3 Strikes Your Out, PRS Blows You Away Gibson

[AlanH]

I own three Gibson's which I've had from new, all mail ordered unseen- an '07 SG Special Faded, an '11 LP '50s Tribute HB and a '14 LP Signature. All have been flawless, resonant and play fantastically well.

[Guest Farnsbarns]

Have to love the PRS weight relief revelation. Brilliant.

 

Now than macblues...

 

Please.explain why you have logged in as macmutt since after you created your second account. Doesn't add up if you claim you forgot the password.

 

A good troll can be entertaining but it seems you don't have the smarts to be a good troll.

[LarryUK]

PRS..A guitar maker and loves the instrument.

Henry Juszkiewicz ..Businessman. Profit, profit, profit.

 

Has anyone here done factory tours of both Gibson and PRS? If so, what was the mentality of the staff?

[pippy]

PRS..A guitar maker and loves the instrument.

Henry Juszkiewicz ..Businessman. Profit, profit, profit...

Has anyone here done factory tours of both Gibson and PRS? If so, what was the mentality of the staff?

Whilst I understand your inference, Larry, I think - as far as the companies themselves are concerned - it's flawed.

Rest assured PRS is every bit as committed to making a profit as is Gibson. Not only that; Mr P. R. Smith is as hard-nosed a businessman as Hank.

 

In the early years of PRS Paul Reed Smith asked for, and was given, several meetings with Ted McCarty to find out how, exactly, Gibson was such a good company under McCarty's stewardship. He learned a great deal from these meetings - not so much about manufacturing (although he did learn quite a bit) but mostly about how to treat the employees. If PRS is a good company to work for it is largely down to Paul Reed Smith putting into practice Ted McCarty's advice on his own methods of staff-management which existed in Parson's St. from the late '40s to the mid-'60s. From this period on right up until Ted McCarty's death PRS would seek out much advice from T.McC. McCarty and Smith formed a close working relationship and quickly became good friends.

 

Regarding business acumen and the PRS 'McCarty' model this is what Ted McCarty had to say;

"Sometime in the '90s at a NAMM show in California Paul walked in one day and said; "I want your signature, Ted.". I said "What for?". He said "Well, I have a contract. I'd like to put your name on a couple of guitars...". I said "Nobody knows me. I'm not a player. I've never been onstage and I've never been in any public thing playing a guitar or showing a guitar.". And he said "I know. But you don't know how much your name is worth on a contract!"...

 

(The above quotation has been lifted from Gil Hembree's book on Ted McCarty's years at Gibson. There is quite a bit of fascinating info regarding T. McC.'s association with PRS in the period from 1986-2001).

 

Pip.

[rct]

PRS..A guitar maker and loves the instrument.

Henry Juszkiewicz ..Businessman. Profit, profit, profit.

 

Has anyone here done factory tours of both Gibson and PRS? If so, what was the mentality of the staff?

 

If you think for one second that Paul Reed will not and does not put profits over his beloved instrument you are either very naive or 15 years old.

 

In the late 70's/early 80's that guy would literally push you into a corner at the DC and PA guitar shows and make you play his guitars.

 

rct

[MichaelT]

He's definitely not just making guitars as a hobby. He's making lots of money. The pricetags he's putting on guitars is assuring that. I don't really care for his 594 Singlecut. It looks like a generic and not so great knockoff of a Les Paul, without the style and class. I'm looking forward to playing one though, just to see what I think of it. I think that since I've been playing Gibsons and one in particular for 33 years, nothing I play is going to compare to it in my mind.

[Bluesy69]

PRS SC245 weight relief X-rayed:

 

 

So how long did it take you to make this up in Adobe Illustrator ? or whatever graphic program you used, because I've seen countless PRS factory tours and none of them have ever shown weight relief.

Quite the opposite they showed their bodies being made for all various models and none of them were weight relieved.....so I'm not buying your re-touched picture.

