Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

[WITH FULL DISTORTION]

Hey GUys. hows it doing?
Im still considering getting a GIBSON FLYING V. I even Got a Gibson Flying V faded series, but got disappointed with the quality Overall(except the pickups)
ANd i also think that the weight is like a ****ing TOY. too lightweight.

Ive heard that since 2000 (earlier or later) gibson(for many reasons) started to chamber their guitars. DOes that apply only to les paul models? or did that happened also to the Flying Vs?
SO my question is : Are the Pre chambered Flying Vs heavier(weight) than the chambered? does this affected the tone? are the chambered ones less heavy(in sound), less bitty and less agressive than the non chambered ones?

anyways, if i want to get a used NON chambered gibson flying V , from which year should i look ? 1998? less? more?
Thank you very much in advance guys
Q: )

JP

 

[BTMN]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

I would doubt a V to be chambered. That is unless it has a flametop or veneer on it. My bet is that most any non topped guitar isn't chambered. Lot of trouble to chamber a non topped guitar it would seem to me.

 

[allbutromeo]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

I don't think any of the V's are chambered or weight relieved. They are a lot lighter than most people expect, especially if you're used to Les Pauls. But when compared to an LP they are much thinner and usually lacking the maple cap, and even though the "fins" extend further behind the bridge than the bodies of most solid bodies, the V cut out and tapered body with no upper treble and bass bouts cuts out alot of weight.

 

[Shooter.556]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

Vs are a chunk of wood, that's why they are fat as hell sounding.
No chambers..

 

[WITH FULL DISTORTION]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

SO, gibson didnt started(as they did with les pauls and i think others) to chamber the flying Vs too?
so theres no weight differences between the pre 2000 and the pos 2000 ones?

 

[superpete]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

SO, gibson didnt started(as they did with les pauls and i think others) to chamber the flying Vs too?
so theres no weight differences between the pre 2000 and the pos 2000 ones?

2000 isn't the magic year. they started weight relieving les pauls much earlier than 2000; they began chambering the standards in 2008.

Flying Vs are not chambered. any weight difference between a pre and post 2000 V is not due to weight relief.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

Any perceived weight differences between standard Gibson Vs will be due to the quality of the wood used. Mahogany is not of universal weight. You may find the 80s alder Vs heavier than a later mahogany (faded or not), and if you could find a 70s mahogany V, it may outweigh the alder.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

Flying V's are not chambered.

Funny the faded V's, and light guitars in general are usually considered good points to most people and the stock pickups not so much. You're backwards mofo, LOL.

Let me leave you with these (2004 aged white and 2005 Natural)

 

[vinta9e]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

Vees and SGs are not chambered; no point in doing that. Too light? Find a heavier piece or a BC Rich.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

STOP STOP STOP it with weight relieved BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Light is light, heavy is heavy, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with how it sounds, feels or plays!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Detroitblues]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

Because there is no maple involved, V's are not chambered. All that contributes to extra weight is the paint from standard V to a satin V. Needless to say, a satin finish V will be lighter.

Unless you consider this chambered...

 

[AlexR]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

V's are 1 plank of wood thick. If it were weight relieved you would see it like above as there is no way to hide it......it would also look stupid (like above).

 

[formula73]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

I'll echo everybody here and say, again, there is no chambering in a V.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

Grover Jackson (who may know a thing or two about guitars) stated that heavy guitars typically sound thinner than lighter guitars, which is why he favored lighter woods like basswood and alder/poplar.

Of course, he may also have said that to deflect the question of not being able/willing to spend the extra on thick mahogany slabs.

However I will say my thinner mahogany and Floyded Jacksons do have a fuller tone than my 9lb Les Paul Standard did. The Gibby Vs I had sounded nice, just felt and played like crap.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

I've not been able to tell a single thing about simple weight and tone. Especially when you deal with different woods and not just density/mass within a species. I have 10lb Norlin era LP's that sound just as fat/full as 8lb LP's that I made from superlight mahogany planks.

 

[astrozombie]

Re: Gibson flying V Doubt. Pre ad pos 2000. chambered or not?

I'm pretty sure they never did that on Flying V guitars.