im about to do this Les Paul thing

Post by **bclaire** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:45 pm

This one would probably be perfect if it wasn't already on hold...

http://www.williesguitars.com/index.cfm ... rodID=2708

Joey22 · Post by **Joey22** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:59 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bclaire
 This one would probably be perfect if it wasn't already on hold...

http://www.williesguitars.com/index.cfm ... rodID=2708
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh my god I freaking love the color of the body and neck of that guitar...

notagain · Post by **notagain** » Mon May 26, 2008 11:51 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joey22
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bclaire
 This one would probably be perfect if it wasn't already on hold...

http://www.williesguitars.com/index.cfm ... rodID=2708
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh my god I freaking love the color of the body and neck of that guitar...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Man I'd find out who has that on hold and give them a one way airline
ticket to nowhere...incredible price, beautiful guitar!

Satanic_Versus · Post by **Satanic_Versus** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:10 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Bluz57
 I would be perfectly happy with the BFG. Candy coatings are OK, but unnecessary.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

im keeping my BFG, its an amzing guitar, hands-down. sold my Cunetto thou, thats what the BFG for $799 has done to me.

ANYWAY...

anyone know if the mid 90's pauls have a 60's type thin neck or the fat neck?

i found this one for $1575.00 its a 95 standard. i have to drive an hour thou, id like to have an idea of what type of neck to expect?

it has P A F pups and it comes with the original pick-ups to and the OHSC.

Jon

Post by **bclaire** » Tue May 27, 2008 2:18 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joey22
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bclaire
 This one would probably be perfect if it wasn't already on hold...

http://www.williesguitars.com/index.cfm ... rodID=2708
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh my god I freaking love the color of the body and neck of that guitar...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I know.... I'd love to have that guitar and the price is awesome!

Satanic_Versus · Post by **Satanic_Versus** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:18 pm

anyone have any info on the neck profile on the mid 90's standards? this is a 95. is it the fat 50's or the thin 60's. was there an option back then? i can't seem to find the specs online for the pauls for this period.

please, if you know let me know as im going to be driving an hour to meet this guy half way who is also driving an hour. id hate to get there just to tell him i don't like it:? i asked him about the neck, he seemed to be lost in the question.

Jon

screamingdaisy · Post by **screamingdaisy** » Tue May 27, 2008 2:10 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Satanic_Versus
 im looking for advice on whats the best years for the standard? iv heard the mid 90's are great? what i really want to a plain old standard but im bummed that the new ones are chambered, WTF, what so "standard" about that.

what are the good years for Vintage? newer than 1970, as i don't have 30 thousand $$$,$$$.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The best built ones are arguably the the current issues, but like any hand made insturment you have to shop around. Some of them have some pretty sketchy detail work and whatnot, but like I said... hand made.

Also, unless you try one first don't buy one with a 50s style neck as they're quite thick. Most dudes prefer the slimmer 60s style neck.

Every year of early LP is basically a transition model. Right from the original to the end of the 60s when they sold the company they were always tweeking the design somehow. Different bridges, pickups, neck tennons, different carves to the front, etc.

70s era Norlins are considered hit and miss. They were generally very heavy guitars, and this era is usually considered very poor in quality.... right up until the 90s when they stepped production up a notch, which was probably in response to the quality jump made by Fender a few years prior.

Anyway, don't let the chambering thing dissuade you. They did it to lighten the guitars because it's getting harder for them to find lightweight mahogany and most of that stuff gets put into their custom shop models. I've played a bunch of the newer Les Pauls and they sound really good, easily a match for my '69 (which is the lightest LP I've ever played), and better than all of the 70s era boat anchors I've had the dis-pleasure of playing (although I did find one really nice sounding '71 LP Deluxe).

So, in short; if you're absolutely fixed on getting a solid LP get a 90s era. The quality started dropping around the turn of the century and exists right up until today, so you really need to shop around to find the one that feels the best to you. Particularly if you consider that they're hand made and thus no two are identical. The modern ones from the last few years are really good sounding for the most part, just expect some sloppy detail work on the cheaper guitars. Don't worry about the chambering.... if it sounds good, it sounds good regardless of how it's made. Likewise, if you find a solid one with no chambering and it sounds like ass, don't buy it, regardless of how it's made.

merlhagstrom · Post by **merlhagstrom** » Tue May 27, 2008 2:38 pm

Find yourself a "pancake" bodied 74. They are not usually that pricey. They are heavy and out sustain 58's and 59's. Good luck ...LP's rule.

merlhagstrom · Post by **merlhagstrom** » Tue May 27, 2008 2:45 pm

Oh and I have a 96 Standard and it has the 50's neck width but is thiner than my 59 with 50's neck. After again reading Mr. Screamings post -- and others you'll find that everyone has a different opinion. I think the chambered LP's suck, I like heavy LP's. Your just going to have to find one buy it , if you don't like it sell it. You might also wanna try the Gibson LP forum. SOme decent info there, or try talking to a emerald dealer, they have good info. When I used to order mine from Gibson I would tell them to get me heavy planks, thick necks and rosewood finger boards. SO go figure, good luck.

