Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Les Paul body construction


Tim Plains

Recommended Posts

Thought I'd post this in case there's any confusion or misunderstanding.

There are two types of Les Pauls - Gibson USA and Gibson Custom Shop.

 

Gibson USA

If you read enough threads, sooner or later you'll discover that weight-relief started around 1982/1983. Every Gibson USA Les Paul between 1982 - 2007 is weight-relieved. They do not have solid-body construction. Weight-relief is when nine holes are drilled out of the body in order to reduce the weight of the guitar.

 

Chambering officially began for 2007. Every 2007 and newer Gibson USA Les Paul is chambered, except for the Les Paul Traditional. The Les Paul Traditional is weight-relieved. Internet rumors are that chambering actually began in October 2006. Chambering is essentially hollowing out the body. Again, this is in order to reduce the weight of the guitar.

 

Gibson Custom Shop

Gibson's Custom Shop makes regular production guitars and historic reissues. The regular production guitars, such as the Les Paul Custom, are also weight-relieved. They are not solid. The historic reissues, '58 reissue (R8), '59 reissue (R9), etc, are solid. All historic reissues, be it Standards or Customs, are solid. The exception being the chambered reissues. Chambered reissues are often referred to as Cloud 9 guitars. They are identified by their serial number, which begins with CR. www.chambered-reissue.org

 

So, a quick test...

 

A 2003 Les Paul Classic is weight-relieved.

A 2008 '57 reissue is solid.

A 1995 Les Paul Standard is weight-relieved.

A 2008 Les Paul Studio is chambered.

A 1984 Les Paul Custom is weight-relieved.

etc.

 

This is what a chambered Les Paul looks like:

Chamber_BFG_2007.jpg

 

This is what a weight-relieved Les Paul looks like:

1998LPstandardradiograph.jpg

 

And this is what a solid Les Paul looks like:

R950th009e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And this is what a solid Les Paul looks like:

R950th009e.jpg

 

 

Some chambered and weight relieved les pauls look like that too... :-

 

 

 

 

Anyway... I was wondering, is there any sience to the weight relieving holes? If you look at the chambering image it looks very well planned and nicely done, very professional job in there... lots of care and attention to detail.

 

Now you look at those swiss cheese holes and some of them are not aligned as one would expect... and don't say they are meant to be that way... my opinion is they didnt even care and made the designed number of holes somewhere near the desired place, as oposed to those chambers that are made to fit certain spaces and so have to be done the right way or they end up trashing a perfectly good guitar.

 

Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what a weight-relieved Les Paul looks like:

1998LPstandardradiograph.jpg

 

 

If I want one of these can I assk for one with nickel hardware and black (or covered) pickups or do I have to buy one with all white? 'cause I don't think I like white hardware and pickups that much... (not to mention those weird white knobs that look like pots)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Some chambered and weight relieved les pauls look like that too... :-

 

 

 

 

Anyway... I was wondering' date=' is there any sience to the weight relieving holes? If you look at the chambering image it looks very well planned and nicely done, very professional job in there... lots of care and attention to detail.

 

Now you look at those swiss cheese holes and some of them are not aligned as one would expect... and don't say they are meant to be that way... my opinion is they didnt even care and made the designed number of holes somewhere near the desired place, as oposed to those chambers that are made to fit certain spaces and so have to be done the right way or they end up trashing a perfectly good guitar.

 

Opinions?[/quote']

 

Following is just stuff I've read from the Gibson website:

 

Supposedly the original weight relief was done without any rhyme or reason. When the guitars were made, they just routed out some wood before the cap was put on. Some time in the 80s they put some researchers/engineers onto a project to find out how drilling holes like this affects tone/sustain/etc and then assigned that research team to design a routing system to reduce the weight of the Les Paul while still maintaining all of the sonic integrity of the instrument. Basically, that's how they started chambering guitars instead of just drilling holes in them. They found the chambers increased sustain and blah blah blah all that other stuff that Gibson writes on their site to advertise how awesome their guitars are.

