Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Was the 2015 LP the only year model with the wide nut?


cooltouch

Recommended Posts

First off, I freely admit that I'm no Les Paul historian. I've owned -- and own -- a few. My first was a first-year-reissue 1968 LP Custom, which I no longer own. I acquired a new LP Special -- a double-cut model with P90s -- in about 2000. And a couple years ago, I picked up an exceptionally clean 2013 LP Traditional. I still own both these guitars. But just today I came across some information on the 2015 model -- the one with the abortive G-Force tuning system and adjustable zero fret nut -- and in my reading up on this guitar, I learned that it had a wider nut. 46mm or about 1-13/16" -- 1/8" wider than traditional. This caused me to sit up and take notice. So I did a bit of digging and learned that both the Standards and Traditional models had the wider nut. Wondering if this is a feature that Gibson kept, I looked up the specs for 2016 year model Les Pauls, only to discover that the nut width had been shrunk back to the standard 1-11/16". I was disappointed to read this.

 

Why? Because I've played classical guitar for many years and I've gotten used to the wide nut width of classicals -- typically 52mm or about 2". So I always feel a little cramped when I pick up an electric. So when I just now learned that the 2015 models had this wider nut, immediately thoughts began racing through my head that I should sell my 2013 Traditional and pick up a 2015 model. But I also got to wondering if there were any other LP models that have the wider nut. So, I thought I'd ask you folks, who seem to be the greatest repository of Les Paul wisdom.

 

If I were to have what would be to me the perfect Les Paul, it would have, among other necessities, a 1-7/8" nut. I'll probably have to build my own if I ever want to see that, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a LP historian either but, I believe that all LP's had the wide neck in 2015. In 2016 they introduced the HP line that kept the wide neck while they brought back the traditional neck in the new Traditional line. They continue the HP line at least through the early 2019 guitars. I'm not sure if that will continue with the new line that was announced at NAMM 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I freely admit that I'm no Les Paul historian. I've owned -- and own -- a few. My first was a first-year-reissue 1968 LP Custom, which I no longer own. I acquired a new LP Special -- a double-cut model with P90s -- in about 2000. And a couple years ago, I picked up an exceptionally clean 2013 LP Traditional. I still own both these guitars. But just today I came across some information on the 2015 model -- the one with the abortive G-Force tuning system and adjustable zero fret nut -- and in my reading up on this guitar, I learned that it had a wider nut. 46mm or about 1-13/16" -- 1/8" wider than traditional. This caused me to sit up and take notice. So I did a bit of digging and learned that both the Standards and Traditional models had the wider nut. Wondering if this is a feature that Gibson kept, I looked up the specs for 2016 year model Les Pauls, only to discover that the nut width had been shrunk back to the standard 1-11/16". I was disappointed to read this.

 

Why? Because I've played classical guitar for many years and I've gotten used to the wide nut width of classicals -- typically 52mm or about 2". So I always feel a little cramped when I pick up an electric. So when I just now learned that the 2015 models had this wider nut, immediately thoughts began racing through my head that I should sell my 2013 Traditional and pick up a 2015 model. But I also got to wondering if there were any other LP models that have the wider nut. So, I thought I'd ask you folks, who seem to be the greatest repository of Les Paul wisdom.

 

If I were to have what would be to me the perfect Les Paul, it would have, among other necessities, a 1-7/8" nut. I'll probably have to build my own if I ever want to see that, though.

As far as I know it was just the 2015s.. The HP models that came after did also have a slightly wider neck than usual but I don't think as wide as the 2015s.

 

The reason they are so hated is because of exactly what you just said. People who have been playing Gibsons for a long time are used to a certain neck profile. I checked a 2015 out and said exactly what you said too, that its more akin to a classical guitar than a Gibson and to a mainly electric player that's very off putting.. When you add the horrid Les Paul signature, non removable LP hologram and the robo tuners for which they put on the WHOLE USA line up, people weren't happy. Too much change all at once.

 

Also you should know that if you get a 2015. They came with faulty brass nuts. The brass was not strong enough and wears away very quickly causing buzzing and pinging noises. Gibson did change this and will replace it with a new titanium version. But yes, as I said on a recent thread.. If you like the wider necks and can find one a 2015 is a good option as they are going very cheap because of all the negativity towards them.. You can also swap the tuners out for normal manual ones quite easily.

 

Something else you may be interested to try is a Firebird.. They have quite different neck profiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't quote me cos I'm not completely sure....but the string spacing on 2015's may not be different, I.e there just seemed to be much more board outside the E strings rather than between strings. But don't take my word on that, check it please. [confused]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't quote me cos I'm not completely sure....but the string spacing on 2015's may not be different, I.e there just seemed to be much more board outside the E strings rather than between strings. But don't take my word on that, check it please. [confused]

Yes that's true... Same string spacing on a wider neck is what made it look and feel wrong. They said they did it so that people used to the spacing wont need to change their playing style... But when the neck is so different they may as well just gone all the way?? I donno...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1549567284[/url]' post='1976523']

And don't quote me cos I'm not completely sure....but the string spacing on 2015's may not be different, I.e there just seemed to be much more board outside the E strings rather than between strings. But don't take my word on that, check it please. [confused]

 

You are correct on the spring spacing, at least that's how it is on the SG Standards. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As far as I know it was just the 2015s.. The HP models that came after did also have a slightly wider neck than usual but I don't think as wide as the 2015s.

 

 

I was not aware of this, you are correct. The 2015 was 0.10 wider. The 2016-present are 0.05 wider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not aware of this, you are correct. The 2015 was 0.10 wider. The 2016-present are 0.05 wider.

Its amazing that such a small difference makes such a big difference.. But this is exactly what I have found out over the last few years.. Its those tiny differences that make a guitar play well or not and feel good to an individual or not... Tiny differences in neck angle and neck profile shape make a huge amount of difference to the player.

 

Its why, as most guitars (even the cheap ones) are hand finished as far as neck fit and final neck shape goes, they are all just ever so slightly different from each other. If all guitars were the same, we would probably have very little to talk about on here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1549573022[/url]' post='1976550']

Its amazing that such a small difference makes such a big difference.. But this is exactly what I have found out over the last few years.. Its those tiny differences that make a guitar play well or not and feel good to an individual or not... Tiny differences in neck angle and neck profile shape make a huge amount of difference to the player.

 

Its why, as most guitars (even the cheap ones) are hand finished as far as neck fit and final neck shape goes, they are all just ever so slightly different from each other. If all guitars were the same, we would probably have very little to talk about on here :)

 

This is true... heheh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And because what makes a good/bad neck is highly subjective, there is virtually no way that any neck profile should be called good/bad. Yet it happens all the time. I've heard "it sucks, its bad, its horrible" to describe every profile of neck ever made. Simply because someone didn't like it.

And as you can see, there is still some residual hysteria about the 2015s, as a whole they are really good guitars.Most of the 2015 models did have the wider fingerboards (LPs and others), but there we some models (mostly dealer special orders) that had other neck profiles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses, guys.

 

Yes, I was aware that the string spacing hadn't changed, but that didn't put me off. I build guitars (classicals) and cutting a new nut is a paltry affair. So my idea was and is, if I ever get a 2015, I'll just cut a new nut for it to take advantage of the extra width. This would seem to be an especially advantageous move based on Rabs' comment about the rapidly deteriorating condition of the factory brass nuts.

 

Wmachine, you are so right. The neck and fingerboard are the most intimate parts of any guitar, providing most of the tactile feedback a player experiences, thus a player is likely to develop strong opinions about what is "good" or "bad." Me, I've been trying to become more flexible in this matter. Just last week I bought an Epiphone Joe Pass Emperor II Pro from an online retailer and, after it arrived, discovered that the neck profile wasn't what I'd expected. There are seven Guitar Centers in my town, plus a couple of large independents, and not a one of them had a Joe Pass in stock, so I wasn't able to try one out before I bought it. The description of its neck profile said it was slim and "C" shaped. Well, I guess I just assumed that, since the description said "slim" it would be a Slim-60s profile, same as that on my three Gibsons, one of my Ibanezes and my Greg Bennett Samick. But apparently not.

 

Rather than get all upset and box the guitar up and send it back, I decided I'd just sit down and play it for a while. After about a half hour I came up for air and decided I could definitely live with the profile. Even though it looks kinda chunky -- definitely isn't what I'm used to seeing -- I don't play with my eyes, and it turns out that, to me, it is a very comfortable neck. I almost have to stay flexible in this regard. I own a few Fenders, a couple of Ibanezes, and even an old Kramer, and their neck profiles are all different, yet I'm able to get along with them just fine.

 

And then there are my classicals, an entirely different kettle of fish. And, being hand-made, every one of them is a bit different from the others.

 

Actually, I think that maintaining a certain flexibility is a good thing. That way, I can enjoy my Strat for being a Strat and my Les Pauls for being the great guitars they are, and of course, my favorite classical for being the instrument it is. I would find things frightfully restrictive if I felt comfortable playing on only a single neck profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses, guys.

 

Yes, I was aware that the string spacing hadn't changed, but that didn't put me off. I build guitars (classicals) and cutting a new nut is a paltry affair. So my idea was and is, if I ever get a 2015, I'll just cut a new nut for it to take advantage of the extra width. This would seem to be an especially advantageous move based on Rabs' comment about the rapidly deteriorating condition of the factory brass nuts.

