. No thanks.

And the only Pauls that I have that resonate like the Historics are..., suprise: the very chambered, inexpensive Classic Antiques! They just feel like a Greyhound or a Thoroughbred horse that just wants to run. They are very lively, and fun to play. Yes, they will feed back under high volume, much like the ES-335 will, but it is very musical and controllable. It's not the focused, penetrating tone of a LP Custom. These have an open, airy, dynamic tone that works great for classic rock, blues and jazz. There's definitely some magic going on here.

I love the vibe of the Historics, and I think they're hard to beat. The Guitar Center G0 VOS guitars offer tremendous bang for the buck. I think the Historic LPs are the best Gibsons. The 1960 Premium Plus Classics with the LW tailpieces and upgraded pickups have about 90% of the vibe of the Historics. The Elegant is in a (very-upper) class by itself. The Supremes are just drop-dead gorgeous; and the Root Beer Supreme with the Seth Lovers can handle any and all of the classic rock, jazz, blues and country I can throw at it. The HCSB Supreme with the stock 490R/498T likes hard rock. I'd have to say that this one is the prettiest guitar I own, with just a fabulous top and back, and unbelieveable color gradient.

The Guitar Of The Week Classic Antiques may someday be collectibles, but they're too good to just sit in the case. Chambered or not, the Classic Antiques have some magic to them. The special GOTW finishes are fun, too. I was sad when Gibson discontinued the CA Series.

I think we often get too hung up about construction details, without looking at the whole picture. I've had guitars that should have been great, at least on paper, but were somehow less than the sum of their parts. I also have some inexpensive guitars--Ibanez, Hondo, Univox--that trancend their humble origins. It's all about finding the right guitar for your style, and finding the right guitar for the song--and don't worry about the price and the headstock label.

The real joy of playing doesn't come from the instrument, though I can't argue against owning a great instrument. The joy comes from deep inside of you. It's not about the chambering, trust me. It's important to play a lot of guitars, to discover what you like. But the process is so much easier when you know yourself, and you're happy with the person inside.

Bill
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

You keep talking about these photos as if they're not in this thread. There are two photos in the original post, one of the chambered version, and one of the weight relief version, which has the swiss cheese look. The weight relief photo is the one that got Gibson in trouble with customers, and it's been going around the net for years now. I am not aware of any other photos of x-rayed weight relieved LP's.

I don't understand why you say swiss cheesing is not weight relieving. Of course it is, because:

1) Wood is removed. Wood weighs far more than no wood. Thus the guitar's weight is reduced.

2) If it's not for weight reduction, then WHY ON EARTH DO IT? To vandalize their own guitars for no reason at all? Or in the hopes that x-ray photos will show up on the net and harm their reputation?

I am going to try and find that picture Xray. It may have been a fluke, but there was a picture in a thread with just a bunch of mutitalted holes on a Gibson doen from the factory..like I said, I know I saw it, I can't find it, and whether it was legitimate I'm not certain.

It's extra work that takes extra time and thus costs Gibson more money because they have to pay their employees to do it. It would be a little easier, faster and cheaper just to just glue the maple cap on and not bother with grinding out those holes. Apparently they think it has some positive effect in either altering the tone for the better or reducing the weight, or both. Whether it actually results in a better tone is another question and in the ears of the beholder. But there's no question that it reduces the weight.


I am going to try and find that picture Xray. It may have been a fluke, but there was a picture in a thread with just a bunch of mutitalted holes on a Gibson doen from the factory..like I said, I know I saw it, I can't find it, and whether it was legitimate I'm not certain.
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

Or you know what would be awesome is if The Gibson CS took the maple cap off and added a 10 watt solid state amp with a 4 inch speaker and digital effects, that would be awesome. I would pay big bucks for that.
 
Re: Chambered LPs vs. Weight Relieved...

Get them filled with real Swiss cheese. Y'know, just to **** with peoples heads....
 
Back
Top