Opinions on BFG Les Paul
- Thread starter Pilatvs
- Start date
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
I like the general look, though I would make several changes. My favorite (and the only one I'd probably own) is the Gator model. I'd cover the pickups and install a ring on the humbucker, and go to nickel hardware. I'd also get rid of the second switch and go to a standard control layout and put regular knobs on. It needs a pick guard too, IMO, maybe an ebony guard would be nice, or dyed rosewood, to match the fretboard, which I would dye black. They are chambered, IIRC.
I like the general look, though I would make several changes. My favorite (and the only one I'd probably own) is the Gator model. I'd cover the pickups and install a ring on the humbucker, and go to nickel hardware. I'd also get rid of the second switch and go to a standard control layout and put regular knobs on. It needs a pick guard too, IMO, maybe an ebony guard would be nice, or dyed rosewood, to match the fretboard, which I would dye black. They are chambered, IIRC.
Last edited:
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
Ain't nuthin' wrong with chambering IMO. It's not like it's trying to be a vintage reissue or something. With the all-too-often heavy mahogany that Gibson have been using for decades, chambering is far preferable to me. (I wish they had done it on my '83 Custom, which weighs about 11 lb.) Their chambered guitars weigh 8 – 9 lb. Imagine what they would weigh if they were not hogged out! I say, if you're gonna use that heavy-ass wood, at least make it comfortable by hacking away as much of it as possible. Sounds better too, at least to me.
Ain't nuthin' wrong with chambering IMO. It's not like it's trying to be a vintage reissue or something. With the all-too-often heavy mahogany that Gibson have been using for decades, chambering is far preferable to me. (I wish they had done it on my '83 Custom, which weighs about 11 lb.) Their chambered guitars weigh 8 – 9 lb. Imagine what they would weigh if they were not hogged out! I say, if you're gonna use that heavy-ass wood, at least make it comfortable by hacking away as much of it as possible. Sounds better too, at least to me.
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
I can't remember the specs on the BFG, but it was not a guitar that had a lot of appeal for me--I'm more of a vintage guy.
But I will agree with ItsaBass on the issue of chambering. I have eleven Les Pauls, and five are chambered: the Custom Shop Elegant; two Supremes; and two of the 2007 Guitar Of The Week Classic Antique Series. The Elegant responds the same as my two "weight-relieved" mid-1990's LP 1960 Classic Premium Plus models; and tonally there's not much to choose from that can't be explained by pickup differences--'57 Classics in the Elegant vs. Custom Shop Seths vs. Antiquitys.
The Supremes--again, not much to tonally differentiate them from the run-of-the-mill, basic black, LP Custom model. Woods are upgraded on the Supremes, and they have that beautiful flame maple cap on the back as well as the front. Mine weigh in at 8.9 and 9.1 lbs.; for a CHAMBERED guitar--that's enough of a difference between an 11-pound Custom to make it worth it for my back and shoulders.
The Classic Antiques are a different story. I have the Fireburst finish and the Tom Morgan Artist versions. Both are EXTREMELY lightweight for a Les Paul; I think one is 7.8 lbs. and the other is 8.1 lbs. Both are stock and feature open-top '57 Classic neck and Classic Plus bridge pickups. But along with the light weight, the other thing that is so cool about them is how resonant they are. Like the solid-body Les Paul Historics I have with the long neck tenon, strum a chord on these guitars and you instantly feel the resonance of the guitar as it vibrates in your hand. Played with some volume, they feel very lively and have great sustain. They have the same kind of midrange punch that makes you think, "Les Paul". And my shoulder LOVES them!
That said, I would probably not want to use them when I would play at extremely high volume, where feedback could become an issue. (Feedback has never been an issue with the Elegant or the Supremes.)
So I wouldn't be too put off by a chambered Les Paul. Everybody has different ideas about how and LP should sound and respond--some like them heavy, compressed and sustaining, and dead as a piece of granite. I prefer the ones that are lighter, dynamic, resonant and lively. It's easy to get caught up in all the minutia of construction details, but when it comes down to it, it's all about tone and feel. If it feels good and sounds good--it is good.
Good luck!
Bill
I can't remember the specs on the BFG, but it was not a guitar that had a lot of appeal for me--I'm more of a vintage guy.
But I will agree with ItsaBass on the issue of chambering. I have eleven Les Pauls, and five are chambered: the Custom Shop Elegant; two Supremes; and two of the 2007 Guitar Of The Week Classic Antique Series. The Elegant responds the same as my two "weight-relieved" mid-1990's LP 1960 Classic Premium Plus models; and tonally there's not much to choose from that can't be explained by pickup differences--'57 Classics in the Elegant vs. Custom Shop Seths vs. Antiquitys.
