Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

[jdm61]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

Solid mahoghany may be the exception to the weight formula. Every Historic LP Custom that I have ever handled has been somewhat of a boat anchor, but they sound great. With the Standards, some of the super premium top maple can be heavy. When PRS first made the McCarty, they didn't pick out "10" tops for them. They went for the most resonant maple they had in stock. The 10 top came later. I read that what was so magic about some of the '57 Gold Tops wasa that since the "pretty" wood was used for the back of archtops, the builders would pick the wood for the LP tops based on how it sounded and not on how it looked, so some of the best sounding 50's Les Pauls are the Gold Tops.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

For a long time, Gibson hasn't cared about the wood quality. They've used wet woods, new wood, whatever. Everyone should learn sooner than later that they are all about the money, and the money only. They don't have the romantic relationship you or I have with guitars. So even if they do start using fine cuts, the decision would be rooted in money.

That doesn't mean you can't get a great guitar from them! But you have to divorce yourself from the romance, and just play 10-20 of them to find your favorite. Personally, a heavy LP represents a lousier, less resonant piece of Mahogany, and perhaps more moisture content, neither are what I want. So I would seek out a lighter paul, but to me the weight reduced ones are like owning a lie. Gibson lied to you when they gave you a weight relieved LP. It gave them a chance to use all those heavy pieces of crap Mahogany and charge for the weight relief. Again, it might be a great guitar in the end, but weight relief is a marketing term (as is most of their vernacular) for "you've told us LP's are getting heavy, we listened. But rather that get better cuts, we'll just drill these out."

It's been like that since 1969. Two piece bodies, 3 piece tops, little to no figure, average weight 10 lbs.

If you want good wood, you have to pay. Why do you think the R8 prices dropped from 3K down to 2.4K in 02-03? Did anyone notice that's when the weights in the R8s went up?

jdm61, about that pic- that was me- I "stole" that pic from Johnnytone on the LPF.

 

[callous_frigid_chill]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

This thread seems to be full of speculation and assumptions. :smack: I don't think it's possible to see a trend up or down in the weight of les pauls, because so many are made and because there is so much variation between wood.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

This thread seems to be full of speculation and assumptions. :smack: I don't think it's possible to see a trend up or down in the weight of les pauls, because so many are made and because there is so much variation between wood.

There is a trend. It's not speculation, assumption or conjecture. It's quite obvious and visible.

In 1969, Gibson started using cheaper (heavier) wood. If you don't believe me, pick up a Les Paul made prior to mid-1969, and one made after. In the early 90s Gibson started drilling "weight relief holes" to lighten the body. If you don't believe me, pick up a production LP made after 1990 or so and a Norlin LP. In late 2002 into 2003 Gibson started using heavier wood in the R8 historics. If you don't believe me, pick up an R8 made between 1998 and 2002 and one made after 02.

What can you attribute it to? Money. Lighter mahogany costs more money. Larger pieces cost more money. What did Norlin do? They made 2 body blanks and laminated them together- they made a 3 piece top standard, because the size was more economically feasable.

 

[callous_frigid_chill]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

I don't know, most of the historics seem to be around the 8.5-9.5 range, regardless of year reissued.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

Then I don't think you've been paying a lot of attention. I don't have the need to prove it- but all you need to do is look at the dramatic price drop and get a few sample weights. It was easy enough to do at the time when you could just look at Wildwood's site and they were still allowed to post pictures and descriptions of their new stock.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

I don't know, most of the historics seem to be around the 8.5-9.5 range, regardless of year reissued.

I don't believe I've ever seen a 9.5lbs historic that wasn't a custom. I've personally never seen one over 9. And I'm not just speculating either, I've owned an assload of Les Pauls and that's where I form the basis of my opinion.

 

[dr.barlo]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

There is a trend. It's not speculation, assumption or conjecture. It's quite obvious and visible.

In 1969, Gibson started using cheaper (heavier) wood. If you don't believe me, pick up a Les Paul made prior to mid-1969, and one made after. In the early 90s Gibson started drilling "weight relief holes" to lighten the body. If you don't believe me, pick up a production LP made after 1990 or so and a Norlin LP. In late 2002 into 2003 Gibson started using heavier wood in the R8 historics. If you don't believe me, pick up an R8 made between 1998 and 2002 and one made after 02.

What can you attribute it to? Money. Lighter mahogany costs more money. Larger pieces cost more money. What did Norlin do? They made 2 body blanks and laminated them together- they made a 3 piece top standard, because the size was more economically feasable.

WRONG.

