Gibson Brands Forums: Les Paul Classic Vs Traditional Vs Standard Body Thickness - Gibson Brands Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Les Paul Classic Vs Traditional Vs Standard Body Thickness

#1 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 10 September 2018 - 03:52 PM

Are these 3 guitars, hand crafting irregularities aside, designed to be the same body thickness? I.e. the same mahogany body thickness and the same thickness of maple cap carve?

If not, why the deliberate difference?

Cheers
0

#2 User is offline   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 13656
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 11 September 2018 - 03:09 AM

Yes. They are all same.

Some carved-top LPs have been slimmer (such as the Goddess) but the three you mention are identical.

P.
0

#3 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 28 September 2018 - 07:19 AM

View Postpippy, on 11 September 2018 - 03:09 AM, said:

Yes. They are all same.

Some carved-top LPs have been slimmer (such as the Goddess) but the three you mention are identical.

P.


Thanks, the Studio is significantly thinner than those 3 models isn't it?

Does anyone have 2 or more of the aforementioned 3 guitars that they could measure and post pics?
0

#4 User is offline   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 13656
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 28 September 2018 - 08:51 AM

View PostAloofWinter, on 28 September 2018 - 07:19 AM, said:

Thanks, the Studio is significantly thinner than those 3 models isn't it?...

Errmm...I don't think so, no.
AFAIK the Studio is absolutely identical in thickness in comparison with the Trad, the Standard and the Classic.
I don't own a Studio but I've played quite a few over the years and from what I can remember they were all the Standard (pun) thickness.

Pip.

This post has been edited by pippy: 28 September 2018 - 08:52 AM

0

#5 User is offline   cooltouch 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 20-October 12
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 28 September 2018 - 08:57 PM

I can confirm that my Traditional is the same thickness as the Standard. Weighs about the same too. That is, it's heavy.
Best,
Michael

Live to Play, Play to Live
0

#6 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 08 October 2018 - 12:04 PM

 pippy, on 28 September 2018 - 08:51 AM, said:

Errmm...I don't think so, no.
AFAIK the Studio is absolutely identical in thickness in comparison with the Trad, the Standard and the Classic.
I don't own a Studio but I've played quite a few over the years and from what I can remember they were all the Standard (pun) thickness.

Pip.



I found this thread from a different forum, the general consensus seems to be that studios are made to be thinner than other models, like the Standard etc.

http://www.mylespaul...hickness.55429/
0

#7 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 08 October 2018 - 12:05 PM

 cooltouch, on 28 September 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

I can confirm that my Traditional is the same thickness as the Standard. Weighs about the same too. That is, it's heavy.


Thanks, do you know if the Classic is the same body thickness as those guitars, i.e. the standard and traditional?
0

#8 User is offline   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 13656
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 08 October 2018 - 12:48 PM

Eh?

Re-read post #2...
0

#9 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 08 October 2018 - 01:20 PM

 pippy, on 08 October 2018 - 12:48 PM, said:

Eh?

Re-read post #2...


I quoted post #4, re-read post #4...
0

#10 User is offline   Big Bill 

  • Stink Finger Willie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 5297
  • Joined: 15-May 09

Posted 08 October 2018 - 02:30 PM

All three are identical.
Gibson Les Paul Standard
Gibson ES 339 Memphis
Gretsch 2655 Streamliner
Fender American Standard Stratocaster
Fender 60s Baja Telecaster
Fender 12 String Acoustic
Fender Jazz Bass 1975 Reissue
Hofner Limited Edition Ed Sullivan Ignition Violin Bass
Seagull Excursion Grand Acoustic
0

#11 User is offline   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 13656
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 09 October 2018 - 01:50 AM

View PostAloofWinter, on 08 October 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

I quoted post #4, re-read post #4...

You mean;

"...I don't think so...I don't own a Studio but...from what I can remember they were all the Standard...thickness."...?

The original 'Studio' model came out 35 years ago in 1983. There has been at least 19 versions of the Studio released over the years.
The 'Studio Lite' model, however, was introduced in 1988 and was quite a different guitar having (quoting from Tony Bacon's book) an...

"Unbound carved-top thinner body with contoured back..."

From posts #9 and #11 in the thread from the link you yourself posted;

"I can confirm that my 90's Studio Lite is a bit thinner than my 00's Standard.".
"I just did a quick measure. 4.4 centimeters on the Studio Lite. 4.9 centimeters on the Standard.".

The OP in the thread doesn't specify which particular version of the Studio is in the picture they posted but as 0.5cm equates to roughly 1/4" it is practically certain that the LP shown in the first post in the above link is also a 'Studio Lite'.
The 'Studio Lite' (three versions were made) was a short-run variation and was only available for seven years (1988 to 1994). I still think the regular Studio is the same thickness as a regular carved-top Les Paul.

As far as the three models mentioned in your OP are concerned there was no uncertainty in my first reply as I know for sure they are the same.

P.

This post has been edited by pippy: 09 October 2018 - 03:50 AM

0

#12 User is offline   saturn 

  • Jay
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 6501
  • Joined: 04-January 08
  • LocationThe Dena

Posted 09 October 2018 - 05:55 AM

Years ago I removed the pickups from my 2004 Studio Plus and took these photos. The maple cap seems pretty thick to me.

Posted Image

Posted Image
0

#13 User is offline   FZ Fan 

  • Jumbo Go Away
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 7020
  • Joined: 15-October 13
  • LocationVirginia

Posted 09 October 2018 - 06:38 AM

View Postpippy, on 08 October 2018 - 12:48 PM, said:

Eh?