 

 

 

[Bluesy69]

If you think for one second that Paul Reed will not and does not put profits over his beloved instrument you are either very naive or 15 years old.

 

In the late 70's/early 80's that guy would literally push you into a corner at the DC and PA guitar shows and make you play his guitars.

 

rct

 

The man was trying to start a guitar company in a world where such multi million dollar companies like Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker have existed for decades.

 

 

So yeah he has to get right in peoples face and show them that there is something new and different to try, and it's because of his incredible drive and motivation back then that he is now among the elite manufactures that I just listed.

 

 

Plus if you think he rushes the process like Gibson or Fender, then you just flat out haven't watched any PRS factory tours or listened to his lectures on guitar building as I have.

The man puts innovation and quality guitar building above all else, yes even profit.

 

Leo Fender himself left Fender because he was disgusted with the low quality of the mass production process and eventually started G&L guitars, a similar choice made by Ted McCarty when he was at Gibson, these guy's were master luthiers and they enjoyed making a quality instrument, which is why Ted McCarty was such a mentor to Paul.

 

[Bluesy69]

He's definitely not just making guitars as a hobby. He's making lots of money. The pricetags he's putting on guitars is assuring that. I don't really care for his 594 Singlecut. It looks like a generic and not so great knockoff of a Les Paul, without the style and class. I'm looking forward to playing one though, just to see what I think of it. I think that since I've been playing Gibsons and one in particular for 33 years, nothing I play is going to compare to it in my mind.

 

I personally don't care for the look of the single cut 594 either which is why I bought the double cut.....actually to me the double cut PRS looks better than a double cut Les Paul and the Les Paul looks better to me than the single cut 594.

 

 

 

[rct]

Leo Fender himself left Fender because he was disgusted with the low quality of the mass production process and eventually started G&L guitars, a similar choice made by Ted McCarty when he was at Gibson, these guy's were master luthiers and they enjoyed making a quality instrument, which is why Ted McCarty was such a mentor to Paul.

 

I know you think you know everything, and yer going to push people around with your smarts and such. But you've met your wall.

 

Leo was a hypochondriac and had convinced himself he was sick beyond repair, thus selling the company would afford him and Phyllis some time to travel. He was not at all, and never thought of himself as any kind of luthier at all ever. He was a radio repairman that couldn't join the service because of his not so good eye and hated being an accountant.

 

So, before you start telling me anything, think long and hard and go look it up before you spew, because I am never wrong about guitars, and more important, guitar history.

 

rct

[pippy]

...I've seen countless PRS factory tours and none of them have ever shown weight relief.

Quite the opposite they showed their bodies being made for all various models and none of them were weight relieved...

So what you are saying is that PRS is deliberately misleading its customers into thinking that weight-relief is not practiced at PRS? How shocking!

Not only do PRS use weight-relief; they also use - brace yourself Mutt69 - chambering...

 

https://www.thegearp...ambered.527822/

 

...Leo Fender himself left Fender because he was disgusted with the low quality of the mass production process and eventually started G&L guitars..

...these guy's were master luthiers and they enjoyed making a quality instrument, which is why Ted McCarty was such a mentor to Paul...

As rct has already said; complete baloney. Leo sold Fender because he was sure he was going to die.

 

Before he started G+L he, along with Forrest White and Tom Walker, started Music Man.

Leo designed the amps and, to a very large extent, left the design of the guitars and basses to Forrest White as, far from being a master luthier, Leo himself knew practically nothing about guitar design-and-build even after almost 20 years in the game. Furthermore whilst at Fender they didn't need "master luthiers"; the Fender designs were made as simple as they were specifically to allow the use of unskilled labour for 95% of guitar manufacture and assembly. That's why Fender have bolt-on-everything in pre-fabricated units instead of having a set-neck design etc.