CustomsLou · Post by **CustomsLou** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:36 pm

The amount of misinformation on here is amazing.

1. All non-Historic and non-Custom Shop Les Pauls have been weight relieved since the '80s- that means all Standards and all Classics prior to 2007, when they started doing chambering.

2. The majority of Standards and Classics have '60s necks, but there were some fatter ones too. Maybe most Standard and Classic buyers prefer a slimmer neck, but not Historic and Custom Shop buyers.

3. There has been no quality drop off since 2000, that's bulls---, until the advent of the VOS finishes, which are less finished guitars, so I consider them lower quality.
You can get some great VOS guitars too, I just don't like the way that they look.
Les Pauls have always been the kind of guitars that can be great, mediocre, or dead- that's true of any guitar that uses such thick body blanks.
It's no better than the wood in it.

4. Heavier LPs resonate better- also a complete fallacy.
If anything, the opposite is true- heavy bodies with excessive moisture or mineralization tend to resonate less well than lighter, less mineralized bodies.
A good LP Standard or Classic will typically weigh between 8-9 pounds.
An ounce or two heavier is no big deal, but stay away from anything over 9-1/2 pounds at all costs.

5. If pancake bodies '70s LPs out-sustain '58s and '59s, why are '58s and '59s worth $250-$500k?
This is absolutely insane, and no one in their right mind could believe this.

As Billy said, the early Classics were very nice guitars.
Classics up to 2003 had 1 piece mahogany backs, and were every bit as good as the Standards, except for the ones with the piss yellow inlays, which I don't like.
You can't go wrong if you buy a Standard or Classic from 1990-2003, as long as it's not heavy, then it's a crapshoot.

There are many Standards and Classics on ebay for great prices right now.
In fact, if you're going to spend $1600 on a Classic, a few dollars more will probably get you a Custom Shop '58 ReIssue or a Custom Shop '57 GoldTop ReIssue, which is far more likely to be a great guitar than a Standard or a Classic, and will likely have a '50s neck.
The Custom Shop RIs are better guitars- they have long neck tenons, have better woods, better hardware, are more historically accurate, and hold their value better, and generally play and sound better.

Do some searching and you will find some sweet deals out there.

ECWeagles · Post by **ECWeagles** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:18 pm

Well thats told us then! [:p]

Really useful Lou, even though I wasnt the one asking the questions!

merlhagstrom · Post by **merlhagstrom** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:32 pm

Good info but your wrong on #4. It's not the weight generally it is the wood and its particular make up. At the factory( I have been there) they dry the wood prior to cutting.

I have a 58 and a reissue 60 -Stinger. Both are light weight and both sustain differently.

Feel free to give Gibson a hollar on the weight and reasonance issue.

21rush12 · Post by **21rush12** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:55 pm

Mines a 96 Standard and its the best guitar I've ever played.....about 10lb, no chamber, Wine Red which is not very popular at all, yet everyone who plays or see's it comments on how gorgeous it looks and they seem to be the cheapest along with the Ebony Standards of the same era. I paid basically the same as the one on hold earlier in the thread with its Gibson hardcase in Mint Condition, best money I ever spent, an absolute keeper forever.........and through the Rockerverb 50H....HOLY COW.....!!!!!:D

CustomsLou · Post by **CustomsLou** » Tue May 27, 2008 10:38 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by merlhagstrom
 Good info but your wrong on #4. It's not the weight generally it is the wood and its particular make up. At the factory( I have been there) they dry the wood prior to cutting.

I have a 58 and a reissue 60 -Stinger. Both are light weight and both sustain differently.

Feel free to give Gibson a hollar on the weight and reasonance issue.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't need to call Gibson- I've owned Gibsons for 42 years and have owned maybe 75 Les Pauls.

Where am I wrong on #4?

There is light wood that sucks, and heavy wood that it great, but generally lighter wood is more desirable for a guitar, especially a LP with a thick body blank.

I have played probably 1000+ LPs, have worked on many, and 90% of the time the best ones are the lightest ones.
Of course it's wood, and variable, but the general consensus is that lighter wood is better for Les Pauls.

Don't believe me?
Go to the Les Paul forums, where there are members that are acknowledged experts, and see if they tell you any differently.

What did I write in #3?

Les Pauls have always been the kind of guitars that can be great, mediocre, or dead- that's true of any guitar that uses such thick body blanks.
It's no better than the wood in it.

Any argument there?

big L · Post by **big L** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:20 am

I have found the setting for my 57 goldtop reissue... neck pickup played through an old Super reverb with reverb about 4. Volume about 5,treble at 7, mid at 6, bass at 3. The sound is awsome,,, from heaven.

im about to do this Les Paul thing

Who is online