Weight relived Les Paul article

[muttznmongrelz]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Great info! Thanks. Personally, I prefer the old heavy ass LPs myself but I have evolved to have an appreciation of the weight relieved/chambered models as well after having played a few. :friday:

 

[RayBarbeeMusic]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

For a long time, Gibson didn't need to weight relieve/chamber the Les Paul, because the wood was not nearly as heavy.

Not really.

Let's not forget the fact that they cannot get Honduran mahogany like they could 40-50 years ago.

Yes, actually, they can and do, see my last post. And it isn't just the generic name "honduran mahogany" for any swietenia macrophylla or West Indian mahogany (swietenia mahogoni) grown anywhere, it is actually from Honduras. They can and do also get light pieces of wood. My '08 R0 is very light for an LP and is solid, weighing noticeably less than my weight relieved LPPP.

During the norlin era LPs got heavy for any number of reasons, sandwich bodies, maple necks, etc etc. Using the Norlin era as the representative era to make generalizations about LPs made today is almost meaningless.

There are so many threads out there on LPs full of such misinformation it is truly astounding, and then other people read them and think it is the truth when it is not. No wonder some people dislike Gibsons so much without ever having owned or played one, if someone was out there every minute of every day spreading false rumors about you all over the net, you'd have rep issues as well.

 

[UberMetalDood]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Jeez, UberMetalDood, what makes you think that the fact that you own and play these instruments gives you any right to comment on their differences in tone? We, who have never seen, heard or touched the instruments, will tell you what they sound like. Got it?

LOL. Got it. It's my curse. I spend far too much money and time on gear. I remember all the buzz on TGP, Les Paul forum, etc... when the Traditionals first came out. People were arguing that they don't sound like real Les Pauls. Then the Traditional Pros came out and people said that they were cheap and a cutback on quality. Now Gibson improves the entire Studio line and the argument evolves to whether they are on the same level as the Traditionals or Traditional Pros.

I'll be honest and tell you that I always liked Les Paul studios but didn't think they were as good as "real" Les Pauls. Now that I own a couple of the new ones, I truly believe that they are essentially Les Paul Traditionals without the binding and different pickups.

My Studio Deluxe came with a BB Pro and 490R, and comes stock with push/pull coil split pots. Mine has modern weight relief and feels relatively heavy compared to any Les Paul studio I have played. It doesn't have that hollow, chambered sound. It sounds nearly exactly like my Traditional. I think the new Studios are super great quality and I want to buy as many as I can while they're still $1499.

 

[ErikH]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Yes, actually, they can and do, see my last post. And it isn't just the generic name "honduran mahogany" for any swietenia macrophylla or West Indian mahogany (swietenia mahogoni) grown anywhere, it is actually from Honduras. They can and do also get light pieces of wood. My '08 R0 is very light for an LP and is solid, weighing noticeably less than my weight relieved LPPP.

During the norlin era LPs got heavy for any number of reasons, sandwich bodies, maple necks, etc etc. Using the Norlin era as the representative era to make generalizations about LPs made today is almost meaningless.

There are so many threads out there on LPs full of such misinformation it is truly astounding, and then other people read them and think it is the truth when it is not. No wonder some people dislike Gibsons so much without ever having owned or played one, if someone was out there every minute of every day spreading false rumors about you all over the net, you'd have rep issues as well.

What I meant by that is they cannot buy it in the quantities like they used to back in the day. It's controlled and listed as endangered by CITES. So naturally, the cost for it goes up.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Ugh, the Norlins didn't get heavier because they were sandwiched or because same had maple necks.

They got heavier because they used cheaper mahogany instead of specifically buying the light wood.

When they changed back from what we know as the super-heavy Norlin LPC they used the same wood but swiss-cheesed it. And that happened during the Norlin area. It wasn't connected to the buyout to the current CEO.

 

[FuseG4]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

I don't care if it's weight-relieved, chambered or modern weight-relieved........ the headstock will still spontaneously break off.....

This

 

[formula73]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Ugh, the Norlins didn't get heavier because they were sandwiched or because same had maple necks.

They got heavier because they used cheaper mahogany instead of specifically buying the light wood.

When they changed back from what we know as the super-heavy Norlin LPC they used the same wood but swiss-cheesed it. And that happened during the Norlin area. It wasn't connected to the buyout to the current CEO.

This. All this. Funny part is that my pancaked, 3pc mahogany necked 73 LPC weighs in at just over 9 lbs-not bad for a LP, regardless of the era. The following is info gleaned from the net as it's ALL heresay, regardless of insider info claims: Norlin went to pancakes to they could use the same old growth Honduran mahogany they already had been buying but wasn't sufficient thickness to make a full thickness body due to flaws/cracks, etc. That supply dried up/*****ing about finish lines around the body from customers and dealers, thus the move to heavier stuff with higher mineral content to go back to 1 pc backs, causing the 'boat anchor' syndrome of the late 70s/early 80s. People *****ed and they started swiss cheesing on the DL in late 81/early 82, which also coincides with the time they transitioned back to 1 pc mahogany necks.

