Bummed out

[Vinlander]

Well my Swiss cheese relief 1992 Standard is 10.4 pounds, my back doesn't feel any relief...

[JAC]

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?

 

 

Pip.

 

Brother I have a 2010 standard that I just love! It is part of the 2008 series of Standards which they made for three years. ( Some of them slipped in being made in 2011 even!) According to the Tony Bacon book on Lesters in 2008 the Trad came out for people who did not want all the changes which came on the 2008 through 2010 Standards. I wanted a Trad like one of the 2008 type with no weight relief. I don't mind chambered but, I like a little meat on the bones as well. I also like the 57 humbuckers I believe were on these first Trads. Gibson has always made cherry pickups to me.

[Guest Farnsbarns]

Brother I have a 2010 standard that I just love! It is part of the 2008 series of Standards which they made for three years. ( Some of them slipped in being made in 2011 even!) According to the Tony Bacon book on Lesters in 2008 the Trad came out for people who did not want all the changes which came on the 2008 through 2010 Standards. I wanted a Trad like one of the 2008 type with no weight relief. I don't mind chambered but, I like a little meat on the bones as well. I also like the 57 humbuckers I believe were on these first Trads. Gibson has always made cherry pickups to me.

 

They were weight relieved in 2008 as well. Exactly as they will be in 2016. There is no difference between weight relieved and solid in terms of sound.

[pippy]

...If others like weight relief on their Les Pauls that is fine and dandy......I have a 2010 standard that I just love!......I wanted a Trad like one of the 2008 type with no weight relief. I don't mind chambered but, I like a little meat on the bones as well...

Yes, but meat-on-the-bones doesn't have to mean solid - as Vinlander has already illustrated.

At 10.4 lbs his W/R'd Standard has more than enough beef, surely? In point of fact it's around 1 1/4 lbs weightier than either of my two (solid) R-I's...

 

As far as Chambering and W/R instruments are concerned;

I might be wrong, JAC, but I think when it comes to LPs our 'preference' (for want of a better word) has different connotations when used in the context of the Chambered instruments and the Weight-Relieved instruments.

 

IMX the majority of people who prefer the 2008-style Standards seek them out specifically because of their distinctly lighter-on-the-shoulder qualities.

Some may prefer the slightly different string response and tonal characteristics but I believe the weight-saving aspect to be their main attraction.

 

In the case of W/R, however, I don't think anyone buys the guitars because they have W/R. That these guitars are weight-relieved is not an attraction in itself; rather that the buyers of these instruments prefer a 'meatier' (as you put it) feel-on-the-shoulders to their Lesters. Unlike Chambering which IS seen as a desirable feature the fact that some guitars have weight-relief is not a prime selling point.

You probably already know this but some of the later Norlin-era LPs were tipping the scales at over 15lbs. Practically no-one wants to lug a 15lb guitar around for an hour or three so something had to be done to address the issue. After a period of trial and error he 9-hole method of W/R was developed and has been with us ever since.

 

As is now well-known no-one could tell that the Swiss-Cheesing process had been introduced until a player saw his W/R'd LP going through an airport X-Ray machine. This is because, as has been mentioned a few times, it is impossible to tell the difference between W/R'd and Solid either by listening to the guitars; playing the guitars or weighing the guitars.

 

I prefer a reasonable amount of beef to my Lesters too. I currently have four; two are 9-hole W/R'd and two are Solid Historic R-Is. They vary by less than 2 1/2 oz between the lot of them.

 

But I can certainly see the attraction - in a purely academic way - of the 2013 Trads. These instruments were the closest thing to the original 'bursts Gibson USA had made since 1960 and I, for one, wish they would revert to the 2013 specs just out of historical interest. In fact I'd go even further; I'd call this newly re-introduced 2013 Traditional-style LP the "Les Paul Standard" and call the chambered, asymmetrically-necked, nibless 'Standard' something completely different.

 

Pip.

[Guest Farnsbarns]

With regards to naming, I'm with Pippy. Seems weird to change the spec of a staple seller and then, in reaction to a drop in sales, make the old product again but under a new name and continue making the new product under the old name. That said, confusion aside, the nett result is the same, both products are available and as said, what is in name?

 

As much as I love Gibson I do think they've had a period of lurching from one thing and one way of thinking to another repeatedly. It's not good for a brand to muddy the water like this and I think it is indicative of where they are. I'd bet that Gibson will either become publicly listed or be sold inside 5 years. I'm not suggesting they are in trouble by the way, just that change is coming, big change. I think the constant changes in tack and the recent aquisitions of other brands are signs of a CEO with an exit strategy.

[merciful-evans]

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?