 

Ted McCarty? Wasn't a luthier; Wasn't a craftsman. Wasn't a player of any instrument. Wasn't even a radio repairman. Could tune a radio but not a guitar.

Ted McCarty was a good businessman with excellent man-management skills and was someone who knew how to get the best from his workforce.

The End.

 

Oh, but I forgot; you know far more than anyone else on the planet where guitars are concerned so already knew - and had forgotten - all the above.

 

Pip.

[GnR]

I knew they did it for the historical and custom shop models, I just didn't know they did it on the Traditional models.

By the way I never got an answer to my question from all of the so called more knowledable than me Professors of guitar in here.

If weight relieving is so revolutionary and sustain improving, why is Gibson the only one doing it ?

You mean to tell me that Leo Fender and Paul Reed Smith, don't know what their doing with sustain by still making solid body guitars without weight relieving ?I seriously doubt it.

 

The main reason The other manufacturers don't do it is because they don't use as big a chunk of wood as Les Pauls. The PRS is a thin body guitar, it's just a different form of weight relief.

 

A $2500 non weight relieved Traditional will weigh more than a $4500 non weight relieved Historic because they set aside the lighter wood for the Custom Shop.

 

Spend $2500 or less on a PRS & it will be lighter than a non weight relieved Traditional because the body is thinner.

 

Instead of cutting chambers under the top, PRS shaved a few inches off the entire body.

[rct]

A $2500 non weight relieved Traditional will weigh more than a $4500 non weight relieved Historic because they set aside the lighter wood for the Custom Shop.

 

Not exactly.

 

In all three of them, the floor shop gets their wood on their pallets and the Custom Shop gets their wood on their pallets, and the two never mingle. Nobody picks and chooses like that, they pick and choose based on their own budgets and not what the other guy needs or wants, long before the blanks arrive. At Fender I sat on a pallet full of alder blanks going to Mexico for a picture while some jokers from the company were joking at how good these were compared to their CS blanks. And they were some nice pieces of wood!

 

You could have a standard guitar weigh less than a Custom Shop job pretty easily if the buyer for the floor bought some juicy blanks.

 

rct

[MichaelT]

So how long did it take you to make this up in Adobe Illustrator ? or whatever graphic program you used, because I've seen countless PRS factory tours and none of them have ever shown weight relief.

Quite the opposite they showed their bodies being made for all various models and none of them were weight relieved.....so I'm not buying your re-touched picture.

 

It's an actual image and I've seen it before. It appears to be or have been for at least one model. There's no reason to throw around accusations of photoshopping because that's just not the case. Even on the PRS forums there's threads about this.

 

And, another post from McMutt: http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/120137-gibson-loses-out-to-prs/

 

That one's from 2 years ago. We get it. You like PRS. Cool. I like Gibsons and prefer mine over PRS as do some others here and elsewhere. Les Pauls have been weight relieved for a long time on many of their models and people still play them, love them, get good sound out of them and make good music. I love my 2017 LP Standard and it has the Ultra Modern Weight Relief and it plays and sounds like a Les Paul, weight relieved or not. My 2017 Tribute has the 9 hole weight relief and it sounds and plays awesome as well.

 

Getting people to try PRS is definitely a good idea. I think everyone should play and test as many guitars as they can to decide the one they like the best. I've had great luck with my Gibsons since 1984 when I bought my first one and it's held up great all these years, plays fantastic and sounds amazing after all this time. I'm pretty sure there wasn't any weight relief in the '81 "The V" because it's a monster with mahogany back and maple top. My Les Pauls are about the same weight, although I don't have a scale to confirm that with.

 

The problem here is that Bluesy/McMutt is coming to a Gibson forum, slamming Gibsons and praising PRS. Glad you love your guitar as much as we love ours. There's no need to knock one over another though. It's all opinion, choice and preference. There's not a PRS in the world that I'd have over my Gibsons, any of them and my mind isn't liable to change. But, I'll give new ones a chance from time to time and if I find one I love, I'll get it. There's no reason for me to choose a very expensive guitar that I just like, not love. I think many of us feel that way and that's where the rubbing of fur the wrong way comes into place with this thread.

 

Glad you like your PRS guitars and I hope you get as much enjoyment out of them as I have my Gibson for three decades. Rock on! Or, blues on, country on, jazz on, whatever!

[GnR]

This video shows the thickness of a Les Paul and a 594 side by side and they are the same thickness. Plus if you think the regular McCarty is the same thickness as a 594, you need glasses immediately, because you obviously have never seen a 594 in person, it's PRS's thickest guitar thus far.

Why do you think guy's like myself who do love Les Paul's are gravitating to the 594 ? PRS is essentially copying the Les Paul, and with those new 58/15 low turn pickups, it's the Les Paul sound to a tee.

 

I've never claimed to have seen or held a 594.

 

Look at PRS, site & the blogs they've released about this guitar & they mention the extra thickness of the neck, not the body. When the McCarty came put they mentioned the extra thickness of the body. When the DGT came out they mentioned the extra thickness of the body. If the 594 were thicker still, I'm sure they would habe mentioned it.

 

& don't get me wrong, I want a 594. One day I'll have one.

 

Let's talk about quality though. That dude in that video mentioned his 594 weighed 9.1 LBs. His Traditional just over 10lbs. Like I said in another post, you spend 5 grand on a Les Paul, it's not going to weigh 9 lbs. That's with no weight relief. At that level, Gibson won't use a piece of wood that dense.

 

Then the gap in the binding where the body meets the neck. He says it's not there on his 594. Of course it's not there, the 594 doesn't even habe the faux binding in the lower cutaway.

[GnR]

I personally don't care for the look of the single cut 594 either which is why I bought the double cut.....actually to me the double cut PRS looks better than a double cut Les Paul and the Les Paul looks better to me than the single cut 594.

 

Agreed. However, with the double cut they should have put the three way near the volume controls like an SG. To me, it just doesn't look right on a double cutaway.

 

Tell me, have you ever considered a Dean Hardtail? PRSish, with SG like controls.

 

[pippy]

Like I said in another post, you spend 5 grand on a Les Paul, it's not going to weigh 9 lbs. That's with no weight relief. At that level, Gibson won't use a piece of wood that dense...

Whilst the vast majority of your posts are on the money this isn't quite correct.

This subject came to light just a few weeks ago and so I had a look around at the time. I've just done so again and even just looking at the stock in Mark's Guitar Loft there are no fewer than six LP Re-Issues currently listed for sale weighing-in at 9 lb or over. My own R9 is also a shade over the 9 lb mark.

 

What I found (at the time) was that in general the R9s seemed to come in averaging 8 lb 13 oz but could be anywhere from a minimum 8 lb 03 oz to a maximum 9 lb 6 oz.

There's a pretty well-known image of the weights / uses for the CS body blanks. The lightest (generally) were used for the R9; then the next weight up for the R8; then the R7 etc. with the Black Beauty Custom R-I's getting the heaviest blanks from the stock as held.

 

Pip.

[charlie brown]

I'm (Sort of) amazed, there have been 150 posts, on this?!! PRS makes great guitars, and Gibson makes great guitars.

What one chooses, is up to them. No "justification," or denigration, needed! IMHO, as always.

 

 

CB

[pippy]

...I'm (Sort of) amazed, there have been 150 posts, on this?!!...

It's not that often we get such an easy opportunity for Troll-Baiting, Charlie!

 

 

Pip.

[MichaelT]

I'm (Sort of) amazed, there have been 150 posts, on this?!! PRS makes great guitars, and Gibson makes great guitars.

What one chooses, is up to them. No "justification," or denigration, needed! IMHO, as always.

 

 

CB

 

<sarcasm> So now you're knocking Fender... </sarcasm>

 

Kidding! I'm enjoying reading and learning in the midst of all the other trolling and flaming and troll feeding and baiting. But, in the process, I did go out and try some different guitars so it was worth wading through most of the BS just to learn more about PRS and play a few. I've always loved learning and I've mostly been playing and not really learning about the different guitars and amps. I knew what worked well for me for a long time. People have such a wide range of knowledge, experience, opinions and facts. I'm enjoying time here.

[charlie brown]

It's not that often we get such an easy opportunity for Troll-Baiting, Charlie!

 

 

Pip.

 

I guess so?! LOL!

 

CB

[Guest Farnsbarns]

So how long did it take you to make this up in Adobe Illustrator ? or whatever graphic program you used, because I've seen countless PRS factory tours and none of them have ever shown weight relief.

Quite the opposite they showed their bodies being made for all various models and none of them were weight relieved.....so I'm not buying your re-touched picture.

 

Why don't you search your own PRS forum. I now notice a number of threads discussing the topic.

 

You really are ill. Get some help man.

[capmaster]

So how long did it take you to make this up in Adobe Illustrator ? or whatever graphic program you used, because I've seen countless PRS factory tours and none of them have ever shown weight relief.

Quite the opposite they showed their bodies being made for all various models and none of them were weight relieved.....so I'm not buying your re-touched picture.

Since you have forgotten lots more about guitars than we will ever know, perhaps you have forgotten PRS weight relief, too. You may refer to "The X-Ray Thread" at the Official PRS Forum: https://forums.prsguitars.com/threads/the-x-ray-thread.911/

 

There are some more pics of PRS weight relief on the web including one showing the "channels" in a PRS guitar body with the top cut off, but they all are on photobucket and can't be linked anymore.

[Bluesy69]

I know you think you know everything, and yer going to push people around with your smarts and such. But you've met your wall.

 

Leo was a hypochondriac and had convinced himself he was sick beyond repair, thus selling the company would afford him and Phyllis some time to travel. He was not at all, and never thought of himself as any kind of luthier at all ever. He was a radio repairman that couldn't join the service because of his not so good eye and hated being an accountant.

 

So, before you start telling me anything, think long and hard and go look it up before you spew, because I am never wrong about guitars, and more important, guitar history.

 

rct

 

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, in fact right now I am currently both pissed and saddened to find out that PRS has done chambering and weight relieving to their guitars.

 

 

I currently have a call into PRS right now and I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and when they do I will be asking if the PRS 594 is weight relieved, if he tells me it is then my PRS will returned tonight.

 

 

I want a SOLID BODY guitar....DAMN IT....well I won't freak out just yet until I talk to the PRS rep, but I will tell you guy's what he says.

 

 

What I do know is the guitar does feel very light for the amount of thickness it has, I'm hoping that's just the body carve and not weight relief, but I'll get to the bottom of it soon.

 

 

 

 

[MichaelT]

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, in fact right now I am currently both pissed and saddened to find out that PRS has done chambering and weight relieving to their guitars.

 

 

I currently have a call into PRS right now and I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and when they do I will be asking if the PRS 594 is weight relieved, if he tells me it is then my PRS will returned tonight.

 

 

I want a SOLID BODY guitar....DAMN IT....well I won't freak out just yet until I talk to the PRS rep, but I will tell you guy's what he says.

 

 

What I do know is the guitar does feel very light for the amount of thickness it has, I'm hoping that's just the body carve and not weight relief, but I'll get to the bottom of it soon.

 

So, let me get this straight. You have a guitar you love and you're praising it in at least two forums, its quality and sound and EVERYTHING about the guitar is awesome and blows away Gibsons and Les Pauls in particular. But, if it's weight relieved, you hate it and it's going back? If you couldn't tell before, does it really matter? Maybe to you it matters but can you really tell the difference? I don't recall anything about the 594 being weight relieved, FYI, but what if it is? Just play it and love it for years and don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff.