Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

[GuitarGuy503]

I'm not normally impressed by most of the faded tops as I have only seen a few good ones. The top on this one looks great to me, however, the guitar was no longer appealing to me when I saw the back of the body.... :wrf: Pretty sloppy eh?

http://cgi.ebay.com/2007-Gibson-Les...ryZ38086QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[d1dsj]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

Is that a 2 piece back? It doesn't look like a particularly good match either... not good for a regular std let alone a special order if it is the case.

 

[GuitarGuy503]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

the back of the headstock isn't so pretty either with the lighter colored sliver of wood....

 

[GuitarGuy503]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

Is that a 2 piece back? It doesn't look like a particularly good match either... not good for a regular std let alone a special order if it is the case.

Ya. What gets me is they glue up two totally different pieces of wood for the body. I can understand not wanting to waste materials, but come on, use that combination of wood on an all black LP so noone can see it.

 

[V!N]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

One question, would you happen to be a great fan of PRS guitars ?

There's nothing that indicates this was a special order from Gibson. The store he got it from probably didn't have any faded tobacco sunburst Lesters in stock and they had to order it.

"Mismatching" like this happens all the time in guitars of all brands, it's just more visible when viewed from the right angle with the right light on it, like this seller did. Sloppy photography maybe, over exposed by way too much flash.

If you want to understand the headstock, you'll have to know something about the way Gibson makes necks first. Most manufacturers these days glue the headstock on somewhere between the first and second fret to save wood. Especially when the headstock is at an angle. Gibson doesn't and therefore, the grain of the wood runs parallel everywhere in the one piece neck, making everything after the nut very fragile and prone to breaking. Two wings with grain going the opposite way are there to give the headstock some strength.
Different bits of wood with different grain look .. different. Two of my Historics had "mismatched" wings (one of them being a Murphy GT) and if you'd look at some of the original '58-'60 'bursts, you'll find quite a few even had mismatched tops !

But I for one am one of those sods who decides to buy a guitar if it feels and sounds right. I don't give a rats ass about how it looks and I presume you can guess how much I give about what the back (a side that neither I, nor the audience will see "very often") looks like when viewed from a certain angle under certain light.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

If it only where the looks....

 

[sosomething]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

You know your stuff, but in this case I think you've got a few of your facts wrong.

"Mismatching" like this happens all the time in guitars of all brands, it's just more visible when viewed from the right angle with the right light on it, like this seller did. Sloppy photography maybe, over exposed by way too much flash.

The point here is that Les Pauls have always traditionally been constructed from once-piece backs. Due to cost-saving issues and materials becoming more scarce, Gibson has started using two and three-piece backs with more frequency, which is understandable, but using two pieces of such obviously different origin is sort of taking an uncomfortable issue and making it a lot more obvious.

If you want to understand the headstock, you'll have to know something about the way Gibson makes necks first. Most manufacturers these days glue the headstock on somewhere between the first and second fret to save wood. Especially when the headstock is at an angle. Gibson doesn't and therefore, the grain of the wood runs parallel everywhere in the one piece neck, making everything after the nut very fragile and prone to breaking. Two wings with grain going the opposite way are there to give the headstock some strength.

You're correct about the way Gibson manufactures necks, but wrong about why.

The weakest point on a Gib neck, where it's most prone to break, is under the nut, right at the base of the headstock. This is due to the combination of grain run-out and the fact that the nut is a focal point for string tension. Adding little extensions of wood to the outer edges of the headstock aren't going to help / affect this at all.

The reason they add those little wings on either side is because it allows them to reduce the overall width of their neck blanks, which saves materials and wastes less wood. They can fill out the headstock later with little bits of mahogany using far less wood overall than it would take to make an entire 1-piece neck/headstock.

But I for one am one of those sods who decides to buy a guitar if it feels and sounds right. I don't give a rats ass about how it looks and I presume you can guess how much I give about what the back (a side that neither I, nor the audience will see "very often") looks like when viewed from a certain angle under certain light.

Despite everything I've said, I find the guitar in that auction quite attractive and am not the least bit put off by the 2-piece back or headstock wings. It's wood - I don't expect it to be uniform - just resonant and toneful. The idiosyncrasies of the medium are appealing to me.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

The point here is that Les Pauls have always traditionally been constructed from once-piece backs

Those gotta be rare
Have seen very few ever since the 70's without at least two pieces...
Gibson have been costsaving for a few decades by now!

 

[Karmadog777]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

yeh that body should have been black, you would expect that from a epi or any knockoff but for the gibby clams I'd want 1 piece or atleast a decent match.. Ibanez ,tradition and agile can build so much cheaper with quality workmaship in their woods and construction its no wonder I havent took the plunge for a gibby yet(notice I said yet....lol I still have GAS for a worn mahogany or a nice studio LP) but the question is WHY?

 

[WhoFan]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

that's not a bad back for a guitar.... i see nothing wrong with the wood and it's different pieces.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

Hehe my last LP...was a Tokai

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

It looks like a sweet guitar. At least its not one of those 'floorboard tops' you used to see in the Norlin days.