The Supremes--again, not much to tonally differentiate them from the run-of-the-mill, basic black, LP Custom model. Woods are upgraded on the Supremes, and they have that beautiful flame maple cap on the back as well as the front. Mine weigh in at 8.9 and 9.1 lbs.; for a CHAMBERED guitar--that's enough of a difference between an 11-pound Custom to make it worth it for my back and shoulders.
The Classic Antiques are a different story. I have the Fireburst finish and the Tom Morgan Artist versions. Both are EXTREMELY lightweight for a Les Paul; I think one is 7.8 lbs. and the other is 8.1 lbs. Both are stock and feature open-top '57 Classic neck and Classic Plus bridge pickups. But along with the light weight, the other thing that is so cool about them is how resonant they are. Like the solid-body Les Paul Historics I have with the long neck tenon, strum a chord on these guitars and you instantly feel the resonance of the guitar as it vibrates in your hand. Played with some volume, they feel very lively and have great sustain. They have the same kind of midrange punch that makes you think, "Les Paul". And my shoulder LOVES them!
That said, I would probably not want to use them when I would play at extremely high volume, where feedback could become an issue. (Feedback has never been an issue with the Elegant or the Supremes.)
So I wouldn't be too put off by a chambered Les Paul. Everybody has different ideas about how and LP should sound and respond--some like them heavy, compressed and sustaining, and dead as a piece of granite. I prefer the ones that are lighter, dynamic, resonant and lively. It's easy to get caught up in all the minutia of construction details, but when it comes down to it, it's all about tone and feel. If it feels good and sounds good--it is good.
Good luck!
Bill
plasticscouse
New member
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
II would quite like it, a BB3 in the bridge and a p90 in the neck, sounds surprisingly versatile. I would also change the controls to standard.
II would quite like it, a BB3 in the bridge and a p90 in the neck, sounds surprisingly versatile. I would also change the controls to standard.
Detroitblues
New member
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
The BFG's were out long before Gibson started using maple necks and baked fretboards. They are exactly as their name implies, Barely Finished Guitars. The may be weight-relieved, but I'm not positive. However, since they are not coated in heavy paint, they are somewhat lighter like the Les Paul Studio Fadeds were.
I agree with everyone else that thinks the controls should be converted to a standard LP layout. Get rid of the kill-switch.
Also, I would put normal control knobs instead of those wooden knobs as well.
I just did a bit of quick research to support my arguments...
The Gator BFG and Gary Moore models did have a baked maple fretboard. The original BFG did not....
Here's the original specs:
Unsanded carved maple top
Mahogany back
1950s rounded mahogany neck
Rosewood fingerboard
Scale length: 24-3/4"
Number of frets: 22
Nut width: 1.695"
Inlays: white side dots only
Hardware: gun metal (trans cherry finish) or distressed black chrome (trans black and trans gold finish)
Tailpiece: stopbar (distressed)
Bridge: Tune-o-matic
Knobs: two wooden volumes, one wooden tone
Tuners: Grover (distressed)
Neck pickup: P-90
Bridge pickup: Zebra BurstBucker 3
Controls: 2 volume, 1 tone, 3-way switch
Kill switch toggle
See-through wiring covers in back
Strings: Brite Wires .010-.046
Case: shopworn Les Paul
Gator BFG:
•Mahogany body with "gator scale" carved Maple top
•Rounded "Studio" neck profile, baked maple fretboard
•P-90 neck pickup and zebra BurstBucker 3 bridge pickup
•"Kill switch" in the three-way selector position
•Black Grover® tuners with 14:1 tuning ratio
The BFG's were out long before Gibson started using maple necks and baked fretboards. They are exactly as their name implies, Barely Finished Guitars. The may be weight-relieved, but I'm not positive. However, since they are not coated in heavy paint, they are somewhat lighter like the Les Paul Studio Fadeds were.
I agree with everyone else that thinks the controls should be converted to a standard LP layout. Get rid of the kill-switch.
Also, I would put normal control knobs instead of those wooden knobs as well.
I just did a bit of quick research to support my arguments...
The Gator BFG and Gary Moore models did have a baked maple fretboard. The original BFG did not....