 

Well made point!

[JAC]

Yes, but meat-on-the-bones doesn't have to mean solid - as Vinlander has already illustrated.

At 10.4 lbs his W/R'd Standard has more than enough beef, surely? In point of fact it's around 1 1/4 lbs weightier than either of my two (solid) R-I's...

 

As far as Chambering and W/R instruments are concerned;

I might be wrong, JAC, but I think when it comes to LPs our 'preference' (for want of a better word) has different connotations when used in the context of the Chambered instruments and the Weight-Relieved instruments.

 

IMX the majority of people who prefer the 2008-style Standards seek them out specifically because of their distinctly lighter-on-the-shoulder qualities.

Some may prefer the slightly different string response and tonal characteristics but I believe the weight-saving aspect to be their main attraction.

 

In the case of W/R, however, I don't think anyone buys the guitars because they have W/R. That these guitars are weight-relieved is not an attraction in itself; rather that the buyers of these instruments prefer a 'meatier' (as you put it) feel-on-the-shoulders to their Lesters. Unlike Chambering which IS seen as a desirable feature the fact that some guitars have weight-relief is not a prime selling point.

You probably already know this but some of the later Norlin-era LPs were tipping the scales at over 15lbs. Practically no-one wants to lug a 15lb guitar around for an hour or three so something had to be done to address the issue. After a period of trial and error he 9-hole method of W/R was developed and has been with us ever since.

 

As is now well-known no-one could tell that the Swiss-Cheesing process had been introduced until a player saw his W/R'd LP going through an airport X-Ray machine. This is because, as has been mentioned a few times, it is impossible to tell the difference between W/R'd and Solid either by listening to the guitars; playing the guitars or weighing the guitars.

 

I prefer a reasonable amount of beef to my Lesters too. I currently have four; two are 9-hole W/R'd and two are Solid Historic R-Is. They vary by less than 2 1/2 oz between the lot of them.

 

But I can certainly see the attraction - in a purely academic way - of the 2013 Trads. These instruments were the closest thing to the original 'bursts Gibson USA had made since 1960 and I, for one, wish they would revert to the 2013 specs just out of historical interest. In fact I'd go even further; I'd call this newly re-introduced 2013 Traditional-style LP the "Les Paul Standard" and call the chambered, asymmetrically-necked, nibless 'Standard' something completely different.

 

Pip.

 

Have you read Tony Bacon's "The Les Paul Guiar Book?" It covers this topic in there concerning both the 2008 Standard as well as the Traditional.

[pippy]

Have you read Tony Bacon's "The Les Paul Guitar Book?"...

Yes, I have, JAC but my copy predates the 2013 model-year - and therefore the solid-bodied Trads which were introduced at that time.

To which particular 'topic' in my post were you referring?

 

Pip.

[Pin]

Where's Axe when you want him? All this talk of "swiss cheese" Les Paul's is enough to cause sleepless nights.

 

I much prefer my solid Honduras mahogany 1978 extremely heavy 25 / 50 thanks very much. Well, that's to say I much prefer it when it isn't hanging around my neck.

[JAC]

Yes, I have, JAC but my copy predates the 2013 model-year - and therefore the solid-bodied Trads which were introduced at that time.

To which particular 'topic' in my post were you referring?

 

Pip.

 

The one I got is 2009 issue. Look at towards the top of page 128, the paragraph ends with -hence the name. This was the first year Traditional. I don't believe they were weight relieved then but, who knows? The ones I tried out from that era did not appear to be.

[engineer]

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.

 

 

So I have some marketing lingo coming your way....

 

 

The new LPs with no weight relief coming out later will be called the Les Paul Original. Made like it was in the fifties.

 

:lol:

[pippy]

The one I got is 2009 issue. Look at towards the top of page 128, the paragraph ends with -hence the name. This was the first year Traditional. I don't believe they were weight relieved then but, who knows? The ones I tried out from that era did not appear to be.

Yes, JAC, the 2008 Traditional was 9-hole weight-relieved. There's not even the slightest doubt about that.

 

For the benefit of those reading this thread who don't own a copy the relevant quote from Tony Bacon's book reads;

""The...2008 Standard has an asymmetrical neck shape, a chambered body base, better pots, strap-locks, and locking bridge, tailpiece, jack and tuners, while the Traditional has none of these new features - hence the name."

This is all absolutely correct. The Traditional did not have any of the features listed above.

In comparison with the aforementioned Standard's details it had a '50s-profile neck, a W/R'd body base, CTS 500k pots and regular strap buttons, Tune-o-matic, t'p, jack socket and Klusons.

