Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Les Paul Classic Vs Traditional Vs Standard Body Thickness


AloofWinter

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.com/threads/standard-vs-studio-body-thickness.55429/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...