Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
- Thread starter JimmyO
- Start date
tubecrunch
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
That's what I would do. Just don't get sucked into the pseudo vintage zone. People are asking ridiculous prices for LP's from the 70's and 80's lately in my neighborhood. There is nothing unique or irreplaceable about them unless you need something old and heavy. And Studio's rock...
the guy who invented fire
Fuzzy. Guitars
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
What kind of budget are you working with?
What kind of budget are you working with?
SirJackdeFuzz
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
. . . ^ ^ ^ this ! (?)
. . . ^ ^ ^ this ! (?)
SirJackdeFuzz
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Ele...-USA/Les-Paul-Traditional-Mahogany-Satin.aspx
I am a sucker for a plain top !
http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Ele...-USA/Les-Paul-Traditional-Mahogany-Satin.aspx
I am a sucker for a plain top !
mysquaredontfit
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
The best bang for the buck will be on Standards, Traditionals and Classics made in the 90's and early 2000's. Old enough to be regular used guitars that don't carry any of the inflation involved in being from some overrated golden era, and they were consistently well-built guitars that look and sound fantastic.
To me, if I'm going to spend Les Paul money, I want everything that comes with one (binding, good pickups, headstock inlay, etc) as well as the Les Paul tone. Studios are cool and all but nothing looks as good as Gold Top with body and neck binding. It just pops, you know? If your tastes are more understated, by all means go Studio hunting and be merry.
The new ones can be great but I've definitely seen some inexcusable issues with more than a few hanging on the walls over the last 6 or 7 years. Hardly anyone gets a great deal on any brand new guitar anymore, save for year-end liquidations on guitars with ugly finishes that no one wanted the previous 11 months.
The best bang for the buck will be on Standards, Traditionals and Classics made in the 90's and early 2000's. Old enough to be regular used guitars that don't carry any of the inflation involved in being from some overrated golden era, and they were consistently well-built guitars that look and sound fantastic.
To me, if I'm going to spend Les Paul money, I want everything that comes with one (binding, good pickups, headstock inlay, etc) as well as the Les Paul tone. Studios are cool and all but nothing looks as good as Gold Top with body and neck binding. It just pops, you know? If your tastes are more understated, by all means go Studio hunting and be merry.
The new ones can be great but I've definitely seen some inexcusable issues with more than a few hanging on the walls over the last 6 or 7 years. Hardly anyone gets a great deal on any brand new guitar anymore, save for year-end liquidations on guitars with ugly finishes that no one wanted the previous 11 months.
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I've been searching for a LP type guitar, but not necessarily a Gibson. If I go Gibson it would be a 2010 LP Studio 60's. It seems to be the only Studio with a 60's slim neck. If I go PRS it would be a Bernie Marsden SE.
I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I've been searching for a LP type guitar, but not necessarily a Gibson. If I go Gibson it would be a 2010 LP Studio 60's. It seems to be the only Studio with a 60's slim neck. If I go PRS it would be a Bernie Marsden SE.
JimmyO
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
So in terms of budget I was planning on saving for a traditional. The look, specs and the feel and tone of the couple I've played make me think this would be closest to my idea of a traditional style les paul without going for a crazy priced vintage reissue. Along the way as I save I'm sure I'll be tempted to try some of the lower priced studios etc, and just wanted to get some feedback from folks who've been in a similar situation. I already have a great 1980s les paul copy and an epiphone les paul and love Les Paul's in general. I have US Fenders and Superstrats but so far no US Les Paul. The responses have given me plenty to think about. I think I have some saving to do as the more I read the posts the more I think I'm really after a genuine Gibson with all the bindings, flame top etc, but that I am also not in a rush as the guitars I have are working great for me. If I happen to find a great condition used one and save some money , well that will be a nice bonus.
So in terms of budget I was planning on saving for a traditional. The look, specs and the feel and tone of the couple I've played make me think this would be closest to my idea of a traditional style les paul without going for a crazy priced vintage reissue. Along the way as I save I'm sure I'll be tempted to try some of the lower priced studios etc, and just wanted to get some feedback from folks who've been in a similar situation. I already have a great 1980s les paul copy and an epiphone les paul and love Les Paul's in general. I have US Fenders and Superstrats but so far no US Les Paul. The responses have given me plenty to think about. I think I have some saving to do as the more I read the posts the more I think I'm really after a genuine Gibson with all the bindings, flame top etc, but that I am also not in a rush as the guitars I have are working great for me. If I happen to find a great condition used one and save some money , well that will be a nice bonus.
