Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Joe_East

Another LP Traditional Question...

Recommended Posts

Hello board members!

 

First post here, so hello and pleased to meet you all.

 

I have what is probably a fairly common question relating to YoM of Les Paul Traditionals - I'm currently looking a three used LPT's, dating from 2009, 2012 and 2013, all in excellent condition; I've done plenty of research, on here and elsewhere, and can't find any obvious reasons why one year might be more desirable then the other, but thought I'd field the question anyway.

 

I'm aware of available colour options, chambered and not, certain cosmetic differences, etc. but is there anything I might have missed?

 

Obviously, I plan to try them all if possible.

 

Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about other years, but LP Traditional 2013 was a solid body again after many years. No holes in the body for weight relief or chambered in it.

 

(but my pickup cover is not coated all the way and the corner is just metal - I buy another one, but I am just going to leave it like it is - because - well, first I am older than Henry, and second, I just got tired of the crap coming out of this Country).

 

But you do what you want to.

 

I did buy it on sale though, but it is not me who is going to be damned.

 

Ya, Attitude!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Joe, and welcome here.

 

Although you already know about that feature, I have to say that the massive body was a huge point in my decision to add a Traditional 2013. I was reluctant for a while before buying her since I don't like pickguards on guitars if ever possible - those of my Standards were supplied but unmounted.

 

As soon as I tried a 2013 Traditional, I was lost. Mine is about the same in weight as the two of my modern weight relieved Standards but sounds very different, to my feel closer to "pure" Les Paul tone.

 

Anyway, I recommend trying all of them. Good luck, mate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... but my pickup cover is not coated all the way and the corner is just metal - I buy another one, but I am just going to leave it like it is - because - well, first I am older than Henry, and second, I just got tired of the crap coming out of this Country...

Well, I am younger than Henry and have the uncoated corner problem on a Burstbucker Pro Bridge on one of my Gibson Les Paul Standards. Left it that way up to now, too, and have some more Gibson Les Paul guitars bought since then. She was the first of five, after thirty-two years of playing.

 

I frankly admit that the third of my six Les Paul guitars is an Epiphone 1960 Tribute Plus with Gibson pickups stock. Fantastic guitar on a budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there and welcome to the forum.

 

I.......can't find any obvious reasons why one year might be more desirable then the other...

The 2013 will be more desirable than the others because it was the first time for 30 years a non-Re-Issue had a solid blank of mahogany for a body and also avoided the unpopular 2014 alterations.

 

No difference sound-wise, of course, but the '13 would be the obvious choice as far as I see it.

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2012 Traditionals didn't have any weight relief in them...

Actually they did, Dan.

The 2012 Trads were made with the 'Traditional Weight-Relief' 9-holes pattern - A.K.A. 'Swiss-Cheese'.

The 2013 Trads were the first regular-run Les Paul since 1982 to have a solid mahogany body-blank.

 

Here are quotes from Gibson's spec pages for the 2012 and 2013 respectively;

2012; "Gibson USA currently uses..."traditional weight relieving," as used on the Les Paul Traditional. This process involves routing nine round holes in a Les Paul's mahogany body before the maple top is attached."

2013; "As part of the 2013 Year of Les Paul celebrations, Gibson USA has revamped the popular Les Paul Traditional...The New Les Paul Traditional...features...an unchambered back for a thick, meaty tone and superb sustain."

Don't make the mistake of assuming a heavy guitar is a solid guitar.

Without the various styles of weight-relief a solid-bodied LP could easily weigh 12 lbs. and some of the Norlin-era LPs have been shown to weigh over 15 lbs...

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Joe, and welcome here.

 

Although you already know about that feature, I have to say that the massive body was a huge point in my decision to add a Traditional 2013. I was reluctant for a while before buying her since I don't like pickguards on guitars if ever possible - those of my Standards were supplied but unmounted.

 

As soon as I tried a 2013 Traditional, I was lost. Mine is about the same in weight as the two of my modern weight relieved Standards but sounds very different, to my feel closer to "pure" Les Paul tone.

 

Anyway, I recommend trying all of them. Good luck, mate!

 

I feel the same. The 13s are nice. I think the 14s are OK. I'm just not sold on the pick-ups. The 120-Anniversary tag is so-so, that I could take or leave. What I do like is the locking bridge and stop-tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely recommend the 2013. I had a 2009, which was very nice indeed, but the 2013 just feels and sounds fuller and thicker.

 

The build quality and setup is great on the 2013, but I remember my 2009 had some quality control issues, as did the others I tried at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they did, Dan.

The 2012 Trads were made with the 'Traditional Weight-Relief' 9-holes pattern - A.K.A. 'Swiss-Cheese'.

The 2013 Trads were the first regular-run Les Paul since 1982 to have a solid mahogany body-blank.