 

[V!N]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

The reason they add those little wings on either side is because it allows them to reduce the overall width of their neck blanks, which saves materials and wastes less wood. They can fill out the headstock later with little bits of mahogany using far less wood overall than it would take to make an entire 1-piece neck/headstock.

That was how the Gibson neck was explained to me by a luthier, thank you for correcting him ..


Since 2002, the number of Lesters that leave the Gibson plant with two piece backs have been increasing. This includes the Standards. I even saw some made in the 80's with two piece backs and let's not forget they glued together whatever they could find in the 70's. So I don't quite agree when you say they "always traditionally" came with one piece backs. It's time we stopped comparing every Les Paul there is to how and what they were in the 50's. Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's bad.
Wood is getting scarce and more expensive and they already stretched it by adding weight relief holes to heavy single piece backs. Now we're getting two piece backs with holes and within the next five years, I expect to find the first Les Pauls with 3 piece backs to hit the stores.

Before financial difficulties hit me, I had four Les Pauls. Everybody who played them thought the three Historics with Bare Knuckle pickups and Timbuckers were great, especially the Murphy R7. But ALL said that my stock '72 Custom with pancake body, five or seven piece top, three piece neck and a weight of 7 Kilo (15.4 lbs) was the best in the bunch !
That's an even heavier Norlin than most Norlins you read about on the Internet with more bits glued to it than the regular Norlin .. If you'd find a post about a guitar like that, it would turn into a ten-page topic on how impossible it would be to get any tone from that and how much everybody misses the 50's construction that Gibson can't even get right in the current Historics.

In the end, the multi-piece back (mismatched or not) is really just another issue for people who read specs and look at pictures to get worked up about on some forum.
It's a different story for those who are interested in tone and play before passing judgement.

V!N

Only a Gibson is glued enough.

 

[sosomething]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

That was how the Gibson neck was explained to me by a luthier, thank you for correcting him ..

No problem. We all need a little help from time to time.

Since 2002, the number of Lesters that leave the Gibson plant with two piece backs have been increasing. This includes the Standards. I even saw some made in the 80's with two piece backs and let's not forget they glued together whatever they could find in the 70's. So I don't quite agree when you say they "always traditionally" came with one piece backs. It's time we stopped comparing every Les Paul there is to how and what they were in the 50's. Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's bad.

Understand that by saying "always traditionally" I am completely excluding the majority of Norlin-era abominations (with regard to traditional methods of construction). I assumed that was self-explanatory.

I'm not much of an authority on 80's era Les Pauls - I'm only pointing out why some people might have a problem with the kind of grain mismatch evident on the back of the guitar in question. It should have been clear from my initial post that I'm not one of those people.

Wood is getting scarce and more expensive and they already stretched it by adding weight relief holes to heavy single piece backs. Now we're getting two piece backs with holes and within the next five years, I expect to find the first Les Pauls with 3 piece backs to hit the stores.

I know and agree, which is why I said:

Due to cost-saving issues and materials becoming more scarce, Gibson has started using two and three-piece backs with more frequency, which is understandable...

Before financial difficulties hit me, I had four Les Pauls. Everybody who played them thought the three Historics with Bare Knuckle pickups and Timbuckers were great, especially the Murphy R7. But ALL said that my stock '72 Custom with pancake body, five or seven piece top, three piece neck and a weight of 7 Kilo (15.4 lbs) was the best in the bunch !
That's an even heavier Norlin than most Norlins you read about on the Internet with more bits glued to it than the regular Norlin .. If you'd find a post about a guitar like that, it would turn into a ten-page topic on how impossible it would be to get any tone from that and how much everybody misses the 50's construction that Gibson can't even get right in the current Historics.

In the end, the multi-piece back (mismatched or not) is really just another issue for people who read specs and look at pictures to get worked up about on some forum.
It's a different story for those who are interested in tone and play before passing judgement.

To be fair - different people define "best" by different criteria. To me, a 15.4 lb guitar would be automatically disqualified from any such comparison. That's just too ridiculously heavy, regardless of how good it sounded or how well it played. If it's not an issue for someone else - good for them! They get to enjoy a guitar that moves them. But just thinking about gigging a 15 lb guitar makes my back hurt.

I get what you're saying about not worrying about minutia in spec and concentrating on tone / feel instead, but you have to concede that at some point spec definitely has an effect. Maybe not a 100% predictable effect across the board, but more than enough to make reasonable assumptions of a guitar's sound and feel based on construction. There will always be exceptions to any rule - your Norlin LP being a good example - but those "rules" (more like guidelines, really) exist for a reason and weren't just settled upon arbitrarily by some jackass on teh internets.

They get picked over on web forums because web forums exist in a medium of words, not sounds, but if you were offered the choice of two guitars based purely on pics and specs with no explanation given about sound or feel, I'll bet you'd make your decision based on your preferences and knowledge of what construction and materials you prefer instead of just saying "Oh I don't care - I'll take whichever one is closest to the door."

 

[CUBE]

Re: Sloppy.... (Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Content)

that faded les pauls , street in canada for $1550
thats only a bit more than a studio, and they kick the crap outta studios.