Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Reissue LPs


Black Dog

Recommended Posts

So I have been eyeing these beautiful and seductive reissue LPs. I was wondering if anyone knows why the Standard Historic R9 and R0 are so much more expensive than the Standard Historic R8???

 

Thanks.

 

Fame mate.

 

So many rock bigwig superstars played 59s or 60s. For example, Clapton, Page, Green all played 59s at one point and Page and Joe Walsh for example played 60s. Clapton has cast doubt on whether his was a 59 or a 60 but most seem to think it was a 59.

 

I am sure plenty of people can name significant players who played 58s but the only one that comes readily to my mind is Snowy White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fame mate.

 

So many rock bigwig superstars played 59s or 60s. For example, Clapton, Page, Green all played 59s at one point and Page and Joe Walsh for example played 60s. Clapton has cast doubt on whether his was a 59 or a 60 but most seem to think it was a 59.

 

I am sure plenty of people can name significant players who played 58s but the only one that comes readily to my mind is Snowy White.

 

Pin, I'm pretty sure Snowy's LP is a 57 Goldtop not a 58 burst.

 

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mostly because of the 59 association. 59 & 60 bursts are worth the most, so reissues follow suit. Gibson also used flame tops to justify the higher price tag, keeping R8s as plain tops, but they've consistently been making (very nice) flame top R8s since 2010.

 

There were also flame top R8s in the early 2000s but 2003 (I think) to 2009 R8s were nearly all plain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pin, I'm pretty sure Snowy's LP is a 57 Goldtop not a 58 burst.

 

 

Ian

 

Hi Ian,

 

I have read that it is a 1958 Goldtop but this info may be wrong and it is (was as Snowy has now sold it) a 1957 as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies, makes sense.

 

I now have another question.

 

I was reading about the neck change from 59 to 60. Gibson mentions a V2 neck which was the original 60s slim neck then eventually even made thinner necks referred to as V3 necks later in 60. Is the V3 what is now known as the 60s slim taper neck? If so how much of a difference is there between the V2 and V3?

 

here is the quote from Gibson:

 

"Gibson transitioned the neck profile of the 1960 model year Les Paul Standard to a thinner, "faster" profile. It took the entire model year to come to fruition with early 1960's versions built with the same neck as the '59, then a slightly thinner version, known now as a "V2" by mid-year, until finally a very thin "V3" was in stores by the latter part of 1960. Today's Reissue is closest to the "V2" profile, a feature vintage collector's and enthusiasts consider the most desirable"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...early 1960's versions built with the same neck as the '59, then a slightly thinner version, known now as a "V2" by mid-year, until finally a very thin "V3" was in stores by the latter part of 1960...

Bear in mind that nowadays - as then - all necks are hand-finished and can vary from one to the next but FWIW...

 

Here are the relevant figures for actual 1960 LP Standards printed in Yas Iwanade's "The Beauty of the 'Burst" which sort-of back up the statement you quoted although from, admittedly, a rather small test group.

 

The earliest 1960 listed has the thickest (V1) neck : 23.1mm / 25.2mm (first fret / 12th fret).

The next pair seem to have the medium (V2) sized neck : 21.6mm / 24.1mm and 22.3mm / 24.7mm.

The last group have, generally speaking, the slimmest (V3) necks ranging from a thickest @ 20.9mm / 22.9mm to a thinnest @ 20.0mm / 21.8mm.

In this last group, which numbered six instruments, the average measurements work out as being 20.5mm / 22.1mm.

 

As a comparison here are the figures for my own group of four - which are 1993 R9 ('59 profile); 1995 R0; 1995 '1960 Classic'; 1991 '1960 Classic' (these three with 1960 profile)

22.7mm / 26.3mm.

21.2mm / 22.6mm.

20.9mm / 22.7mm.

19.0mm / 21.6mm

 

This would suggest that the 1993 R9 has roughly the V1 profile; the pair of 1995 LPs with a 1960 profile have dimensions between the V2 the V3; the '91 Classic has a profile even slimmer than the slimmest of the V3.

 

In practice I find the 'V2/V3' necks to be by far the most comfortable. The R9 (V1) is just a tad too chunky - especially after playing a 'V2/V3'. The 'slimmer than V3' is very fast but seems to be less stable in that the tuning is susceptible to rough treatment and if one string goes out then the rest can also be affected due to the neck flexing ever so slightly.

 

YMMV.

 

Whether or not the Slim-Taper '60s profile is like a V3 can only be found out through measuring such a neck. My R0 and 1960 Classics were all called '1960 profile' but, clearly, are different form one another.

 

Don't know how much any of that might be of help / use but it's all I can offer.

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,

 

I have read that it is a 1958 Goldtop but this info may be wrong and it is (was as Snowy has now sold it) a 1957 as you say.

