Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

2012 laminated fretboard


gib son

Recommended Posts

A question for the administrator not a really very new topic !

In July 2012 I got my Les Paul '58 VOS serial 87115.

Before I go to my luthier to verify, is it possible to knoow if this instrument has the "two piece" of fretboard glued together or not ?

This "bad thing" done by Gibson also with the historic models and WITHOUT ANY information to the people who pay a lot of money for those intruments, has drive me crazy and very angry. :angry:

I want to know from Gibson (by the serial above) if this guitar is a "piece of crap" or a real historic reissue, I think in 1958 there was'nt any laminated fretboard.

Sorry for my bad english ! (I'm italian)

Thank You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Bence,

I need my luthier because he can correctly remove the nut, so it' s possible to discover the fretboard section and see if there are two pieces of rosewood glued together!

The guitar itself sounds good, but this is not the problem. The REAL question is that I have purchased an instrument as an "historic" reissue, that I found (later [sad] )to be not historical correct and has got a "crap" solution instead a real solid fretboard! God only knows if in the coming years this "inusual" solution will give problems to the guitar. Anyway, if Gibson would have been annnounced that the 2012 guitar fretboard was made by two pieces, I would NEVER buy it and probably no one who wish to have an "historic" expensive model would have buy it.

For my pont of view this is THE problem, no matter if the 58 sound good or not. The people who pay money has the right to know as the things really happen. In 2012 Gibson must have to stop the historic models until it has the right wood for fretboard. This is my thought: I hope you understand what I try to say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Although, I can't recall whether it was published on Gibson's product site or not, it was a well-known fact that they used "laminated" construction for fretboards.

 

As far as the coming years are concerned, any issue that might occur, is covered by Gibson's lifetime warranty.

 

On the other hand - even though, it's not period-correct like this - but it's invisible and doesn't affects the tonality of the instrument, so I wouldn't bother damaging it by removing the nut just to see how the fretboard was made. It is very much likely a laminated one.

 

That construction wasn't applied by Gibson to fool customers, it was the only way to offer rosewood fretboarded instruments at the time.

 

It's Your guitar, of course. I wouldn't make an issue out of it. Noone will ever remember - years later -, whether those 2012 guitars have laminated or solid fretboard. This issue seems to me so pointless comparing to the beauty of an R8 You are lucky to have. :)

 

Cheers... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

sorry, but I' m not agree with you. [smile]

I 'm sure in the coming years ALL "lespaulers" will stay away from these 2012 just for this poor fretboard work, regardless the fact that the guitar sound good or not! Noone will buy with confidence guitars like these! Out here there' s a lot of people who claims the 2011 as the end of an "era" for Gibson, as happen in 1968 after Norlin takeover. Please, surf on the various website and check it out ! If one day, a very next day, I' ll decide to sell it I know that I have not to say that' s a 2012 les paul: who will pay a right price for this guitars ? All buyers will demand a lower price only for THAT reason. I'll be forced to hide the truth, but can I tell such a lie and "cheat" the buyer ? But that is what has made Gibson to its customers. I' m not afraid to tell the truth.

I' m very sad: if I had purchased a Tokay les paul reissue instead Gibson, I have had a better wood for the fretboard and more bucks in my pocket ! I' ll never, never buy another Gibson in my life !

Anyway, I'll wait for an answer of the administrators about my serial number and immediately after I blot out from this forum.

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Sad to hear You leaving! Lot of great guys around here with huge knowledge and understanding. I am sure You'd enjoy being here, if You stayed.

 

I am not sure if anyone on behalf of Gibson will comment here. You should rather contact the Customer Service. http://www2.gibson.com/Support/Warranty-Service-Centers/Europe/Italy.aspx

 

Finally, there is always a reason for people to hate one or another model: "Oh, this is a Norlin", "It has a Nashville bridge", etc. Everyone has it's own idea of the perfect Les Paul. Even Les Paul had. :)

 

Good luck! Cheers... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bence,

It' s true: everyone has its own idea of the perfect Les Paul: mine is too much for Gibson: to own an authentic Les Paul, not an expensive fake sold by Gibson itself !

The 2012 R8 is an historic fake that Gibson had sell as V.O.S. (vintage original specific)for reasons related to a blind and ruthless logic of profit. It' s really sad to say these words, but this is the truth..... I understand that if you want a real historical model you had to shell out at least € 8.000,00. Perhaps with such a sum, your guitar will have a decent fretboard....... ! But if Gibson has become only for rich people, then it means that Gibson is dead. That said, I hope that some of the administrators chase me away from the forum: It's time to go........

