Old vs new - I want the truth!

[AndyK]

I'm sure we've read a lot over the years about old and new model Les Pauls. Which are better? Are the only new models that can touch the old for quality the ridiculously expensive models (I mean the custom shop £5K + stuff)? Or are we now spoiled for choice, with the Standard being an excellent model, akin to the Standards of old?

 

Really, the only people who can answer this are those who've tried and compared old vs new. I await your comments with baited breath.

[ksdaddy]

*ahem*

 

I will be shot for what I will say but that's fine. I speak the truth as I know it.

 

I've owned LPs from 1955 to 2009. probably a dozen or 15, I don't know. A pile of them. My favorite, and one I have owned since 1997, is a Norlin era 1971 gold top Deluxe. It's overly heavy but it just feels right. Two others that stand out (that I owned) are a 1979 and a 1980 Standard. At the time I owned them I either didn't know or didn't care to determine whether they were made in Kalamazoo or Nashville. Both were superb guitars with wonderful necks.

 

I also had a 1970 cherry sunburst that was nice. The circa 1970 necks had a fullness to them that was comfortable. The 79-80 necks seemed more sleek and fast.

 

The 1955 gold top? meh. It was 'okay'.

 

My least favorite? A beautiful cherry sunburst Standard from 1989.

 

My second least favorite? A LP Classic(?) from 2008 or 2009, black with a matte finish on the back. WTH? Matte? Cheap much?

 

Sorry I'm not much help. The take home message is they made good and bad in all eras.

[rct]

An old guitar is an old guitar, and nothing else.

 

rct

[AndyK]

Sorry I'm not much help. The take home message is they made good and bad in all eras.

 

Not at all, my friend - a very helpful answer indeed.

[AndyK]

An old guitar is an old guitar, and nothing else.

 

rct

 

Yep understood. What about build quality comparisons now and then?

[rct]

Yep understood. What about build quality comparisons now and then?

 

That's tricky.

 

We didn't have "build quality" back then. It was a brick, a dog, a loaf, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, it was just a great guitar. It was fairly binary, for all three big American makers. At least, where I came from and where I grew up guitar it was like that.

 

I would only say that an old guitar is in no way guaranteed to be built better, feel better, or sound better than a new guitar.

 

A new guitar is in no way guaranteed to be built better, feel better or sound better than an old guitar.

 

I've gigged 50's strats, owned 50s teles, and I've used real PAFs in real 58s and 59 Les Pauls.

 

If I had 5000 dollars to spend on a guitar I would buy a run of the mill American Standard <fill in any of the big three> that felt good to me and spend the rest on taking Mrs out to Jackson WY for a couple weeks.

 

I will never own an old guitar again in my life, I had too many of them to remember them all, and they were just ok.

 

Although, I would like a Leo or George or Tadeo initialed neck heel, that would be cool.

 

rct

[Grayzgrey]

NEW or OLD .. the best guitars are the ones you want to keep and play and mod out , the ones you want to make your own!

 

Playing guitar is all about being inspired and never giving up on that search for the tone and feel you desire.

 

 

 

If you look at some of the legendary guitars and the people who've played them, they all seem to own guitars that have a cool story...

 

 

and 9 times out of ten those guitars get customized to suit the desires of that players ear... then they become priceless!

 

I have had lower end guitars that I wish I had never sold because there was something I missed about it...

 

and then I've owned some very expensive guitars that either began to collect dust or I'd sell them just to end up with something different.

Of course I wouldn't mind hearing some of those guitars OLD or NEW cutting through the rig I have now!

 

Happy Hunting!

[charlie brown]

Build quality consistency, is much better nowadays! As are the sheer numbers,

of choices! So, statistically speaking, you're more apt to end up with a great guitar,

now, more often than not. Some of the wood, back then, was touted to be of a "superior"

quality. But, if it didn't end up on a great guitar...that didn't mean much! I've owned guitars

since 1964...and I still have my very first "electric" guitar, which was a birthday present,

from my Mom, in 1964...my Fender "L" series Strat! Is it any better, than a new one? Who

knows? I know, TO ME, Nothing can replace it, for a variety of reasons. But, realistically,

that may be more sentimental value, to me, even way beyond it's considerable financial worth.

I have guitars, made from 1954, through 2013! I LOVE 'em ALL! If I didn't, they wouldn't

be still be here. Are they any "better" than other's in the same range, from any era?

I doubt it! But, for me, they're perfect for what I want them to do.

 

Now, for serious "Collectors," or those who rely more on financial "worth," than musical

viability, there's nothing I own, they'd be the least bit interested in. But, So What?!

I couldn't care less! When I'm gone, they'll be handed down, or sold off, by my survivors,

and other's will get to enjoy them.

