Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Bummed out


JAC

Recommended Posts

This was going to be the fourth Les Paul in my stable but, I now have to get one used because the new ones have the Swiss cheese weight relief. The whole idea behind the Traditional was to have it be more "Traditional." Gibson is starting to lose me more and more since 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

It's not really "untraditional". Les Pauls have been weight relived since 1983. Since then it's really just reissues and trads from 12,13 and 14 (I think) that have been completely non weight releived.

 

Weight relief is traditional. Furthermore, what difference does it make?

 

Did Gibson not loose you in 1983?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what I have played, I can't tell the difference between the swiss chess and solid. Both feel and sound the same.

 

With one exception: weight.

 

I guess what is more "traditional" would be if you think they should weigh 9 pounds or 12 pounds.

my epi tribute plus is supposed to be non weight relieved and weighs 9 pounds even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really "untraditional". Les Pauls have been weight relived since 1983. Since then it's really just reissues and trads from 12,13 and 14 (I think) that have been completely non weight releived.

 

Weight relief is traditional. Furthermore, what difference does it make?

 

Did Gibson not loose you in 1983?

 

First of all, I got my first Gibson Les Paul in 1998. I did not know that much about them until the last so many years. I do know when they came out with the 2008 series Standards, to keep people happy they came out with the Trad that year also, because the Standard had so many new changes to it. I already have one chambered 2010 Standard (the 2008 through 2010 Standard series which some spilled over into 2011 had major changes but still is a great guitar, at least to myself). The whole idea about chambering and weight relief is alright but, why don't they keep the Trad non-weight relieved? I did not just fall off the turnip Les Paul Truck. When I get ready to get my next LP, I wanted a Trad but, now it will be a used one. You are wrong about 1983, they had it even back in the 50s weight relieved for Mary Ford (It does make a difference to many of us). Check your spelling also please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to know and own many used instruments.

 

I love to buy brand new, don't get me wrong.

 

But I have found quite a few diamonds in the rough, so to speak!!

 

:lol:

 

Yeah you're right, there are many used gems to be had out there! When I can afford it I can see me getting a used Trad. It seems there are many here who go along with all the strange changes being dictated on them. I'm not a fan of this HP series out now. I don't put down stuff like G Force but, I don't want it forced on me. The best decisions ever made for me, are the ones I get to make myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already have one chambered 2010 Standard (the 2008 through 2010 Standard series which some spilled over into 2011 had major changes but still is a great guitar, at least to myself). The whole idea about chambering and weight relief is alright but, why don't they keep the Trad non-weight relieved?

The chambered, that was based on the idea people wanted a LIGHT Les Paul, which some did, especially at the time. The "swiss cheese" is more to get the LP at a target weight, of around 81/2 to 9 1/2 pounds.

 

They made both at the same time, because they aren't the same thing, OR the same idea.

 

I really, honestly think, that weight has more of an effect than the holes in the swiss-cheese version. I think a swiss-cheese LP at 9 pounds will sound more like the 9 pound solid than a 11 or 12 pound solid.

 

I'll say this at least: I have never heard of ANYONE who can tell a solid from a swiss-cheese one unless they know the spec. I certainly can't tell. Can't feel the difference, can't hear it playing the guitar, and can't even tell trying to tap the body to find the holes or hear something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really "untraditional". Les Pauls have been weight relived since 1983. Since then it's really just reissues and trads from 12,13 and 14 (I think) that have been completely non weight releived.

 

Weight relief is traditional. Furthermore, what difference does it make?

 

Did Gibson not loose you in 1983?

The '13's and '14's are solid for sure, not so sure about the '12's. If the OP wants solid at a decent price, he should go that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one to moan about Swiss cheese weight relief; I feel it takes off just a slight edge, and depending on the guitar you might not even feel it - you can still get massive variations due to density of one tree compared to another. I'd say when they start chambering them is where things really start to be noticeable, or using the more modern weight relief (below) - I picked one up a couple of years ago; think it was a '14; and it felt top-heavy msp_thumbdn.gif

A3028381.jpg

 

And as said; if it's since '83 it can be considered Traditional - nowhere have they said they're modelling Traditional series guitars on '50s and '60s LP's; they just borrow some aesthetics and features, but are predominantly based on '80s and '90s Standard models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

First of all, I got my first Gibson Les Paul in 1998. I did not know that much about them until the last so many years. I do know when they came out with the 2008 series Standards, to keep people happy they came out with the Trad that year also, because the Standard had so many new changes to it. I already have one chambered 2010 Standard (the 2008 through 2010 Standard series which some spilled over into 2011 had major changes but still is a great guitar, at least to myself). The whole idea about chambering and weight relief is alright but, why don't they keep the Trad non-weight relieved? I did not just fall off the turnip Les Paul Truck. When I get ready to get my next LP, I wanted a Trad but, now it will be a used one. You are wrong about 1983, they had it even back in the 50s weight relieved for Mary Ford (It does make a difference to many of us). Check your spelling also please.