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Gibson published details of the laminated fret boards, specifically mentioning reissues, at the time. You must have failed to research and notice a spec change. Your dealer should also have been aware and your relationship and contract is with them, you should take it up with them. Finally, laminated fretboards are not a new thing, it isn't an issue, as evidenced by the fact that you can't tell if it has a laminated board or not.

 

To be fair, you have every right to dislike it, however irrational it might seem to me, but you are definitely laying the blame at the wrong door. The information was readily available, you simply bought a guitar you didn't know had a laminated board because you didn't check the current spec before making your purchase.

 

Edit: Good news, your guitar was made in 2007 (or less likely 1997). Another reason to go and have a "chat" with your dealer perhaps. I should have looked at that serial number first. Doh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree. You were not misled. You failed to do your research. There was no secret kept from you and you were not deceived. If your guitar is not what you thought it was you have no one to blame but yourself. As a working class person who considers a Gibson Les Paul to be a major purchase, I chose my price point, then spent countless hours on the internet reading specs and reviews, watching videos, asking questions right here on this forum, and making comparisons. I did not research only the model I was interested in either. I researched every comparable model within my price range. By the time I purchased my guitar I knew everything there was to know about it and about the people I bought it from. The information that is available to you about these guitars is vast and limitless.

Of course all of this is less important if you are buying a guitar for your own enjoyment and pleasure. In that case the main questions are a) do I like it? B) does it play nice and c) can I afford it. If that is the case then none of what you are complaining about even matters, BUT, if you are purchasing with resale intent and historical value then the research falls even more squarely on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson published details of the laminated fret boards, specifically mentioning reissues, at the time. You must have failed to research and notice a spec change. Your dealer should also have been aware and your relationship and contract is with them, you should take it up with them. Finally, laminated fretboards are not a new thing, it isn't an issue, as evidenced by the fact that you can't tell if it has a laminated board or not.

 

To be fair, you have every right to dislike it, however irrational it might seem to me, but you are definitely laying the blame at the wrong door. The information was readily available, you simply bought a guitar you didn't know had a laminated board because you didn't check the current spec before making your purchase.

 

Edit: Good news, your guitar was made in 2007 (or less likely 1997). Another reason to go and have a "chat" with your dealer perhaps. I should have looked at that serial number first. Doh.

Well, if you're so 'safe, please, show me the document on which c' is the indication of the laminated fretboard. In Italy I've never seen anything like it nor the dealer is being informed. Anyway, agree with me that is at least misleading speak of "historic" about guitars produced in this way. Or the Les paul in 1958 had laminated fretboard ? I do not exactly remember ......

But thanks for the good new !!!! [thumbup] The only strange thing is that my guitar has the "certificate of autenthicity" tha is dated april 2012 and in the selector cavity has the "gibson custom" in metallic embossed that' s a tipycal feature of the 2012 production ! Boh !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree. You were not misled. You failed to do your research. There was no secret kept from you and you were not deceived. If your guitar is not what you thought it was you have no one to blame but yourself. As a working class person who considers a Gibson Les Paul to be a major purchase, I chose my price point, then spent countless hours on the internet reading specs and reviews, watching videos, asking questions right here on this forum, and making comparisons. I did not research only the model I was interested in either. I researched every comparable model within my price range. By the time I purchased my guitar I knew everything there was to know about it and about the people I bought it from. The information that is available to you about these guitars is vast and limitless.

Of course all of this is less important if you are buying a guitar for your own enjoyment and pleasure. In that case the main questions are a) do I like it? B) does it play nice and c) can I afford it. If that is the case then none of what you are complaining about even matters, BUT, if you are purchasing with resale intent and historical value then the research falls even more squarely on you.

I accept and respect all your comments which leaned to me all the responsibility for making an ill-advised purchase, but I am sorry to have to take note that none of you want to consider the severity of a behavior through which it offers for sale a guitar declaring that this is a model built according to the specifications of a certain "historical" period which, on the contrary, are not at all observed. In my country this way of doing is called "cheating".However, this discussion seems to have lost touch with reality as it is "Farnsbarns" that the Gibson customer service confirmed to me that my guitar appears to have been built in 2007. I forgot to mention that the serial is written like this: 8 7115 where the last four digits are slightly spaced from the first one.

