Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
- Thread starter Biu
- Start date
T
theodie
Guest
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
Mahogany can vary greatly in weight.
Some LP's are weight relieved and have holes drilled in them before they put on the top..
Mahogany can vary greatly in weight.
Some LP's are weight relieved and have holes drilled in them before they put on the top..
kmcguitars
GuitarArtologist
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
There has been some question if studio's have as thick of a maple cap?
There has been some question if studio's have as thick of a maple cap?
ibanezrocks
HardtailPisser
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
I thought all new LPs with the exception of Custom shop and Historic models were weight relieved.
I thought all new LPs with the exception of Custom shop and Historic models were weight relieved.
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
No, no cheaper to make, but it sure does make 'em easier to sell if they aren't causing shoulder/back soreness after 15 minutes of mucking about.
As far as the question of whether or not new LPs are chambered goes, see:
https://forum.seymourduncan.com/showthread.php?t=108016&highlight=chambered+les+paul
No, no cheaper to make, but it sure does make 'em easier to sell if they aren't causing shoulder/back soreness after 15 minutes of mucking about.
As far as the question of whether or not new LPs are chambered goes, see:
https://forum.seymourduncan.com/showthread.php?t=108016&highlight=chambered+les+paul
Mr 9finger
Digitally Challenged
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
I'll have to disagree w/ that statement. It is cheaper for them....A LOT cheaper.
It's cheaper because they switched to using African Mahogany instead of South American Mahogany. African Mahogany is heavier and a lot more dense than South American Mahogany. Also African Mahogany, the last time I checked at my local saw mill that will sell direct to public, is around $5 per board foot cheaper Than it's South American counterpart.
So LP's got heavier and heavier and Gibson's answer to all the complaints was to boar holes in the bodies. Now all the nonsense about old growth Honduran Mahogany being lighter and more resonant than the new growth stuff is a bunch of bull pucky. The age has absolutely nothing to do w/ the weight of the wood. The weight of a board will depend on the part of the tree it's cut from. The bottom half of the tree will be more compacted and dense from supporting the the top half of the tree. This is why you will find heavy and light pieces of wood through out any species of wood. The only "exception" to this is swamp ash, and that's because of the environment it grows in.
Now, OTOH, there have been more than a few that state that the old stuff sounds better than the new stuff. I don't find that to far fetched for multiple reasons. 1. Most of the rain forests that the old mahogany was harvested from was almost completely wiped out. There was and I believe still is a trade embargo banning the export of wood from those area's. 2. The environment has changed a lot over the last 50 years. I would expect both of those factors could cause a difference in sound. That's just a theory though.
In a nutshell Gibson is either to cheap or to lazy to source the good wood and have found a way to pass the buck onto their consumer base by coming up w/ the "chambers" and then have $1k to $3k up charge for their custom shop pcs. that use unchambered South American Mahogany.
I'll have to disagree w/ that statement. It is cheaper for them....A LOT cheaper.
It's cheaper because they switched to using African Mahogany instead of South American Mahogany. African Mahogany is heavier and a lot more dense than South American Mahogany. Also African Mahogany, the last time I checked at my local saw mill that will sell direct to public, is around $5 per board foot cheaper Than it's South American counterpart.
So LP's got heavier and heavier and Gibson's answer to all the complaints was to boar holes in the bodies. Now all the nonsense about old growth Honduran Mahogany being lighter and more resonant than the new growth stuff is a bunch of bull pucky. The age has absolutely nothing to do w/ the weight of the wood. The weight of a board will depend on the part of the tree it's cut from. The bottom half of the tree will be more compacted and dense from supporting the the top half of the tree. This is why you will find heavy and light pieces of wood through out any species of wood. The only "exception" to this is swamp ash, and that's because of the environment it grows in.
Now, OTOH, there have been more than a few that state that the old stuff sounds better than the new stuff. I don't find that to far fetched for multiple reasons. 1. Most of the rain forests that the old mahogany was harvested from was almost completely wiped out. There was and I believe still is a trade embargo banning the export of wood from those area's. 2. The environment has changed a lot over the last 50 years. I would expect both of those factors could cause a difference in sound. That's just a theory though.
In a nutshell Gibson is either to cheap or to lazy to source the good wood and have found a way to pass the buck onto their consumer base by coming up w/ the "chambers" and then have $1k to $3k up charge for their custom shop pcs. that use unchambered South American Mahogany.
Last edited:
phil_104
Cheesesteakologist
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
Totally.
Studios, on the other hand, are "chambered". I have one, and you can tell by tapping on em that they are. That explains why they are so light.