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
I agree with this. There were so many great LP's made in the past 15 - 20 years, that you should never go below a Classic or Std. model. Just sit on Craigslist, searching a price range, or sifting through all the Gibson listings. There's people constantly thinning the herd, letting $2300 guitars go for $1300, give or take. Let other guys with more money take the hit on new stuff.
I agree with this. There were so many great LP's made in the past 15 - 20 years, that you should never go below a Classic or Std. model. Just sit on Craigslist, searching a price range, or sifting through all the Gibson listings. There's people constantly thinning the herd, letting $2300 guitars go for $1300, give or take. Let other guys with more money take the hit on new stuff.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
Absolutely, if humbuckers are your cup of tea. I hope to get a fireburst plaintop Studio in the next year or so.
Absolutely, if humbuckers are your cup of tea. I hope to get a fireburst plaintop Studio in the next year or so.
Rand-O-Monium
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
+ another for used
Happy Hunting!!!
+ another for used
Happy Hunting!!!
PoorMan
MoneyForNothingologist
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
+1000000
Gibson was making good stuff during this period. Things went south in 2004 or 2005 (I forget which year it was...but they changed their finishes to some goopy plasticky garbage).
+1000000
Gibson was making good stuff during this period. Things went south in 2004 or 2005 (I forget which year it was...but they changed their finishes to some goopy plasticky garbage).
JimmyO
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
So it seems like there's some general feedback around quality concerns with newer Les Paul's vs ones made 10-25 years ago. If you were to buy a new one you get to at least try multiple examples, with hopefully some after sales support. With used it just depends on what is available in your area (assuming you want to play it before parting with hard earned cash).
What would be some of the quality concerns with the newer Les Paul's so I know what to look for? What specifically was better on the 90's/early 2000s models?
So it seems like there's some general feedback around quality concerns with newer Les Paul's vs ones made 10-25 years ago. If you were to buy a new one you get to at least try multiple examples, with hopefully some after sales support. With used it just depends on what is available in your area (assuming you want to play it before parting with hard earned cash).
What would be some of the quality concerns with the newer Les Paul's so I know what to look for? What specifically was better on the 90's/early 2000s models?
PoorMan
MoneyForNothingologist
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
I can't speak for current production. My last two newer Gibsons were 2009 maybe? That was enough for me to write them off entirely.
VOS G0 - this had some QC issues. Particularly with irregular binding (varying thickness and sharp edges). Gummy sticky finish. Couldn't get that guitar to sound good either.
LP Custom - The finish on this felt like it never fully cured. It was VERY rubbery and sticky--very much like Plastikote.
And these were custom shop guitars!
In general, I'd say the workmanship isn't as good, materials aren't as good, finishes are terrible...and they don't sound as good as the older ones.
I can't speak for current production. My last two newer Gibsons were 2009 maybe? That was enough for me to write them off entirely.
VOS G0 - this had some QC issues. Particularly with irregular binding (varying thickness and sharp edges). Gummy sticky finish. Couldn't get that guitar to sound good either.
LP Custom - The finish on this felt like it never fully cured. It was VERY rubbery and sticky--very much like Plastikote.
And these were custom shop guitars!
In general, I'd say the workmanship isn't as good, materials aren't as good, finishes are terrible...and they don't sound as good as the older ones.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
A few key points according to me:
#1 No new Gibson is worth the price. Most old Gibsons are not either! You are going to pay more for a guitar that is assembled no better, or not as good, as many less expensive guitars by Hamer, Dean, ESP and a bunch of other people. So let's get over that. That said - QA issues aside (more later), most are solid performing instruments minor issues aside (for the price though, there should be now even slightly extremely minor issues - see my point?)
#2 If you insist on Gibson (and I have a few times!), I have to say go used for the bang-for-buck factor. But hey - there is something to be said for wanting your very own brand new Gibson case smell experience. Your money, your call.
#3 IMO, a Les Paul Studio is EVERYTHING that a Les Paul is about. Mahogany, Maple, Rosewood. Two humbuckers, 4 knobs and a switch. Done. It is ALL the Les Paul you will ever NEED. That said, if the aesthetics of the Standard appeals to you, if that is what you think a real Les Paul is, DO NOT short change yourself. It WILL lead to regret. If you are a Frugal Functionalist - Les Paul Studio is where it is at. Again - look for the sales as they change models/clear, or used. I currently have 2 Standards and a Studio. And some Deans....