The thing is very strange because the "certificate of authenticity" signed by Custom Shop bears the date of April 2012. Also, on plastic plate that covers the cavity of the three-way selector is installed there some kind of metal stud with "gibson custom" as I know (but I'm not absolutely certain) has been applied only on instruments produced in 2012 (see pic). Maybe someone can help me shed some light on these items .....

post-1218-031116700 1377768366_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I apologize to everyone! I made a BIG mistake on the serial number because I based on what is handwritten "on gold warranty card". A little while ago, I checked the guitar and its serial IS NOT 8 7115, but 8 2115 . I got confused 2 with 7! At this point, as I feared, I do not think that there are doubts about the fact that my guitar was made in 2012 and so remains the same great doubt about the laminated fretboard: on this point I' m waiting for news from customer service, but I have no illusions......... Add the photo of the guitar right serial .

post-1218-036726900 1377777846_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Ok, it almost certainly has a laminated board then. And the fact you bought it without looking at the spec is ENTIRELY your own fault. None of the historics have ever been entirely accurate by the way. The dyes, lacquer, top carve, stop tail position, pickup rings, glues and capacitors have always been wrong. Lots of other things have been wrong in the past but have been made more accurate now. In fact, from 2013 they're using hot hide glue again.

 

You didn't know this?

 

I guess not, you didn't even know what VOS stood for and clearly have no idea what it means given your post above.

 

Seriously, you need to stop complaining and realise the only person who mislead you was you. Get over it.

 

With regards to asking where this info was published. The 2012 spec is not detailed any more because it has been changed to reflect the 2013 spec. There is a remaining post on here somewhere from Gibson CS if you want to search for it I'm sure you'll find it easily enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I offer a small suggestion? I have owned just about every Gibson ever made through my many years of playing the guitar. I like you got really caught up in every nuance of the fretboard, the pickups, the..........you get the idea. My simple suggestion is this. FORGET THE LAMINATED FRETBOARD THING! You own a beautiful Les Paul! Play it and forget the fretboard thing. I GUARANTEE YOU THAT YOU WILL DRIVE YOURSELF NUTS TO NO AVAIL! Either that or sell it .............jim in Maine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, it almost certainly has a laminated board then. And the fact you bought it without looking at the spec is ENTIRELY your own fault. None of the historics have ever been entirely accurate by the way. The dyes, lacquer, top carve, stop tail position, pickup rings, glues and capacitors have always been wrong. Lots of other things have been wrong in the past but have been made more accurate now. In fact, from 2013 they're using hot hide glue again.

 

You didn't know this?

 

I guess not, you didn't even know what VOS stood for and clearly have no idea what it means given your post above.

 

Seriously, you need to stop complaining and realise the only person who mislead you was you. Get over it.

 

With regards to asking where this info was published. The 2012 spec is not detailed any more because it has been changed to reflect the 2013 spec. There is a remaining post on here somewhere from Gibson CS if you want to search for it I'm sure you'll find it easily enough.

Since you seem to know everything (and I do not know anything !), tell me what means VOS ....

You say it's my fault that I did not check the "specific", but I had to do put me to remove the nut? In your country retailers allow you to do this on a new guitar?Do you know that only by removing the nut is visible the section of the fretboard? Maybe I should not leave at home my x-ray glasses !Do you understand that has not been given any detailed information and that people became aware of this only after one of them has removed the fretboard?I think that Gibson has teased many other people besides me; Do you know how many people have purchased gibson guitars in 2012? Is it possible that ALL those who complain about this problem in various forums all around the world, have been careless in reading all the features of the guitar who purchased? Don't make me laugh!

Your all-out defense of Gibson' s behavior is totally unjustified. I'm staying in my opinion: adopt such a significant change in a historical model without informing first the buyer WITH DETAILED AND APPROPRIATE INFORMATIONS is not correct and in Italy such behavior is contrary to the law. Unfortunately my English is poor and I can not better express my point of view.

