Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

[Lucid_Lunatic]

I got a buddy who called and had got a couple of Gibson Les Paul Standards in. I was always under the impression that everything since the 80's (other than the R stuff) was weight relieved.

My Premium Plus and Gold Top Classic weigh close to the same, around 9 to 10 pounds. The 2 I looked at today was an 04 and an 05 Standard, both were maybe 6 or 7 pounds, considerably lighter than mine anyways. It has got me to wondering, was I wrong assuming my 96 Classic and 03 Premium Plus are weight relieved?

 

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

I got a buddy who called and had got a couple of Gibson Les Paul Standards in. I was always under the impression that everything since the 80's (other than the R stuff) was weight relieved.

My Premium Plus and Gold Top Classic weigh close to the same, around 9 to 10 pounds. The 2 I looked at today was an 04 and an 05 Standard, both were maybe 6 or 7 pounds, considerably lighter than mine anyways. It has got me to wondering, was I wrong assuming my 96 Classic and 03 Premium Plus are weight relieved?

The Pauls from the 80's on have the "swiss cheese' weight-relief. Your 96 and your 03 should have this same weight-relief, as should the 04 and 05 Standard. In 2006, Gibson started using the chambered bodies on most of the their line, other than the Historics.

I have ten Les Pauls, including two of the 2006 GOTW Classic Antiques (the Fireburst and the Tom Morgan Artist) and both are chambered. One is a feathery 7.8, while the other one is 8.6. Weights of Les Pauls can be all over the place; but other than these two, most of mine are right around 9.1 lbs., give or take. Even my chambered Elegant--9.1 lbs. I have two Supremes (chambered, with the maple back cap); one at 8.9 and the other at...yep, 9.1 lbs. My two mid-90's Classic Plus LPs, are right at 9.1 lbs. I have three Historics, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4 lbs.

Typically the 1960 (R0) and 1959 (R9) use the lightest mahogany bodies. I've seen solid R9's weighing as little as 8.3 lbs. And that's lighter than some of the chambered "Cloud Nine" series guitars!

It strikes me as VERY odd that the two Standards are so light. It would be interesting to check their weights on a scale of known accuracy. I can't account for the light weight, but I suppose that they could be chambered. A tap test or an x-ray is the only sure way to tell. You might peek inside the control cavity. And they might just be naturally light.

And remember, light might be easier on the shoulder, but it doesn't always mean great tone.

Bill

 

[BigJoe77]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Maybe you were just feeling extra strong and everything seemed lighter.

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

The weight relieving thing makes me want to kick Gibson in the head. The principal is bad in and of itself.....but how come I ended up with an 11lb Custom?! The fact that wood made it into a guitar is outrageous.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Standards from 2005 on should be hollow.

Everything else except historics, but including Custom Shop non-historics such as the regular LP Custom are swiss-chessed.

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Everything else except historics, but including Custom Shop non-historics such as the regular LP Custom are swiss-chessed.

Which is ludricous might I add.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Yeah. Even if Gibson somehow only gets heavier mahogany than all the other manfacturers (cheaping out, eh?), in the specific case of a LP Custom the customer even expects it to be a heavy pig. Just let it be, goddammit.

But all these Les Pauls also have Nashville bridges with these metal anchors in the guitar top. I won't touch that with a 10 feet pole.

Either get a Burny, Greco or similar, or upgrade right to a Gibson historic.

However, historic Customs can be problematic, too, the 57 has a mahogany top, the 68 is hollow (and Nashvilled, too IIRC).

 

[jmh151]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

The weight relieving thing makes me want to kick Gibson in the head. The principal is bad in and of itself.....but how come I ended up with an 11lb Custom?! The fact that wood made it into a guitar is outrageous.

This is what I don't understand. My 1986 Custom, I'm presuming is weight relieved, and weighs 8.4 lbs. Every Les Paul I've picked up in comparision, with the exception of one 1999 Standard, has been a boat anchor. There's no reason a weight relieved Les Paul should be over 9 lbs, except that Gibson is being cheap and using the cheapest, heaviest wood around and weight relieving that

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Yeah. Even if Gibson somehow only gets heavier mahogany than all the other manfacturers (cheaping out, eh?), in the specific case of a LP Custom the customer even expects it to be a heavy pig. Just let it be, goddammit.

Yeah, I think that's bull. If you're paying for the most decked out LP it needs to be decked out across the board.

But all these Les Pauls also have Nashville bridges with these metal anchors in the guitar top. I won't touch that with a 10 feet pole.

Either get a Burny, Greco or similar, or upgrade right to a Gibson historic.

However, historic Customs can be problematic, too, the 57 has a mahogany top, the 68 is hollow (and Nashvilled, too IIRC).

Yeah I'm going to get some conversion posts for my 84 335 so I can have an ABR-1.

As far as problems with historic customs, the mahogany top is right and the ebony board balances it tonally so I'm not sure it needs maple.....it would probably make it heavier anyhow. lol

This is what I don't understand. My 1986 Custom, I'm presuming is weight relieved, and weighs 8.4 lbs. Every Les Paul I've picked up in comparision, with the exception of one 1999 Standard, has been a boat anchor. There's no reason a weight relieved Les Paul should be over 9 lbs, except that Gibson is being cheap and using the cheapest, heaviest wood around and weight relieving that

Exactly, no excuse. I love my Gibsons too, but that doesn't mean it doesn't burn me up to no end.

Luke

 

[uOpt]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Yeah I'm going to get some conversion posts for my 84 335 so I can have an ABR-1.

The bridge isn't the problem (well, maybe it is, too), the metal anchors in the guitar top are.