 

Here are quotes from Gibson's spec pages for the 2012 and 2013 respectively;

2012; "Gibson USA currently uses..."traditional weight relieving," as used on the Les Paul Traditional. This process involves routing nine round holes in a Les Paul's mahogany body before the maple top is attached."

2013; "As part of the 2013 Year of Les Paul celebrations, Gibson USA has revamped the popular Les Paul Traditional...The New Les Paul Traditional...features...an unchambered back for a thick, meaty tone and superb sustain."

Don't make the mistake of assuming a heavy guitar is a solid guitar.

Without the various styles of weight-relief a solid-bodied LP could easily weigh 12 lbs. and some of the Norlin-era LPs have been shown to weigh over 15 lbs...

 

P.

 

I'm happy to stand corrected, although it makes me wonder how heavy mine would be otherwise!! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to read up about mahogany trees. What once was is not anymore. There are different species of the mahogany trees and without looking it up again, plantation trees may be used more than with trees long ago.

 

But the one species used long ago is no more to be used. Conservation and all of that, so different trees, different weights, different minerals in the tress (or not as many or more depending) and all of that.

 

They only can get what they can get to make guitars with.

 

And they are grown more in the Asia part of the world, I think (without looking it all up again).

 

So if you research mahogany trees you will see what is going on there and also with other woods availability also.

 

They had some heavier ones in 2013. One was 11lbs. 2ozs. for the guitar, but mine was only 9lbs. 5ozs. They had 10 lbs ones also and probably more 9lbs ones, but then with the sale going on, they were going out the door quite quickly in one weekend.

 

I missed a few before getting one.

And color was going to be what it was - with my Caramel Burst one, which they had more of. But ya know, besides the Cherry Burst ones and any of that, the Caramel Burst color is not a bad color at all. It is not as red as the pictures at the on-line store where it was happening and more brown and gold sort of color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even predictable in the average to my experience, let alone for just one of each weight. Lots of other factors will come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATTN all forum experts:

GENERALLY speaking, which guitar should have more of that world-renowned 'LP sound'?

Both are 2013 Traditionals. Identical specs.

One weighs 10 lbs.

One weighs 8 lbs.

Comments?

Thank you!

 

The one that you pick up and get the world-renowned 'LP sound' out of.

 

The guitar doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs a player to get out of it what it has to offer, through an amp that makes at least one of them happy.

 

Good luck with it bro. Remember, if the heavy one is the one that does it, the heavy one is the one that does it. Don't discount it because of the weight, and don't develop great expectations for the light one.

 

rct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know all that 'bro...here's the deal: I just bought a new '13 lefty with warranty. 8 lbs. 2 oz.

 

This morning I saw this on eBay and flipped at the top. Seller says 10 lbs.

 

===========> eBay

 

 

So...

 

I am lefty. I have no car. I've read where you used the term 'brick', rct. So I'm just looking to get a 'feel' from you guys.

 

One thing is certain. The eBay one is 2 lbs. heavier, which can mean a lot of things, as we all know.

 

So, let's assume the body wood is simply denser than the one I bought. Any further general comments?

 

Thanks!

 

No, not from me I'm afraid. Cats, kids, guitars. Can't really accurately generalize about any of them.

 

rct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever feels and sounds better. Its hard to tell also if the guitars are not set-up right when they are similar. I have seen LPs come in that were a few years old and never setup from the factory. Its pretty common actually. And for sure its common in GC and other big stores. So one may sound and play better just do to the set-up. action, pups, intonation and so forth. The weight, eh, not so much, 8lbs is light for a solid LP Traditional though.

 

I would buy one before next year though. The 2014 year end sales cause's the price on the others to remain stable and reasonable for the time being imho.

 

Good Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello board members!

 

First post here, so hello and pleased to meet you all.

 

I have what is probably a fairly common question relating to YoM of Les Paul Traditionals - I'm currently looking a three used LPT's, dating from 2009, 2012 and 2013, all in excellent condition; I've done plenty of research, on here and elsewhere, and can't find any obvious reasons why one year might be more desirable then the other, but thought I'd field the question anyway.

 

I'm aware of available colour options, chambered and not, certain cosmetic differences, etc. but is there anything I might have missed?

 

Obviously, I plan to try them all if possible.

 

Many thanks.

 

Hey Joe,

 

Where ya goin' with that Les Paul in your hand. Welcome to the forum. Lots of great people in here. Great first post. Last April I bought a 2014 Les Paul Traditional in Heritage Cherry Sunburst. I ADORE IT. After I had a Luthier set it up for me - higher than normal action, I had Rotosound Purples (12's with a wound G) he also filed the nut to accommodate the heavier strings - the tone is VOLCANIC. Play as many Traditionals as you can and then choose. I happen to LOVE the fatter neck. I also have 2 Stratocasters with basically Louisville Slugger necks on them and 11 and 13 gauge strings on them. Good luck with the search and remember play as many guitars as you can and let YOUR hands and ears be your guide. Have fun with it man and take care.

