Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

[MasterKtulu]

Hey guys! What’s the deal with Gibson Les Paul Classic… I don’t think Gibson makes it anymore, right? But my local Guitar Shop has three that they’ve had for a few years now hanging on a wall. They have a gold top, a cherry sunburst and my favorite looking one with a plain maple top which looks like the one in picture below. I know I’m in the minority, but I’ve always thought a plain maple top looked better and was less showy than a flame maple top…

Anyway, they’re on sale for about $1800US to $2000US, but I’ve known the owner for 15 years so I know that I can get a slightly better price for one if I asked. I’ve never asked to try any of them, not because I didn’t want to, but because I know if I like a guitar I’ll do anything to have it and I mean anything! Like for example: sell my only car that I need to go to work everyday or max my credit card and pay 25% interest for ten years as I only pay the bare minimum each month. So I don’t usually try any guitar that I can’t afford to buy at that very moment. But I have a bit of money saved up for a guitar and I’ve always wanted a Les Paul, so back to the Classic…

I don’t know anything about the Classic line except that they have ceramic pickups that I’d change for Seymour Duncan 59s or PGs as soon as I would get it. Quality wise, are they in-between the Studio and the Standard lines? Is around $1800US way too expensive for a new Classic? Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.

 

[jmh151]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I think they were replaced with the Les Paul Traditional

 

[tc]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

Yeah they were. The classics are chambered, have hot pups, thin necks, plain tops, and those snot green inlays. Ive only played one since I live in the middle of nowhere, and I loved it! It was the prettiest honeyburst Ive ever seen! the inlays are an aquired taste I guess...

 

[Pastor of Muppets]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I don't like the pups and the thin necks personally, but quality of the ones I've played has been solid enough...just not for me.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I don’t know anything about the Classic line except that they have ceramic pickups that I’d change for Seymour Duncan 59s or PGs as soon as I would get it.

Actually, you should swap magnets in them first, which only costs a few dollars. Put an A5 in the neck 496R & you have a good PAF, on a par with a '59. In the bridge 500T, an A5 will give you a sound roughly similar to a C5, or an A8 for a C8. If you want allow output bridge PU, then all you'd need to get is a PAF type HB for that, as a magnet swap should take care of the neck. Work with what you have, and that guitar comes with two very good PU's, it's just the magnets that you may not like, and you may be able to take magnets out of something else you have. If not, Wymore guitars.com ships magnets overseas. He's also a member on this forum. PM him.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I would like it a lot better for 12-1400.

The inlays can be fixed by laying out in the sun for a while.

If it feels good, and sound decent acoustically, do it (if yo want to spend 1800...). Look for a used one.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

Anyway, they’re on sale for about $1800US to $2000US, but I’ve known the owner for 15 years so I know that I can get a slightly better price for one if I asked. I’ve never asked to try any of them, not because I didn’t want to, but because I know if I like a guitar I’ll do anything to have it and I mean anything! Like for example: sell my only car that I need to go to work everyday or max my credit card and pay 25% interest for ten years as I only pay the bare minimum each month. So I don’t usually try any guitar that I can’t afford to buy at that very moment. But I have a bit of money saved up for a guitar and I’ve always wanted a Les Paul, so back to the Classic…

hahaha maybe you need to practice some self-discipline man? hahaha

don't be afraid of liking guitars man. try 'em. they're cool for what they are -- i don't like the thin necks but they ain't bad. If you've got the scratch you should go for it.

 

[Diocletian]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I've played two and wondered if they were genuine Gibsons - my Epiphone Black Beauty was way better in every way.

 

[cvansickle]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I have 1997 Classic Plus, so the top has some flame. The original owner replaced the stock ceramics with Fralin alnico IV pickups, and I kept them. It is every bit a genuine Les Paul.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

$1800-$2000 is too much, no way I would pay that much for a Classic, even if it is still new.

I got this from GC for $1550 out the door, its the Classic's replacement called the traditional pro. Its the same guitar, but without the green inlays, and better pickups having a BB3 bridge and 57 classic neck with coil taps for both. It also has locking tuners stock and a glossy top, but satin back for a smoother non-sticky feel to the neck.

Run away from a discontinued classic for $1800-$2000, especially in today's market. These go all day on ebay in the $1100-$1300 range used.

Here's my $1550 trad pro, brand new with hard case.

 

[Surgeon]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I have nothing but good things to say about my 2000 Classic. The inlays aren't green, more yellowish, it's rock solid, sounds amazing, plays amazingly... My custom sounds great too but I'm so accustomed to the classic that it's still my #1.

