Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
- Thread starter oldschoolrock
- Start date
XSSIVE
OCDologist
Re: Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
NOPE since it all comes off the same CNC machine anyway just with a different program at times hahaha. then when they get to you no matter what they need to be set up to the new players style/action and string gauge/brand. so IMO it doesn't matter but people like to think it does.
oh and as for the R series/Historics being worth more in the future...HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. they make too many of them to be worth anything later. the reason the older ones are in such demand is partly due to the limited amount made. the only modern guitars that are collectable are the ones that are rare now. small batch custom shop runs, 1 off custom shops, prototypes and things like that.
-Mike
J Moose said:
NOPE since it all comes off the same CNC machine anyway just with a different program at times hahaha. then when they get to you no matter what they need to be set up to the new players style/action and string gauge/brand. so IMO it doesn't matter but people like to think it does.
oh and as for the R series/Historics being worth more in the future...HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. they make too many of them to be worth anything later. the reason the older ones are in such demand is partly due to the limited amount made. the only modern guitars that are collectable are the ones that are rare now. small batch custom shop runs, 1 off custom shops, prototypes and things like that.
-Mike
Last edited:
oldschoolrock
New member
Re: Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
You mean like a Murphy? lol - I am not getting one because my emphasis is tone and I could care less about the looks or who assembled it. But if I was in it for collecting, I might consider a Murphy.
XSSIVE said:
You mean like a Murphy? lol - I am not getting one because my emphasis is tone and I could care less about the looks or who assembled it. But if I was in it for collecting, I might consider a Murphy.
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
This I think I'd have to disagree with. Already recent historics hold the majority of their value, and with absolutely insane prices Norlin era "crap" Gibsons are going for these days, I think Historics will def become more valuable in time, by the nature of their design...reissue..."custom shop" designs..better workmanship, generally better quality wood. I don't see the #s made having a significant impact personally, but only time will tell.
XSSIVE said:
This I think I'd have to disagree with. Already recent historics hold the majority of their value, and with absolutely insane prices Norlin era "crap" Gibsons are going for these days, I think Historics will def become more valuable in time, by the nature of their design...reissue..."custom shop" designs..better workmanship, generally better quality wood. I don't see the #s made having a significant impact personally, but only time will tell.
XSSIVE
OCDologist
Re: Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
very true, only time will tell. that's the way i thought about the future value though and then when my luthier said the same thing i figured i had to be onto something LOL. quality matters for sure however numbers matter alot also. lets take a part off a '59 LP for example a double black PAF or a nickel one will pull one price while a double creme PAF will pull in even more since there were even less of them made. sure they are pretty much the same thing but one is a different color and there are less to be had. granted that's just parts but the same goes for vintage guitars, the lower the number of them made in let's say a certain special color VS basic black for example the special color one will 9 times out of 10 be worth more since there are less of them. heck it could be puke green and and "ugly" color yet there were less made so they are in higher demand now. so with Gibson cranking out these historics like mad and charging (too much) a lot for them now does not mean they will be worth more later just because the price is high now. i think the less they make of a guitar (a special edition perhaps) if it's a good guitar to start with will certainly be worth more. with the historics it's kinda hard to say but i'm very iffy of them being worth loads later. granted, i could off, only time will tell. however i know i wouldn't buy one as an investment since it's too grey of an area for me to risk.
-Mike
very true, only time will tell. that's the way i thought about the future value though and then when my luthier said the same thing i figured i had to be onto something LOL. quality matters for sure however numbers matter alot also. lets take a part off a '59 LP for example a double black PAF or a nickel one will pull one price while a double creme PAF will pull in even more since there were even less of them made. sure they are pretty much the same thing but one is a different color and there are less to be had. granted that's just parts but the same goes for vintage guitars, the lower the number of them made in let's say a certain special color VS basic black for example the special color one will 9 times out of 10 be worth more since there are less of them. heck it could be puke green and and "ugly" color yet there were less made so they are in higher demand now. so with Gibson cranking out these historics like mad and charging (too much) a lot for them now does not mean they will be worth more later just because the price is high now. i think the less they make of a guitar (a special edition perhaps) if it's a good guitar to start with will certainly be worth more. with the historics it's kinda hard to say but i'm very iffy of them being worth loads later. granted, i could off, only time will tell. however i know i wouldn't buy one as an investment since it's too grey of an area for me to risk.