 

Kindest Regards,

MississippiBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello board members!

 

First post here, so hello and pleased to meet you all.

 

I have what is probably a fairly common question relating to YoM of Les Paul Traditionals - I'm currently looking a three used LPT's, dating from 2009, 2012 and 2013, all in excellent condition; I've done plenty of research, on here and elsewhere, and can't find any obvious reasons why one year might be more desirable then the other, but thought I'd field the question anyway.

 

I'm aware of available colour options, chambered and not, certain cosmetic differences, etc. but is there anything I might have missed?

 

Obviously, I plan to try them all if possible.

 

Many thanks.

 

I thought I had replied to this post but evidently I didn't! First welcome aboard the forum. Great bunch of folks here and very knowledgeable, oh and lots of opinions as one might expect lol. I agree with the fact that play them all if possible and pick the one that "talks" to you so to speak. Out of the 3 years you mentioned I'd pick the 2013, they are just a different Lester to me sound/tone wise than any of the previous years of Traditional's. The 2013 Traditional "is" why I ended up with a 2014 Traditional, and personally I am glad I waited (wasn't in the position to buy a 2013) because the 2014's 59 Tribute Pups are outstanding. Besides the 12th fret inlay, which seriously isn't bad looking at all, the 59 pups, 500K pots, the 13 & 14's are basically the same, but very different at the same time sound/tone wise. Not trying to steer you at a 2014 but you can find some great prices on them right now close to used prices if you do your homework. If you haven't played a 2014 try them out you might like them as well, but as in any case, go for the one that speaks to you. Personally I don't buy that the 13's will be more desirable than the 14's because they both have their own attributes and they both sound great, and quality and build on both years are outstanding. Keep us posted on what ya end up with and good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...here's the deal: I just bought a new '13 lefty with warranty. 8 lbs. 2 oz.

 

This morning I saw this on eBay and flipped at the top. Seller says 10 lbs.

So...

I am lefty. I have no car. I've read where you used the term 'brick', rct. So I'm just looking to get a 'feel' from you guys.

One thing is certain. The eBay one is 2 lbs. heavier, which can mean a lot of things, as we all know.

So, let's assume the body wood is simply denser than the one I bought. Any further general comments?

As you already know Les Pauls vary from one to the next and there is no hard-and-fast rule to getting what you want.

As cap has already said there are lots of other factors which play a part in affecting end-tone.

 

The only thing which I've read on the subject which might have a grain of truth in the 'Generalisation Stakes' is that the lighter solid-bodied Pauls have a more 'lively' response but the heavier ones have more sonic 'meat'.

The folks who said this were the boys who write The Tone Report and my guess is they have a lot more experience of these matters than myself.

 

My take on this is that a player with a penchant for Heavy Metal type stuff would be better off with the heavier guitar and those with a (slightly) more delicate touch would get more from the lighter of the species.

 

Even should this prove to be true...

Whether it's noticeable to the majority of players is one thing; whether it's noticeable to the majority of the audience is quite another.

 

FWIW my quartet (two solid and two Swiss-cheesed) vary by less than 3 ounces between them yet they all sound different both plugged-in and acoustically.

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive seen tops - and have one - with some of that kind of figure in them; but never saw one with that much of that kind of figure. I kind of like it myself, but most probably prefer more flame figuring.

 

I see what you mean about the heel. Do you think it could be an optical illusion or some kind of light play within the photograph? Surely its not lopsided, or is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is sort of maddening about the Traditional line is the whole concept of "Traditional", to me it should reflect the traditional specifications of the early LP's (not the earliest with the trapeze, but once they worked out all the kinks to establishing a carved top two-humbucker electric). I would say there is general agreement that it is somewhere from 1957 to 1959 (Some will certainly argue, but that is pretty close as far as I am concerned). Now I know there was inconsistency with regard to neck thickness, weights, pickup specs during this period, but generally when we think of these guitars from this period they are dual-PAF humbuckers (with outputs varying, but typically lower in output than in later years); Thick necks (again varying widely); non-weight relief. I think that the 2013 hit most of these things and did it admirably well. What I think is foolish is when you hear people saying I wish the traditional had a 60s neck, or coil splitting, or (insert later innovation here). Nothing wrong with wanting those in a guitar, but the traditional is for those that want something close to the original. It is kind of like saying I want a 66 Mustang, but I want it with power windows, air conditioning, seat heaters, etc etc. So if you want a simple LP that really comes close to the feel and tone of the early LPs go with the 2013. I really think the 2013 is one of their best efforts in recent years, I will never part with mine, that much I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...