 

As far as your belief, having tried some out, that the 2008-on Traditionals were not weight-relieved is concerned; IMO that seems to add even more weight (pun) to support the suggestion that it is impossible to tell the difference between weight-relieved from solid-body construction either by holding, playing or listening to the instruments. No?

If it's of interest here is a link to a period review of the 2008 Traditional and Standard. Specs are on page 4;

http://www.andertons...onal-Review.pdf

 

Pip.

[capmaster]

...

In comparison with the aforementioned Standard's details it had a '50s-profile neck, a W/R'd body base, CTS 500k pots and regular strap buttons, Tune-o-matic, t'p, jack socket and Klusons.

...

Pip.

Traditionals came featuring four 500 kOhms pots in 2008? Since many years this is rather uncommon among Gibson USA guitars without push/pull pots. Those with humbuckers usually have 300 kOhms linear taper volume and 500 kOhms audio taper tone pots. The push/pull pots Gibson uses are obviously made as 500 kOhms audio taper only, and that's why most of my LPs have four 500 kOhms pots each. Don't know about Gibsons with P90 pickups though.

[Searcy]

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.

 

You now have two Gibson USA lines with more options to choose from than ever before. How exactly is the new HP line "forcing" you to buy a GForce?

[Guest Farnsbarns]

The one I got is 2009 issue. Look at towards the top of page 128, the paragraph ends with -hence the name. This was the first year Traditional. I don't believe they were weight relieved then but, who knows? The ones I tried out from that era did not appear to be.

 

I know.

 

They were. Gibson said so at the time.

 

I'm curious what you mean by "did not appear to be". Did you x-ray a 2008 traditional or just remove the maple cap?

[pippy]

Traditionals came featuring four 500 kOhms pots in 2008? Since many years this is rather uncommon among Gibson USA guitars without push/pull pots. Those with humbuckers usually have 300 kOhms linear taper volume and 500 kOhms audio taper tone pots...

Ah, thank you for the correction, Cap.

I was actually meaning to highlight that the Trad came with the more usual CTS branded pots as opposed to the gold-plated Bourne units found on the 2008 Standard (and hence Mr. Bacon's description of them being "better pots" in the original text from the book) but their values were, as you say, 300 / 500 and not 500 all round.

 

Apologies for any confusion!

 

Pip.

[american cheez]

i have a modern weight relief studio pro, and it weighs 6.8 lbs. it's lighter than my strat by 1/3 of a lb. at the time i bought it, i was also considering a used heritage LP which was solid, and weighed about eleventy-one lbs. the weight is the ENTIRE reason i bought the studio pro instead of the heritage. i could not hear a difference in sustain, so lighter won me over. the heritage played better (slightly) and had a nicer top on it. but i thought about standing in the studio for 3 or 4 hours with the heritage on my shoulder and decided it wasn't going to work for me.

[SteveT2]

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!

 

Here's my guess. Look where the holes for what I think is the tailpiece are. If the weight relief hole was in line with the others it would be awfully close to the tailpiece mount. With the pressure the tailpiece has on it there wouldn't be much solid wood there to hold it in place

[Pesh]

Here's my guess. Look where the holes for what I think is the tailpiece are. If the weight relief hole was in line with the others it would be awfully close to the tailpiece mount. With the pressure the tailpiece has on it there wouldn't be much solid wood there to hold it in place

 

A fine observation, and more likely to be the reason than my suggestion; I had not considered the bridge and tailpiece positioning.

[Eracer_Team]

I haven't seen this posted on the forum in a while and I haven't seen it posted in this now, 3 pages of a thread of a horse long since whipped dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[capmaster]

Until now I never found a reason why they cut the two notches between tailpiece and bridge pickup routings out of the chambered and MWR bodies. As a consequence the treble-sided bridge post is anchored in the maple top only. Nashville bushings have beads and thus are prevented from getting pressed further into the body, but how about ABR-1 studs? How much maple is left to avoid a "breakthrough"?

 

I think this may affect tone, too, and perhaps there's a certain purpose for these notches, but which one?

[pippy]

ABR-1's tend to be used on the re-issues which are solid. I know there are some chambered re-issues but they are in a tiny minority.

The bridge posts for an ABR-1 are also only a matter of millimetres in diameter so effectively behave as if they are screws fitted directly into the wood. Very stable.

Even with the Chambered R-I's I don't envisage there being a problem as the post-fitting is so solid.

 

One does has to ensure the post is down far enough, though, just in case.

On one of my Lesters one of the posts was proud of the top-surface of the bridge when I bought it.

I simply removed the bridge and screwed the errant post down further into the cap. Finger pressure was enough to wind it down a further 8mm or so.

 

Pip.