[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

Beautiful guitar GnR. Honeyburst?

 

Thank you & yes, Honeyburst

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

Last night I bought a NOS 2016 Les Paul Traditional.

 

 

Should be here by the end of the week. I'll let you know if there are any flaws.

 

She showed up yesterday, flawless.

 

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

So, let me get this straight. You have a guitar you love and you're praising it in at least two forums, its quality and sound and EVERYTHING about the guitar is awesome and blows away Gibsons and Les Pauls in particular. But, if it's weight relieved, you hate it and it's going back? If you couldn't tell before, does it really matter? Maybe to you it matters but can you really tell the difference? I don't recall anything about the 594 being weight relieved, FYI, but what if it is? Just play it and love it for years and don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff.

 

If it's weight relieved, I'd like to know why they're asking so much for it. I'd be upset if I bought even the least expensive model & found out Gibson charges about half for a similar product.

 

Pretty much the way I feel about the Dean Hardtail. I love them, but what they were going for new... with a two piece body & two piece neck, I'll wait until the used market shows their true value.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

I personally don't care for the look of the single cut 594 either which is why I bought the double cut.....actually to me the double cut PRS looks better than a double cut Les Paul and the Les Paul looks better to me than the single cut 594.

 

Agreed. However, with the double cut they should have put the three way near the volume controls like an SG. To me, it just doesn't look right on a double cutaway.

 

Tell me, have you ever considered a Dean Hardtail? PRSish, with SG like controls.

 

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

This video shows the thickness of a Les Paul and a 594 side by side and they are the same thickness. Plus if you think the regular McCarty is the same thickness as a 594, you need glasses immediately, because you obviously have never seen a 594 in person, it's PRS's thickest guitar thus far.

Why do you think guy's like myself who do love Les Paul's are gravitating to the 594 ? PRS is essentially copying the Les Paul, and with those new 58/15 low turn pickups, it's the Les Paul sound to a tee.

 

I've never claimed to have seen or held a 594.

 

Look at PRS, site & the blogs they've released about this guitar & they mention the extra thickness of the neck, not the body. When the McCarty came put they mentioned the extra thickness of the body. When the DGT came out they mentioned the extra thickness of the body. If the 594 were thicker still, I'm sure they would habe mentioned it.

 

& don't get me wrong, I want a 594. One day I'll have one.

 

Let's talk about quality though. That dude in that video mentioned his 594 weighed 9.1 LBs. His Traditional just over 10lbs. Like I said in another post, you spend 5 grand on a Les Paul, it's not going to weigh 9 lbs. That's with no weight relief. At that level, Gibson won't use a piece of wood that dense.

 

Then the gap in the binding where the body meets the neck. He says it's not there on his 594. Of course it's not there, the 594 doesn't even habe the faux binding in the lower cutaway.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

I knew they did it for the historical and custom shop models, I just didn't know they did it on the Traditional models.

By the way I never got an answer to my question from all of the so called more knowledable than me Professors of guitar in here.

If weight relieving is so revolutionary and sustain improving, why is Gibson the only one doing it ?

You mean to tell me that Leo Fender and Paul Reed Smith, don't know what their doing with sustain by still making solid body guitars without weight relieving ?I seriously doubt it.

 

The main reason The other manufacturers don't do it is because they don't use as big a chunk of wood as Les Pauls. The PRS is a thin body guitar, it's just a different form of weight relief.

 

A $2500 non weight relieved Traditional will weigh more than a $4500 non weight relieved Historic because they set aside the lighter wood for the Custom Shop.

 

Spend $2500 or less on a PRS & it will be lighter than a non weight relieved Traditional because the body is thinner.

 

Instead of cutting chambers under the top, PRS shaved a few inches off the entire body.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

prsguitars

 

Actually the neck profile is PRS's beefiest neck it's pattern vintage, and the neck and the body is bound, the body might be faux binding but it still looks great.

Plus the guys at Andertons music in the U.K. did a side by side comparison and the Single cut 594 is the same thickness as a Les Paul, and the double cut, is just a hair thinner than that.

 

I don't own a singlecut. I don't trust a word Chapman says (though I wish I could play like him, be as successful in business as him)... & that may be true for a single cut, though I doubt it. I have a McCarty here, it's not even as thick as my telecaster. But it is thicker than my PRS Standard 24 (& lighter).

 

The 594 is no thicker.than the regular McCarty.

 

Yes, pattern Vintage is beefier than normal PRS, I'd say comparable to 50s Les Pauls & Teles.

 

 

 

PRS has been making their guitars the same way for 30 years I expected it to look precisely as it does with the lower bout unbound and all, it's always been like that.

 

Gibson's 50"s Les Pauls show the exposed seem in the lower bout since the top is thinner on the edge than it is in the center. My 2006 Classic is built the exact same way.

 

However, you said you don't like to see that seem. Obviously it's ok for PRS to do it on a guitar that costs much more (even though there is no real bindung).

 

I agree, it looks better the way PRS does it, but I never called the way it's done on a Traditional a QC problem.

 

My 98 Standard has thicker binding to cover up the seem. I prefer the vintage Kluson tuning keys & should swap them out, but I never got around to it.

 

My 2013 LPJ has the faux binding, similar to the PRS. It definitely gets thicker, closer to center.

 

So my issue here is with you calling these features "poor QC" when it is obviously not the case. Customers actually complained that modern standards don't expose the seem the way the 50s guitars do. This is years after customers complained they could see the seam. To try & make everyone happy, they developed the Classic model, which became the Traditional model, then the Traditional & Classic models.

 

 

I don't know how to get a 50s neck with modern binding.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

However I think you would've remembered the 594 if you had played it, it's the only PRS model that's as thick as a Les Paul in both mahogany and maple.

 

The regular McCarty & the DGT are as thicker than most PRS guitars. I don't believe they're as thick as Les Pauls though.

 

Both the McCarty & the DGT have beefier more 50ish necks.

 

 

Your friendly and passive attitude towards myself and my choice of guitars is a refreshing change to the majority of other responses I've been getting, I was never personally attacking Gibson and yet they all took it as such.

I was just saddened by Gibson's recent lack of quality control, and I hoped that they would improve....that's all.

 

Well when you criticize Gibson's QC, then the two biggest issues are features of the model you're looking at... It comes across wrong.

 

Your maple top on a Traditional isn't a 10 top. It's AA grade. There may be specs the size of dimes in them (not guaranteed to find one, but they're not going to see it as a flaw). It's like complaining there's no flame on a $3800 guitar when you buy a 58 True Historic.

 

Same thing with the binding. I understand your preference (even though the 594 doesn't have binding on the body & the ones with the faux binding doesn't carry into that lower cutout, because it not going to look the way you prefer if it did)... I understand your preference, but that is not the way it is.

 

It's like complaining that a sesame seed bun has seeds in the top, but not the bottom bun.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

& while I do plan to buy a 594 one day, this will hold me over until then.

 

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

Nice story, I see your a bargain hunter, and have bought a few used guitars, I myself on the other hand am a firm believer in, you get what you pay for, and therefore I never buy used...

 

The Les Paul Classic & Traditional were new guitars.

 

The Standard & LPJ were used.

 

I'll buy used if I'm going to save 30% or more.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

 

However in all your hours of playing PRS guitars I bet you didn't play a PRS McCarty 594, that is a completely different animal, and aside from the usual PRS perfect aesthetics, it feels and plays great with that vintage pattern neck and such low action you can only slide a piece of paper between the strings and fretboard.

 

So to be clear I'm not comparing any other PRS to a Gibson Les Paul, just the McCarty 594, and having recently played both the Standard and Traditional LP's in the store I can say this " The Les Paul is not anywhere close to being in the same league as the McCarty 594".....it's just not, and unless guitar players here have played both like I have they can't offer an honest opinion.

 

To be fair, a Traditional lists for $2600, a Standard lists for $3000. A 594 lists for $3600.

 

& while you may not think the Traditional or the Standard compare to a 594, there are people who would rather spend that $3600 on a Custom Shop Telecaster. So this is truly a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Some people like Ford, some like Chevy, some like BMW. Some people prefer Bud Light, some Miller, some Corona.

 

& when I see Warren Haynes, Joe Bonamassa, Slash, or Zakk Wylde start playing PRS, I'll believe the 594 is what the Les Paul should be.

 

Heck, even John Mayer plays his Strats more than his PRS.

 

PRS makes a fine guitar, but it's its own thing. My only gripe with them is you've got to buy a $4600 594 before you get one with a natural, or stained back. The $3600 594 has an opaque finish where you can't even see the wood. For Gibson, that line is much lower. $1800.

[3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson]

I bought my first Les Paul maybe 16 years ago. I was bargain shopping at a guitar center & happened upon a '98 Standard.

 

They were asking $1,800 for it, which was pretty close to the price of a new one. I planned on spending $550 max that day.

 

A bit of negotiating & I got it for $1300 out the door. Great guitar, I still have it. I broke the neck twice, professionally repaired. Still a great player, sweet tone.

 

I bought my second Les Paul about 10 years ago. A Classic. Gold Top. It was the best sounding Les Paul in the store at that time. To date, the most money I've paid for a guitar. $2K out the door. Then eBay took off.

 

I bought my third Les Paul about a month ago. Off Reverb. 2013 LPJ. Very nice guitar, no regrets. I've yet to find any flaw with any of them.

 

Before I bought the LPJ, I bought a PRS S2 Standard 24. $546 shipped. Nice guitar. & a 2002 McCarty Standard. $1099 shipped.Awesome guitar.

 

Last night I bought a NOS 2016 Les Paul Traditional.

 

 

Should be here by the end of the week. I'll let you know if there are any flaws.