#4 A Les Paul is a far more complicated tonal brew than a Fender plank or what not. The mahogany, maple, and rosewood all vary. There are occasionally extremely bright ones. Sometimes very muddy dull ones. Two made one after the other on the same day can be very different. Play a bunch either unplugged, or quietly clean, to really hear this. Play five in a row and you'll notice. You really need to play them to pick the ONE. Spend some time playing it and come back another day just to be sure. Do not worry about set up. They can all be adjusted/tuned to play like butter!
#5 For what you want to play, I'd think about putting either a pair of 59's or a Pearly Gates neck, and 59 bridge in it. Other options include an A2P set if you like the fatter tones. An A2p neck and a PG bridge for for a fat neck and bright bridge and interesting balance in the middle. Depends what pups are in the guitar you get though. Live with the stock pups for a while. Then come back and decide what you really need tonally.
Good luck, happy hunting, and let us know how it turns out!
A few key points according to me:
#1 No new Gibson is worth the price. Most old Gibsons are not either! You are going to pay more for a guitar that is assembled no better, or not as good, as many less expensive guitars by Hamer, Dean, ESP and a bunch of other people. So let's get over that. That said - QA issues aside (more later), most are solid performing instruments minor issues aside (for the price though, there should be now even slightly extremely minor issues - see my point?)
#2 If you insist on Gibson (and I have a few times!), I have to say go used for the bang-for-buck factor. But hey - there is something to be said for wanting your very own brand new Gibson case smell experience. Your money, your call.
#3 IMO, a Les Paul Studio is EVERYTHING that a Les Paul is about. Mahogany, Maple, Rosewood. Two humbuckers, 4 knobs and a switch. Done. It is ALL the Les Paul you will ever NEED. That said, if the aesthetics of the Standard appeals to you, if that is what you think a real Les Paul is, DO NOT short change yourself. It WILL lead to regret. If you are a Frugal Functionalist - Les Paul Studio is where it is at. Again - look for the sales as they change models/clear, or used. I currently have 2 Standards and a Studio. And some Deans....
#4 A Les Paul is a far more complicated tonal brew than a Fender plank or what not. The mahogany, maple, and rosewood all vary. There are occasionally extremely bright ones. Sometimes very muddy dull ones. Two made one after the other on the same day can be very different. Play a bunch either unplugged, or quietly clean, to really hear this. Play five in a row and you'll notice. You really need to play them to pick the ONE. Spend some time playing it and come back another day just to be sure. Do not worry about set up. They can all be adjusted/tuned to play like butter!
#5 For what you want to play, I'd think about putting either a pair of 59's or a Pearly Gates neck, and 59 bridge in it. Other options include an A2P set if you like the fatter tones. An A2p neck and a PG bridge for for a fat neck and bright bridge and interesting balance in the middle. Depends what pups are in the guitar you get though. Live with the stock pups for a while. Then come back and decide what you really need tonally.
Good luck, happy hunting, and let us know how it turns out!
Last edited:
voggin
Well-known member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
I suppose I could just put a "+1" to Aceman's post, but I'll give you my full take. My disclaimer: I own 2 gibsons, a 2010 Les Paul standard and a 2010 ES 339 (I own other brands as well).
The first thing about getting advice about Gibsons is that there are people who worship them and those that hate them. The worshipers wouldn't care if the CEO of Gibson killed babies, and the haters ACTUALLY BELIEVE HE DOES. You can generally ignore the advice from both of those groups.
The next thing is that, like Ace said in point #4 of his post, Gibsons are inconsistent. This is, in my view, often mistaken for a lack of quality control (I'll discuss that later on). When I say inconsistent, what I mean is that the process of building Gibson-style guitars, for whatever reasons, results in very different playing and sounding instruments even of the same model. I played 5 traditionals at a shop when I was on holidays a couple of years ago, just goofing around. The salesman and I ranked them in terms of our perceived best to worst. Guess what, our lists were completely different. So play a lot of them, not to find a good one, but to find a good one FOR YOU.
As for the Quality Control thing (puts on flame suit) I don't buy all of the complaints. Most of the QC threads I have seen on the interwebs involve stuff like minor finish bleeds into the binding, or slightly off scraping from the binding, or file marks on the bass side of fretboard at the 20th fret, and stuff like that. Most of that stuff means nothing to the playability or even the overall beauty of the instrument, TO ME. So you have to ask yourself if stuff like that matters to you. One person's OCD is another person's demand for value for their money. My personal view is that Gibson doesn't consider that kind of (minor) stuff to be a problem. Don't forget, the "holy grail" standards of the fifties had rough headstock sides. A lot of people would find that unacceptable on a $2000 guitar. Imagine what they think of it on a 250K burst.
