Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

The 2014 Les Paul Standard has a *GASP* Maple Neck


Ryan H

Recommended Posts

Was scrolling through Facebook and noticed a post by Gibson USA about the Les Paul Standard. Showing off pictures of different finishes, and a quick summary of spec. Something stuck out to me - "2014 Gibson Les Paul Standard - Maple top/neck, Mahogany back, Burstbucker Pro pickups...." Ect.

 

I thought it must be a typo, so I checked. It wasn't.

 

Now I know, the Standard isn't meant to be 100% true-to-original 50's Les Paul. That's what the Traditional and the RI's are for. The Standard is expected to change and evolve over the years, to meet the demands of modern players.

 

We've seen it in TonePros hardware, different pickups, crazy switching with push-pulls and mini-toggles, different finishes, compound radius fretboards, Min-ETune, fret-over-binding, cryogenic frets...the list goes on...

 

But through all of this, for 6 decades, the wood formula for the Les Paul Standard (not All Les Pauls, just the Standard) has remained the same; Mahogany back, maple top, mahogany neck, rosewood fretboard (Obviously not counting the Lacey incident, in which they didn't have a choice). It's what people expect from that guitar.

 

Now, the only way to get a Standard with a Mahogany neck is to pay the extra $300 and get a Standard Plus or the extra $1300 for the Standard Premium.

 

The page for the Standard claims "No Compromises". I beg to differ.

 

Thoughts?

 

-Ryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would say that a maple neck from a rosbustness and construction point of view is an upgrade (less neck/head breaks?).. But im sure others will moan about how it changes the tone and or sustain [rolleyes]

 

I think theres a fair few of the 2014 models that have a maple neck... As for why they all of a sudden decided to change after all these years, who knows? Maybe its as simple as they had a batch of maple to get rid of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think that opinions on "Standards" will always differ between people. Whatever design, build or name, for me there is not a single guitar on earth without any compromises. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, I can live with it, since I am well aware that, regardless of the guitar, a player like me is much more of a compromise... [crying]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But through all of this, for 6 decades, the wood formula for the Les Paul Standard (not All Les Pauls, just the Standard) has remained the same; ... mahogany neck....

 

This statement is simply not true. For some period starting with the re-introduction of the production model "Standard" in 1975, it was built with a maple neck.

 

Of all the Gibson's I've owned, about 50/50 maple vs mahogany neck wood, I actually prefer the maple for some unknown reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement is simply not true. For some period starting with the re-introduction of the production model "Standard" in 1975, it was built with a maple neck.

 

Fair enough, but we have to remember that Norlin was running the show, doing anything they could to cut costs. Maple is a domestic timber; Mahogany, not so much. They weren't interested in Gibson's traditions or heritage.

 

-Ryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Soooooooo glad to see this. My dream guitar is a mid 70's all maple Les Paul. A 5 peace maple neck is so much better and idea than one peace mahogany.

A '76 - '77 LP Custom in all Natural Maple? Interesting choice!

 

I can understand your enthusiasm, Searcy, but please lets get these other things on a level playing field...

The 'wings' can be either disregarded or else 'counted-in' but 'Same Rules Apply'.

 

Those maple necks are either 'three-piece' as opposed to 'one piece' - sans wings - or 'five piece' as opposed to 'three-piece' if wings are counted.

 

And, FWI, from '69 - 74 three-piece (five piece with 'wings') mahogany was the bill of fare.

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhh you can count them however you like. [thumbup][biggrin] When I look at the first picture I see 5 but I guess if we want to get picky the "neck" itself is really only 3... Wait... are we counting the fingerboard? That would be 4. :-k

 

Regardless of how you count them. This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

Maples-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[scared] [scared] [scared] [scared] [scared] [scared] [scared]

 

MY EYES ! ! ! !.......MY EYES ! ! ! !...........

 

You should have put up a 'Content Age-Related' warning.....

 

[flapper]

 

P.

 

EDIT : OK...I know I'm going to become the Azazel here but looking at that septet I can say, hand on heart, I'd never let one of those catch dust in my house.

A more 'Hammer House of Horror' collection of LP's I have never witnessed.

 

Diff'rent folks...

 

[thumbup]

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WoW! Remember when you could buy a LP Standard under $2K? [confused]

 

Was planning on buying a new LP Standard, but after seeing the latest creations i think I'll seek a used one or maybe go for the SG Standard 120th Anniversary. I think I can live with the minetune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid, less than $800 (new) for my LP Custom, in 1980!

I've been told, that "depending on condition," it's now worth

$1,800 (beat up, low end) to $4,500 (pristine) dollars now.

Mine is in near perfect condition. While not the '50's and '60's

"Collector's Investment" prices...it was still a great "investment,"

even though I didn't think of it, like that, at the time.

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of my "Norlin Era" Les Pauls (Custom and Deluxe) have 3-piece Maple necks!

And, frankly, I wish all my Les Paul's did, traditional or not! They've been a

lot more "stable" both in movement, and tuning, than the Mahogany necks on the

others.

 

CB

Seems not to apply to my guitars. Regardless of brand, woods and neck/fretboard timber combinations, all of my Floyd Rose vibrato equipped guitars are close to perfectly in tune all the time, all the others may fluctuate a few cents. This includes Fenders with mahogany neck and Gibsons with maple neck as well. Even quartersawn, flatsawn or multipiece constructions, and neck sizes or shapings don't seem to make a significant difference.

 

Double locking of strings seems to be the crucial ingredient for tuning stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhh you can count them however you like. [thumbup][biggrin] When I look at the first picture I see 5 but I guess if we want to get picky the "neck" itself is really only 3... Wait... are we counting the fingerboard? That would be 4. :-k

 

Regardless of how you count them. This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

Maples-1.jpg

 

 

[scared] ... (comment: edited due to number of emoticons warning) ... [scared]

 

MY EYES ! ! ! !.......MY EYES ! ! ! !...........

 

You should have put up a 'Content Age-Related' warning.....

 

[flapper]

 

P.

 

EDIT : OK...I know I'm going to become the Azazel here but looking at that septet I can say, hand on heart, I'd never let one of those catch dust in my house.

A more 'Hammer House of Horror' collection of LP's I have never witnessed.

 

Diff'rent folks...

 

[thumbup]

 

P.

Different taste here, too. I would like those with transparent finishes and let go the black ones.

 

No offense intended, but the only horror pictured there could be the polymer of the cushions of the guitar stands. :rolleyes:

 

Also different points of view I guess... [biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Soooooooo glad to see this. My dream guitar is a mid 70's all maple Les Paul. A 5 peace maple neck is so much better and idea than one peace mahogany.

 

My current Vintage V100PGM is a 3 piece neck with a 5-piece headstock like this, but it is mahogany...

 

I too recall maple necks being a staple of the Norlin era during the 1970's and I recall how most folks came to appreciate their sturdy and rock solid neck/headstock construction even if the added weight and not so attractive pancake bodies during this era were not received so well...

 

I'm getting more and more interested in finding a Les Paul with the "baked Maple" fretboard as now folks rave about 'em and say they're as good if not better than Ebony...

 

Hell when I had my American Standard Strat back in the day I shunned the Maple neck for looks and went with the Rosewood fretboard on the Maple neck. I've never really played a Maple fretboard, but used to play my Maple-necked Strat... I really don't see or recall much noticeable difference...

 

Nowadays, I might notice a slight tone change at best if I were to do side-by-side comparisons, but if the tone came out to my ear's liking, I wouldn't even notice what the neck wood is...

 

I do know tone-wood material can make a huge difference as illustrated by these two custom-made Les Paul models by Probett Guitars in The UK, of Mahogany and Spanish Cedar being test-driven by Aynsley Lister:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeKt2gDRyNI&feature=youtu.be

 

I hear a big difference...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhh you can count them however you like. [thumbup][biggrin] When I look at the first picture I see 5 but I guess if we want to get picky the "neck" itself is really only 3... Wait... are we counting the fingerboard? That would be 4. :-k

 

Regardless of how you count them. This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

Maples-1.jpg

 

I'd have any of them...espicially the ebony board one.....mind those maple board ones look weird....i thought it may just be the inlay illusion,what about black?....WORSE!...looks like bad teeth!....anyhoo....i suppose as with any guitar sound/tone should come first..looks second...heres a vid also.....

 

 

OB2JrWK.jpg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDZQlIa8fzI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, my dislike of maple 'boarded LPCs is purely an aesthetic one.

I'm sure they will play and sound just fine but those pearloid markers on a butter-yellow 'board just don't please my eye.

 

I can understand why it might be a better choice for the neck than mahogany in terms of strength.

I wouldn't have any objection to a maple neck'd LP. None at all.

But not a maple 'board.

 

Paradoxically, I do happen like the maple 'boards on the Ripper / Grabber basses.....:-k

 

My dislike of Fender maple 'boards, OTOH, came about through a different experience.

I had quite a few Strats so equipped but these were all from the days when Fender used what seemed to be maple syrup as a coating for the maple 'boards. Horrible to the touch.

I really LOVE the look of maple-'boarded Strats and Tele's but it wasn't until recently that I found one I liked.

It is my cheap-as-chips Squier Tele. Originally the neck - front and back - was satin-finish but through play it has become glass-smooth but not sticky.

 

P.

 

EDIT : Not altogether true. The '59 Strat I owned (briefly) had a nice, worn, maple 'board. Unfortunately it was the only thing about that guitar which was good...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My dislike of Fender maple 'boards, OTOH, came about through a different experience.

I had quite a few Strats so equipped but these were all from the days when Fender used what seemed to be maple syrup as a coating for the maple 'boards. Horrible to the touch.

I really LOVE the look of maple-'boarded Strats and Tele's but it wasn't until recently that I found one I liked.

It is my cheap-as-chips Squier Tele. Originally the neck - front and back - was satin-finish but through play it has become glass-smooth but not sticky.

 

P.

 

EDIT : Not altogether true. The '59 Strat I owned (briefly) had a nice, worn, maple 'board. Unfortunately it was the only thing about that guitar which was good...

 

My squier tele went smooth as you said which I really like. Shame about all the dents in the neck, it may need sanding at some point. I've already had to sand down my precision bass' neck because that went gummy due to the lacquer used on the Japanese production line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but we have to remember that Norlin was running the show, doing anything they could to cut costs. Maple is a domestic timber; Mahogany, not so much. They weren't interested in Gibson's traditions or heritage.

 

-Ryan

 

Not sure that is true either Ryan. Norlin was responsible for the 25 / 50 Les Paul (1978 - 1980) and they all had maple necks and certainly weren't "cost cutters".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... My dislike of Fender maple 'boards, OTOH, came about through a different experience.

I had quite a few Strats so equipped but these were all from the days when Fender used what seemed to be maple syrup as a coating for the maple 'boards. Horrible to the touch.

...

 

P.

 

...

Thanks for posting this detail. I never knew that Fender used maple syrup back in the day. This may have been responsible for my personal reluctance of maple boards, and also for my surprise how nice the one-piece maple neck of my 1982 Ibanez Blazer Bass feels. I bought it new then, not even knowing about the differences in maple board finishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...