Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Swampy

Swampy

New member
Been gassing for a Les Paul BAD lately. Always wanted one, was never the right time. Well now it's time.

These two are on Craig's list. A 2012 Studio faded ($680), which I think is gorgeous, and a 2003 black Studio ($600). The faded comes with a Gibson soft gig bag. The black comes with a Gibson HSC. Of course I will play before buying.

I'm looking for opinions and knowledge on good years/BAD years of Les Paul's. I hear all the time that they don't make them like they used to...,,so would 2003 be a "used to"?



 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

It depends on what "like they used to" means. The 03 will have 9 holes routed into the body this is weight relief, also nicknamed "Swiss Cheese." All standard production Gibson LPs had this type of weight relief from 1982 until late 2006. The 12 will most likely be fully chambered.
2003 would have this
gibson-weight-relief-trad.jpg

The 2012 this
gibson-weight-relief-chambered.jpg

Personally my preference would be the 2003, but playing both would factor into the decision.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

The decision is probably going to come down to your preference in neck profiles.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Thanks for the images! If my decision was just based on looks, which it's not, I think I'd go with the red faded. Being a studio, I think the lack of binding looks more natural on the faded.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Swampy said:
2003 Being chunkier? Correct?
Click to expand...

The 2012 faded should have the 50's style fat neck, the 03 probably has the same profile, but some years they offered them in the 50's and slimmer 60's profiles.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

I am GASing for this guitar so bad it hurts.

ESLP15LMNH1_MAIN_HERO_01.jpg
 
Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

There isn't a contest here IMO. Unless it happens to be a real dog, go for the Studio. I've played dozens of new Gibsons every year from the early '90's to the present day, and owned several as well. IMO – and in general – Gibson was making their guitars with better worksmanship and better materials in 2003 than in 2012. 2003, +/- a bit, is about the time that they started their current slack-off IME, however, they had not yet got to the point at which they were turning out more crap than gems. By 2012, they definitely had got to that point. If the 2012 is actually the better guitar (and don't get me wrong; it could be), it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Additionally, the Studio is a higher trim level, has a hardshell case, and costs less. It's a no brainer to me.

The Studio also looks better IMO, being shiny. If a guitar is gonna be matte, I'd rather have it matte because it became that way over time, not right outta the factory. The dull finishes that get glossy where you play them just look kinda dumb to me after a few months.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Whichever one has the most "pop" unplugged & feels the best...
Prolly a trade-off...
:)

Visually,Blk!!!
:headbang:
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Back to the OP I would lean towards the black with the hard shell case. The hard case adds $100 - $150 in value alone and I am partial to black guitars. I never liked the look or finish of the faded series.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

ItsaBass said:
There isn't a contest here IMO. Unless it happens to be a real dog, go for the Studio. I've played dozens of new Gibsons every year from the early '90's to the present day, and owned several as well. IMO – and in general – Gibson was making their guitars with better worksmanship and better materials in 2003 than in 2012. 2003, +/- a bit, is about the time that they started their current slack-off IME, however, they had not yet got to the point at which they were turning out more crap than gems. By 2012, they definitely had got to that point. If the 2012 is actually the better guitar (and don't get me wrong; it could be), it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Additionally, the Studio is a higher trim level, has a hardshell case, and costs less. It's a no brainer to me.

The Studio also looks better IMO, being shiny. If a guitar is gonna be matte, I'd rather have it matte because it became that way over time, not right outta the factory. The dull finishes that get glossy where you play them just look kinda dumb to me after a few months.
Click to expand...
That's been my experience as well. Also, wouldn't a 2012 have a baked maple board instead of rosewood?

Securb said:
Back to the OP I would lean towards the black with the hard shell case. The hard case adds $100 - $150 in value alone and I am partial to black guitars. I never liked the look or finish of the faded series.
Click to expand...

Also agreed. I wouldn't rule out the 2012 if it's a better guitar, but $680 is far too much for a LP Studio Faded with a gigbag. On craigslist around here that same guitar would be in the $450-500 range. That being said, $600 for the '03 Studio + OHSC is a decent deal but not spectacular. I'd try and talk the seller down a little on that guitar, but would be OK with paying $600 if it's a really nice one.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

I've had my LP studio for 5 years now and its now playing great. Changed a lot of things about it, starting with the bridge pickup as the stock one was too muddy and weak. Then I installed an Earvana nut and an aluminium tailpiece. A month ago I disconnected my tone pot and now it really sings. Its from mahogany wood.

There's probably other guitars I could have bought in the Gibson lines such as the traditional or classic, but they weigh a ton! For 30-45 minute sets on tour each night its going to kill my back. I've played customs and stuff in shops and the studio one actually sounded better, so its not always a case of the money you spend.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Securb said:
I am GASing for this guitar so bad it hurts.

ESLP15LMNH1_MAIN_HERO_01.jpg
Click to expand...

They look great, but have you played one? The necks are SUPER thin and flat...almost like a '60's Hagtrom. Really difficult and uncomfortable to play IMO.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

All good advice. Thanks! I agree on the value with the case.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

ItsaBass said:
They look great, but have you played one? The necks are SUPER thin and flat...almost like a '60's Hagtrom. Really difficult and uncomfortable to play IMO.
Click to expand...

Thin and flat works for me, I play a Parker.
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Securb said:
Back to the OP I would lean towards the black with the hard shell case. The hard case adds $100 - $150 in value alone and I am partial to black guitars. I never liked the look or finish of the faded series.
Click to expand...

I agree with this (if the guitar does not have any issues) because people sure love their hardshell cases. lol Doesn't matter what condition it is in, people want a lot for a case...
 
Re: Which Les Paul would you buy and why?

Securb said:
Thin and flat works for me, I play a Parker.
Click to expand...

I would definitely consider one, then. They look great and feel great. I have always loved tiny hollowbody/semi-hollowbody guitars.

I just wish they had a plain top (and the accompanying lower price), and a more substantial neck. Even a standard Gibson profile would be fine; I don't need a baseball bat to be happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rex_Rocker
Do I need a Les Paul Classic? Talk me in or out of it.
2
Replies
33
Views
923
Rex_Rocker
Rex_Rocker
Rex_Rocker
I have a confession to make (LTD and Gibson content)
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Phantasmagoria
Phantasmagoria
A
Tighter and brighter bridge pickup for Les Paul
2
Replies
29
Views
991
jeremy
jeremy
contiContiCONTI
NGD: PRS Silver Sky SE - Mixed Feelings
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Rex_Rocker
Rex_Rocker
Rex_Rocker
Metal pickups for a Les Paul?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Frater106
F
Back
Top