 

In a Premier Guitar Interview, Snow White said, "What’s the story behind the goldtop Les Paul that has been with you throughout your entire career?

 

When I was 18 I met a Swedish girl, so I went to Sweden, because that’s the sort of thing you do when you’re younger—you go where the girlfriend is. I got in a band there—a trio called the Train—and the drummer knew somebody who had a Les Paul for sale. I didn’t know anything about guitars at all—and I still don’t—but I wanted a Les Paul. I had a Stratocaster, which I didn’t like, and I swapped it for the Les Paul— an all-original 1957 goldtop. That was in 1969. I’ve had the guitar for 41 years.

 

Is it still 100 percent original?

 

It’s a working guitar, and I’m not precious about it, so I’ve changed things when they needed changing. It’s had different machine heads. It’s been rewired. It’s been refretted a couple of times. And it’s got a different bridge, which I put on because [Fleetwood Mac founder] Peter Green gave it to me, even though it was identical to the original bridge. It’s a fantastic guitar, really true in the neck and fingerboard after all these years—and it sings on every fret just as it should. It’s just lucky, really."

 

He sold it? That's too bad. I guess the price was right, because that was truly an iconic guitar. I remember hearing it when he toured with Pink Floyd and of course when he played with Thin Lizzy. Someone was fortunate!: "it sold to some very lucky person for $93,750 (US)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for going off-topic for min. but as regards Snowy's G-T;

One thing which supports the idea that it's an early '57 is that it has black plastic fitments.

 

When the PAF p'ups were introduced to the mainstream Gibson guitar product range (*) in Feb '57 they were fitted first not to the LP but to the ES-175. These instruments (obviously) had black plastic fittings and, understandably, it follows that the first order of p'up rings were for them to be made in black plastic. The PAF'd LP Custom which appeared quite a bit later on in '57 also had black plastics so no problem there. It seems that supplies of cream p'up surrounds weren't in stock in time for the first shipment of the new PAF-equipped Gold-Top 'Standards', however, so Kalamazoo simply fitted what was available at the time - which was, of course, the black plastic stuff - multi-ply p'g and all.

 

I believe there are many sites and many pages which detail these very early G-T's but I'm sorry to say that I can't be bothered to do any detective work tonight. Google is (no doubt) your friend, though, should you be of an inquiring mind!

 

msp_thumbup.gif

 

Pip.

 

* i.e. discounting the 1955 pedal/lap-steel Consolette.

 

EDIT : Oh, OK. Here you go;

 

http://www.burstseri...p?/category/708

 

Ignore the very first one which is being rebuilt and has later fittings.

The next bunch up until 7 2196 have black bits. And, FWIW, '7 2196' is/was Snowy's guitar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

EDIT : Oh, OK. Here you go;

 

http://www.burstseri...p?/category/708

 

Ignore the very first one which is being rebuilt and has later fittings.

The next bunch up until 7 2196 have black bits. And, FWIW, '7 2196' is/was Snowy's guitar...

Thank you very much for the link. However, her serial number is 7 2916.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Thank Goodness you weren't drinking a decent Claret.

 

Pip.

 

Claret? You have met me, right? Single malt scotch or brown beer.

 

My neighbour and I were drinking pints of wine a couple of weeks ago. We had no beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claret? I remeber the old man having that back in the day when it was pretty much the standard term for any red wine in Oz.

You could get it in a flagon OR a cardboard box! [scared]

One of those names that got outlawed back when political correctness took hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claret? I remember the old man having that back in the day when it was pretty much the standard term for any red wine in Oz........One of those names that got outlawed back when political correctness took hold.

I usually use the term 'Claret' specifically because it annoys some folks who think they know better.

 

In actual fact the definition has changed from meaning, originally, a wine which is light-red in colour to, nowadays, the dark-reds from Bordeaux but it can also be used, correctly, to describe wines from other regions which are made in the Bordeaux style.

 

If anyone calls you out for drinking your Oz 'Claret' just tell them that ANY red - French or otherwise - made like a Bordeaux can be classed as such.

Then flip them the bird.

 

msp_biggrin.gif

 

'Champagne', however, is a different matter entirely....

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually use the term 'Claret' specifically because it annoys some folks who think they know better.

 

In actual fact the definition has changed from meaning, originally, a wine which is light-red in colour to, nowadays, the dark-reds from Bordeaux but it can also be used, correctly, to describe wines from other regions which are made in the Bordeaux style.

 

If anyone calls you out for drinking your Oz 'Claret' just tell them that ANY red - French or otherwise - made like a Bordeaux can be classed as such.

Then flip them the bird.

 

msp_biggrin.gif

 

'Champagne', however, is a different matter entirely....

 

Pip.

 

I love it when you talk like that.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...