Undoubtedly you say nice words, but would you like to buy back a les paul, my les paul, built like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I offer a small suggestion? I have owned just about every Gibson ever made through my many years of playing the guitar. I like you got really caught up in every nuance of the fretboard, the pickups, the..........you get the idea. My simple suggestion is this. FORGET THE LAMINATED FRETBOARD THING! You own a beautiful Les Paul! Play it and forget the fretboard thing. I GUARANTEE YOU THAT YOU WILL DRIVE YOURSELF NUTS TO NO AVAIL! Either that or sell it .............jim in Maine

Hi Jimmy,

you're right but I can not swallow this thing !I am forty years old and have been for all time a fender-guy (I own a dozen of them). The first time I' ve decided to switch from the "other side of the fence", I have had this bad surprise . I confess that I have always had respect for Gibson but I think this time the company has lost its reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Since you seem to know everything (and I do not know anything !), tell me what means VOS ....

You say it's my fault that I did not check the "specific", but I had to do put me to remove the nut? In your country retailers allow you to do this on a new guitar?Do you know that only by removing the nut is visible the section of the fretboard? Maybe I should not leave at home my x-ray glasses !Do you understand that has not been given any detailed information and that people became aware of this only after one of them has removed the fretboard?I think that Gibson has teased many other people besides me; Do you know how many people have purchased gibson guitars in 2012? Is it possible that ALL those who complain about this problem in various forums all around the world, have been careless in reading all the features of the guitar who purchased? Don't make me laugh!

Your all-out defense of Gibson' s behavior is totally unjustified. I'm staying in my opinion: adopt such a significant change in a historical model without informing first the buyer WITH DETAILED AND APPROPRIATE INFORMATIONS is not correct and in Italy such behavior is contrary to the law. Unfortunately my English is poor and I can not better express my point of view.

Undoubtedly you say nice words, but would you like to buy back a les paul, my les paul, built like that?

 

VOS has no bearing on the accuracy of the reproduction. When it comes to reissues, VOS models have some very light aging and a slightly flatter, less glossy finish than the non VOS equivalent. VOS models are cheaper than the "gloss" equivalent because the finish is easier.

 

You didn't need your x-ray specs, nor did you need to remove the nut, you just needed to glance at the product description on Gibson.com. You didn't. Your fault. And saying your dealer wasn't informed is ridiculous, they were, they simply had to look at Gibson.com, same as you. It is a dealers responsibility to stay abreast of changes to products they sell. Your business relationship is with your dealer, both legally and morally. You bought a product from them and if you feel you were mislead your complaint is with them. Gibson don't do business with the general public and they don't have to publish spec details either although they choose to, and did so in this specific example.

 

I can see that your mind is made up and you would argue that black was white to defend your position. I give up, I'm of to play my 2011 R8 with one piece fretboard which I acquired in 2012, deliberately avoiding 2012 serial numbers because I had checked this site and knew about the issue.

 

Nb. I've played a two piece fretboard since, and read a lot about them and wouldn't shy away from them now I know there are only 2 practical differences and they are both advantages over 1 piece.

 

Oh, and how come you're not complaining that it's Indian rosewood? In the 50's they used Brazilian rosewood. Another of the myriad inaccuracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VOS has no bearing on the accuracy of the reproduction. When it comes to reissues, VOS models have some very light aging and a slightly flatter, less glossy finish than the non VOS equivalent. VOS models are cheaper than the "gloss" equivalent because the finish is easier.

 

You didn't need your x-ray specs, nor did you need to remove the nut, you just needed to glance at the product description on Gibson.com. You didn't. Your fault. And saying your dealer wasn't informed is ridiculous, they were, they simply had to look at Gibson.com, same as you. It is a dealers responsibility to stay abreast of changes to products they sell. Your business relationship is with your dealer, both legally and morally. You bought a product from them and if you feel you were mislead your complaint is with them. Gibson don't do business with the general public and they don't have to publish spec details either although they choose to, and did so in this specific example.

 

I can see that your mind is made up and you would argue that black was white to defend your position. I give up, I'm of to play my 2011 R8 with one piece fretboard which I acquired in 2012, deliberately avoiding 2012 serial numbers because I had checked this site and knew about the issue.

 

Nb. I've played a two piece fretboard since, and read a lot about them and wouldn't shy away from them now I know there are only 2 practical differences and they are both advantages over 1 piece.

 

Oh, and how come you're not complaining that it's Indian rosewood? In the 50's they used Brazilian rosewood. Another of the myriad inaccuracies.

