ES Les Paul Studio?

[gpboyce]

Hey all,

 

Trying to figure out if there is a ES Les Paul and an ES Les Paul Studio? If so, are the differences similar to the Les Paul and Les Paul Studio?

 

Thanks. 

[gnappi]

Yes, there WERE both models. I don't have a Les Paul Studio to compare to a standard Les Paul but do have both LP-ES models.

On the studio (Mine is a studio II) compared to the higher end LP-ES the main differences are:

The top is flat, there is no pickguard, the neck is not bound, the front and back of the body is bound black instead of cream, the head has gold Gibson (not pearloid)   the back is painted with a dark almost black stain, markers are dot as opposed to trapezoid, pups are 57's (in place of MHS) and the FB is baked maple not rosewood.

Neither ES are a Les Paul in the conventional sense, they have the shape and neck of a Les Paul as well as conventional hardware setup but that's where the similarity ends.

Both are mostly hollow bodied gits (not semi-hollow like a 335 with a center block) with a front and back and rather light at around 6lb 6 oz.  

PS The studio plays as good as the much higher end LP-ES model but I give the 57's an edge over the somewhat shrill MHS pups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by gnappi

[gpboyce]

Hey. Thanks for that great description. Really helps. 

[Wmachine]

On 6/4/2019 at 10:17 AM, gnappi said:

On the studio (Mine is a studio II) compared to the higher end LP-ES the main differences are:.......Both are mostly hollow bodied gits (not semi-hollow like a 335 with a center block) with a front and back and rather light at around 6lb 6 oz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you sure you mean to say that?  I know that you know these models, but they are semi-hollow (Gibson calls them semi-solid) with a center block.

[Grog]

They do have a center block, but it is less substantial than an ES-335. Also, it is Mahogany VS Maple in the ES-335

 

[gnappi]

On 6/9/2019 at 8:40 PM, Wmachine said:

Are you sure you mean to say that?  I know that you know these models, but they are semi-hollow (Gibson calls them semi-solid) with a center block.

 

Yes, I meant to say that.  Gibson owns the right to call them what they want, I said they're mostly hollow and it sure looks it to me :-) 

[Wmachine]

23 hours ago, gnappi said:

 

Yes, I meant to say that.  Gibson owns the right to call them what they want, I said they're mostly hollow and it sure looks it to me 🙂

 

Fine if you call that a "not like a 335".  But they both are "semi hollow with a center block".

[gnappi]

6 hours ago, Wmachine said:

 

Fine if you call that a "not like a 335".  But they both are "semi hollow with a center block".

 

Any similarity to a 335 as a player's guitar is coincidental, play both you'll "get" it.  

 

[Wmachine]

16 hours ago, gnappi said:

 

Any similarity to a 335 as a player's guitar is coincidental, play both you'll "get" it.  

 

 

Construction is what was being addressed.   I have both and am familiar with differences from the playing both.

Back to the OP, Gnappi, you say you prefer the '57s over the MHS.  That's the first time I've ever heard MHS pups described as "shrill".  Usually the criticism is that they sound muddy, but that has been said as opposed to Burstbuckers in 335s (not my take on them, however).   So are you saying you actually prefer the Studio?

To the OP, to me, my ES-LP Studio (not a II) is relatively lifeless.  Not so much from the '57s, they seem to be fine, but the guitar itself.  It sounds okay, but that's it.  And "quality" is decent, but nothing to do with that.  By contrast, my ES-335 Studio sounds great (same '57 pups).  Not as good as my higher end ES-3x5 s, but still impressive for the Studio model.   I don't get that from the ES-LP Studio.   It just doesn't bring anything to the table that is isn't covered better by an ES-3xx or a Les Paul.   Just my take on it.

 

 

[gnappi]

15 hours ago, Wmachine said:

 

Construction is what was being addressed.   I have both and am familiar with differences from the playing both.

Back to the OP, Gnappi, you say you prefer the '57s over the MHS.  That's the first time I've ever heard MHS pups described as "shrill".  Usually the criticism is that they sound muddy, but that has been said as opposed to Burstbuckers in 335s (not my take on them, however).   So are you saying you actually prefer the Studio?

 

I like the studio II quite a bit, and it just sounds right to me, but the Lemon Burst with the MHS  plays a bit better, at one point it may get 57's in it.   

This is the fourth git I've had with MHS (two were returned with serious quality issues) and I can say that to my ears the MHS are not much better than burstbuckers which I'm not a fan of either. I've (so far) never owned or played a 57 that I don't like, and that's quite a few. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Larsongs]

I have a Gibson ES335 (MHS), LP Std. Plus (498R & 498T) & an ES Les Paul (MHS). All 3 are truly great Guitars..

The ES Les Paul's are Semi Hollow Guitars in the same vein as the ES335's.

Nothing against the Studios as far as the de-content other than the Pickups. The MHS Pickups, out of the dozen or so Gibsons I've owned, since my 1959 ES345 with those amazing Original PAF's, are the best & closest sounding Pickups I've ever heard or played...

They would make the Studio version sound like it has PAF's! Or closest to it...