Bent Olav Olsen Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I'm trying to figure out why the Traditional Satin had so much lower price than the Standards and the other Traditionals? Anyone have a explanation? The specs seem ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Hello! All the work which is done by hand is expensive. Applying multiple layers of lacquer, waiting for them to cure, sanding between layers, then buffing. This is a time-consuming process. Time is money. Applying just one, thin layer of nitro, instead of creating a high-gloss surface, results a significant saving. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bent Olav Olsen Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Hello! All the work which is done by hand is expensive. Applying multiple layers of lacquer, waiting for them to cure, sanding between layers, then buffing. This is a time-consuming process. Time is money. Applying just one, thin layer of nitro, instead of creating a high-gloss surface, results a significant saving. Cheers... Bence So what you are saying is that if I'm not concerned about the "look", the rest of the guitar (sound/how it plays) should be the same as it's more costly Brothers and sisters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Well...You may put it that way, if You like. However, one of the nicest guitars I have seen from Gibson recently, is this beauty: It's not less, it's just different to me. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bent Olav Olsen Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Well...You may put it that way, if You like. However, one of the nicest guitars I have seen from Gibson recently, is this beauty: It's not less, it's just different to me. Cheers... Bence That is the Brown satin right? I think it looks very good. I actually like the satin Cherry as well, just wondered if there was something else that was "Down graded". Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Hello! It's not the satin finish which makes these less desirable. Satin finish is very nice, if paired with wonderful woodgrain. It's the laminated ("bi-layer") rosewood fretboard on these. I don't understand why, though. Noone can see that under the binding... Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I'm trying to figure out why the Traditional Satin had so much lower price than the Standards and the other Traditionals? Anyone have a explanation? The specs seem ok? Yeah ive always wondered that... Both the Classics and Traditionals are lower than a Standard..... So as much as yes having a non thick glossy coat is way cheaper, most of the Classics and Traditionals ive seen are high gloss too.... I think the other thing is (so its said) is the wood selection process... Standards I think they pick slightly higher grade tops than you get on Classics and Traditionals but then that varies year after year.... (sometimes they do have nice flame tops but are still cheaper?) But yes apart from that all of these guitars are made in the same place by the same people so its just cosmetic differences... You are still getting a great guitar regardless of how pretty the wood is or not. But then I feel the same about the Studios.. Most of the differences are just cosmetic (no binding and no high gloss mainly) .... They rest of it is still every bit a Gibson Les Paul.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bent Olav Olsen Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 I agree, If I find a good Studio I don't mind the more simple aesthetics. I'm looking for a good guitar to play, that's my agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Hello! The Traditional originally posted is an all-mahogany instrument. It does not have a maple cap, like the first ('54-'60) Les Paul Customs didn't had it either. It sounds less bright. That is why it is special among the Les Paul Traditionals. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bent Olav Olsen Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Hello! The Traditional originally posted is an all-mahogany instrument. It does not have a maple cap, like the first ('54-'60) Les Paul Customs didn't had it either. It sounds less bright. That is why it is special among the Les Paul Traditionals. Cheers... Bence Thanx, I'm learning something new every day. What a forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Very nice Traditional, I'd love to own a full mahogany Les Paul. Can't afford a Black Beauty, but that Traditional looks great. Anyway, faded guitars are affordable due to the finish (as btoth76 said). I must admit that I always kept in mind those fadeds, I think that they've got a great Q/P ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Very nice Traditional, I'd love to own a full mahogany Les Paul. Can't afford a Black Beauty, but that Traditional looks great. ... Indeed! That's what my thinking was when these came out. However, - at that time -, there were other must-have guitars for sale... Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.