...4-5 yrs before ol' Henry came in and shook things up. Credit where credit's due: he brought them back from the brink and consequently, they made some fantastic stuff in the 90s, swiss cheesed or not. It's this millenium where he seems to have lost his mind.

 

[some_dude]

I have a sandwich body, 3 piece neck Les Paul with the big ass headstock that weighs around 7.75lbs.

I also have two new production Les Paul's that weigh in at 8lbs and 8.5lbs, both solid body (no weight relief) and both using the new fangled wood.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[fretburner]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

PRS et. al., with the exception of a few small luthiers, use fauxhogany, i.e. "african" or "asian" mahogany, which is not mahogany. Guitar makers picked that lie up from the furniture industry, where nothogany is called mahogany because the grain and color are similar. The tone of your kitchen chair doesnt matter. The tone of your guitar does. Fauxhogany doesn't sound terrible, but it sure doesn't sound like real mahogany either. Had lots of both, I've never, ever heard a fauxhogany guitar have the same sound quality that a real mahogany guitar does. It just isn't the same.

Guitar builders should call the wood what it is, i.e. Khaya, Agathis, whatever, not mahogany, but they know most of the public doesn't know better and they also know that when the guitar buying public sees "mahogany" they think classic Gibson tone, though that almost always is not what they are getting nowadays in terms of wood. It is pure marketing BS, designed to mislead.

Well you cannot really fault these other companies to market their guitars as "mahogany" because whether we like it or not, these so-called "faux mahogany" are called "mahogany" commercially.

For example, Philippine Mahogany will still be called Philippine Mahogany in the industry even if we know it's NOT real Mahogany. And to make matters worse, Philippine Mahogany is a term for several different species of Lauan.

It's the same thing as "Marble" floors/tiles. They are called "Marble" commercially even though they really are Limestone.

What I meant by that is they cannot buy it in the quantities like they used to back in the day. It's controlled and listed as endangered by CITES. So naturally, the cost for it goes up.

Do we know for the fact that using real, Honduras mahogany is the biggest reason why costs go up? I always thought that the biggest reason why Les Pauls in general costs more because they require greater man-hours (e.g. set neck, carved top, fret edge binding, trapezoid inlays, etc.) versus guitars like a strat?

For sure getting a more "rare" tone wood will make it more expensive, but are the cost increases in that area really the biggest contributor to the total cost of the guitar?

I don't know what % of the total cost of the guitar is direct materials. If you say it's 80%, then sure, I'd rather add an extra step in the production line (weight relief) if I wanted to cut costs. But if we say direct materials is only 40%, then it makes NO sense at all to weight-relieve the guitar.

 

[ErikH]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Do we know for the fact that using real, Honduras mahogany is the biggest reason why costs go up? I always thought that the biggest reason why Les Pauls in general costs more because they require greater man-hours (e.g. set neck, carved top, fret edge binding, trapezoid inlays, etc.) versus guitars like a strat?

For sure getting a more "rare" tone wood will make it more expensive, but are the cost increases in that area really the biggest contributor to the total cost of the guitar?

I don't know what % of the total cost of the guitar is direct materials. If you say it's 80%, then sure, I'd rather add an extra step in the production line (weight relief) if I wanted to cut costs. But if we say direct materials is only 40%, then it makes NO sense at all to weight-relieve the guitar.

Didn't say it's the single reason. It is one of the reasons. The Honduras mahogany is used on the VOS and higher end models. Those are made in the Custom Shop by the skilled luthiers, who have a higher labor cost than those working the line building the Standards, Studios and whatnot.

Yes, they do take more man-hours to do some things. But the cost of the materials also factors in to the final cost of the guitar. A wood that is rare, that costs more to the builder, is going to cost more to the consumer. It's just simple economics.

 

[fretburner]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

The thing that bugs me is that many in here think that the weight relieving thing is a cost-cutting thing. Does anybody really know?

That said, Gibson can use Honduras Mahogany exclusively - weight-relieved or not - in the high end models, and jack up prices even higher... And then use other types of "Mahogany" for the rest, then weight-relieve everything (extra step in the production line) to keep costs high still.

 

[ErikH]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Yeah, and Fender uses Alder and Ash in both their American Standard and Custom Shop lines and the Custom Shop prices are way higher there. It's probably higher grade wood there, better selection of planks, stuff like that, plus the skilled luthier labor adding to that.

There's these things called profit-margin, cost of living, inflation, just simple economics, that all contribute to the MSRP and MAP prices in addition to what has already been mentioned.

People are going to believe what they want to believe and hear what they want to hear. There are many that are stubborn in their ways and refuse to look any further than what used to be. They have *****ed that Gibson doesn't do anything different and then when they do something different, they ***** that they don't do it the way they used to.

