Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
- Thread starter LesStrat
- Start date
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
I looked in my Les Paul books for you for some kind of legend but there isn't really anything in there. Just remember some of the the Historics have the biggest necks they are based on the 58 and earlier models. A Traditional had the D shaped 59 neck and a lot of models will have the 60's slim taper. I think the delta between the 59 and the 60 is tiny seeing what you will gain in tone. If your buddy is playing a Parker right now I think the 58 neck will feel uncomfortable.
I looked in my Les Paul books for you for some kind of legend but there isn't really anything in there. Just remember some of the the Historics have the biggest necks they are based on the 58 and earlier models. A Traditional had the D shaped 59 neck and a lot of models will have the 60's slim taper. I think the delta between the 59 and the 60 is tiny seeing what you will gain in tone. If your buddy is playing a Parker right now I think the 58 neck will feel uncomfortable.
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
I have eleven Les Pauls at the moment, and scheming to get more. LOL!
I like voggin's idea; I have a '95 and a '96 Les Paul 1960 Classic Premium Plus models with flamed tops. I've added Seths to one and Ants to the other. Both got Schaller straplocks, Gotoh lightweight aluminum tailpieces and RS pot/cap kits. I wouldn't go much later than '97--the inlays get really ugly and green. I like the Slim Taper necks, but they are not everyone's cup of tea. Really good value for the money. Ones like mine are now going for around $2200-2500; the plaintops for much less.
These guitars as modified catch about 90% of the tone and vibe of the Historic Re-issues. If you want a bigger neck, the '57 Goldtop and '58 Plaintop reissues are phenomenal guitars. I have four Historics; a '58 plaintop, a figured '59, and two of the Guitar Center G0 models, which are my favorites due to their smaller necks. They are just a big step above the production guitars, and in my mind well worth the extra cost. Choose wisely and it will be a life-long friend. The two G0s are the ones I would save if I had to run out of a burning house.
Bill
I have eleven Les Pauls at the moment, and scheming to get more. LOL!
I like voggin's idea; I have a '95 and a '96 Les Paul 1960 Classic Premium Plus models with flamed tops. I've added Seths to one and Ants to the other. Both got Schaller straplocks, Gotoh lightweight aluminum tailpieces and RS pot/cap kits. I wouldn't go much later than '97--the inlays get really ugly and green. I like the Slim Taper necks, but they are not everyone's cup of tea. Really good value for the money. Ones like mine are now going for around $2200-2500; the plaintops for much less.
These guitars as modified catch about 90% of the tone and vibe of the Historic Re-issues. If you want a bigger neck, the '57 Goldtop and '58 Plaintop reissues are phenomenal guitars. I have four Historics; a '58 plaintop, a figured '59, and two of the Guitar Center G0 models, which are my favorites due to their smaller necks. They are just a big step above the production guitars, and in my mind well worth the extra cost. Choose wisely and it will be a life-long friend. The two G0s are the ones I would save if I had to run out of a burning house.
Bill
Myaccount876
Amira-Maker
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
Looks like I'd like a R8 neck then. I love a good baseball bat.
This thread needs some more graphs though:
As you can tell from my graph I pulled straight from the first Google result page without reading a single credible article explaining the graph, Norlin Gibsons caused a small ice age.
Looks like I'd like a R8 neck then. I love a good baseball bat.
This thread needs some more graphs though:
As you can tell from my graph I pulled straight from the first Google result page without reading a single credible article explaining the graph, Norlin Gibsons caused a small ice age.
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
FWIW, the necks on the new 2014 classics, while still slim, are not like typical 60s profiles necks of the last 2 decades worth of Les Pauls. The 2014 classics are rounder on the back and have less shoulder..more C shaped. Which is why I dig it. Its actually more like a Norlin style 70s neck.
