pippy

I'd pretty much agree with that. One other thing to check would be to see if there is a 'R' stamp in the control cavity. I'm not an expert on the '68 R-I (clearly!) but the R-I's of the Standards all have such a mark. If there is a waterslide, of course, it's not a '68 reissue. Did the original '68 Custom have wide binding in the cutaway? If so / if not do the reissues follow the trend and do the regular LPC's differ? Does the OP's instrument have an Historic TRC or a normal one? Easily changed, I know, but it might be an indicator. As one who finds such ephemera interesting this has piqued my curiosity... Pip.

It's not as straightforward a subject as I imagined... The regular Custom Shop LP Custom should have a CS prefix in front of the serial number but, having just had a quick look I've found (on-line) pictures of several other 'regular' (i.e. non reissue) LP Customs which are stamped with similar serial numbers to yours - 050328 being one example. Very curious. Does your Custom have a 'Custom Shop' waterslide on the rear of the peghead-neck area? It's hard to believe that 'The Horse's Mouth' has got it wrong but even so....... I rarely disagree with rct's views but on this occasion I do. It matters because, clearly, a Les Paul Custom '68 reissue will be worth considerably more than a regular Custom. Pip.

There wasn't a Les Paul Standard in 1968. After the LP was redesigned to become the SG in 1960-61 the Standard was absent from the range until '74-'75. Pip.

I, too, think that guitar looks utterly gorgeous............one of the very nicest combination of 'bursts / colours / tops I've seen for absolutely ages. If we're being really picky I'd prefer narrow cutaway-binding and an ABR-1 but, hey, I still wouldn't exactly kick it out of bed. Probably just as well it doesn't ship to the UK... Pip.

Oh MY!!! Even the Bevel Police would approve of that one, sellen! Utterly GORGEOUS! Is that one a Re-Issue, though? It looks too good to be otherwise. Pip. EDIT : I missed this one earlier... Yes! Easily one of the tastiest offerings from the last few years.

Oh, I just find it mildly diverting Rabs. He's so delightfully dim and it really doesn't take up too much of my time. Pip.

Compared to you and your contribution to this thread? Sane. Pip.

You are right, SeasonedNYer, of course. That is the whole point of the thread. I think it's fair to say that a few of us are approaching this offering from several different angles; Some think it's simply drop-dead gorgeous. Some think it will be a great tone-machine. Some think it overpriced. Some think it under-spec'd. Some think it's a great addition to the 2019 SG line-up. Some think it will be a great addition to their SG herd. Some of us, of course, will fall into more than one of those categories. What is clear is that Gibson are putting into production a guitar which a fair number of people feel interesting enough to talk about in, generally speaking, a very positive fashion. And that is to be welcomed. ...and can I just say the Horn Bevel Police have been considerate by their prolonged absence...................... Anyhow; to paraphrase Doc. Emmett Brown from 'Back to the Future'; "ABR-1 bridges? Where we're going we don't need ABR-1 Bridges!..." Let 'em have it, Pete! Pip.

I'm sure we could always cope with more wood dressed-away... Pip.

Eh? Actually No. It was more by way of rhetoric than being intended as a 'real' question and furthermore it wasn't specifically directed towards you - more as a musing for anyone in the forum to ponder. I merely quoted the points you mentioned because they seemed particularly relevant to the guitar in question. It's not personal. As far as good value goes? Anything which costs $585 and is a POS is a complete and utter waste of money in my book but, clearly, and as I said earlier; we have very different ideas as regards what constitutes 'good value'. I can live with that. Pip.

I don't have a '63 price list either but I can get slightly closer if you are interested? In the 1961 Gibson catalogue the LP/SG Special (in either finish) was listed for $210.00 and the plush-lined HSC was a further $47.50 giving us a total of $257.50. Using the same inflation calculator as posted above that last quoted figure equates to $2,130.20 in today's terms. £1199 in the UK and $1500 in the States? As I said earlier; a bit of a bargain. Pip.

Fine by me. We have very different likes and dislikes and different ideas of what constitutes 'good value'. No biggie. Pip.

Are you from the Gironde / Nouvelle-Aquitaine département by any chance? Pip.

I don't understand why so many folks here think the price is unreasonable. I've just had a check and in the UK they are being advertised for £1199. Seems pretty fair to me. I'm no expert on the Gibson SG model through the years - not by a long chalk - but AFAICT it's a close recreation of the '63 SG Special. A compensated McCarty bridge/TP; small-button 3-in-a-line tuners; dot inlays; bound neck; unadorned p'head face were all standard features of that years' instrument. The biggest difference that I can see (colours apart) is the gold silk-screened Gibson logo and that isn't exactly a deal breaker in my book. Not that it matters but I'd much prefer those 3-in-a-line tuners to any set of Grovers you'd care to mention. I like Trap' inlays but they would be completely wrong on that Special and the compensated McCarty bridge will get anyone close enough for Rock'n'Roll. Price-wise we seem to be being offered damn-near a (limited-edition) '63 Historic Re-issue - HSC included - for a little over USA-line money. If it is crafted as well as it looks to be from the snaps I think it's actually a bit of a bargain. What's not to like? Pip.

There is a thread featuring the Pelham Blue one in the lounge. I like the look of the Sparkling Burgundy one too. Pip.

There used to be half-a-dozen fake 'Supreme' threads here each week a few years back. It got to the stage where complete neophytes became experts through sheer repetition. That's a typical example and there are many signs of it being counterfeit but one of the most obvious is that instead of the script on the MoP peghead inlay saying 'Supreme' it says 'Suprome'. Once Seen Never Forgotten. Just a few others whilst we are here? The general shape of the cutaway horn and peghead outline are incorrect. Horn is too pointed and points away from the body. On a real LP the horn is more rounded and points directly forward. Peghead 'moustache/open-book' shape is far too flat and the definition/carving is poor. Gibson's shape is much more precise. Gibson Supremes don't have fret-over-binding at the fret-ends. Gibson does not use screw-in posts for the bridge. ...etc...etc... Pip.