HOW much money give you gibson ? Are you its attorney? Please reveal your real identity ...perhaps you re the president of this shitty company or simply a person that in my country is called "leccaculo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

HOW much money give you gibson ? Are you its attorney? Please reveal your real identity ...perhaps you re the president of this shitty company or simply a person that in my country is called "leccaculo"

 

No, I'm just someone who has the brains to research and educate myself, the maturity to understand when a mistake is my own and not everyone elses and a sense of injustice when someone mouths off and takes an aggressive approach out of hand. I really don't care, you have a guitar you think is a "piece of crap" and I don't. Wonder how that happened?

 

The only good thing to come out of this exchange was when you said you were not going to use the forum anymore. Bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello gib son,

 

you may be assured that I understand very well the reason for your rant. Following your argumentation, I think that you are badly disappointed having found out that VOS doesn't seem to mean what you and for sure many other people believe it should mean. However, the very point is that assumably we all don't know what these VOS do prescribe and what they don't. There are some details which are public meanwhile, but considering how many specifications, drawings and field manuals for each model have to exist, I think for sure it is only a fraction of the entity.

 

In the following I try to stay with my instruments, and in particular those made by Gibson USA and Gibson Custom Shop. There are some details specified, some not. There exist e. g. some Les Paul Traditionals 2013 with a one-piece, some with a two-piece back. Accidentally it happened that I checked out one of each. They neither played nor sounded anyhow different. The one with the two-piece back had a top that was slightly more to my favour, but I went with the one-piece exemplar. Fact is that it is not publicly specified by Gibson, but at least the facts are obvious. The parts of the vintage machine heads on the headstock front are chrome-plated, those on the back nickel-plated on this guitar that is specified to come and except of this comes with chrome hardware.

 

For my Alex Lifeson Les Paul Axcess is nickel hardware specified, it doesn't appear anywhere on the carton label, and the instrument came with chrome hardware which by the way I do prefer. This is an obvious detail, too, and it simply seems to depend on the unavailability of a nickel-plated Graph Tech LB63 piezo Floyd Rose system. By the way, the parts of the vintage machine heads on the headstock front are chrome-plated, those on the back nickel-plated on this guitar, too.

 

And now to the point: I know of none of these guitars if the rosewood fretboard is a one-piece or laminated one. It would cost me a few minutes only to find out for the Alex Lifeson since I just had to tune down strings, remove the locking pads and screw off the locking nut. I just don't care as long I don't have a practical reason that calls for it. It plays flawlessly and produces a great sound. This is valid for the above mentioned Les Paul Traditional 2013, for my Les Paul Standard 2012, my Custom Shop Les Paul Standard Figured and my Les Paul Standard Quilt K made in 2011, too. They all maybe have a laminated fretboard, perhaps except the one made in 2011. Since I am a player, playability and sound are what counts for me.

 

I know well that the specifications of these guitars are no Vintage Original ones, but I think you and me will never know them all, neither the vintage nor the recent ones. You have to find a decision for yourself, and in case your RI Les Paul guitar is somehow tainted with your suspicion, you should part with it, or have clarified that and then decide what to do. I expressively state here that I understand your disappointment and irritation very well, but also have to repeat that my point of view simply is that of a player.

 

With best regards,

 

capmaster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm just someone who has the brains to research and educate myself, the maturity to understand when a mistake is my own and not everyone elses and a sense of injustice when someone mouths off and takes an aggressive approach out of hand. I really don't care, you have a guitar you think is a "piece of crap" and I don't. Wonder how that happened?

 

The only good thing to come out of this exchange was when you said you were not going to use the forum anymore. Bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

It 's true, I was going to leave the forum, but not as long as there are people like you at the unconditional service of the economic power that does not recognize abuse and defense, at all costs, a behavior that the entire community has widely regarded as incorrect. I will have to whip out the Gibson' s administrators of the forum who preferred to keep quiet and run "paladins" like you ....

Information or not, Gibson did not have to produce historic series guitars feature a bilayered fretboard: I do not dispute the need to put Indian rosewood instead of the Brazilian or use different glues or different machine head: we're talking about the FRETBOARD, and then the part of the guitar more prone to wear and tear, and you can not pretend nothing happened. I would have accepted the bilayered fretboard in the regular series, but not in the historic series. I repeat again that Gibson would have done more good impression deciding to stop or slow the historic production for 2012 waiting to find suitable wood rather than to ignore it and continue to sell guitars assembled as "frankenstein".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

It 's true, I was going to leave the forum, but not as long as there are people like you at the unconditional service of the economic power that does not recognize abuse and defense, at all costs, a behavior that the entire community has widely regarded as incorrect. I will have to whip out the Gibson' s administrators of the forum who preferred to keep quiet and run "paladins" like you ....