Here's the original specs:
Unsanded carved maple top
Mahogany back
1950s rounded mahogany neck
Rosewood fingerboard
Scale length: 24-3/4"
Number of frets: 22
Nut width: 1.695"
Inlays: white side dots only
Hardware: gun metal (trans cherry finish) or distressed black chrome (trans black and trans gold finish)
Tailpiece: stopbar (distressed)
Bridge: Tune-o-matic
Knobs: two wooden volumes, one wooden tone
Tuners: Grover (distressed)
Neck pickup: P-90
Bridge pickup: Zebra BurstBucker 3
Controls: 2 volume, 1 tone, 3-way switch
Kill switch toggle
See-through wiring covers in back
Strings: Brite Wires .010-.046
Case: shopworn Les Paul
Gator BFG:
•Mahogany body with "gator scale" carved Maple top
•Rounded "Studio" neck profile, baked maple fretboard
•P-90 neck pickup and zebra BurstBucker 3 bridge pickup
•"Kill switch" in the three-way selector position
•Black Grover® tuners with 14:1 tuning ratio
Last edited:
80's_Metal
Underglazed Hair Metalologist
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
I kind of like them, but I also don't think they look like classic LP's.
I kind of like them, but I also don't think they look like classic LP's.
ItsaBass
New member
Opinions on BFG Les Paul
Gators definitely did not have baked maple boards for their entire run. I was THIS close to buying one on several occasions. I am certain it was rosewood. Not only do I remember it looking and feeling like rosewood and specifically remember rosewood being listed in the specs, but baked maple is something I would not have forgotten about them. I know the difference between baked maple and rosewood; they are nothing alike. I've owned a Gibson with baked maple. It cannot be mistaken for rosewood. I had a Gator in my hands on several occasions, and read the specs obsessively when they came out; it was definitely rosewood at first.
However, it was released around the time of the baked maple nonsense, and Gibson has been known to change specs at will. They did it on the Les Paul Melody Makers back in 2003, for instance, originally making them with mahogany bodies and cedar necks, then changing them to cedar bodies with cedar necks without announcement. The specs just all of a sudden changed on the Gibson site and on retailers' sites.
Additionally, the finish does not reduce the weight. Lacquer weighs almost nothing in relation to a guitar's weight. These aren't heavy guitars, but that's because if the chambering.
Gators definitely did not have baked maple boards for their entire run. I was THIS close to buying one on several occasions. I am certain it was rosewood. Not only do I remember it looking and feeling like rosewood and specifically remember rosewood being listed in the specs, but baked maple is something I would not have forgotten about them. I know the difference between baked maple and rosewood; they are nothing alike. I've owned a Gibson with baked maple. It cannot be mistaken for rosewood. I had a Gator in my hands on several occasions, and read the specs obsessively when they came out; it was definitely rosewood at first.
However, it was released around the time of the baked maple nonsense, and Gibson has been known to change specs at will. They did it on the Les Paul Melody Makers back in 2003, for instance, originally making them with mahogany bodies and cedar necks, then changing them to cedar bodies with cedar necks without announcement. The specs just all of a sudden changed on the Gibson site and on retailers' sites.
Additionally, the finish does not reduce the weight. Lacquer weighs almost nothing in relation to a guitar's weight. These aren't heavy guitars, but that's because if the chambering.
Last edited:
Myaccount876
Amira-Maker
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
I think chambering affects the weight more than the lack of "heavy paint"...LOL
I'd like to play one, and I'd just swap the killswitch for something I'd actually use.
I think chambering affects the weight more than the lack of "heavy paint"...LOL
I'd like to play one, and I'd just swap the killswitch for something I'd actually use.
allbutromeo
New member
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
I believe the majority of Les Pauls were switched to chambered bodies in either 07 or 08, I know my 08 studio is. I haven't noticed a huge difference sonically between the chambered studio and my Trad pro II with the 90's style "swiss cheese" weight relief. Both are very different sounding than my nearly 12lb 1981 Custom, but I attribute that mainly to the fact that it has a maple neck/ebony fretboard vs mohagamy/rosewood on the other two
I believe the majority of Les Pauls were switched to chambered bodies in either 07 or 08, I know my 08 studio is. I haven't noticed a huge difference sonically between the chambered studio and my Trad pro II with the 90's style "swiss cheese" weight relief. Both are very different sounding than my nearly 12lb 1981 Custom, but I attribute that mainly to the fact that it has a maple neck/ebony fretboard vs mohagamy/rosewood on the other two
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Opinions on BFG Les Paul
Had one. Liked the raw finish. Returned it after a week. Sharp body edges, hated the controls, and bb3/p90 were not a good match, especially with 300k pots. The 60s neck was tye big disconnect for me. I used the money to grab a PRS SC250, which cost twice as much but was 10 times the quality. That BFG was probably the worst Les Paul I have owned, barring a couple of Epiphones
Had one. Liked the raw finish. Returned it after a week. Sharp body edges, hated the controls, and bb3/p90 were not a good match, especially with 300k pots. The 60s neck was tye big disconnect for me. I used the money to grab a PRS SC250, which cost twice as much but was 10 times the quality. That BFG was probably the worst Les Paul I have owned, barring a couple of Epiphones