 

They don't keep it "non weight relived" because they feel weight relief is traditional and solidity is historic. Well, let's be fair, that's how they want to market it. It was weight relieved when it came out so I'm not sure how they "keep it non weight relieved".

 

Bottom line is it's their product and if you don't like it there isn't a lot you can do.

 

Since you've decided to be pedantic over my point, let me be clearer. All Les Pauls since 83 aside from reissues and trads from 13,14 and 15 (thanks whoever put that right) and possibly a handful of others have been weight relived since 1983. There may well have been a few made with weight relief for Mary Ford in the 50's. I'd be surprised but it's possible.

 

As for your comment on spelling, are you 'kin serious? I wouldn't normally comment on such things but you can't even form proper sentences. Get over yourself, your fixation on solid body construction and my spelling. Life will be happier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

 

 

I'll say this at least: I have never heard of ANYONE who can tell a solid from a swiss-cheese one unless they know the spec. I certainly can't tell. Can't feel the difference, can't hear it playing the guitar, and can't even tell trying to tap the body to find the holes or hear something different.

 

If anyone can pick weight relieved form solid by ear, out of say 20, 10 of each, with just 85 percent accuracy I will buy them a reissue of their choice. If they fail? They buy me one of my choice. Any takers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one to moan about Swiss cheese weight relief; I feel it takes off just a slight edge, and depending on the guitar you might not even feel it - you can still get massive variations due to density of one tree compared to another. I'd say when they start chambering them is where things really start to be noticeable, or using the more modern weight relief (below) - I picked one up a couple of years ago; think it was a '14; and it felt top-heavy msp_thumbdn.gif

A3028381.jpg

 

And as said; if it's since '83 it can be considered Traditional - nowhere have they said they're modelling Traditional series guitars on '50s and '60s LP's; they just borrow some aesthetics and features, but are predominantly based on '80s and '90s Standard models.

 

Just curious. Look at the Swiss Cheese holes. The bottom 3 are in-line, but the row above has the 2 on the left side slightly offset higher than the 2 on the right. I can't imagine that slight shift makes any difference. :-k

 

BTW. I have a weight relieved 2004 Studio and a CS R7 which is solid. They both weigh about 9 1/2 lbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. Look at the Swiss Cheese holes. The bottom 3 are in-line, but the row above has the 2 on the left side slightly offset higher than the 2 on the right. I can't imagine that slight shift makes any difference. :-k

 

BTW. I have a weight relieved 2004 Studio and a CS R7 which is solid. They both weigh about 9 1/2 lbs.

 

It could be done due to the adhesion between the top cap and the body; gives a thicker rim around the edge for the two pieces to bond.

Or it could be to help balance the weight from the bass and treble sides; trying to mirror the control cavity cutout in basic positioning?

 

Who knows; sure to be a reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I was kinda thinking something similar. By moving the holes up a little, they are also getting slightly further away from the left edge. It's just one of those curiosity things. Obviously someone decided rather than make them in a straight line, we're going to offset them a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few random thoughts.

 

In the case of the regular LP line;

Gibson used solid lumps of mahogany from '52 - '60 and from '68 - '82 (approx). Hence 22 years, say?

Gibson have used Swiss-Cheese weight-relief from '83 - 2016 (Model Years) and counting. Hence 33 years.

Sums tells me that this equates to a 40% / 60% split. Which style counts as being more 'Traditional'?...............:-k

 

"What's in a Name?";

Gibson themselves refer to the 9-hole W/R as 'Traditional Weight-Relief' surely this is perfectly suited to the current Traditional model?

The 'Traditional' model was always 9-hole W/R'd from its introduction until 2013. It reverts to this style in 2016.

W/R is, therefore, the traditional spec for the 'Traditional'. The '13 - '15 years were merely an anomaly...

 

Body Mass;

Comparing weights of W/R and R8/R9/R0 'Standard'-style Historic R-Is makes for an interesting (and/or boring, depending on your taste!) comparison;

Most W/R LPs are heavier than most solid-bodied LPs.