 

[SFW]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

Yeah they were. The classics are chambered, have hot pups, thin necks, plain tops, and those snot green inlays. Ive only played one since I live in the middle of nowhere, and I loved it! It was the prettiest honeyburst Ive ever seen! the inlays are an aquired taste I guess...

Actually, they have weight relieved with holes just like the Standards. Change the pups and you have a great Les Paul. I've been rocking my Classic for seven years now.

 

[Diocletian]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

Actually, they have weight relieved with holes just like the Standards. Change the pups and you have a great Les Paul. I've been rocking my Classic for seven years now.

Certainly LOOKS sweet! :1:

 

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

The chambering was done to the later Classic from late 2006. Earlier models have the "swiss cheese" weight relief routs done to the mahogany, under the maple cap. If these are NOS, prior to 2006, they are probably "solid" bodies.

I have two Classic Premium Plus models from 1996 and 1997; and two of the Classic Antiques from the Gibson "Guitar Of The Week" series. All are great Les Pauls. I actually REALLY like the lightweight chambered tone of the Classic Antiques--and these came with a '57 Classic/Classic Plus pickup set. The guitars are really resonant, and they bark and bite. I have kept them stock.

The older Classics have ABR-1 bridges and figured tops; and have been modified with Schaller Strap Locks, Light Weight Gotoh Tail Pieces, and metal jackplates. I have an Antiquity HB set in the '97 Honeyburst, and the Musicians' Friend Seth Lover A2 50th Anniversary pickups in the '96 Heritage Cherry Sunburst. These guitars sond great, and have about 90% of the mojo of Historic Reissue Les Pauls (I have three of these, too). The inlays on these are "aged and only slightly yellowed, much nicer than the newer guitars.

Now, I liked the tone of the 496R/500T, but they just had too much gain for my Mesas. They can sound awesome with a non-master volume amp, like a BF Twin Reverb or old Marshall. I'd give them a fair tryout before I would replace them, you might like them.

I bought my figured top Classic Premium Plus models used in 2003 for $1500 each. That was a VERY good deal for me. The original list on these was about $5100. When the Classic was introduced in the early '90s, it was considered an upscale model, and was actually more expensive than the Standard at that time.

While my Classic Antiques are virtually identical, differing only in finish color; the older Classics do have some differences. Neck angles are slightly different, and the necks are very different. Another Classic I looked at when I bought these two had a horrible neck--thick at the nut and very, very thin as it went up the neck. Not comfortable, and not very stable, either. Moral is: play all three and pick the best guitar, regardless of the color. They will be different, so pick the best one.

It's a lot of money for a guitar. I'd agree that these are a little high, but I'm assuming we're talking new guitars with warranties--so not really comparable to the price of a used guitar. I'd do some checking with some online dealers to see what a plaintop Classic is going for.

One other word of advice. I'd advise you to NOT go deep into debt right now for this guitar. If you've never had a Les Paul and been say, a Fender player for a long time--get ready for a huge shock. They are totally different animals. Gibsons are frail, and you can kill them with stuff that would barely leave a mark on a Fender. Plan on being careful and obsessive and diligent in its care. The weight of a solid Les Paul can ruin your shoulder and back and send you running for a chiropractor. The placement of the controls and the switch can drive you nuts. You may love the lead tone, but hate the muddiness of its humbuckers for rhythm tones. So if you're not SURE this is the guitar for you, then pass on it and try living with a less expensive Epiphone Les Paul for a while.

When you have a genuine need for a guitar and you KNOW that this is the one--that's the one to go in debt for.

I hope this helps. Good luck.

Bill

 

[tc]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

oh yeah right about the change to chambering three or four years ago...bear with me four years ago I couldnt tell between a tele and a strat haha! When I started playing these were already coming out chambered!

 

[butnut]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I had one, a killer premium plus top model. Got it off ebay, just beautiful...too bad it did'nt have the Les Paul balls I really expected. I played a Custom for 10 years so that LP tone was in my head...I have a feeling the light body with the ceramic pups may have a lot to do with that. My advise is to play it with your rig and see if you dig it. Good luck

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

Gibson went from relief holes to chambering for the 2007 year models.

 

[B2D]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I like 'em, though if I had one the tuners and pickups would get changed out stat.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

Stop worrying about hole/no hole, swiss/rectangle chambers etc...

Worry about how it SOUNDS!!!!

And I agree - 2k is stiff for one...unless it passes the boobie test.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Gibson Les Paul Classic: Good or Bad?

I had a 99 honeyburst plaintop that was really nice, even with the stock 500T/496R. The only thing I didn't like was those green inlays but it was a very fine LP.