 

[Aceman]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

While that article read well, the fact is, we all know that Gibson started doing this without anyone's knowledge. And had people not found out, we don't know that they EVER would have told us.

The Gibson company is full of secrets, mis-information, deception, spin doctors,and flat out liars. I don't care what they say anymore, I don't believe them.

That said - last LP with the 3rd type chambering weighed nicely, and sounded great. Bottom line, if it sounds good, it is good.

Listen with your ears. Feel with your hands. Choose with your head. Play with your heart.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that all those nice 1959 Standards weighed less because the big G had been making them weight-relieved on the quiet all along, and just never said. Anyone like to cut one in half and check just to make sure? :joke:





















Owwww!!! Stop hitting me....

 

[Stratman]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

I was under the impression that weight relief is a necessary consequence of using denser, heavier African mahogany. The "golden age" LP's were made from lighter Honduran mahogany, thus weight was not really a problem. Most LP's from the '50s are in the 8 - 9 lb range - no weight relief required.

The article doesn't really mention this at all.

Yep, this information is spot on, with the exception of “African Mahogany: It is not a TRUE Mahogany!

Looks like more Gibson spinning on commercial beeswax (e.g., Henry’s line of marketing bull crap) on how this is better than that.

Make you wonder what the Gibson story line will be in 2015, if Henry is still around! ...

 

[Stratman]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

I was under the impression that weight relief is a necessary consequence of using denser, heavier African mahogany. The "golden age" LP's were made from lighter Honduran mahogany, thus weight was not really a problem. Most LP's from the '50s are in the 8 - 9 lb range - no weight relief required.

The article doesn't really mention this at all.

And now something about TRUE mahogany…

There are only three species of true mahogany, all of which are indigenous to the Americas.

The natural distribution of these species within the Americas is geographically distinct; on the West Indian islands as far north as the Bahamas, the Florida Keys and parts of Florida; in the dry regions of the Pacific coast of Central America from south-western Mexico to Costa Rica; and in Central America from Yucatan southwards and into South America, extending as far as Peru, Bolivia and extreme western Brazil.

Africa and Asia are not even in the growing areas of TRUE mahogany.

HOWEVER…

There are three TRUE species of mahogany and these are Swietenia Mahagoni, Swietenia Macrophylla, and Swietenia Humilis. Swietenia Humilis is the one that is also called "Honduras Mahogany”.
But it is Swietenia Mahagoni that is used for Les Paul Custom, Deluxe and Studio models. So Gibson does not even use the true “Honduras Mahogany” in their Les Pauls - such for the marketing lies and hype.

ALSO

Today, all species grown in their native locations are listed by CITES, and are therefore protected meaning it is very hard to purchase them and use them in US.

Both Swietenia mahagoni, and Swietenia macrophylla were introduced into several Asian countries at the time of the restrictions imposed on American mahogany in the late 1990s.
Both are now successfully grown and harvested in plantations in those countries creating a market where the world's supply of genuine mahogany today comes from these Asian plantations, notably from India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and from Fiji, in Oceania. But it is an invasive species in the Philippines, where it’s use on plantations is being curtailed by the government.

Swietenia humbles is not generally grown outside it’s growing range consisting of west of the Sierra Madre mountain range from Mexico through Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador.

One more interesting point to consider…

The bark and seeds of Swietenia Humilis possess a stringent alkaloid reputed to be very poisonous; therefore, wood working with this particular species is dangerous if the dust in inhaled.

Take notice that another wood (Rosewood) from India is used in the recent US crackdowns on Gibson.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

As far as weight, Im jekyll and hyde... I like my LPs to have some substance to them. I love the big sustain and solid feel. BUT.... As someone with a glass back, having had 3 surgeries, my body says, lighter is better! As far as heavy, I dont like an anchor, I love to feel the body vibrate in my hands. But too lite feels like a toy. Also, to many times too lght LPs sound plinky to me.. Im sure it was prolly as set up thing, but just saying.
8-9 lbs is good. my Burny is 11-12 and kills me, but it sings like a banshee and still resonates...

 

[verbotenco]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

ANyone knows if Epiphone LP is also weight-relieved?

 

[Stratman]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

ANyone knows if Epiphone LP is also weight-relieved?

Yes they are!

 

[fretburner]

Re: Weight relived Les Paul article

But it is Swietenia Mahagoni that is used for Les Paul Custom, Deluxe and Studio models. So Gibson does not even use the true “Honduras Mahogany” in their Les Pauls - such for the marketing lies and hype.

If you look at Gibson's website, they don't put in there "Honduras" Mahogany... rather, they just specify that it's "Mahogany".

Thing is, "True" Mahogany such as the Honduras Mahogany and so-called "Faux" Mahogany such as the Philippine Mahogany, are ALL called "Mahogany" commercially. In other words, Gibson is NOT lying. Also, I believe that there's a law in the USA which makes false advertisement illegal. Marketing people in Gibson should have been in Jail now had they specified in their website that they use "Honduras Mahogany" where in fact they use faux Mahogany.