FWIW, the necks on the new 2014 classics, while still slim, are not like typical 60s profiles necks of the last 2 decades worth of Les Pauls. The 2014 classics are rounder on the back and have less shoulder..more C shaped. Which is why I dig it. Its actually more like a Norlin style 70s neck.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
Well - without further details;
Trad Pro's are pretty sweet
I personally dig the Les Paul Classics - great bang for buck standards
Play all sorts of Studios, because they make all sorts of studios. Smome MEh, some total win. And more variation in all sorts of ways.
Well - without further details;
Trad Pro's are pretty sweet
I personally dig the Les Paul Classics - great bang for buck standards
Play all sorts of Studios, because they make all sorts of studios. Smome MEh, some total win. And more variation in all sorts of ways.
LesStrat
Reining PunLowered
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
This is very informative, gents. The details are appreciated. I think this can help others choose, and who knows, I might have to try a few myself.
OTOH, he asked today if I would consider selling the Fly Deluxe. If I do, I can afford a better mixer for my mancave.
And if I do, he WON'T be buying a LP.:dunno: we might stil do some window shopping to drive the salesmen crazy.
"Could I play the custom up in the corner? And what about that 335 behind the counter?"
1. He has decided he likes the versatility of the Fly.
2. The prices have skyrocketed since I last checked! New axes are up ~$1500 in the DISCOUNTED price! Even the used Flys have jumped in value. I had no idea.
The Fly Deluxe has a Brobucker and an A2Pro custom rebuilt by MJ.
This is very informative, gents. The details are appreciated. I think this can help others choose, and who knows, I might have to try a few myself.
OTOH, he asked today if I would consider selling the Fly Deluxe. If I do, I can afford a better mixer for my mancave.
And if I do, he WON'T be buying a LP.:dunno: we might stil do some window shopping to drive the salesmen crazy.
"Could I play the custom up in the corner? And what about that 335 behind the counter?"
1. He has decided he likes the versatility of the Fly.
2. The prices have skyrocketed since I last checked! New axes are up ~$1500 in the DISCOUNTED price! Even the used Flys have jumped in value. I had no idea.
The Fly Deluxe has a Brobucker and an A2Pro custom rebuilt by MJ.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
At the risk of blowing out this thread on a 'which Gibson Les Paul pickups are better' trollfest...
I have a 1994 Les Paul Standard with 498/490 pickups in it. When I bought it, it didn't sound right. Bridge pickup was hotter, muddier and lacked treble. Rhythm pickup was ok, but not exactly the tone I'd heard on records. Now? Something has happened over time. Those two pickups after 20 years are now balanced and even and sound like Zeppelin records I had always wanted to sound like. As a comparison point, about a year to two ago I bought an SG with 498/490 pups in it. Sounded exactly like my Les Paul did when I bought it. Bridge pickup loud and muddier, rhythm pickup ok, but not exactly what I was hoping for.
My experience has made me wonder if Gibson makes their guitars to age? Even the cosmetics went through the same thing: when I bought it, the fretboard inlays were bluish, the binding was tan, the knobs were gold and stuck out because the natural part of the wood finish looked like plain, pale unfinished wood. Now all of it matches. The inlays are yellowed and match the binding and the natural part of the wood finish and knobs are both gold. My experience makes me feel recent-era Gibson Les Pauls are not supposed to be perfect off the rack the day you buy them. They get perfect when they're older.
At the risk of blowing out this thread on a 'which Gibson Les Paul pickups are better' trollfest...
I have a 1994 Les Paul Standard with 498/490 pickups in it. When I bought it, it didn't sound right. Bridge pickup was hotter, muddier and lacked treble. Rhythm pickup was ok, but not exactly the tone I'd heard on records. Now? Something has happened over time. Those two pickups after 20 years are now balanced and even and sound like Zeppelin records I had always wanted to sound like. As a comparison point, about a year to two ago I bought an SG with 498/490 pups in it. Sounded exactly like my Les Paul did when I bought it. Bridge pickup loud and muddier, rhythm pickup ok, but not exactly what I was hoping for.
