2000 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Limited Edition

[PeteGalaxie]

Does anybody know if the 2000 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Limited Edition has weight relief or chambering? Or is it a solid body?

I also read about a problem with fret spacing:

"I have a Gibson goldtop les paul deluxe re-issue from year2000 with the gold 'limited edition' sticker on the back of the (lower) headstock. Can anyone tell me about this issue:

 

Getting my guitar set up a few years ago, a luthier told me Gibson made errors in spacing the frets beyond where then neck joins the body. He ran a metal rule (presumably with correct factory-spec fret positioning on it) along my guitar neck and said the frets were out of place, affecting intonation. Gibson knew about this 'error' but didn't recall the guitars. Instead the sticker was put in these guitars. Is this correct?"

Any truth to that?

[btoth76]

Hello Pete.

 

I have no interest in protecting Gibson's reputation, but I can't believe in such urban legends. Wrongly spaced frets? I can't imagine that - I have to see it to believe. The "sticker" tale makes it even more suspicious. "It's a crap, we screwed it up. Thanks for buying!"?

 

These are 9-hole weight-relieved (a.k.a. "swiss cheese").

 

Cheers... Bence

[pippy]

Does anybody know if the 2000 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Limited Edition has weight relief or chambering? Or is it a solid body?

I also read about a problem with fret spacing:

Any truth to that?

It'll be 'Swiss-Cheese' 9-hole weight-relief. Chambering didn't start until late 2006 and post 1982 there were no solid regular USA-line LPs offered until the 2013 Traditional.

 

I've never heard that scare story about the fret-spacing before. Most odd.

I read up a few posts about it and the following - if true - seems to be the most interesting;

 

"The 24 9/16'' scale is only to the 12th fret, if you measure the fret spacings after that they correspond more closely to a 24 5/8 '' scale..."

OK, I know intonation is reasonably important and I'm no luthier but my take on it is this;

First-off, the author of this post says "more closely", so presumably slightly less difference than there would be for a full 24 5/8" scale length but even if we take 24 5/8" as our mark this means the actual difference between the two scale-lengths over an entire scale would be 1/16". As the difference being discussed only occurs after the 12th fret this difference is halved to 1/32". This discrepancy would then be spread over the ten remaining frets but these ten frets only occupy roughly 5 1/2" of the remaining 12 1/4" string length (so let's say half?) which means that the difference is halved still further to 1/64" meaning, on average, each of the ten frets would be 'out' by a factor of 1/640".

 

1/640" per fret....

 

But, as I said earlier; I'm no luthier. Anyone with different sums please feel free to point out any errors in my thinking.

 

Pip.

[btoth76]

Yes.

 

Imagine a piano with all it's keys being tuned perfectly to their corresponding pitches. It will sound very dissonant as You go up the keyboard.

 

Cheers... Bence

[stein]

A Les Paul "limited edition Deluxe" from 2000? Custom shop or limited edition sticker on the back of the headstock?

 

Is anyone else a little suspicious of the post right there?

 

I ain't saying it's a fake, but I don't remember a Deluxe being reissued or coming from the Custom Shop in 2000. I DO remember at that time a lot of fakes having a logo or sticker on the back of the headstock to throw people off of "different" offerings around that time.

 

I could be wrong, but I sure wouldn't judge a properly or improperly built guitar based on that description.

[PeteGalaxie]

I am really not a fan of any kind of weight relief so I'll be passing on this one just based on that. Thanks for all the responses!!!

[stein]

It'll be 'Swiss-Cheese' 9-hole weight-relief. Chambering didn't start until late 2006 and post 1982 there were no solid regular USA-line LPs offered until the 2013 Traditional.

 

I've never heard that scare story about the fret-spacing before. Most odd.

I read up a few posts about it and the following - if true - seems to be the most interesting;

 

"The 24 9/16'' scale is only to the 12th fret, if you measure the fret spacings after that they correspond more closely to a 24 5/8 '' scale..."

OK, I know intonation is reasonably important and I'm no luthier but my take on it is this;

First-off, the author of this post says "more closely", so presumably slightly less difference than there would be for a full 24 5/8" scale length but even if we take 24 5/8" as our mark this means the actual difference between the two scale-lengths over an entire scale would be 1/16". As the difference being discussed only occurs after the 12th fret this difference is halved to 1/32". This discrepancy would then be spread over the ten remaining frets but these ten frets only occupy roughly 5 1/2" of the remaining 12 1/4" string length (so let's say half?) which means that the difference is halved still further to 1/64" meaning, on average, each of the ten frets would be 'out' by a factor of 1/640".

 

1/640" per fret....

 

But, as I said earlier; I'm no luthier. Anyone with different sums please feel free to point out any errors in my thinking.

 

Pip.

I kinda agree about all this.

 

I would add, IF it were the case the frets were "altered" from perfect math, it would actually favor playing more in tune, as most who might play up there would be using vibrato, fretting short string lengths, which would cause notes played "naturally" to come a little sharp anyway. Slightly longer scale in the upper frets would help more than hurt.

 

But really, this is the first I have heard of such an issue, and first I heard of it being an issue of Gibsons. I'm really leaning toward this being a case of being on the net not making a thing true.

[deeman]

I am really not a fan of any kind of weight relief so I'll be passing on this one

 

:sigh:

[PeteGalaxie]

:sigh:

[capmaster]

...

I've never heard that scare story about the fret-spacing before. Most odd.

I read up a few posts about it and the following - if true - seems to be the most interesting;

 

"The 24 9/16'' scale is only to the 12th fret, if you measure the fret spacings after that they correspond more closely to a 24 5/8 '' scale..."

...

Pip.

For the 22nd fret the error would be 1.14 mm or .045", slightly below 3/64". The note would be 13.8 cent sharp.

 

Sadly all of my Gibsons made from 2011 to 2013 are sharp at the upper frets, clearly sharper than the inharmonicity of harmonics calls for, and the 2nd octave of the three 24-fret Gibsons from that period is far off. From this point of view mostly E6th and G3rd are beyond compensation with typical Tune-O-Matic bridges. Anyway, I decided to live with it because a clean 1st octave is more important to me, let alone the lower frets.

 

The "Harmonica" bridges would allow for any adjustment, but it's not required - my 1970's Gibsons are fine. My Epiphone Les Paul is fine, too.

 

The Fender fretboards of mine are perfect up to 21st respectively 22nd fret. The string pull from the pickup magnets is the very problem there, in particular of E6th and A5th.

 

 

Yes.

 

Imagine a piano with all it's keys being tuned perfectly to their corresponding pitches. It will sound very dissonant as You go up the keyboard.

 

Cheers... Bence

Going up or down as such is not the problem as long as you stay within the reach of one hand. The dissonances will appear when playing some octaves apart with both hands - the higher fundamentals won't match the sharp harmonics of the lower notes. The effect is quite small on a concert grand and very significant on upright pianos. They call for different degrees of stretched tuning.

 

Guitars call for stretched tuning, too. It's easiest for E6th and E1st: The open E1st has to match the 4th harmonic (5th or 24th fret) of the E6th. Tuning any other string calls for fretting respectively a harmonic and fretting. As L5Larry once pointed out in a topic on robo tuning: "Tuning is an art in itself." It is, definitely, and one can't trust any electronic tuner for more than just one note. For me it's the 4th harmonic of the A5th, the only way of putting out a note on guitar without fretting that has to be exactly 440 Hz.

 

Different strings, scale lengths, and guitars may call for different tuning approaches. Not only tuning in general, each approach is an art in itself.

[pippy]

:sigh:

What deeman means is that no-one on the planet can tell a 9-hole weight relieved guitar from a solid guitar either by playing them, listening to them, holding them or any other test you care to mention short of passing them through an x-ray machine - which is, as is now well-known, how the practice first came to anyone's attention.

 

No-one could tell the difference then and no-one can tell the difference now.

 

As was mentioned earlier; every single Les Paul from the USA Gibson range (i.e. discounting the re-issues) since late 1982 has been weight-relieved in one way or another up to the introduction of the 2013 model-year Traditional.

 

For the 22nd fret the error would be 1.14 mm or .045", slightly below 3/64". The note would be 13.8 cent sharp...

I'm not going to work out the total fret error but using your own figures...

 

The string-length from crown of 22nd fret to front-edge&centre of the bridge saddle (I took the G string as my datum) of all four of my LPs is 17.6mm.

If, as you say (and I'm not saying you are incorrect, Cap!), there is an error of 1.14mm then this translates as 6.477% of the vibrating section; not 13.8%.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Pip.

[badbluesplayer]

No.

[PeteGalaxie]

What deeman means is that no-one on the planet can tell a 9-hole weight relieved guitar from a solid guitar either by playing them, listening to them, holding them or any other test you care to mention short of passing them through an x-ray machine - which is, as is now well-known, how the practice first came to anyone's attention.

 

No-one could tell the difference then and no-one can tell the difference now.

 

 

No one? Really? You checked with everybody? (Just kidding! :D )

 

I did check with Gibson about the 2000 Limited Edition Deluxe. According to them, they were offered in Ebony and Wine Red. Makes me a little suspicious of this one. It's a Gold Top. Gibson also denies any fret problems that they are aware of.

[Guest Farnsbarns]

No one? Really? You checked with everybody? (Just kidding! :D )

 

I did check with Gibson about the 2000 Limited Edition Deluxe. According to them, they were offered in Ebony and Wine Red. Makes me a little suspicious of this one. It's a Gold Top. Gibson also denies any fret problems that they are aware of.

 

There was no problem. The scale calculation changes at the 12th fret. Always has.

 

Here's an offer. We take 20 LP'S, you put on a blind fold. If you can identify 8 of the 10 weight relieved guitars from the rest I'll buy you any guitar available from Gibson today. If you can't, you buy the same for me.

[stein]

No one? Really? You checked with everybody? (Just kidding! :D )

 

I did check with Gibson about the 2000 Limited Edition Deluxe. According to them, they were offered in Ebony and Wine Red. Makes me a little suspicious of this one. It's a Gold Top. Gibson also denies any fret problems that they are aware of.

When it comes to the actual guitar in question, it's either a Gibson or it isn't. If you had some pics of it, we could likely tell if it is or isn't.

[rct]

No one? Really? You checked with everybody? (Just kidding! :D )

 

I did check with Gibson about the 2000 Limited Edition Deluxe. According to them, they were offered in Ebony and Wine Red. Makes me a little suspicious of this one. It's a Gold Top. Gibson also denies any fret problems that they are aware of.

 

Well, right around the turn of the century Gibson did do all us that were kids thirty years before that a favor and re-did the Deluxe for a very short time, I almost bought two. One was a Goldtop, one was Red. I probably saw more than a dozen out and about in bars and at shows and was going up to Philly fairly regularly back then, I distinctly recall there being quite a few around, Sam Ash had like two in each color.

 

Then they vanished.

 

rct

[PeteGalaxie]

There was no problem. The scale calculation changes at the 12th fret. Always has.

 

Here's an offer. We take 20 LP'S, you put on a blind fold. If you can identify 8 of the 10 weight relieved guitars from the rest I'll buy you any guitar available from Gibson today. If you can't, you buy the same for me.

It's my opinion. I don't need to prove anything to anybody. I had a Deluxe back in 1974, a Custom in '76. I prefer a full solid body. Maybe it is psychological. Whatever. But what's it to you? I'm shopping for a guitar for me, not for you. I'm guessing you have a weight relieved guitar and can't stand it when someone prefers something different.

[PeteGalaxie]

When it comes to the actual guitar in question, it's either a Gibson or it isn't. If you had some pics of it, we could likely tell if it is or isn't.

It doesn't matter. I'm passing on this one anyway.

[pippy]

It's my opinion. I don't need to prove anything to anybody. I had a Deluxe back in 1974, a Custom in '76. I prefer a full solid body. Maybe it is psychological. Whatever. But what's it to you? I'm shopping for a guitar for me, not for you. I'm guessing you have a weight relieved guitar and can't stand it when someone prefers something different.

Hey, It makes no difference to any of us.

We couldn't care less if you have a preference for solid. We (or I, at least) were just trying to help by pointing out that there was no real reason to discount every USA-line Les Paul built over a 31 year period from your list of 'possibles'. To 'our' way of thinking it makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore it's pretty universally accepted that under Henry's captaincy Gibson regained a consistent higher level of quality than had been seen for decades. Some, I'm sure, can be rated as amongst the finest ever produced by the marque. The same cannot be said about the Norlin-era guitars. Some, of course, were and are great. But not all and not by a long way. I had a '78 Custom. It was the worst guitar I've ever owned. Lasted around a week.

 

If you would like to have another solid-bodied DeLuxe then you must restrict your search for an example built prior to 1982.

Good luck.

 

Oh, and as Farns' main axe of choice is an R8 your guess is erroneous.

 

Pip.

[PeteGalaxie]

Well! I guess you told me! Gee, "all of you" know just about everything, don't you? Look for a little information, and people come out of the woodwork voicing how they're opinions are gospel. It certainly sounds like it makes a difference to you. I never asked for your opinion (or anyone else's) regarding my preferences. I'm sure, too, that there are some fine weight relieved Les Pauls, but it's not what I want. Why can't you just accept that my tastes are different than yours? Get off your soapbox pal.

[PeteGalaxie]

...

 

Oh, and as Farns' main axe of choice is an R8 your guess is erroneous.

 

Pip.

And that's all solid. I wonder why someone would spend so much when there are so many other less expensive choices that a lot of people will say sound and feel just as nice. (Sarcasm...)

 

Reminder - I am NOT saying that any weight relieved Les Paul sounds bad, feels bad or anything of the sort. I am just not looking for one. I am not the ignorant fool that your (sigh) comments are intimating.

[capmaster]

The string-length from crown of 22nd fret to front-edge&centre of the bridge saddle (I took the G string as my datum) of all four of my LPs is 17.6mm.

If, as you say (and I'm not saying you are incorrect, Cap!), there is an error of 1.14mm then this translates as 6.477% of the vibrating section; not 13.8%.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Pip.

I think the decimal point has been shifted. The string length should be 176mm, not 17.6mm. The deviation of 1.14mm is 0.6477% in length and 13.8 cent in pitch, based on 1200 cent per octave equivalent to 100 cent per halftone.

[pippy]

Well! I guess you told me! Gee, "all of you" know just about everything, don't you? Look for a little information, and people come out of the woodwork voicing how they're opinions are gospel. It certainly sounds like it makes a difference to you. I never asked for your opinion (or anyone else's) regarding my preferences. I'm sure, too, that there are some fine weight relieved Les Pauls, but it's not what I want. Why can't you just accept that my tastes are different than yours? Get off your soapbox pal..........

 

And that's all solid. I wonder why someone would spend so much when there are so many other less expensive choices that a lot of people will say sound and feel just as nice. (Sarcasm...)

 

Reminder - I am NOT saying that any weight relieved Les Paul sounds bad, feels bad or anything of the sort. I am just not looking for one. I am not the ignorant fool that your (sigh) comments are intimating.

How extraordinary..........................:blink:..........................

Re-read any passages that you think might have been offensive from the perspective that people were offering up helpful advice rather than criticism and you'll be closer to the mark.

 

I think the decimal point has been shifted. The string length should be 176mm, not 17.6mm. The deviation of 1.14mm is 0.6477% in length and 13.8 cent in pitch, based on 1200 cent per octave equivalent to 100 cent per halftone.

Ah; thank you for pointing out that howler of a mistake, cap!

I couldn't understand why you might have gotten the figures wrong in this case. And, of course, you hadn't!...........

My carelessness in the cm/mm bit = My Bad x 10. Hadn't yet had my morning cup of tea. Sorry!

Although I must say I'm surprised that such a slight change can result in such a massive (on paper) difference in pitch.

I'm pretty sure I haven't ever adjusted any of my bridge saddles on any of my guitars to within a whisker over 1mm +/-.

I suppose I go by the mantra as given out by Jimi; "It's Close Enough For Rock'n'Roll!"............

 

Pip.

[rct]

It's an American Guitar, MAN. No wonder it's all messed up yer measuring it with mmms and cmmcms and such.

 

rct

[pippy]

......................and us drinking TEA and not COFFEE!....................

 

Sheeeeesshhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Pip.