 

Tonal Quality;

Chambered LPs have a different 'voice' to either W/R'd or Solid-bodied varieties. More 'chime' or 'sparkle' and a bit less 'meat' and sustain.

Notes are quicker to peak; quicker to die down.

W/R'd and Solid-bodied OTOH are, to the human ear - and, therefore, to all intents and purposes - indistinguishable from one another.

I offer a similar deal as Farns mentions above. "Details on Request".

 

But if the OP insists on owning a solid-bodied 'most vintage-style traditional' of the Traditionals (and why not?) then he/she MUST go for a 2013 model.

The '14s and '15s were less traditional than the '13s...

 

[smile]

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there is a reason I have two Specials. Nice slab body sustain is the goods. I prefer chambered over weight relieved myself. If others like weight relief on their Les Pauls that is fine and dandy. I could see me picking up a used historic. Newer is not always better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer chambered over weight relieved myself...

I'm not quite sure I'm following your line of thought, JAC.

 

If we accept that W/R is effectively identical to Solid then why are you after a non-W/R Trad if you prefer Chambered LP's?

Surely a 2008-on Standard would suit your preferences better?

 

:-k

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few random thoughts.

 

In the case of the regular LP line;

Gibson used solid lumps of mahogany from '52 - '60 and from '68 - '82 (approx). Hence 22 years, say?

Gibson have used Swiss-Cheese weight-relief from '83 - 2016 (Model Years) and counting. Hence 33 years.

Sums tells me that this equates to a 40% / 60% split. Which style counts as being more 'Traditional'?...............:-k

 

"What's in a Name?";

Gibson themselves refer to the 9-hole W/R as 'Traditional Weight-Relief' surely this is perfectly suited to the current Traditional model?

The 'Traditional' model was always 9-hole W/R'd from its introduction until 2013. It reverts to this style in 2016.

W/R is, therefore, the traditional spec for the 'Traditional'. The '13 - '15 years were merely an anomaly...

 

Body Mass;

Comparing weights of W/R and R8/R9/R0 'Standard'-style Historic R-Is makes for an interesting (and/or boring, depending on your taste!) comparison;

Most W/R LPs are heavier than most solid-bodied LPs.

 

Tonal Quality;

Chambered LPs have a different 'voice' to either W/R'd or Solid-bodied varieties. More 'chime' or 'sparkle' and a bit less 'meat' and sustain.

Notes are quicker to peak; quicker to die down.

W/R'd and Solid-bodied OTOH are, to the human ear - and, therefore, to all intents and purposes - indistinguishable from one another.

I offer a similar deal as Farns mentions above. "Details on Request".

 

But if the OP insists on owning a solid-bodied 'most vintage-style traditional' of the Traditionals (and why not?) then he/she MUST go for a 2013 model.

The '14s and '15s were less traditional than the '13s...

 

[smile]

 

Pip.

 

Excellent points...AND...if we take into account the pancake/sandwich bodied LPs of the Norlin Era we have an even greater percentage of LPs which were not constructed like they did in the 50s. Point is, OP, there is a longer running "tradition" of building LPs in a fashion "other" than they were built in the 50s. So what exactly is "traditional" then? And honestly, the modern Traditional model isn't meant to honor the tradition of the 50s LPs (that's what the Reissues are for). It's meant to honor the tradition of the post Norlin Standards of the 80s & 90s. That's what they were styled after and that's how they were constructed starting in 2008 (i.e., with traditional weight relief like those 80s & 90s Standards). If anything, 2013-15 with their non-weight relieved bodies (while maybe desirable just "because"), are actually more "incorrect" than the traditionally weight relieved 2008-12,16 Trads.

 

That said, I have one of each...a non-weight relived 2014 Trad and a traditionally weight relieved 2016 Trad. Tap on the bodies all you want, you'll never be able to tell the difference. And in a blind test the only clue you'd possibly get as to which was which would be the weight. The 2014 weighs 9.76 and the 2016 weighs 9.02lbs. And I for one really appreciate the weight saving. [thumbup]

 

Anyway, this all much ado about nothing. If something as frivolous as 9 undetectable Swiss cheese holes is going to affect your desire for a guitar I hate to think how you'll react to finding out Trads have short tenon necks!!! :unsure: No, you're really best off not getting one (not even a 2013) and just skipping the whole USA lineup and going for a Reissue. But wait, even those aren't quite right either. Some don't have hide glue, or have incorrect molecular level plasitics. Nope, you better get a True Historic. Or better yet just go ahead & get a real 59 Burst. Problem solved. [tongue]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...