-Mike
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
It's no secret that the Historic's get the lion's share of the "good wood" if you will. How good that wood is becomes a matter of personal opinion, although as a GENERAL rule, Historics tend to be more consistent than Standards...although there are many fine Standards to be had, and some dog Historics.
I believe when the whole Historic RI series started, and Murphy first started aging guitars, he got the pick of the litter as far as pre-built Historics go. Then there was a period where they specifically picked the finest wood and tops to go to Murphy...built em' for him if you like. I would imagine that that period is over for the most part. There is a lot of debate as to how much "good wood" Gibson has. I't probably like anything, some years are better than others, some wood ages and dries right from a harvest, some doesn't. I do believe that Gibson holds the "best of the best" wood for the higher priced guitars....still.
So what does that really mean? I think as a GENERAL rule, the higher priced Gibsons will have "better wood", if you will. Does this always translate into a better guitar? No. However, I think the chances are better.
I don't think it's fair to criticize someone just because they have the means to purchase a $5000 + Gibson. Work hard, earn or save your money, and buy whatever makes you happy. The thought of a Murphy aged guitar does not really appeal to me, but that doesn't make it wrong or stupid if that appeals to you...right?
As for the original question...is the Murphy worth $2500 extra? Depends on some things. Is the money an issue? Have you played the Murphy next to some standard Historic RI's? Is there a tremendous sound or feel difference? If you pick up the Murphy, and it sings like a bird and feels like an old friend in your hand, and you have the $$, then I'd say it's worth the extra $$. If your buying it just because it's a Murphy, and not for the sound...then probably not.
Just my $.02
It's no secret that the Historic's get the lion's share of the "good wood" if you will. How good that wood is becomes a matter of personal opinion, although as a GENERAL rule, Historics tend to be more consistent than Standards...although there are many fine Standards to be had, and some dog Historics.
I believe when the whole Historic RI series started, and Murphy first started aging guitars, he got the pick of the litter as far as pre-built Historics go. Then there was a period where they specifically picked the finest wood and tops to go to Murphy...built em' for him if you like. I would imagine that that period is over for the most part. There is a lot of debate as to how much "good wood" Gibson has. I't probably like anything, some years are better than others, some wood ages and dries right from a harvest, some doesn't. I do believe that Gibson holds the "best of the best" wood for the higher priced guitars....still.
So what does that really mean? I think as a GENERAL rule, the higher priced Gibsons will have "better wood", if you will. Does this always translate into a better guitar? No. However, I think the chances are better.
I don't think it's fair to criticize someone just because they have the means to purchase a $5000 + Gibson. Work hard, earn or save your money, and buy whatever makes you happy. The thought of a Murphy aged guitar does not really appeal to me, but that doesn't make it wrong or stupid if that appeals to you...right?
As for the original question...is the Murphy worth $2500 extra? Depends on some things. Is the money an issue? Have you played the Murphy next to some standard Historic RI's? Is there a tremendous sound or feel difference? If you pick up the Murphy, and it sings like a bird and feels like an old friend in your hand, and you have the $$, then I'd say it's worth the extra $$. If your buying it just because it's a Murphy, and not for the sound...then probably not.
Just my $.02
The Golden Boy
Fleecy Sweaterologist
Re: Gibson LP Flame AAA top vs. Murphy Aged
The Historics get the best wood. Hands down. The lightest, most resonant wood goes to the Custom Shop. If you wish to argue that, there's always those "Swiss Cheese" photos of the weight relief holes in the production Standards. Pretty top or not pretty top, it's a production Standard, with the wood culled from the Gibson USA production line. Within the Custom Shop, the R9 and R0s get the lightest wood, followed by the R8s and then the R7s. The prettiest tops go to the R9s- that's the flagship model. Murphy no longer works for Gibson, he has his own company, I believe it's called 'Guitar Preservation' or something like that. I believe he picks what he wants to do- whether it's a guitar with a pretty top or an exceptional guitar- I believe he gets his pick of which guitars he does.