As to which "era" to buy, I've noticed that the advice as to good eras tends to correspond directly to when the poster's own guitar was built. Funny coincidence, that. My advice is that if you find one you like, just ask the price, not when it was made. Some eras (like the Norlin 70s to early 80s period) get slagged off as bad guitars. I think this is a mistake. The thing with some of those Norlins is that Gibson made some changes to the construction (maple necks for mahogany) that some players didn't like. But they weren't "bad guitars", just different. ( I prefer mahogany necks, but that is just a preference. Gibson has even gone back to maple for some of the new models, and maple is stronger than mahogany, so don't dismiss them. They are a perfectly viable alternative.)
And like everyone, I'd say buy used. Saw a great Les paul Classic from the late 90s the other day for $1200. Just didn't have the money or I'd own 3 gibbons. However, if you are buying new, use that "quality control" issue to your advantage. Look hard enough and you'll probably find some minor blemish. Then make a disgusted frowny face, say some crap about Henry J and QC and how you'd never see this on a $300 Agile, and you'll probably get a couple hundred off the price. If only to get you out of the store!
I suppose I could just put a "+1" to Aceman's post, but I'll give you my full take. My disclaimer: I own 2 gibsons, a 2010 Les Paul standard and a 2010 ES 339 (I own other brands as well).
The first thing about getting advice about Gibsons is that there are people who worship them and those that hate them. The worshipers wouldn't care if the CEO of Gibson killed babies, and the haters ACTUALLY BELIEVE HE DOES. You can generally ignore the advice from both of those groups.
The next thing is that, like Ace said in point #4 of his post, Gibsons are inconsistent. This is, in my view, often mistaken for a lack of quality control (I'll discuss that later on). When I say inconsistent, what I mean is that the process of building Gibson-style guitars, for whatever reasons, results in very different playing and sounding instruments even of the same model. I played 5 traditionals at a shop when I was on holidays a couple of years ago, just goofing around. The salesman and I ranked them in terms of our perceived best to worst. Guess what, our lists were completely different. So play a lot of them, not to find a good one, but to find a good one FOR YOU.
As for the Quality Control thing (puts on flame suit) I don't buy all of the complaints. Most of the QC threads I have seen on the interwebs involve stuff like minor finish bleeds into the binding, or slightly off scraping from the binding, or file marks on the bass side of fretboard at the 20th fret, and stuff like that. Most of that stuff means nothing to the playability or even the overall beauty of the instrument, TO ME. So you have to ask yourself if stuff like that matters to you. One person's OCD is another person's demand for value for their money. My personal view is that Gibson doesn't consider that kind of (minor) stuff to be a problem. Don't forget, the "holy grail" standards of the fifties had rough headstock sides. A lot of people would find that unacceptable on a $2000 guitar. Imagine what they think of it on a 250K burst.
As to which "era" to buy, I've noticed that the advice as to good eras tends to correspond directly to when the poster's own guitar was built. Funny coincidence, that. My advice is that if you find one you like, just ask the price, not when it was made. Some eras (like the Norlin 70s to early 80s period) get slagged off as bad guitars. I think this is a mistake. The thing with some of those Norlins is that Gibson made some changes to the construction (maple necks for mahogany) that some players didn't like. But they weren't "bad guitars", just different. ( I prefer mahogany necks, but that is just a preference. Gibson has even gone back to maple for some of the new models, and maple is stronger than mahogany, so don't dismiss them. They are a perfectly viable alternative.)
And like everyone, I'd say buy used. Saw a great Les paul Classic from the late 90s the other day for $1200. Just didn't have the money or I'd own 3 gibbons. However, if you are buying new, use that "quality control" issue to your advantage. Look hard enough and you'll probably find some minor blemish. Then make a disgusted frowny face, say some crap about Henry J and QC and how you'd never see this on a $300 Agile, and you'll probably get a couple hundred off the price. If only to get you out of the store!