 

So, "Old or New" should be evaluated on a "Case by Case" basis...IMHO. Not because it's

Old, or New!

 

Cheers,

 

CB

[pippy]

I'm pretty much with rct in this.

 

Strats? Best I've ever owned/played was a '64. Sublime. Kept it 24 years. Worst I've ever owned was a '59. Ridiculous. Kept it 6 days.

2nd best I've ever owned? A 2010/11 MIM Classic '60 Series (or whatever it's called). As of four years ago my only Strat. Not looking for a replacement.

Bottom line? Go Figure.

 

Les Pauls?

Best I've ever owned/played is my '95 R0. Sublime. Worst I've ever owned played was a late '70s Custom. It was just 'Dead'.

But I've played other Norlins that were seriously very good and one in particular which was superb.

I've also played an all-original '57 TV Special and it was very nice but I'm pretty confident the chances are that a brand new '57 R-I would be just as good if not better.

 

As far as electric guitars go I don't buy into the 'Old Guitar' myth one iota.

Back than? Some were good; some were bad; most were OK.

Nowadays? IMX most are good; a few are duff; some are exemplary.

 

YMMV

 

P.

[cody78]

Interesting subject. In the last few weeks I've been reading the Tony Bacon Sunburst book that talks about this a bit. IIRC Joe Bonamassa talks about his experience with playing and owning a number of original 'Bursts and he states he has played great ones and also poor ones. He goes on to say the reissues can be both great and poor as well. Jimmy Page's No. 2 LP is mentioned as not sounding very good until he modded it by added the extra switching options. I was quite surprised about all this, especially when originals command such crazy prices on the vintage market.

 

Personally, I've only ever owned and tried modern electric guitars, but I think there is a lot of over the top statements about old being better in collectors circles. I've heard new guitars that sound better than old, and old that sound better than new - a lot is to do with a persons opinions on sound & tone. The only really old guitar I ever tried was a 1930's Gibson acoustic (I think it was an L - something. It was very nice, but had one of the V shaped necks which felt odd. Cool guitar though.

[L8_4thesh0w]

Where most people go wrong with the vintage is they fail to store them neck down and they cork!

[skilsaw]

Where most people go wrong with the vintage is they fail to store them neck down and they cork!

 

I don't understand the "store them neck down and they cork".

 

Please elaborate, or illuminate, or explain yourself or something.

[the dog]

Where most people go wrong with the vintage is they fail to store them neck down and they cork!

 

 

keep the cork wet

[Marshall Paul]

Got him L8! lol

 

I've owned LP's and Strats from '73 to now and the best ones are the one's I still own. I kept those in particular for a reason. They felt and sounded right. I have a GoldTop that's about '79(?) or somewhere there and if I go to the rack to just pick out a git to play, for some reason I keep going to that first.

[btoth76]

Hello!

 

There are good and bad guitars. It's that simple.

 

A new guitar will be better, - most likely - since the iron teeth of time didn't chew it up yet.

 

An old guitar is just as good, as good it was made, and as much care it received.

 

So, if I had to choose between and old or a new guitar of the same kind, I'd take the new. Then, there are guitars which aren't made anymore...in that case, - If I wanted one - I'd only buy an example which is nicely preserved. (Like my '78 Les Paul Recording).

 

Did I post pics of it? ;)

 

 

Cheers... Bence

[SteveFord]

Like they've said, they're all over the map; the ones I liked best were from the Norlin era, the one McCarty era one I had I gave away to a friend (that's how much I liked it), the recent era ones have ranged from what a pile to real good, I can not comment on the Custom Shop models as I've never owned one, the brand new Gibson USA models have gone in a different direction.

 

That is the truth as I know it.

[kaicho8888]

Growing up in the sixties in college, I was just happy to get a Strat and a LP! The main music store did not stock many big name guitars. And this store is where I saw Clapton, J. Garcia, Santana, etc checking up guitars and renting amps for their local gigs.

 

Today, geeze... with CNC, Plek machines, and mass production techniques, guitars/amps have become mass produced commodities. You can actually play lots of the same model guitar and select one that you like.

 

I feel today's guitars have better consistencies and qualities than the early years. Like everything else, some are desired by collectors more for it's scarcity and history (like owned by Clapton, Dylan, Hendrix, etc) and not for its playability or tone.

 

The biggest difference is that nowadays people spend too much time trying to acquire and improve the tool. It appears that the tool will give some magic improvement to their playing; biggest improvement is in practice, practice and more practice. This is evident by the abundance of forums discussing mainly the tool. Although, YouTube does provide some great lessons by individuals and these lessons can improve your tone tremendously through practice.

[NHTom]

I've played new junk..........I've played old junk.......

 

I've played good new..........I've played good old...........

