SoundMaster Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 OK guys (and gals)...I have a pretty good handle on the types of Gibson's weight relief methods. That is, almost. Does SWR'd = Traditional Weight Relief, i.e. the 9-hole swiss cheese pattern? Is there a definitive answer? Thanks...I'm so puzzled by this! Guess it's the contrary of tactically weight relieved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Gee, thanks, Cap !!! Sorry, no offense intended. Perhaps the wording refers to the article linked here, and this would indeed speak for mentioning the Swiss Cheese method: http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/weight-relief-gibson-les-paul-guitars-0615-2012.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 No offense taken! I've read this before, but Gibson still uses SWR to describe the actual models mentioned in the topic... OK, I say SWR'd = TWR = swiss cheese. Is that a fair assessment? Following the given clues, I think it's sensible. There sometimes appear peculiar confusions through public relations. Please refer what was revealed by knowledgeable forum members in the linked topic I started about nine weeks ago, and be prepared for the unexpected: http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/111239-why-is-the-crown-inlay-also-known-as-holly-inlay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 3, 2014 Author Share Posted June 3, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 3, 2014 Author Share Posted June 3, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creeksideguitar Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I don't understand why Gibson does the weight relief guitars? I mean, a Les Paul is supposed to be heavy. You could always buy an SG for "weight relief" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I don't understand why Gibson does the weight relief guitars? I mean, a Les Paul is supposed to be heavy. You could always buy an SG for "weight relief" Cause the mahogany they get these days is more dense than in the old days. A Les Paul is usually 8 to 9 pounds these days. Most people don't want them super heavy. They probably have a target weight somewhere in that 8 to 9 pound range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 4, 2014 Author Share Posted June 4, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I find it odd that the two most popular models, the Standard and the Studio, are subject to the 'weight relief' cr*p... ...and if some people prefer a lighter LP, why not have both a Standard and a Standard 'light'? Every model in the current USA line (except the Traditional) is weight relieved in some way. Some have Traditional weight relief (swiss cheese) while others have Modern weight relief (larger cavities routed in the body). It's been like this since the 80's. The Traditional just recently became a solid piece of mahogany. And the reason they don't offer an obscenely heavy version? Because not just "some people" want a lighter Les Paul. Most people want a lighter Les Paul. They won't make a model that they know fewer people will buy. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 And like I said above: Why not offer both a swiss-cheese Standard and a MWR Standard? The same reason they can't offer every color in the rainbow. They need to be able to sell enough to justify making a bunch of them. If they made let's say 100 TWR Standards and 100 MWR Standards, and stores ordered all 100 MWR Standards but only 10 TWR Standards, Gibson loses money in materials and time. They go with what they predict most people will buy, most of the time. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Ok, Ryan, let us both be satisfied with our opinions. I never stated my opinion. I'd love for Gibson to offer every option under the sun. Financially that just doesn't work. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's fact. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Please do not play semantics. You stated both fact and opinion, as did I. The fact is I worked in the corporate environment for nearly 30 years and have attended [too many] round-table meetings. I honestly don't know why you're so up-in-arms about this. I wasn't "playing semantics". I think you're reading between the lines too much, when there's nothing to read... If you have so much experience in the corporate world, then you should know why Gibson won't make a "Standard" and "Standard Light". It's not worth their time and money for the few people they'd please if they did so. I'll let you have the last word, if you feel so inclined to respond. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundMaster Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Original post deleted by author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsinla Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I don't understand why Gibson does the weight relief guitars? I mean, a Les Paul is supposed to be heavy. You could always buy an SG for "weight relief" You are correct. But even Mr Les Paul didn't like that new body style and had his name taken off. And SG's and Les Pauls do sound different. For some people, only a Les Paul will do. But the weight was still an issue for many, that's why they do the weight relief. They did it secretly for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Gee, thanks. I think I will. The only thing I'm 'up-in-arms' about is the weight relief. Your first post in this topic has led to this exchange. There are other areas on this forum involving you where a similar pattern seems to exist, almost an argumentative one