 

Wmachine, you are so right. The neck and fingerboard are the most intimate parts of any guitar, providing most of the tactile feedback a player experiences, thus a player is likely to develop strong opinions about what is "good" or "bad." Me, I've been trying to become more flexible in this matter. Just last week I bought an Epiphone Joe Pass Emperor II Pro from an online retailer and, after it arrived, discovered that the neck profile wasn't what I'd expected. There are seven Guitar Centers in my town, plus a couple of large independents, and not a one of them had a Joe Pass in stock, so I wasn't able to try one out before I bought it. The description of its neck profile said it was slim and "C" shaped. Well, I guess I just assumed that, since the description said "slim" it would be a Slim-60s profile, same as that on my three Gibsons, one of my Ibanezes and my Greg Bennett Samick. But apparently not.

 

Rather than get all upset and box the guitar up and send it back, I decided I'd just sit down and play it for a while. After about a half hour I came up for air and decided I could definitely live with the profile. Even though it looks kinda chunky -- definitely isn't what I'm used to seeing -- I don't play with my eyes, and it turns out that, to me, it is a very comfortable neck. I almost have to stay flexible in this regard. I own a few Fenders, a couple of Ibanezes, and even an old Kramer, and their neck profiles are all different, yet I'm able to get along with them just fine.

 

And then there are my classicals, an entirely different kettle of fish. And, being hand-made, every one of them is a bit different from the others.

 

Actually, I think that maintaining a certain flexibility is a good thing. That way, I can enjoy my Strat for being a Strat and my Les Pauls for being the great guitars they are, and of course, my favorite classical for being the instrument it is. I would find things frightfully restrictive if I felt comfortable playing on only a single neck profile.

 

What about the bridge... There's string spacing on that too. Will that work to increase the strings' spaces only at the nut and pay no attention to the bridge? Honest question here and just trying to look out, because no one typically buys a new Gibson to start cutting the nut out of it to put something more suitable in place. Now if it were used and at the right price, maybe so. Either way I am not too concerned what happens with someone else's guitar, but I will always try to give the most sound advice I can... Anyhow, best of luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the bridge... There's string spacing on that too. Will that work to increase the strings' spaces only at the nut and pay no attention to the bridge? Honest question here and just trying to look out, because no one typically buys a new Gibson to start cutting the nut out of it to put something more suitable in place. Now if it were used and at the right price, maybe so. Either way I am not too concerned what happens with someone else's guitar, but I will always try to give the most sound advice I can... Anyhow, best of luck!

 

Good point, but I think its unlikely to make a significant difference. Even if the full .05" displacements were used, it would be a gradual change over the length of the neck.

 

 

I have a 2015 USA model and like the extra spacing each side of the E strings. Is it better? Not really, but its different and gives me confidence to use some techniques I wouldnt normally try on a solid body.

 

As it happens my Ric has a Schaller bridge that allows string spacing adjustment. I've made use of the feature too (this model has the 1.75" nut, not the usual 1.63").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the bridge... There's string spacing on that too. Will that work to increase the strings' spaces only at the nut and pay no attention to the bridge? Honest question here and just trying to look out, because no one typically buys a new Gibson to start cutting the nut out of it to put something more suitable in place. Now if it were used and at the right price, maybe so. Either way I am not too concerned what happens with someone else's guitar, but I will always try to give the most sound advice I can... Anyhow, best of luck!

 

That's a good point. But, if the OP were going to go to the trouble to replace the nut, they could also replace and re-notch the bridge saddles. With a stock bridge there should be enough of room to do that. I don't know if that would cause any other problems, but I don't think so.

 

Edit: Oh, but then the strings won't be over the pole pieces. eusa_doh.gif

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owned and rode a 1994 Suzuki GSX1100GP motorcycle, and I loved it.

I bought it brand new in 1995 in Alabama, and later sold in on Oahu in the year 2000.

 

I now own a 2015 Suzuki DR200S street-trail bike, and I love it.

I bought it brand new in 2016, and I still ride it.

 

New Gibson versus old Gibson;

It's a conversation about as relevant as the 1977 Oldsmobile versus the 2019 Chevrolet.

It all depends on whether the car or guitar was made on a Monday or a Wednesday.

 

[unsure]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, regarding the spacing at the bridge, I don't see this as being an issue. Because the original spacing remains the same the way the stock nut is configured, this tells me that the distance between the edges of the fingerboard and each outer string should be the same as it is at the nut all the way down the neck. Therefore, if I increase the spacing at the nut by 0.05" on each side, but keep the spacing at the bridge the same, according to a rough set of calcs I just ran, the change in distance between the outer strings and the edge of the fingerboard at, say, the 16th fret, where the neck joins the body, should be only about 0.020". I consider this amount of displacement to be negligible, so no modification of bridge saddles would be needed.

 

Regarding centering of the strings over the pickup pole pieces, according to another set of rough calcs I just ran, the difference in location of the string is insignificant. Much less than the widths of the high and low E strings themselves.

 

So, bottom line, I don't see there being a problem with respect to cutting a wider nut for a 2015 Les Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...