Information or not, Gibson did not have to produce historic series guitars feature a bilayered fretboard: I do not dispute the need to put Indian rosewood instead of the Brazilian or use different glues or different machine head: we're talking about the FRETBOARD, and then the part of the guitar more prone to wear and tear, and you can not pretend nothing happened. I would have accepted the bilayered fretboard in the regular series, but not in the historic series. I repeat again that Gibson would have done more good impression deciding to stop or slow the historic production for 2012 waiting to find suitable wood rather than to ignore it and continue to sell guitars assembled as "frankenstein".

 

Well, unfortunately for you, they chose to continue producing the line and you chose to buy one without looking at the spec. Tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello gib son,

 

you may be assured that I understand very well the reason for your rant. Following your argumentation, I think that you are badly disappointed having found out that VOS doesn't seem to mean what you and for sure many other people believe it should mean. However, the very point is that assumably we all don't know what these VOS do prescribe and what they don't. There are some details which are public meanwhile, but considering how many specifications, drawings and field manuals for each model have to exist, I think for sure it is only a fraction of the entity.

 

In the following I try to stay with my instruments, and in particular those made by Gibson USA and Gibson Custom Shop. There are some details specified, some not. There exist e. g. some Les Paul Traditionals 2013 with a one-piece, some with a two-piece back. Accidentally it happened that I checked out one of each. They neither played nor sounded anyhow different. The one with the two-piece back had a top that was slightly more to my favour, but I went with the one-piece exemplar. Fact is that it is not publicly specified by Gibson, but at least the facts are obvious. The parts of the vintage machine heads on the headstock front are chrome-plated, those on the back nickel-plated on this guitar that is specified to come and except of this comes with chrome hardware.

 

For my Alex Lifeson Les Paul Axcess is nickel hardware specified, it doesn't appear anywhere on the carton label, and the instrument came with chrome hardware which by the way I do prefer. This is an obvious detail, too, and it simply seems to depend on the unavailability of a nickel-plated Graph Tech LB63 piezo Floyd Rose system. By the way, the parts of the vintage machine heads on the headstock front are chrome-plated, those on the back nickel-plated on this guitar, too.

 

And now to the point: I know of none of these guitars if the rosewood fretboard is a one-piece or laminated one. It would cost me a few minutes only to find out for the Alex Lifeson since I just had to tune down strings, remove the locking pads and screw off the locking nut. I just don't care as long I don't have a practical reason that calls for it. It plays flawlessly and produces a great sound. This is valid for the above mentioned Les Paul Traditional 2013, for my Les Paul Standard 2012, my Custom Shop Les Paul Standard Figured and my Les Paul Standard Quilt K made in 2011, too. They all maybe have a laminated fretboard, perhaps except the one made in 2011. Since I am a player, playability and sound are what counts for me.

 

I know well that the specifications of these guitars are no Vintage Original ones, but I think you and me will never know them all, neither the vintage nor the recent ones. You have to find a decision for yourself, and in case your RI Les Paul guitar is somehow tainted with your suspicion, you should part with it, or have clarified that and then decide what to do. I expressively state here that I understand your disappointment and irritation very well, but also have to repeat that my point of view simply is that of a player.

 

With best regards,

 

capmaster

Hello Capmaster !

at last a forum member who has common sense!

I fully agree with what you have written from your point of view as a guitar player.

But let me say this: if I wanted to satisfy my need for an instrument to play, then I would have bought a Tokay LS 98 TVF, a faithful replica of the Les Paul that costs half as much, has ultra-selected woods and fretboard in one piece ! If you want, put into two Fralins and you've done! You'll spend less and less of a les paul and you will have a superior axe for quality and sound.

Instead, since I have always been a strat-guy, I decided to buy a Les Paul Historic just to make an investment and for the prestige of this brand. Nothin 'else more! I'm really not crazy about the sound and feel of a Gibson.

How do you see, our point of view are diametrically opposed.

You are looking for the right guitar to express your voice as a guitarist and you do not care about and how it is done; I wanted a Gibson Les Paul that has a certain value that I believed to be the symbol of a certain "golden age" of this legendary guitar, and I find myself rather an instrument that goes to save money on "specific" historical right just on the fretboard ! Do not you think it might be a little pissed? Buy an axe to invest and I find myself with a guitar from which, even now, everyone will try to stay away, because its no historical value and the result of an unacceptable technical compromise.

I understand and agree with your point of view, I hope you understand mine...

Best regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unfortunately for you, they chose to continue producing the line and you chose to buy one without looking at the spec. Tough.

Ah ah ah........ I say and I repeat that I never had the opportunity to read the specifications for the simple fact that Gibson has not been provided any information on the method of construction of the fretboard. The fact that a lot of people will be angry about that, is the proof that no detailed information was provided. This is the real thing that you wan' t to admit.

Not even you, full of your knowledge, are able to give me proof of what you affirm ..... Where is this information in Gibson ads or website ? Not found anywhere because it simply does not exist.

But now I' m tired of you: I do no accept anymore this your air from top - class know-it boy and especially "leccaculo". That 's the last time I reply to a subject like you. Bye Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Capmaster !

at last a forum member who has common sense!

I fully agree with what you have written from your point of view as a guitar player.

But let me say this: if I wanted to satisfy my need for an instrument to play, then I would have bought a Tokay LS 98 TVF, a faithful replica of the Les Paul that costs half as much, has ultra-selected woods and fretboard in one piece ! If you want, put into two Fralins and you've done! You'll spend less and less of a les paul and you will have a superior axe for quality and sound.

Instead, since I have always been a strat-guy, I decided to buy a Les Paul Historic just to make an investment and for the prestige of this brand. Nothin 'else more! I'm really not crazy about the sound and feel of a Gibson.

How do you see, our point of view are diametrically opposed.

You are looking for the right guitar to express your voice as a guitarist and you do not care about and how it is done; I wanted a Gibson Les Paul that has a certain value that I believed to be the symbol of a certain "golden age" of this legendary guitar, and I find myself rather an instrument that goes to save money on "specific" historical right just on the fretboard ! Do not you think it might be a little pissed? Buy an axe to invest and I find myself with a guitar from which, even now, everyone will try to stay away, because its no historical value and the result of an unacceptable technical compromise.

I understand and agree with your point of view, I hope you understand mine...

Best regards

Hello gib son,

 

for sure it isn't easy for a manufacturer of musical instruments with a certain degree of reputation to satisfy the customer who wants to invest, and the customer looking for a flawlessly playable and decent sounding instrument. The given background of a government that keeps on enforcing the Lacey Act 2008 limitations, proceeding raids against Gibson in 2009 and 2011, and a flood in 2010 devastating Gibson's wood stock brought this renowned manufacturer into a bad situation. To me it seems they had to decide between giving up manufacturing in the USA and having guitars built in countries who care more for economic prosperity than for environmental sustainabilty and safety provision for workers, or to stay in the USA and to find ways that allowed for keeping people in work and making good instruments.

 

Having to decide between fretboard timbers that are both hard wearing for the player and look nicely to the viewer's eye, Gibson was forced to compromise. So there appeared Granadillo with a fantastic feel and tone but rather different looks that don't match traditional or reissued instruments. They also make Baked Maple fretboards which play and sound great - there are three in my arsenal - but again don't look anyhow historically authentic. So I think running out of rosewood with a both nicely looking and hard wearing surface, they doubled the possible number of items using the best looking pieces of timber for fretboard tops, and the inconsistently coloured pieces for fretboard backs if I may call them so. Despite of it, four of my five Gibson Les Paul rosewood fretboards look rather uncommon compared to earlier ones and that of my 2011 Les Paul. The one of my Custom Shop Alex Lifeson is of a very bright colour close to yellow ochre, and the other ones are mottled with significantly lighter and darker grains. However, that doesn't bother me as a player who rates feel and wearing hardness over looks. For the reasons above mentioned, Far Eastern companies do have an easier access to those woods and mother-of-pearl, too, than US or European ones. My Epiphone Les Paul has a very nice rosewood fretboard with genuine mother-of-pearl inlays. The latter are to be found in my arsenal on two guitars only, and the second one is my Gibson SG Supra which has a Richlite fretboard made of phenolic resin and cellulose. It feels and sounds great, by the way.

 

Finally, I don't think we can predict the resale value of contemporary instruments. No one would have thought in 1960 that the Les Pauls made the past three years with all their changes in build and poor pickup tolerances would be the most valuable electric guitars twenty to fifty-five years later.

 

With best regards,

 

capmaster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...