JimmyO
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
Aceman and Voggin - thanks for taking the time to put together such informative and honest posts. Great advice and puts things in perspective in a positive way. One thing I recently noticed is at the end of the year most stores offer big discounts to make way for the next years models. That may be a good time to seriously start looking and see if I can get a good deal, and give me some time to save up a bit, try out some various models and check out the used market in the meantime. Last year I was able to pick up a brand new 2012 US standard strat for $799 as it was an old color, perhaps in 2015 those 2014 12th fret inlays may not be as popular on the Gibsons
Aceman and Voggin - thanks for taking the time to put together such informative and honest posts. Great advice and puts things in perspective in a positive way. One thing I recently noticed is at the end of the year most stores offer big discounts to make way for the next years models. That may be a good time to seriously start looking and see if I can get a good deal, and give me some time to save up a bit, try out some various models and check out the used market in the meantime. Last year I was able to pick up a brand new 2012 US standard strat for $799 as it was an old color, perhaps in 2015 those 2014 12th fret inlays may not be as popular on the Gibsons
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
See - I love the three piece maple necks of the Norlin era (which corresponds to 2 of my Les Pauls! haha). They are bright, super strong, and moderately thin (but not 60's thin)
Again, that is me.
Good luck. If Me & the Vog can't get you a good one, it just isn't for you.
I will also say this; I dig a melody Maker etc. But those are a whole different creature. Love the plank factor for what it is. And the J things etc. are cool, as are the tributes. But they are more price marketing points than serious Les Pauls IMO. Not that they may not play and sound good!
I also agree with Joe. If it is a standard you seek cheap, find a good used Classic. I have played some great ones of those. A good 1000-1300 classic is worth every penny, IMO.
And I agree completely that the extent and impact of the QA issues is WAY WAY WAY overblown. But the real issue, as I said, is AT THAT PRICE...the case had better be effing perfect to within .001 millimeter. And I have seen some epic FAILS that are simply inexcusable period. But those are pretty rare. Again - they should be non-existent from Gibson, at any price, let alone what they actually cost!
See - I love the three piece maple necks of the Norlin era (which corresponds to 2 of my Les Pauls! haha). They are bright, super strong, and moderately thin (but not 60's thin)
Again, that is me.
Good luck. If Me & the Vog can't get you a good one, it just isn't for you.
I will also say this; I dig a melody Maker etc. But those are a whole different creature. Love the plank factor for what it is. And the J things etc. are cool, as are the tributes. But they are more price marketing points than serious Les Pauls IMO. Not that they may not play and sound good!
I also agree with Joe. If it is a standard you seek cheap, find a good used Classic. I have played some great ones of those. A good 1000-1300 classic is worth every penny, IMO.
And I agree completely that the extent and impact of the QA issues is WAY WAY WAY overblown. But the real issue, as I said, is AT THAT PRICE...the case had better be effing perfect to within .001 millimeter. And I have seen some epic FAILS that are simply inexcusable period. But those are pretty rare. Again - they should be non-existent from Gibson, at any price, let alone what they actually cost!
UberMetalDood
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
Look man, I've been loving Les Pauls since the beginning. I own a few which I love dearly. However, to be quite honest with you, I have come to realize over time that Warmoth LP's and Carvin CS4/6/... are superior in playability and match Les Pauls tone wise, but cost 1/2 of what Gibson charges for something similar. The ONLY reason I don't sell my Les Pauls now and go out and buy a Warmoth or Carvin is because Gibson is constantly raising prices so what I paid for mine will be 1/2 of what they sell for in a couple of years.
Look man, I've been loving Les Pauls since the beginning. I own a few which I love dearly. However, to be quite honest with you, I have come to realize over time that Warmoth LP's and Carvin CS4/6/... are superior in playability and match Les Pauls tone wise, but cost 1/2 of what Gibson charges for something similar. The ONLY reason I don't sell my Les Pauls now and go out and buy a Warmoth or Carvin is because Gibson is constantly raising prices so what I paid for mine will be 1/2 of what they sell for in a couple of years.
El Supremo
New member
Re: Gibson Les Paul, Best Value/Quality For The Money?
I have an '82 Les Paul Custom with maple neck (last year with the maple I believe), and love it. Just ordered some APH-1's for it, just to try out A2 pickups.
As far as Customs go, I would definetely buy used on account of the Richlite fretboard thing.
The 2014 Les Paul Traditional look good to me. New Gibson '59 pu's, non-weight relieved.
I have an '82 Les Paul Custom with maple neck (last year with the maple I believe), and love it. Just ordered some APH-1's for it, just to try out A2 pickups.
As far as Customs go, I would definetely buy used on account of the Richlite fretboard thing.
The 2014 Les Paul Traditional look good to me. New Gibson '59 pu's, non-weight relieved.