at times. And, yes, I am quite good at reading between the lines - if the situation necessitates it. For instance, "If you have so much experience in the corporate world..." was really not necessary to include in your reply; or was it? Apparently to you, it was. Shall I go on? Nah, what's the point... You can have the last word, 'cos I'm done with this topic. Ryan's just trying to figure out what Gibson's reasoning is too and to help clarify it. Lots of people discuss this issue on this forum and he's trying to bring you up to speed on what people on here know about the weight relief issue. It's a little complicated. People get mad that Les Pauls are weight relieved. That's a fact. Lots of people come on here and ask why Gibson does this and that. I rank on Gibson all the time. Just lighten up a little. People who take things personal make things personal. Weight relief is a rookie issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 ...Weight relief is a rookie issue. ... Unfortunately, BBP, it's only we "old-timers" who understand this to be the case... Just to join in the general melee with some Schizophrenic Questions and Answers; Swiss Cheesing, as has been pointed out, has been around since circa 1982. Was there an outcry about weight-relief back then? No. Why not? Because absolutely no-one - no-one - noticed any difference whatsoever in the 'new' tone in comparison with the 'old' tone. Didn't Gibson mention it? No. How did 'we' find out? As is now well known someone saw their LP going through an airport X-ray machine and, pretty soon afterwards, the cat was out. Don't mention 'burg-jerky'... Why did Gibson do it? Because some LPs were tipping the scales at over 15lbs - and that's no joke. Why? Because supplies of lighter mahogany for the body blanks were becoming much more scarce, much harder to source and, accordingly, much more expensive to buy. What happened next? Practically nothing for over 20 years although those lighter body-blanks which Gibson DID manage to acquire were used by the newly-formed ('93) Historic Division (now Custom Shop) for the re-issues. After that? Gibson started 'Chambering' certain models in about 2006. This involves the removal of a vast portion of the 'interior' of the guitar. Is this a good idea? Well, unlike Swiss Cheesing, Chambering seems to modify the characteristics of the LP. Most people find the tone brighter. Some also find these LPs to be more 'articulate' - more responsive to pick-attack and so on. So these must be really light? Not neccessarily. An originally heavy body-blank can mean a Chambered Standard could still tip the scales at over 9 lbs - which is heavier than the majority of (solid) '59 R-I's. Anything else? Lots. All IM, I mean 'Our', HO. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Then why did they not scoop out the 2013 LPJ and the 2013 Tribute Series? The 2013 Traditional was the 9 holes as well. And the Customs are solid, I do believe. I find it odd that the two most popular models, the Standard and the Studio, are subject to the 'weight relief' cr*p... ...and if some people prefer a lighter LP, why not have both a Standard and a Standard 'light'? Here's a wild theory --- let's send all of the bits of Mahogany overseas to use as filler on the Epiphones! Gibson Les Paul Traditionals 2013 are massive, and contemporary Gibson Les Paul Customs are nine-hole Swiss Cheese weight relieved. Epiphone Les Paul guitars are massive. The nato mahogany used for these is lighter by nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 ... Why did Gibson do it? Because some LPs were tipping the scales at over 15lbs - and that's no joke. ... P. I doubt that. The scales might have been bad or improperly reset, and the timbers used for these guitars were poorly dried. Tolerances in density of one particular wood species are pretty large but not that extreme. There also are very few woods which exceed the density of water, like e. g. ebony, palisander (Brazilian pockwood), or American pockwood (aka Guaiacum or lignum vitae, lat. wood of life). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 ...I doubt that... It sounds a bit much I know but there were a few members over on MLP who had mid-late '70s LP Customs and, in a thread, that's what they said their LPs weighed. I know this is the 'net and we can't believe all we read but I don't doubt the honesty of the posters concerned. I'm also pretty sure there was at least one highly regarded member here who had a similarly massive example. There's another who, not long ago, mentioned his (fairly recent) Custom was well over 12 lbs. If this is in these 'Post-Boat-Anchor' days then the existence of one or two weighing 15 lbs, although highly unusual, doesn't appear to be totally inconceivable Unfortunately, cap, I have no proof to convince you I'm telling the truth; I'm merely mentioning what others have written previously. FWIW in Yas Iwanade's "The Beauty of the 'Burst" there was a 20% difference in mass between the lightest and the heaviest of those '58-'60 Standards whose weights were listed. Don't forget that these were guitars which were all using the 'light' grade of mahogany. Here's a snap from the Custom Shop; This snap shows the weights for the various re-issues. The R-I's get the lightest slabs of mahogany. As can be seen the blanks for a Black Beauty can be more than 2.6 lbs heavier than for an R9 / R0. If these are the 'light' slabs how much could one of the really heavy ones be? But as I say; I have no proof that what I have read is either accurate or trustworthy. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.