I have bought 3 historics from Steve at Wildwood. Two R8's (an 03 and an 04) were quite light weight, 8.2 and 8.3. The R7 Goldtop I got weights 8.7lbs.

B

 

[dr.barlo]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

I don't believe I've ever seen a 9.5lbs historic that wasn't a custom. I've personally never seen one over 9. And I'm not just speculating either, I've owned an assload of Les Pauls and that's where I form the basis of my opinion.

+ 1

B

 

[Robert S.]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

My 2001 R9 weighs in at 8 lb 4 oz, both my 95 and 98 Stds are in the 9 lb 8 oz range. I find these weights fairly typical for the Gibson LP line overall. Historics tend to run 8-9 lbs. production LPs 9-10 lbs.

I have gotten over the fact that some people really dislike Gibson and particularily LPs and find the conspiracy theories fairly amusing. Usually when I start hearinig too much silly stuff I just cover my ears and sing "la la la la laaaaaa" so that the voices in my head don't start arguing with themselves.

It's hard to take all the Gibson LP bashing to heart. Having three fine examples here at the house that were actually very easy to find I just don't see what the problem is. My favorite is not the big dollar R9 (though it's a killer guitar) but instead is my 98 Std with the dreaded weight relief holes. It is singularily the best sounding and playing guitar I have ever owned or played and after 30 years of owning and playing a wide variety of guitars that says a lot.

The ONLY reason Gibson would lower the price of the R8s is to sell more guitars and to possibly put more space between the prices between the R8s and the R9s. It's marketing at it's finest and not a reflection of lesser woods in the in the 2002/3 R8s.

The Les Paul is such a friendly guitar. I don't know why they cause some people to get so worked up. If you don't like them, don't buy them.

 

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

By the way, it is silica that that tree absorbs from the ground that makes the wood heavy; not moisture. All tone woods have to be dried out to a certain percentage of moisture. I doubt that moisture content figure has changed much over the years.

There's a lot of Gibson bashing, of late; and I have to laugh, because Gibson has been bashed for one thing or another ever since I first started playing the guitar in 1965. LOL! Somehow, they've managed to survive all the bashing, and all the "idiotic" decisions over the years, and they still produce some of the most desirable guitars on the Planet!

I'm not sure whether my two LP Classic Premium Plus guitars (from 1996 and 1997) are weight-relieved--they both weight in at just over 9 lbs. I'm not entirely certain weight is the entire issue--we may be focusing in on the "wrong" parameter. Perhaps the issue should be "resonance", not weight. There are certainly two thoughts (or more) on this. One group seems to prefer the "heavier" Pauls, like the Custom model. Customs seem to be preferred by many of today's HARD rock players--and they cite the tight, even tone; fast attack; and long sustain of the Custom as plusses.

Players into Blues, or more diverse styles of music, seem to prefer the Standard (and especially the Historic Collection) for this model's more open, airy, resonant tone. While the a good Historic will have a natural, woody tone--to me a Custom might as well be made from granite. I admit, not everyone shares these view, and there are always exceptions to these guitars' tonal characteristics. Make up your own mind.

For me, when I play a good Historic Series Les Paul Standard I am always immediately taken by the natural resonance. Strum a chord, and you can feel the guitar vibrate from the tip of the headstock all the way down to the endpin. Most of these guitars are very lively in that respect. That MAY be a direct correlation of WEIGHT, and many people believe it is. I don't know.

What I DO know, is that I WANT a guitar that has that lively acoustic resonance. I demand it of my acoustic guitars; and over the past few years, I look for it in my electrics, too.

It's kind of funny for me, because for the last 40 years, I've always considered a Fender-made guitar to be my Number ONE guitar. (I started with a Duo-Sonic, a Tele Thinline and then a 1960 Strat. I played a Music Man Sabre II for many years; and now my Fenders of choice have Leo's G&L logo on them.) Still there's a certain cachet to a Les Paul that is hard to deny. I'm sure the evil Gibson company (bash, bash, bash) is selling every one they can roll out the doors, and I doubt that's gonna change anytime soon.

It's all in how you look at it!

Bill

 

[LesPaulRules]

Re: Light lespauls,, whats the deal?

I haven't read every word on this post so I hope I'm not being redundant.

All of Gibson's standard production Les Paul's (not custom shop) have had weight relief holes since about 1982/83. This includes all Standards, Customs, Studios, Classics (Plus and Premium Plus).

The main reason Gibson's prices dropped in 2003 on their '58 reissues was not due to weight/using heavier wood, it was due to their dropping figured maple top wood from the specs. This actually helped them sell more '59 RI's... while also giving some players who didn't want/need a flamey guitar a Custom Shop Historic Les Paul at a lower price.