Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

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.

I do not directly contest your research and I am sure your particular 06 is only swiss-cheesed if you say so. But again, I have to warn you that what Gibson customer service reps say is completely useless.

These reps are about $7/hour people with at best some background consisting of liking to play Chinese Strats. They get what they answer on the phone on sheets provided by PR people who are not the ones running around the factory deciding which guitar gets what. These specsheets are very approximate.

Internet forums are full of events where somebody has a certain Gibson on their knees while he is on the phone with one of the Gibson "reps" (which is really a look-up-in-official-documentation monkey) explaining to the caller that the guitar on his lap doesn't exist.

Down on the factory floor decisions are made on a day-to-day basis. Old half-build guitar parts are made into current model guitars, retaining some of the old characteristics. Down on the floor people probably have never seen those spec sheets that the customer rep quotes on the phone, and they don't know they aren't supposed to make a SG std body from more than 2 pieces, and then they do.

The randomness is part of the charm of buying Gibsons and hey if it's too perfect it's probably a Chinese fake. But going around quoting their reps is useless.
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

My upgraded 97' weighs 9.5 lbs. One thing I've been wondering about is how are these
chambered LP's gonna sound when they age?
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Originally Posted by Luke Duke View Post
Yeah I'm going to get some conversion posts for my 84 335 so I can have an ABR-1.

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

Wait, so whats wrong with the nashville bridge? they use metal studs in the body? I thought all tunematics used those?
 
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?

Change the water more often! hahaha


...i've too....have been trying to figure out the whole weight relief fiasco everything I've been able to find out agrees w/ boogiebills post.....but the "light" standards still don't fit the equation...
 
Last edited:
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Wait, so whats wrong with the nashville bridge? they use metal studs in the body? I thought all tunematics used those?

No, ABR-1 bridges with the matching posts go directly into the wood.

A Nashville post has a very loose connection (a screw thread, but a very loose one) between the anchor and the post.

If you take the bridge off you can noodle around the post in the thread.

In addition, the Nashville itself is said to have issues. Apart from being wider the much changed geometry of the saddles isn't like, although I don't have a real opinion on these factors.
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

There's nothing wrong with the Nashville. I have one on my Standard (as you would expect) and I once switched it to an old-school ABR, which I have done on a lot of Gibsons and to my ear usually improves the sound. In this case it really didn't, sounded much better with the stock Nashville so back on it went to stay to this day.

As for the Swiss Cheese weight relief -- in and of itself, there's nothing the least bit wrong about it to me. The underhanded part is how they didn't tell anyone they were doing it. But my weight-relieved '04 Standard is every bit as good as my fully solid '07 R9, and I've had a few of these Swiss Standards and all sounded very good.

Other folks get upset about the occasional 2-piece back. Nothing wrong with that either, no degradation of sound, and in fact it's a stronger piece of wood (proper glue joints are stronger than the rest of the wood), plus you can look at it and tell if it's one or two pieces so it's not hidden like the weight relief holes. I'd much rather have a 2-piece or even 10-piece tone monster than a 1-piece dog.
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

I have no problem with chambers as well.
BUT.......

It is different to sell a guitar such as the Les Paul which has a unique design and change it.
It should be called something else after that.
A chambered guitar and solid guitar act and sound different.
I have no prob and they probably have a few that do sound good.

BUT they arent Les Pauls to me.
If Les Paul wanted the guitar to be chambered I am sure he would have had it made that way when he first started.

What bothers me is the greed that these companies have in trying to squeeze ever drop outta costs.

GREED
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Not greed. You're a fool if you run a company and don't try to cut costs.

If they result in a degradation of the product, then you have a problem. But I don't notice a difference between weight-relieved (NOT chambered) and pure solid. Still that same classic beefy LP tone, and a relief for players with back problems. The only problem here is in not telling us they were doing it. That's a bit underhanded as I said, and it backfired on them. But leaving aside the PR issues, it's a win-win.

But I don't think it really saved them any money. Sure, they can now use heavier wood they'd otherwise have to throw away, but it's also another step in the manufacturing process they have to pay for. Probably a wash.

The chambered models were all done on main street at high noon -- they are all marketed as chambered guitars and chambered guitars do sound a bit different. I don't think LP himself had a problem with that. Hey, he didn't design the original with TOM bridges or humbuckers either.
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

Keep in mind ABR-1s come in many variants, including zinc and machined steel, and the saddle come in different materials and different other details.
 
Re: Confused On Gibson Weight Relief

...i've too....have been trying to figure out the whole weight relief fiasco everything I've been able to find out agrees w/ boogiebills post.....but the "light" standards still don't fit the equation...

Thanks for agreeing with me--I'll take that as a compliment!

The "issue" of the chambering has always baffled me. The Gibson bashing continues.

The weight of Les Pauls has ALWAYS been an issue, since day one. People bitterly complained about the weight back in the 1950s and it continues to this day.

Gibson drops the boat anchor original Les Paul and comes up with the lighter SG version--and everybody complains. Gibson re-introduces the original LP body in the late '60's--everybody complains. Many of the Norlin-era Pauls are notorious for being heavy--everybody complains.

Starting in the 1980s, Gibson tries to relieve some of the weight of these guitars, using the "swiss cheese" method. Not one has ever been able to prove that this method adversly affects the tone of the guitar; but people complain.

And then the chambering started--and the uproar continues. Everybody complains--except the guys who always wanted a Les Paul but couldn't handle the weight.

I remember reading an article about Billy Gibbons that he was taking new Les Pauls to luthier John Bolin to have him remove the top and route the body, i.e. "chambering", to provide more resonance. Hmmm--curious, MAYBE the Reverend is onto something. Ya' think?

I have ten LPs. I have three solid-body Historics, two swiss-cheesed Classic Plus tops; a chambered Elegant; two chambered Supremes; two chambered Classic Antiques. They are all a little different--but they are all great guitars. The Classic Antiques in particular have a lively and resonant responsiveness that only the solid Historics can match. The Supremes don't really sound chambered at all; and you'd be hard-pressed to distinguish the tone, or the weight of, the chambered Elegant from either of the Classic Plus guitars.

I admit to being loathe to buying a 12 lb. Custom--I've played several of these over the years, and managed to avoid buying any. While none of my guitars fall into the 10+ lbs. category, the weight does not bother me--even though I still suffer long-term effects of a back injury from a serious auto crash in 1981. And then, consider that Les Paul himself was playing a guitar that was probably easily over 10 lbs.--into his 90s! I do understand the complaints of those with back issues about the weight, but a lot of us seem to manage just fine with the Les Pauls in the 9 to 9.5 lb. range.

And if you don't like the guitar--be it solid or chambered or swiss-cheesed; heavy or light; resonant or inert--DON'T BUY IT!!!! I think too many of us get caught up in the minutiae of construction details, losing sight of the end result--and the joy of making music. As Lance Armstrong would say, "It's not about the bike."

From what I read, finding lightweight mahogany is becoming increasingly difficult. Tropical mahogany is rapidly approaching the scarcity of brazilian rosewood. Lightweight mahogany has been scarce since the 1970's. I'm sure it exists, but scarcity and demand mean higher prices; and that means--we complain.

Oh, and my crystal ball says that in the fairly near future Les Pauls may be made of maple caps on ALDER bodies. Oh--and people will complain about this change, too.

Seems like Gibson can do nothing right.

Bill
 
Back
Top