 

 

 

Year doesn't matter to me........how it plays does. If it's great.....go for it..........if it's not, walk away......year does not matter.

 

NHTom

[jdgm]

2 examples of 'good periods' -

 

Fender post 1982-buyout for about 5-8 years, more....

 

Similarly....Gibson immediately after and for xx???? years after HJ took over. I taught guitar in the 80s and 90s and saw some really excellent new Gibsons after '86. I saw 2 or 3 ES 335s which were as good or much better than any 50s or 60s vintage I'd ever played.

 

Regards!

[Revelation]

I think people will agree the consistency between a new Les Paul and one made last week is a lot closer than their guitars made in the1960's. With CNC machines now being used not only with Gibson but company's like Martin, their new guitars are closer to each other than back in the old days. I think consistency is more important than saying well this was is extra special because the neck is slightly shaped different. So when you compare 2 or 3 LP guitars on the rack they should sound closer to each other.

Pickups: I don't have any support for this but logically I believe the consistency with the pickups today are also better than the ones from the 1960's with computerized machines spinning them out. They also have over 50 years of experience to create what they believe are their best pickups. With that said, everyone has their personal preferences. I think the reproduction pickups they now make that copy early 60s ones with its warmer tone is probably better for jazz while the newer calibrated 335 pickups which are brighter are a better overall pickups for multiple styles especially for rock.

I was told the new bridge on my 335 is titanium and it has benefits of being brighter and wears better. 

What is disappointing............ it seems Gibson is living in the past with old designs and not coming out new ones. Companies like PRS come out with a modern Les Paul called the McCarty 594 which has the classic look but with updated designs and materials. This helps the guitar to be modern and improved. I do know that Gibson tried in the past to come out with more modern versions of the Les Paul that was lighter but they didn't take off.

I would like know the benefits of the materials used today vs 50 years ago. Have they done anything to improve the b string from staying in tune which had been a small issue with their older design. Fender I know went with some modern designs like tilt headstock for better angle for the strings. 

[01GT eibach]

You have to take into account the history.  Back in the 1950s, Les Pauls were fine but expensive guitars that did not sell particularly well.  Hence,  after 1960, Gibson stopped making Les Pauls entirely (switching to the SG design).  Musicians in the '60s gravitated back to those defunct Les Pauls which were excellent instruments, but -- even back then -- not easy to come by.  Due to the resurgent popularity during this 1961-1966 period of not making them, Gibson eventually responded by bringing back the Les Paul in 1967.  But the new design was not the same (or as good) as the older 1956-60 Les Pauls.  Then, Gibson continually worsened the situation by further messing with the design (pancake bodies, etc.) that only made the desire for the better original Les Pauls that much more fervent.  FURTHER, you had the guitar influencers of the era and beyond (Beck, Page, Clapton, Richards, Green, Bloomfield, Walsh, et al) ) continuously in the press discussing how much better the original Les Pauls were compared to the late 1960s/1970s versions -- which they no doubt absolutely were.  By 1979, the dye was was permanently struck within the general public of the perceived majesty of the original Les Pauls -- with the rarity of these older instruments only adding to their mystique as they were limited to only a few.  THEN you had Gibson beginning to capitalize on the interest in the original Les Pauls commencing the first of countless "heritage releases" starting in the very late 1970s, leading up to today where seemingly most everything that Gibson does now is steeped in a resurgence of classic guitars from the past, with the original Les Pauls leading the charge.  Without a doubt, the majesty of the current Les Paul Standard is FAR closer to the quality of a 1959/1960 Les Paul than a 1972 Les Paul ever was.  At this point in time, both  the new ones and  the original ones are really good guitars.  People talk frequently about Gibson "improvements" and "new designs", but that is not what sells, and credit the new Gibson management for recognizing this (and staying in business).  Remember, it was Ray Davies who said "Give The People What They Want!".  

Edited March 7, 2021 by 01GT eibach

[Revelation]

I have a 1989 Gibson Les Paul Custom. I found it just as good as any great Les Paul I played in the past. Some are a little heavier than others bit the quality seems pretty good. The only issue is what ever they used to finish the guitar with at the time started to separate a little. My guitar tech told me they changed the lacquer as they found out about this problem a while back. 

[01GT eibach]

DP

Edited March 7, 2021 by 01GT eibach
double post

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yeah another 6 year old thread dug up.

You can't handle the truth.

[Larsongs]

The truth. There are great, good, not so good & bad Guitars... From every era. IMO, no 2 Guitars are exactly the same.. Although, modern Guitars are more consistent... 

If you could go out & try 3 LP’s from ‘59, ‘67, ‘97, ‘15 or 2021 you’ll find you like one of each better than the others.. Why? Who knows? It just is...