As far as Kmc's question about the maple cap thickness on studios, the answer is simple. Exept for the models that specify it, they don't have a maple cap.
So yeah, there is a lot of difference in weight between les pauls now. Let's just say I'm glad my studio is light when I'm playing a 2 hour show.
Totally.
Studios, on the other hand, are "chambered". I have one, and you can tell by tapping on em that they are. That explains why they are so light.
As far as Kmc's question about the maple cap thickness on studios, the answer is simple. Exept for the models that specify it, they don't have a maple cap.
So yeah, there is a lot of difference in weight between les pauls now. Let's just say I'm glad my studio is light when I'm playing a 2 hour show.
Lucid_Lunatic
Rebelyellologist
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
My 96 Studio and 03 Premium Plus Standard are not weight relieved, and they both are pretty heavy, my 91 Studio is a Lite model, which is considerably lighter, but it is not chambered, it just has a chromite block ran through the center. I have tried alot of the new chambered Standards and I don't like them at all. The Lite models, (not sure if they still make them) were however very resonant and stand up to my solid models, at least the ones I have tried.
My 96 Studio and 03 Premium Plus Standard are not weight relieved, and they both are pretty heavy, my 91 Studio is a Lite model, which is considerably lighter, but it is not chambered, it just has a chromite block ran through the center. I have tried alot of the new chambered Standards and I don't like them at all. The Lite models, (not sure if they still make them) were however very resonant and stand up to my solid models, at least the ones I have tried.
dressed2kill
New member
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
Actually I think the only studios without a maple cap are the VM models. Also KMC is right , most studios have a thinner maple cap, most compare it to a thick veneer than a cap.
Actually I think the only studios without a maple cap are the VM models. Also KMC is right , most studios have a thinner maple cap, most compare it to a thick veneer than a cap.
the guy who invented fire
Fuzzy. Guitars
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
Standards, Fadeds, Studios, etc are made from cheeper, and heavier Mahogany but they are weight relieved and that makes them a bit lighter. Historics, and VOS and Les paul Customs are NOT weight relieved but they are made from lighter (and more expensive) mahogany however some of them do weight more than a typical Standard, Studio or Faded. It's just a luck of the draw type thing...you might end up with a slightly heavy Historic but if a Studio was a light piece of wood then got drilled full of holes it will for sure weight less than "normal". By the way, Studios have the same maple topo as a Standard.
Now, there are exceptions and other things to keep in mind...59 and 60 reissues get even lighter wood than you'll find in a 54, 56, 57 or 58 reissue...they do that to help justify the MUCH higher price than even the other reissues. Also, the BFG are chambered, not weight relieved in the sam fasion as a Standard and then you get into some of the Custom Shop guitars like a "Cloud 9" which is made with the better/lighter mahogany like a Historic/VOS guitars would use BUT it's chambered so those tend to be really light...there are lots of variables...
Standards, Fadeds, Studios, etc are made from cheeper, and heavier Mahogany but they are weight relieved and that makes them a bit lighter. Historics, and VOS and Les paul Customs are NOT weight relieved but they are made from lighter (and more expensive) mahogany however some of them do weight more than a typical Standard, Studio or Faded. It's just a luck of the draw type thing...you might end up with a slightly heavy Historic but if a Studio was a light piece of wood then got drilled full of holes it will for sure weight less than "normal". By the way, Studios have the same maple topo as a Standard.
Now, there are exceptions and other things to keep in mind...59 and 60 reissues get even lighter wood than you'll find in a 54, 56, 57 or 58 reissue...they do that to help justify the MUCH higher price than even the other reissues. Also, the BFG are chambered, not weight relieved in the sam fasion as a Standard and then you get into some of the Custom Shop guitars like a "Cloud 9" which is made with the better/lighter mahogany like a Historic/VOS guitars would use BUT it's chambered so those tend to be really light...there are lots of variables...
The Golden Boy
Fleecy Sweaterologist
Re: Weight Difference Between Gibbo Les Pauls?
When the R8s were re-introduced in 01, they were slightly less expensive than the R9s, but the same weight. The early ones in the year *technically* had an AAA top, as mine does- but I don't think mine qualifies as anywhere NEAR AAA. The later ones in the year had BEAUTIFUL tops, as did the 02s.
When the R8s were re-introduced in 01, they were slightly less expensive than the R9s, but the same weight. The early ones in the year *technically* had an AAA top, as mine does- but I don't think mine qualifies as anywhere NEAR AAA. The later ones in the year had BEAUTIFUL tops, as did the 02s.