Whether you don't think a Historic is worth the change and you'd rather chase after a Standard is up to you. I believe a majority of the cost of the Historic goes to the wood. In 2001, street price on an R8 was a little over 3K. The weight of those guitars is generally around 9 lbs- the same weight as an R9 or an R0. In 03 the prices of the R8s dropped to around 2.3K and the weight of the guitar went up, where the weights of the R9 and R0 stayed the same, but the price went up on those. Generally speaking, I'd take a newer Historic (post 99, but pre-03 for R8s) over any production guitar Gibson has made in the past 37 years. There are exeptional Norlins, and there's doggy Historics- but there's a definite pattern that's difficult to ignore.
As far as value- I don't believe the 90s Standard to be any better than a current Standard by any definitive measure. In fact, Murphy working at Gibson or not, the early-mid 90s "Heritage Cherry Sunburst" guitars are more guilty of the "clownburst" tag than anything during the Norlin years. I don't believe an early Historic is going to be "collectable" to anyone that loves the guitar for what it is. To me, the value of a guitar is how good of a guitar it is, and the liklihood of a guitar being good by nature of the year in which it was made. In all reality, the 99 Historics are the first ones that were closest to "right" and had most of the appointments that really signalled great guitars coming out of Nashville. My 98 R8 is a cool guitar- but it has nothing on my 01. I'd venture to say my 01 is a better guitar than my 59 Special. The more people that are drawn to collecting guitars by the absolutely mental prices people are paying for things, the more uniformed buyers are buying dud guitars for stupid money and driving up prices... Some dip**** is going to be buying a 90 Classic for 8K just because it has a "Gibson" on the headstock and 1960 on the pickguard... Look at Norlin prices.
No one can say what'll be collectable down the road- but I'll bet on the better guitars being worth more money.
The Historics get the best wood. Hands down. The lightest, most resonant wood goes to the Custom Shop. If you wish to argue that, there's always those "Swiss Cheese" photos of the weight relief holes in the production Standards. Pretty top or not pretty top, it's a production Standard, with the wood culled from the Gibson USA production line. Within the Custom Shop, the R9 and R0s get the lightest wood, followed by the R8s and then the R7s. The prettiest tops go to the R9s- that's the flagship model. Murphy no longer works for Gibson, he has his own company, I believe it's called 'Guitar Preservation' or something like that. I believe he picks what he wants to do- whether it's a guitar with a pretty top or an exceptional guitar- I believe he gets his pick of which guitars he does.
Whether you don't think a Historic is worth the change and you'd rather chase after a Standard is up to you. I believe a majority of the cost of the Historic goes to the wood. In 2001, street price on an R8 was a little over 3K. The weight of those guitars is generally around 9 lbs- the same weight as an R9 or an R0. In 03 the prices of the R8s dropped to around 2.3K and the weight of the guitar went up, where the weights of the R9 and R0 stayed the same, but the price went up on those. Generally speaking, I'd take a newer Historic (post 99, but pre-03 for R8s) over any production guitar Gibson has made in the past 37 years. There are exeptional Norlins, and there's doggy Historics- but there's a definite pattern that's difficult to ignore.
As far as value- I don't believe the 90s Standard to be any better than a current Standard by any definitive measure. In fact, Murphy working at Gibson or not, the early-mid 90s "Heritage Cherry Sunburst" guitars are more guilty of the "clownburst" tag than anything during the Norlin years. I don't believe an early Historic is going to be "collectable" to anyone that loves the guitar for what it is. To me, the value of a guitar is how good of a guitar it is, and the liklihood of a guitar being good by nature of the year in which it was made. In all reality, the 99 Historics are the first ones that were closest to "right" and had most of the appointments that really signalled great guitars coming out of Nashville. My 98 R8 is a cool guitar- but it has nothing on my 01. I'd venture to say my 01 is a better guitar than my 59 Special. The more people that are drawn to collecting guitars by the absolutely mental prices people are paying for things, the more uniformed buyers are buying dud guitars for stupid money and driving up prices... Some dip**** is going to be buying a 90 Classic for 8K just because it has a "Gibson" on the headstock and 1960 on the pickguard... Look at Norlin prices.
No one can say what'll be collectable down the road- but I'll bet on the better guitars being worth more money.
By that logic 52 LPs should be worth more than 59s...
Last edited:
