Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Sorry but Weight relieved Les Pauls are NOT Les Pauls


Recommended Posts

Oh. I didn't knew that! Very interesting.

 

Thank You, Pippy!

 

Bence.

I'm not sure if you meant the incorrect neck-set angle or the Bigsby connection but if the former then this guitar features the trapeze exactly as designed by Les Paul (and it played wonderfully);

 

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-USA/Les-Paul-Tribute-1952.aspx

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I have a '77 Tele and a '71 Les Paul. I wish someone had routed the crap out of both of them. Pure or not, they both weigh as much as Buicks.

[lol]

 

Yes. At the time I had my '64 Strat my #2 was a '71/'72-ish Strat and it seemed to be twice the weight of the '64.

Played and sounded great but I was glad I only had to use it as a 'spare' if-and-when something went awry with the #1.

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was pretty sure you would have done, Bence.

 

Still; it's nice to give the '52 Tribute an airing and some column-inches.

The one I played was a Very Nice Guitar indeed. I would love to have one in the bunch. It has many features not seen on any of my own LPs.

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The other intriguing thing that comes to my mind, is this:

 

StreamImage.aspx?Image_ID=BA4454D4-3599-4536-B834-99B49E33B2B0&Image_Type=image

The Bigsby/McCarty friendship was new to me...

Just for fun and to go well off-topic for a moment here's a snap I found on the web a few years ago which I thought was interesting.

Look at the guitar at "3-o'clock" position and compare it with the prototype LP pictured earlier;

 

BigsbyPinwheel.jpg

 

I believe these are designs of four of only six regular 6-string guitars known to have been made by Paul Bigsby.

There was no time-frame mentioned for any of the four pictured here nor can I find out any more through an albeit cursory 'google'.

One of these designs (at "9-o'clock") will almost certainly pre-date the introduction of the LP whilst others probably came much later ('Inspired By'..?) as there has been a re-release of some of his designs recently.

 

"Bigsby has produced a very few, limited edition, prototype guitars using many of the design features and ideas originally crafted by Paul Bigsby. The Bigsby prototype guitars are unique and specifications may vary from model to model."

 

Here's the link to the currently/recently released instruments;

http://www.bigsby.co...oducts/guitars/

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he sounds like he was quite a guy!

Sadly he wouldn't live long enough to see quite how ubiquitous and long-lived the vibrato arm he invented was to become;

 

"By 1965, Paul was experiencing some health problems and wanted to sell his company. He called up his old associate Ted McCarty, the retired president of Gibson guitars. Ted purchased the Bigsby name and all inventory effective January 1, 1966. Paul passed away in 1968."

 

Although to be strictly accurate at the time of the sale of the company McCarty hadn't yet tendered his letter of resignation to Maurice Berlin.

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Farnsbarns

I agree. And any Les Paul that doesn't have the upside down, unplayable trapeze that the first ones had isn't a real Les Paul either.

 

And Humbuckers. Bloody things, the first Les Paul guitars had p90's so if yours has Humbuckers it isnt a Les Paul.

 

Plain maple must, of course, be used. All this flame wasn't original to Les Paul guitars so it's wrong.

 

Clear nitro is a no no too. All solid colours must be used or it isn't a real Les Paul.

 

Pup rings. Nope.

 

Steel strings. Nope (and they do make a difference).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think a lot of these replies contradicting my belief in my original post is coming from players that are either too young to know what their talking about, say 25 to 30 years of age, or it's coming from players that were duped into buying a weight relieved Les Paul and now that they know that, they feel obligated to defend their instrument.

 

Well all i'll say is if you love your weight relieved Les Paul the way it is, then thats great, you should, you spent a lot of money on it, BUT IT'S NOT A TRUE LES PAUL, whether you want to admit it or not is your own battle with denial.

 

However today calling a modern weight relieved Les Paul a TRUE Les Paul, would be like referring to an IPOD as a fully equipped stereo system, it's not....it's that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with You... [thumbup]

 

I have got the real thing too!

 

IMG_2571_zps17e41bad.jpg

 

Man, there are no holes or chambers in it. Made of a solid piece of Honduran mahogany. Brazilian rosewood fretboard, with Fretless Wonder frets...

 

Only the real thing - as Mr. Polfus created it.

 

;)

 

Bence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't help but think a lot of these replies contradicting my belief in my original post is coming from players that are either too young to know what their talking about, say 25 to 30 years of age, or it's coming from players that were duped into buying a weight relieved Les Paul and now that they know that, they feel obligated to defend their instrument...

I know for a fact that at least six of those who have replied either currently own or have in the past owned solid-bodied Les Pauls and feel no such need to defend weight-relief in the slightest. The first Les Paul I owned was a (solid-bodied) mid- '70s Custom which I bought over 30 years ago and it was crap.

 

Currently I have two solid and two Swiss-cheesed and can probably speak from a far better-informed, far more experienced and far less bigoted position on the matter of weight-relief than you can.

 

[smile]

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. And any Les Paul that doesn't have the upside down, unplayable trapeze that the first ones had isn't a real Les Paul either.

 

And Humbuckers. Bloody things, the first Les Paul guitars had p90's so if yours has Humbuckers it isnt a Les Paul.

 

Plain maple must, of course, be used. All this flame wasn't original to Les Paul guitars so it's wrong.

 

Clear nitro is a no no too. All solid colours must be used or it isn't a real Les Paul.

 

Pup rings. Nope.

 

Steel strings. Nope (and they do make a difference).

 

Your sarcasm might be good for a laugh but if you yourself are not a traditionalist when it comes to guitars thats fine.

I on the other hand will complain when i think companies are cutting corners to save a buck, especially if it's on such a beloved instrument, that never needed much improvement since it's 58 issue.

AGAIN " IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT ".

All of a sudden mother of pearl inlays, too much money Gibson switches to acrylic, Bone nut, too much money, Gibson switches to Corian and Plastic, Rosewood Fretboards lawsuits and cost increase, Gibson switches to baked maple and Richlite composite, Copper shielding in electronics chambers, too much money, Gibson switches to copper spray paint.

Too many short cuts and cheap replacements have been messed with on and off over the years in the name of keeping costs down, cutting an entire pound of wood from the guitar body of a Les Paul is just one corner i don't think musicians should let Gibson cut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Pippy, I was very disappointed that two of my Les Pauls aren't the real things. I was shocked to read the specs, and almost immediately noticed a drastic decay of the tonal qualities of the instrument. Ashamed of being cheated, I tell everyone since how much I love them.

 

HPIM3380_zps52ab1d9c.jpg

 

Bence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that at least six of those who have replied either currently own or have in the past owned solid-bodied Les Pauls and feel no such need to defend weight-relief in the slightest. The first Les Paul I owned was a (solid-bodied) mid- '70s Custom which I bought over 30 years ago and it was crap.

 

Currently I have two solid and two Swiss-cheesed and can probably speak from a far better-informed, far more experienced and far less bigoted position on the matter of weight-relief than you can.

 

[smile]

 

Pip.

 

So now it's considered bigotry to want a once solid instrument to stay solid because i love the tone of the old solid bodies so much ?

 

I am 47 years old and have been playing Gibson's for 25 years, my older brother is 54 years old and has been playing Gibson's for 40 years and unlike most players who learn to play the guitar, but don't even have enough guitar knowledge to change their own strings or adjust a neck properly, my brother and i chose to learn and love every aspect of the guitar, where the woods are sourced from, which woods are used in which models and years for each model, the kind of pickups that each model has used through the years, how to work on our guitars ourselves and make all adjustments, and most of all how to love and consider our guitars an extension of our bodies, both while were playing and when we're not.

So i assure you i am VERY WELL INFORMED, and not a bigot, but truly passionate about the way instruments are made, and the way corporations butcher them to save a buck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I am glad to meet a real expert of Gibson guitars.

 

Let me grab this opportunity. I have been trying long to find out which brand of nitrocellulose lacquer Gibson used in the 70s and around 2010.

 

Could You please help me with this?

 

Bence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with You... [thumbup]

 

I have got the real thing too!

 

IMG_2571_zps17e41bad.jpg

 

Man, there are no holes or chambers in it. Made of a solid piece of Honduran mahogany. Brazilian rosewood fretboard, with Fretless Wonder frets...

 

Only the real thing - as Mr. Polfus created it.

 

;)

 

Bence.

 

Gorgeous looking guitar, i bet it sounds great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I am glad to meet a real expert of Gibson guitars.

 

Let me grab this opportunity. I have been trying long to find out which brand of nitrocellulose lacquer Gibson used in the 70s and around 2010.

 

Could You please help me with this?

 

Bence.

 

I can't give you an exact year Gibson went from polyurethane to nitrocellulose, but yes it was in the late 70's when they switched i believe, and as far as i know they still do Nitrocellulose finish to this day where as PRS and Fender do not.

 

However if you have more specifics that i am unaware of i would be very happy to learn about it, after all i said i am well informed, but not the end all authority of guitar knowledge, so by all means tell me the specifics, i would be glad to learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't give you an exact year Gibson went from polyurethane to nitrocellulose, but yes it was in the late 70's when they switched i believe, and as far as i know they still do Nitrocellulose finish to this day where as PRS and Fender do not.

 

However if you have more specifics that i am unaware of i would be very happy to learn about it, after all i said i am well informed, but not the end all authority of guitar knowledge, so by all means tell me the specifics, i would be glad to learn.

 

No, unfortunately I am not informed regarding this subject either. All my attempts on finding out this well-kept secret have failed. I would like to use the very same formulas for finish touch-ups. I am only sure about one thing: Gibson used nitrocellulose on all Les Pauls (well, all it's instruments ever crafted since the 1920s), but the formulas were changed during the decades. Nobody seem to know the brands of lacquer were used.

 

Bence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Farnsbarns

Your sarcasm might be good for a laugh but if you yourself are not a traditionalist when it comes to guitars thats fine.

I on the other hand will complain when i think companies are cutting corners to save a buck, especially if it's on such a beloved instrument, that never needed much improvement since it's 58 issue.

AGAIN " IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT ".

All of a sudden mother of pearl inlays, too much money Gibson switches to acrylic, Bone nut, too much money, Gibson switches to Corian and Plastic, Rosewood Fretboards lawsuits and cost increase, Gibson switches to baked maple and Richlite composite, Copper shielding in electronics chambers, too much money, Gibson switches to copper spray paint.

Too many short cuts and cheap replacements have been messed with on and off over the years in the name of keeping costs down, cutting an entire pound of wood from the guitar body of a Les Paul is just one corner i don't think musicians should let Gibson cut.

 

You sir, are a pratt. I own only 1 Les Paul. It's solid. I couldn't care less. 50s Les Pauls had nylon nuts so you also have no idea what your talking about. They also didn't have mop inlays, or copper shielding. It's illegal to export Brazilian rosewood so their hands are tied but they do still use Indian rosewood. Gibson use a solid steel plate as shielding now days.

 

For a man who thinks his opinion is fact you're sure lacking in factual knowledge.

 

Oh, and I'm a lot older than 30.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All of a sudden mother of pearl inlays, too much money Gibson switches to acrylic, Bone nut, too much money, Gibson switches to Corian and Plastic, Rosewood Fretboards lawsuits and cost increase, Gibson switches to baked maple and Richlite composite, Copper shielding in electronics chambers, too much money, Gibson switches to copper spray paint....blah blah blah

 

 

So... You really don't have the slightest clue about how's Les Pauls are made.

 

I sorta figured that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...I assure you i am ... not a bigot...

 

...if you love your weight relieved Les Paul the way it is, then thats great....BUT IT'S NOT A TRUE LES PAUL, whether you want to admit it or not is your own battle with denial...

"Bigot (n); a person who is intolerant to those holding different opinions..." (Chambers English Dictionary).

 

Pip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think a lot of these replies contradicting my belief in my original post is coming from players that are either too young to know what their talking about, say 25 to 30 years of age, or it's coming from players that were duped into buying a weight relieved Les Paul and now that they know that, they feel obligated to defend their instrument.

 

My cases have been to more gigs than you. I have picks I've been using longer than you been playin. I crapped more guitar player this morning than you will ever be.

 

Should I go on? It really is fun. I'm 56 and been playing since 1971.

 

Well all i'll say is if you love your weight relieved Les Paul the way it is, then thats great, you should, you spent a lot of money on it, BUT IT'S NOT A TRUE LES PAUL, whether you want to admit it or not is your own battle with denial.

 

However today calling a modern weight relieved Les Paul a TRUE Les Paul, would be like referring to an IPOD as a fully equipped stereo system, it's not....it's that simple.

 

It's real simple. I'm a really, REALLY good, really REALLY REALLY experienced guitar player. I get paid seriously good money to play the music you were flapping on about in one of your earlier posts. If you lived in this county and there was an audition for a guitar player for that kind of band and you and I went, I would get that gig and you would not.

 

I make whatever guitar I use sound great, and people pay me to do it. I currently use 3 Gibsons and 3 Fenders, and I do take out my Squier Hello Kitty.

 

What do you use? Are you out with a band? Do you get paid to record stuff for others? Are you called up for one off nights playing this stuff you say relies on only solid Les Pauls, and if so, are they happy with how you sound? Can you take a Tele to a Led Zep night, like I do, and be a smashing success?

 

Stop talking dumb a$$ garbage, show a little strength, show some ego, show some confidence. If you don't know what you are doing, as I am making so abundantly clear that I do know what I'm doing, stop talking stupid sh1t. You sound like 9th grader.

 

Nobody can hear whether or not my 2000 Classic is weight relieved, not even you. All you would hear is a guy that has mastered his instrument, knows how to use it, and most important, makes it look easy. The rest of this crap about what makes a REAL Les Paul is your excuse for not being as good me. I've seen it way too many dozens and dozens of times, you are nothing new.

 

rct

Link to post
Share on other sites

Macmutt, what kind of Les Paul do you have anyways? Maybe it was already mentioned but I didn't read all the replies.

 

If you own a solid Traditional, you don't have long tenon. If you own an older reissue, you have a truss rod sheath and no Brazilian. If you have a 2013/newer reissue, you still don't have Brazilian. Long tenon, Brazilian roswood, no truss rod sheath. These are equally as important as solid mahogany if you want to stay true to the original Les Paul formula.

 

So, I'll let you in on a little secret. Unless you have a Les Paul made before 1962, or a replica, your guitar is as equal flawed as the ones you are bashing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...