Re-read post #2...


I guess he did not understand that yes means yes.
0

#14 User is offline   MichaelT 

  • Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 1102
  • Joined: 22-February 17
  • LocationSomewhere in Kentucky

Posted 09 October 2018 - 06:57 AM

View PostAloofWinter, on 10 September 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

Are these 3 guitars, hand crafting irregularities aside, designed to be the same body thickness? I.e. the same mahogany body thickness and the same thickness of maple cap carve?

If not, why the deliberate difference?

Cheers


I have one of each and they all seem to be the same thickness, although I haven't measured them.
0

#15 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:46 AM

View Postpippy, on 09 October 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

You mean;

"...I don't think so...I don't own a Studio but...from what I can remember they were all the Standard...thickness."...?

Yes that's what I mean, because that's what you said in post #4 which I quoted.

The original 'Studio' model came out 35 years ago in 1983. There has been at least 19 versions of the Studio released over the years.
The 'Studio Lite' model, however, was introduced in 1988 and was quite a different guitar having (quoting from Tony Bacon's book) an...

"Unbound carved-top thinner body with contoured back..."

From posts #9 and #11 in the thread from the link you yourself posted;

"I can confirm that my 90's Studio Lite is a bit thinner than my 00's Standard.".
"I just did a quick measure. 4.4 centimeters on the Studio Lite. 4.9 centimeters on the Standard.".

The OP in the thread doesn't specify which particular version of the Studio is in the picture they posted but as 0.5cm equates to roughly 1/4" it is practically certain that the LP shown in the first post in the above link is also a 'Studio Lite'.
The 'Studio Lite' (three versions were made) was a short-run variation and was only available for seven years (1988 to 1994).

There are other people in that thread who are saying that their 'studio' or 'studios' is/are thinner than other Gibson Les Paul models they own, so regardless of what Studio version is shown in the OP of that thread, we're still unsure how the body thickness of the regular Studio compares to other models. Consensus seems to be that it's thinner though.

I still think the regular Studio is the same thickness as a regular carved-top Les Paul.

As above, we're unsure. I've contacted Gibson about it directly because I'm curious, maybe we'll get some answers that way.

As far as the three models mentioned in your OP are concerned there was no uncertainty in my first reply as I know for sure they are the same.

You, your post count and what you say mean nothing to me on their own you must understand, because I don't know you personally, which is why I continued to ask other people here. It's nothing personal.

P.

0

#16 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:47 AM

View PostFZ Fan, on 09 October 2018 - 06:38 AM, said:

I guess he did not understand that yes means yes.


I guess you're having difficulty differentiating between post #2 and post #4 as well.
0

#17 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:48 AM

View Postsaturn, on 09 October 2018 - 05:55 AM, said:

Years ago I removed the pickups from my 2004 Studio Plus and took these photos. The maple cap seems pretty thick to me.

Posted Image

Posted Image



Thanks for posting, I really like the look of that top.

Do you still own this guitar?

This post has been edited by AloofWinter: 09 October 2018 - 10:53 AM

0

#18 User is offline   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 13656
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:25 AM

"You, your post count and what you say mean nothing to me on their own you must understand, because I don't know you personally, which is why I continued to ask other people here. It's nothing personal."

I assure you I don't take it personally in the slightest.
I was happy to make it very clear that I don't own a Studio and cannot state authoritatively that it is one way or another. Ask away. It's what I did, myself, when I first joined the forum.
In fact I'd be more than happy to see a selection of replies representing a variety of LP Studio models made through the years. I hope some folks will duly oblige.

Similarly I quoted Tony Bacon because he DOES know what he's on about - having written 'The Les Paul Book' - and because, when detailing the various Studio models in his appendix, he singled out the Studio Lite - and only the Studio Lite - as being of a different thickness which seemed moot to the point. He might well be mistaken, of course. Not all authors get everything 100% correct 100% of the time.

As far as Standards/Traditionals/Classics etc. are concerned; if I had more time I would be happy to take some snaps of my own charges with a tape-measure in the appropriate position.
Perhaps at the end of the week if we are all still discussing the question?

P.
0

#19 User is offline   Big Bill 

  • Stink Finger Willie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 5297
  • Joined: 15-May 09

Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:38 AM

View Postpippy, on 09 October 2018 - 11:25 AM, said:


"You, your post count and what you say mean nothing to me on their own you must understand, because I don't know you personally, which is why I continued to ask other people here. It's nothing personal."



Did he really post that? If so, that was rather rude. Comes to the forum asking questions, doesn't get the answer he's looking for...

Once again Pip, you are a bigger man than I.
Gibson Les Paul Standard
Gibson ES 339 Memphis
Gretsch 2655 Streamliner
Fender American Standard Stratocaster
Fender 60s Baja Telecaster
Fender 12 String Acoustic
Fender Jazz Bass 1975 Reissue
Hofner Limited Edition Ed Sullivan Ignition Violin Bass
Seagull Excursion Grand Acoustic
0

#20 User is offline   AloofWinter 

  • Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-July 18

Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:52 AM

View PostBig Bill, on 09 October 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:

Did he really post that? If so, that was rather rude. Comes to the forum asking questions, doesn't get the answer he's looking for...

Once again Pip, you are a bigger man than I.


It wasn't rude, it was simply a logical response to something Pippy said, devoid of any negative emotion whatsoever.

Pippy understands this, you can tell by reading his post above. Try to relax.

Edit: also, I'm not looking for a particular answer, I'm looking for an answer.

This post has been edited by AloofWinter: 09 October 2018 - 11:53 AM

0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users