stringbender11
New member
Re: This is just wrong
I would happily play that guitar if I acquired it.
I would happily play that guitar if I acquired it.
This is just wrong
- Thread starter guitarded
- Start date
jake_xms3_punk
New member
Re: This is just wrong
What's the point in the mini switch instead of the tone control? Surely push / pull pots would make more sense?
What's the point in the mini switch instead of the tone control? Surely push / pull pots would make more sense?
F
Funkfingers
Guest
Re: This is just wrong
Weight relief and mini switches? Tres ESP Hettfield.
Weight relief and mini switches? Tres ESP Hettfield.
voggin
New member
Re: This is just wrong
Nothing worse than a light weight, well built, good looking guitar at a reasonable price. Probably sounds great, too. Obviously an evil plot by Henry J. to provide musicians with quality goods at a fair price. Sneaky bastard.
Gibson could sell R9's for $999 and people would complain.
Nothing worse than a light weight, well built, good looking guitar at a reasonable price. Probably sounds great, too. Obviously an evil plot by Henry J. to provide musicians with quality goods at a fair price. Sneaky bastard.
Gibson could sell R9's for $999 and people would complain.
Re: This is just wrong
Kind of funny that now that they reissued it people are talking crap about them, yet a couple years back people were paying pretty good prices for the 1987-1989 models. It should have had an ebony board like the originals, that's for sure, but besides that I don't see the big deal against it.
Kind of funny that now that they reissued it people are talking crap about them, yet a couple years back people were paying pretty good prices for the 1987-1989 models. It should have had an ebony board like the originals, that's for sure, but besides that I don't see the big deal against it.
O
Old Ghost
Guest
Re: This is just wrong
ahh, the "Diet Les Paul" is back I see. Gibson first released these in the mid 80's. Soundgarden's Kim Thayil owns one. Check out this vid: http://youtu.be/uEl7u9Z3lK0?t=10m33s
ahh, the "Diet Les Paul" is back I see. Gibson first released these in the mid 80's. Soundgarden's Kim Thayil owns one. Check out this vid: http://youtu.be/uEl7u9Z3lK0?t=10m33s
Johnny the Kid
Shaunofthedeadologist
Re: This is just wrong
I hope it's some of that illegal stuff. According to Sweetwater they're doing a series of LP's, Explorers, and V's using the illegal rosewood that the government seized.
I hope it's some of that illegal stuff. According to Sweetwater they're doing a series of LP's, Explorers, and V's using the illegal rosewood that the government seized.
ratherdashing
Kablamminator
Re: This is just wrong
Gibson can't seem to win with the armchair quarterbacks.
Make a really, really nice guitar: "boo, no one can afford that!"
Make an affordable guitar: "boo, where's the binding/big inlays/pretty knobs/etc!"
Make a traditional-looking guitar: "boo, Gibson is stuck in the past! Where's the innovation?"
Make an innovative guitar: "boo, nobody wants that weird abomination!"
Gibson can't seem to win with the armchair quarterbacks.
Make a really, really nice guitar: "boo, no one can afford that!"
Make an affordable guitar: "boo, where's the binding/big inlays/pretty knobs/etc!"
Make a traditional-looking guitar: "boo, Gibson is stuck in the past! Where's the innovation?"
Make an innovative guitar: "boo, nobody wants that weird abomination!"
Powdered Toast Man
New member
Re: This is just wrong
You think you've got problems? Last year Fender decided to start putting tummy cut contours on the back of Telecasters! Now that's blasphemy!
You think you've got problems? Last year Fender decided to start putting tummy cut contours on the back of Telecasters! Now that's blasphemy!
sosomething
Seymour Duncan Customer Support
Re: This is just wrong
Telecasters are supposed to be uncomfortable and impossible to intonate! It's how we keep the sissy Strat players off of them!
Telecasters are supposed to be uncomfortable and impossible to intonate! It's how we keep the sissy Strat players off of them!
Re: This is just wrong
Gibson just cant win either way. People are either giving them crap for putting out the same old stale stuff or if they try something new people are outraged. I like this guitar. The only thing that they do which pisses me off is when they put out a model for years then all of a sudden change its specs but call it the same thing like they have recently done with the 2013 LP Traditionals and SG Standards. Or the newest "J" SGs and LPs which they are calling Juniors because they don't have laquer. The junior was a completely different guitar and the lack of laquer doesn't constitute a big enough change to label something a "Junior".
Gibson just cant win either way. People are either giving them crap for putting out the same old stale stuff or if they try something new people are outraged. I like this guitar. The only thing that they do which pisses me off is when they put out a model for years then all of a sudden change its specs but call it the same thing like they have recently done with the 2013 LP Traditionals and SG Standards. Or the newest "J" SGs and LPs which they are calling Juniors because they don't have laquer. The junior was a completely different guitar and the lack of laquer doesn't constitute a big enough change to label something a "Junior".
SirJackdeFuzz
New member
Re: This is just wrong
MMMmm, i do not approve.
Rather give me a fat bodied SG, than a skinny LP !
MMMmm, i do not approve.
Rather give me a fat bodied SG, than a skinny LP !
guitarded
New member
Re: This is just wrong
So.... I am starting to get this subtle inkling that some people here may disagree with me
A lot of good points were made, but I still wouldn't really be interested in owning one. If I wanted a thinner lightweight instrument at that price, I would probably not be looking at Les Paul Customs. I would absolutely be looking at an SG standard. Seems that I was mistaken in thinking most players would feel the same way.
So.... I am starting to get this subtle inkling that some people here may disagree with me
A lot of good points were made, but I still wouldn't really be interested in owning one. If I wanted a thinner lightweight instrument at that price, I would probably not be looking at Les Paul Customs. I would absolutely be looking at an SG standard. Seems that I was mistaken in thinking most players would feel the same way.Re: This is just wrong
So, I did some inner soul searching when I read this post, and in some ways, I totally disagree with hating on the weight-relieved version, while in other ways I completely understand. I picked up Epiphone and Gibson LP standards for years, and never liked the feel of them. They felt too thick and awkward at the same time, at least to someone who grew up on a Strat, and my other guitars were Ibanez and Jackson (for many years).
Then I stammered into Guitar Center last August with no intention of looking at Les Pauls, and saw this one used:
It's a Smart Wood Exotic from 1999. The pickups are 490/498, and it sounded great. More importantly, it was comfortable to play, and it felt like MY guitar the second I picked it up. To me, it has that deep, thick sound of Les Paul, and the profile is exactly the same. Well, except...
It's thinner than Les Paul. Significantly thinner. In fact, it has to be thinner than a Fender Strat, and lighter too. I still love the guitar to death, and I think it's a beautiful, unique (and possibly collectable) variation of a classic design. But I'm still left with the question of "Wait, so do I still not own a real Les Paul?" I would argue that I do (plug it in and the sound is there), but I'd also understand somebody telling me that it's not a Les Paul.
So, is my instrument "wrong" too? Haha.
So.... I am starting to get this subtle inkling that some people here may disagree with me
So, I did some inner soul searching when I read this post, and in some ways, I totally disagree with hating on the weight-relieved version, while in other ways I completely understand. I picked up Epiphone and Gibson LP standards for years, and never liked the feel of them. They felt too thick and awkward at the same time, at least to someone who grew up on a Strat, and my other guitars were Ibanez and Jackson (for many years).
Then I stammered into Guitar Center last August with no intention of looking at Les Pauls, and saw this one used:
It's a Smart Wood Exotic from 1999. The pickups are 490/498, and it sounded great. More importantly, it was comfortable to play, and it felt like MY guitar the second I picked it up. To me, it has that deep, thick sound of Les Paul, and the profile is exactly the same. Well, except...
It's thinner than Les Paul. Significantly thinner. In fact, it has to be thinner than a Fender Strat, and lighter too. I still love the guitar to death, and I think it's a beautiful, unique (and possibly collectable) variation of a classic design. But I'm still left with the question of "Wait, so do I still not own a real Les Paul?" I would argue that I do (plug it in and the sound is there), but I'd also understand somebody telling me that it's not a Les Paul.
So, is my instrument "wrong" too? Haha.
Last edited:
Scatterwound
New member
Re: This is just wrong
I thought this was a bit unconventional for a Les Paul:
"...the coil-splitting mini-toggle switch added in place of the second tone control....."
.....Without the 4th speed knob I think it looks naked.....IMHO....
I thought this was a bit unconventional for a Les Paul:
"...the coil-splitting mini-toggle switch added in place of the second tone control....."
.....Without the 4th speed knob I think it looks naked.....IMHO....
pzaxtl
Gibletsologist
guitarded
New member
This is just wrong
Interesting point. I suppose it doesn't. There is a Smartwood Studio that says les Paul on it but it is thicker.
Interesting point. I suppose it doesn't. There is a Smartwood Studio that says les Paul on it but it is thicker.