 

At least, that's what I've gathered so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is what a chambered Les Paul looks like:

Chamber_BFG_2007.jpg

 

This is what a weight-relieved Les Paul looks like:

1998LPstandardradiograph.jpg

 

 

Are those original x-ray bursts, or RI's? I've found that the white jacks they used on the originals make them sound smoother than the reissues. Just my .02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think the SG sounds soo Good. Maybe because it's soild. Thin, but soild.

 

Shocking and Amazing what people will get used too.

 

Why do you have to pay Gibson 5 grand or more to get a soild paul.

 

When will they wake up and offer one thats soild as an option in all of the les paul line up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluemoon, of course I still have it. Why would you think I didn't? I just bought the guitar last week.

 

Why do you think the SG sounds soo Good. Maybe because it's soild. Thin' date=' but soild.

 

When will they wake up and offer one thats soild as an option in all of the les paul line up. [/quote']

ES-335s sound better than SGs. What do you have to say about that?

Why would Gibson "wake up" and offer solid Les Pauls in the Gibson USA line when people are obviously willing to pay the premium and buy Custom Shop models? They'd hurt their own sales by doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ES-335s sound better than SGs. What do you have to say about that?

Why would Gibson "wake up" and offer solid Les Pauls in the Gibson USA line when people are obviously willing to pay the premium and buy Custom Shop models? They'd hurt their own sales by doing so.

 

 

 

 

Maybe you know the answer o this one Tim, isn't it more expensive to make a chambered guitar? I mean, they have to do the routing, chambers, and other stuff, no matter how its done (man or machine) it has to increase the cost (and the time it takes to build each guitar which translates in other factory and salaries costs)...

 

Did you buy your chambered RI new or used? Do they sell new for the same amount as a non-chambered reissue?

 

 

I, like max, do think Gibson should offer some solid bodied USA guiutars, maybe a special edition on the standard, but of course as you noted, it would defeat the purpose of the solid reissue line (though there are other differences).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

335 Sound real good and different than an SG. Both sound Great.

 

But the Chambered paul is look-in like a 335 hollow body to me.

 

If I want a 335 I'll get one. Don't want it Disguised as a paul.

 

Right now many, many Manufactures are churning out soild body Les pauls

 

to fill in the gap thats missing in the Gibson les paul line-up. To name just one. Agile 3100M.

 

A soild 2 piece Mayhogany body with a full 3/4 inch Maple Cap. Non weight relieved and non Chambered

 

I just like Gibson to do that and I think in the long run they would take back those sales that are lost to others and profit more in the long run if offered in the Studio and Standard line-ups as a option.

 

Just an old Greeks opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunder, I would assume that chambering a guitar costs them more time & money than leaving the body solid.

They probably have a machine that carves out several at a time and that machine wasn't free.

 

If you go to GC.com right now, the R8s & CR8s cost the same - $3,700, US. Before the last price hike, CR8s cost around $300 more than regular R8s. My CR8 is a 2007. I bought it used and I'm the third owner. I bought it for $2,800, Canadian, which works out to around $2,300 US. A flame top reissue for under $3,000, CDN is a steal, if you ask me. I could probably list it on craiglist right now and get at least $3,500, CDN for it.

 

Just an old Greeks opinion.

I just realized who this is...

How the **** are you do-in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo Are-Nine Dude. As Always I'm Do-in Good.

 

And yourself, Great I hope. Hows everything in Are-Nine world?

 

Good you Noticed and Great Post. Good info on what Gibson has been Doing For all that have complained (Damn Bastards) about the weight of the Legendary Beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Maybe you know the answer o this one Tim' date=' isn't it more expensive to make a chambered guitar? I mean, they have to do the routing, chambers, and other stuff, no matter how its done (man or machine) it has to increase the cost (and the time it takes to build each guitar which translates in other factory and salaries costs)...

 

Did you buy your chambered RI new or used? Do they sell new for the same amount as a non-chambered reissue?

 

 

I, like max, do think Gibson should offer some solid bodied USA guiutars, maybe a special edition on the standard, but of course as you noted, it would defeat the purpose of the solid reissue line (though there are other differences).[/quote']

Thanx's ThunderGod Dude. It's good to have a Ecuadorian King-pin God in my Corner for many reason's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...