Thanks for the kind words and the forbearance in my indulgence for posting the same hoary old snaps yet again. It was looking closely at your own clutch of Lesters and their individual specs which really drew me in to this post. I particularly love your Gold Tops. I've long hankered after a '56 style LP mainly because I don't have a P-90 guitar and much as I love the original - and unplayable - '52 GTs the '56 model had the most practical "user" specs. It was also (not that it matters to many) the version played by Danny Kirwan who must be one of my absolute favourite guitarists of all-time. Sublime phrasing. Your 2018 Classic is a Damn-Near-Perfect recreation and an affordable option to an R6 but 11lbs is, quite frankly, unattractive. Your 2017 Tribute would also be Damn-Near-Perfect as an alternative to a playable 1952 Re-Issue if the post-holes for the bridge and stop-tail could be disguised... However I must emphasise that IMO neither of your instruments are lacking in any regard whatsoever and I heartily congratulate you on your GT pair. Gorgeous creatures both. I hadn't seen that comparison set before, Rabs, and found it very interesting indeed. I've only listened to the clip on my crappy PC's speakers but my initial impressions were firstly how much more focused / less wide ranging was the sound of the 2010 Standard compared with the other guitars; secondly how different the Classic sounded in comparison to the rest. I really MUST listen to them all several times through 'phones and take notes as I go along. Thanks for posting! Pip.

This recent chat about W/R and Weight - and seeing Michael's quartet with their model names, dates and vital statistics had me checking up on my baby (Sonny Boy Williamson II; Arr. Mayall) more to refresh my memory than anything more important. What the Hey; It's Friday and I haven't posted snaps of the herd for a while. Here they are (again) this time in weight order with their respective weights posted with them; 1995 '1960 Classic' - 8lb 14.5oz. 1995 1960 Re-Issue - 8lb 15oz. 1993 1959 Re-Issue - 9lb 2.5oz. 1991 '1960 Classic' - 9lb 3oz. A variation of just four-and-a-half ounces between the lot of them. Odd (perhaps) to see the Classics are both the heaviest and the lightest with the RI's in the middle. Also the difference between the heavier pair - and also the ligher pair - is merely a-half-of-one-ounce in both instances. Pip.

Nibs, Trolls, U2, P'G on/off and now Weight-relief? We really ARE going for the Grand Slam............ As (probably) most of us here know by now and as been discussed pretty much ad nauseam the practice of Weight-Relief was introduced to the Les Paul range in late 1982 and guess what? NO-ONE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE. The 9-hole W/R guitars do not sound intrinsically different from solid-bodied instruments. As is now well known it wasn't until someone saw his LP going through an x-ray machine that the 9-hole method was even known to exist (outside of the Gibson plant / workforce). Furthermore from that date until the introduction of the 2013 Traditional EVERY USA-Line Les Paul was weight-relieved in some manner. The Chambered guitars seem to be an exception to the 'They All Sound The Same' statement. The general consensus posted by those who have examples of both always seems to be that they are found to be slightly brighter and with a snappier response but with marginally less 'meat' to their tone, all else being equal, than either the solid-bodied or weight-relieved Lesters. Having a preference for one style over any other is purely a matter of personal preference. Some don't like the concept of W/R; others prefer the easier-on-the-shoulder mass of the chambered guitars. Personally I don't mind any of the styles as long as the guitar balances perfectly, sounds superb and doesn't give me a hernia. I've played a few chambered guitars which were far too light (IMO) to balance well but I put that down more to their having those nasty overweight Grover machines instead of slim-fit Klusons. Equally, though, I've also played several chambered guitars which have been fantastic. In fact one of the nicest-playing LPs I've ever tried was a bone-stock entry-level Studio Faded model. Pip.

Did someone mention NIBS??????? Pip.

I really like the total concept and I absolutely LOVE the L-00............ Prices? Pip.

As you probably know by now Gibson Les Paul reissue serial numbers repeat every ten years. The easiest way to check (assuming all is original) would be to use the code(s) stamped on the volume and tone potentiometers. All USA-made pots are coded with the manufacturer, the year made and the week in which the pot was made. Let's take an example. A pot with code 1370733 would break down as follows; 137 is the code for CTS (Chicago Telephone Supply); 07 denotes 2007; 33 is the week of the year when the pot was made. Here's where to input the data; http://www.guitardaterproject.org/potcodereader.aspx Failing this the only way to find out would be to check any possible constructional differences between 2007 and 2017. Pip.

Pip.

April Lawton and Ramatam? I'd never even heard the name(s) before but their Wiki entry sounds very intriguing and makes me want to check them out. Pip.

The pic must be from around 1970 just after he got the guitar as it still has the 'Standard' neck. In 1971 the neck was broken (the first of three breakages) and, famously, it ended up with the neck from a black Les Paul Custom. The Custom-neck version was used as the basis for a re-issue a few years ago. There was one in London which I tried and it was superb. If you like Marc and / or his guitar and also have quite a lot of time to kill this thread which started in November 2015 is well worth a read! I was alerted to it when the story was unfolding by a fellow forumite and it was absolutely absorbing to watch it develop. Lots of it happened very, very quickly. As soon as one post had been read there would be a follow-up posted immediately afterwards and much of the events were happening in 'real-time'. 33 pages of it. The story starts to get seriously interesting on page two but it's best to start at page one; http://www.mylespaul...rial-no.352625/ Pip.