My experience has made me wonder if Gibson makes their guitars to age? Even the cosmetics went through the same thing: when I bought it, the fretboard inlays were bluish, the binding was tan, the knobs were gold and stuck out because the natural part of the wood finish looked like plain, pale unfinished wood. Now all of it matches. The inlays are yellowed and match the binding and the natural part of the wood finish and knobs are both gold. My experience makes me feel recent-era Gibson Les Pauls are not supposed to be perfect off the rack the day you buy them. They get perfect when they're older.
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
^ I'd guess its the wood.
Many luthiers hold to the adage that the sap finally crystallizes after 20 years. Certainly my acoustic is sounding better than ever
The other possibility is that you've adjusted them, or you're playing through a different rig, or that you've improved etc etc.
^ I'd guess its the wood.
Many luthiers hold to the adage that the sap finally crystallizes after 20 years. Certainly my acoustic is sounding better than ever
The other possibility is that you've adjusted them, or you're playing through a different rig, or that you've improved etc etc.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
In my case, I bought the Les Paul and a Marshall SL-X about the same time in order to do studio work, so I have recordings of this same rig and setup spanning 20 years. Tubes in the Marshall have been changed, but that has no bearing on the balance of tone/level/sound between the two pickups in the Les Paul. The Les Paul is completely stock. The only difference is I used .009s back then and these days I use .010s. But that doesn't impact the balance between the two pickups (AFAIK. I'm sure someone will jump on this about how it matters in some way.)
In my case, I bought the Les Paul and a Marshall SL-X about the same time in order to do studio work, so I have recordings of this same rig and setup spanning 20 years. Tubes in the Marshall have been changed, but that has no bearing on the balance of tone/level/sound between the two pickups in the Les Paul. The Les Paul is completely stock. The only difference is I used .009s back then and these days I use .010s. But that doesn't impact the balance between the two pickups (AFAIK. I'm sure someone will jump on this about how it matters in some way.)
voggin
New member
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
At the risk of continuing a hijack, I think BB is onto something on the aging thing. I bought a 60s reissue strat 20 years ago, and acoustically, it seems to have gotten really LOUD over the last few years (and my hearing is getting worse, so it must be really frigging loud).
I think the aging process might explain the current renaissance in Norlins. Some of the complaints about them at the time they were made may have been cured over the years (pun intended) as the guitars age. Now they are great guitars. Like when you see a used "second" that's 40 years old and you can't for the life of you find a flaw.
I don't know if there's anything deliberate about it on Gibson's (or Fender's) part (I notice a lot of people seem to like CBS fenders now, too) or if there is just something to the construction processes that result in this.
It's probably an argument in favour of using good woods and other materials to start, but God, let's not get into that discussion again!
At the risk of continuing a hijack, I think BB is onto something on the aging thing. I bought a 60s reissue strat 20 years ago, and acoustically, it seems to have gotten really LOUD over the last few years (and my hearing is getting worse, so it must be really frigging loud).
I think the aging process might explain the current renaissance in Norlins. Some of the complaints about them at the time they were made may have been cured over the years (pun intended) as the guitars age. Now they are great guitars. Like when you see a used "second" that's 40 years old and you can't for the life of you find a flaw.
I don't know if there's anything deliberate about it on Gibson's (or Fender's) part (I notice a lot of people seem to like CBS fenders now, too) or if there is just something to the construction processes that result in this.
It's probably an argument in favour of using good woods and other materials to start, but God, let's not get into that discussion again!
Red_Label
New member
Re: Market Research: Choosing a Gibson Les Paul
Thanks for the heads-up on this book. Just bought a copy off of Ebay (even though I've already got my LP and am very happy with it -- just want to know more about LPs in general). I'm also looking at a few of Tony's other books.
Thanks for the heads-up on this book. Just bought a copy off of Ebay (even though I've already got my LP and am very happy with it -- just want to know more about LPs in general). I'm also looking at a few of Tony's other books.