As far as problems with historic customs, the mahogany top is right and the ebony board balances it tonally so I'm not sure it needs maple.....it would probably make it heavier anyhow. lol

Sorry but there is absolutely nothing about an Ebony board that somehow magically gives you back the impact of a maple top. Different things.

In fact, if you troll the various Les Paul forums you see a lot of people pop up who have real problems making the 57 RIs sound like they want.

Is that even actually historic, did 1957 LPC have a mahogany top? I though Les Pauls were always maple top if they have a top.

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

The bridge isn't the problem (well, maybe it is, too), the metal anchors in the guitar top are.

I don't like the extra width, makes for a higher likelihood of the strings hitting the back of the bridge body. I don't want to dowel it because I'll never match I'm afraid

Sorry but there is absolutely nothing about an Ebony board that somehow magically gives you back the impact of a maple top. Different things.

You say it like everyone hears the same thing. It sounds different yeah, but the ebony balances out the darkness of a mahog top.

In fact, if you troll the various Les Paul forums you see a lot of people pop up who have real problems making the 57 RIs sound like they want.

I don't doubt that, but that's why I recommend trying before you buy.

Is that even actually historic, did 1957 LPC have a mahogany top? I though Les Pauls were always maple top if they have a top.

It is absolutely historic. The Custom didn't have a maple top until its re-release in 68. Les Paul chose gold because it was a mark of quality. The black he chose because it was like a tuxedo and wanted the Custom to be creme-de-la-creme with nicer inlays, more binding, nicer neck pup, ebony board etc. The Custom was also the "fretless wonder" with it's flat wire for jazz. I want to say though that was one of the reasons that the maple top was left off. All those factors contributed to a brighter guitar and that balanced it out. The introduction of the buckers changed the tone obviously. In any case...that's why a "modern" style custom is so bright. ebony board plus the maple cap compare to the vintage style with a mahog top.

Luke

 

[HighGain]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Chambering on single cut LP Standards didn't start until '07. The 'swiss cheese' weight relief started in the early 80's, 82/83.

I have a Standard made in October '06, and it is definitely weight relieved with the swiss cheese holes, 9 of 'em if I remember my LP anatomy correctly.

Some guys don't mind the chambering, but I'm not one of them. I've played too many 9-11 pounders. A LP that is < 8 lbs just doesn't feel right. But to each his own.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Chambering on single cut LP Standards didn't start until '07. The 'swiss cheese' weight relief started in the early 80's, 82/83.

I have a Standard made in October '06, and it is definitely weight relieved with the swiss cheese holes, 9 of 'em if I remember my LP anatomy correctly.

Some guys don't mind the chambering, but I'm not one of them. I've played too many 9-11 pounders. A LP that is < 8 lbs just doesn't feel right. But to each his own.

The full chambering on Standard definitely started in 2005. However, your 2006 might have used some old body they had floating around.

In 2008 you could pick the traditional which upgraded to swiss-chessed, but the standard stayed chambered.

Anyone else thinking that all this is about pushing historics? They get the lighter wood in the first place and all that non-holes and and tight bridge business makes them more desirable over the regular production line.

 

[HighGain]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Sorry, man, don't mean to be 'that guy', but you're mistaken. Chambering started on the single cut Standards in '07. I had this confirmed by 3 different Gibson reps at a guitar show in Feb '07, and I've seen emails from customer service about it.

Before that, I played about 15 '06 LPs before I bought mine. They were not chambered. It's easy to tell the difference.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Gibson reps give wrong information all day long, sorry. They also tell you SG standards are limited to two body pieces and all kinds of other garbage.

I go with the info posted on various LP forums.

 

[HighGain]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

OK. But if you truly got it from the LP Forum, there's a thread about it on page 2, I think. There's a reason I keep thanking my lucky stars that I went ahead and bought another LP in '06 before all that crap started.

Doublecut Standards are chambered back to at least '98. I have one of those, as well. Maybe that's where the idea came from, I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone knows. I've gotten lots of answers as to the reason why. Everything from poor wood availability to complaints about weight of LPs (which I call BS on).

There's also a thread about it on the Marshall forum which includes an email from a Gibson customer service rep. I've seen similar emails to a couple of music stores I frequent.

As far as the reps go, the only misinformation from Gibson was not telling people up front they were going to start the chambering. They didn't even market LPs as being chambered. If it was such a revolutionary idea, why didn't they? The routing fairies just kind of came in the middle of the night. Whatever.

I found out from a buddy of mine who owns a store. He told me it was going to happen when I bought mine (his rep told him), and then the Gibson guys confirmed it when we saw them 5 months later.

I'm certain also that my next LP will be a Custom, 59 VOS, or Traditional.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Do it play right?

Do it sound good?

Do it look nice?

When who cares what the wood you can't see looks like?

Y'know i've been thinking lately, my lungs and heart probably don't look as good as they could. Any tips on getting my lungs back to that youthful pink petina?

 

[DLT]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Y'know i've been thinking lately, my lungs and heart probably don't look as good as they could. Any tips on getting my lungs back to that youthful pink petina?

Eat Opossum! It's the meat you cannot beat!

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

^^ i already eat at taco bell about 5 days a week so...

 

[Ayrton]

Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

I have not read anything that counters the understanding that chambering started in late '06. I am not saying it is not out there, just i have not seen it.

However, when I bought my chambered '06, I played at least 2 other '06 models that were not chambered the same day.

I only know this because the one I bought has the chambered "rattle", so I knew where to knock on the wood.

Gibson may have chambered standards earlier than late '06, but it for sure was not all of them.