Need information on Gibson LP Standard models.

[JkGriffin]

Good afternoon Gents... and perhaps ladies...

 

I seached a forum like this because I have a few questions about my Gibson Les Paul Standard.

I just found that my LP don't have the same serial number as the checklist that I found in the case (took me only a year and a half), so I'm tryin' to figure out what this means for me.

 

In the autum 2007, I bought a Gibson Les Paul Standard. This should have been from the 2004 models that were sold slightly cheaper then usual... approx. 2600$ against the usual 3800$ (expensive in Norway).

 

Well, I was tryin' to figure out what finish I have on my LP since I don't remember, and I can't find it on Gibson.com anymore... closest is 2008 models.

Anyway, the pre-pcak checklist indicates that the serial number should have been 027750414. I found (if I understood this correctly) that this was a October 4th, 2005 model. Model no. is LP6+CANHI (I think, bad writer the guy who wrote it), but that don't tell me anything.

 

However, my guitar have a completely different serialnumber (001870487). After my understanding, this was made in 18th January 2007... What number and what plant I didn't fully get...

 

So here's the thing:

I bought a 2004 Gibson Les Paul Standard.

I have papers on a 2005 Gibson Les Paul Standard

I have a 2007 Gibson Les Paul Standard (if my understanding of the serialnumber are correct).

 

I have been told that Gibson have a varying quality on their guitars after when they are made, although I don't have more information on this.

 

So I wonder if I got what I payed for??? Is the 2007 an equal or better guitar than 2004... or 2005 even?

Is there any reasons for me to take any actions... in case, what?

 

Thank you for all help I can get...

 

Pictures of the guitar btw:

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=178063

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=178065

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=178061

[Tim Plains]

If the serial number on the back of the headstock is 001870487, it's a 2007 and it's chambered.

Read this http://forums.gibson.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=18137

 

Is a 2007 better than a 2005, you ask? Well, I'm sure your 2007 is better than a lot of the 2005s out there and I'm also sure that there are a lot of 2005s that are better than your 2007. Confused?? This means that one year is not better than another. It really comes down to each individual guitar.

[DaHooomie]

Hmm. Kan ikke hjelpe. Kommer sikkert flere smarte råd fra andre medlemmer...

[JkGriffin]

If the serial number on the back of the headstock is 001870487' date=' it's a 2007 and it's chambered.

Read this http://forums.gibson.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=18137

 

Is a 2007 better than a 2005, you ask? Well, I'm sure your 2007 is better than a lot of the 2005s out there and I'm also sure that there are a lot of 2005s that are better than your 2007. Confused?? This means that one year is not better than another. It really comes down to each individual guitar.[/quote']

Then I have understood it right... the serials I mean.

Reading your post on Chambered, weight-relieved and solid, the 2007 should be better, as this is engineered to relieve weight without damaging the sound to much. If not, I'm sure Gibson would have kept the nine holes of weight-relieveing...which is basically the answer I was looking for. I got what I paid for and them some... the 2007 is more expensive than the 2004... probably for a reason.

 

I'm aware that guitar quality is somewhat individual... among 30 shitty gitars of the same brand, model and year you might actually find a bargain. I have done that a few times... I have also tried a really crappy Gibson LP Standard in Gøteborg (Sweden) at a guitarshop. That was apparently a 2004 model.

 

My guess is then that no action needs to be taken since I got what I paid for, and if I should within the next few years have a varanty-issue, I doubt they'll check if I have my pre-packing checklist to go with it...

 

Did you see my pictures... do you recognize the finish?

And can you tell what the four last digitz of the serial number means? 0487?

The "0" is the batch number. I found that it was stamped in the beginning of the day. Very unacurate information if this is all it says. The "487" is the plant number, but what plant?

 

Hmm. Kan ikke hjelpe. Kommer sikkert flere smarte råd fra andre medlemmer...

Jojo... men det er tanken som teller :-

[Tim Plains]

I can't remember the exact name of that finish. Definitely a darkburst, though. The letters of your finish are CA because that's what's in your model number.

 

Chambering doesn't "damage" sound. It just produces a different tone. The only reason chambering was introduced was so that Gibson could use heavier pieces of wood. That's the only reason, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, they'd be selling a lot of Standards over 10 lbs and people would begin complaining about weight again. They still make weight-relieved LPs.

 

487 means your guitar was the 487th Gibson USA guitar built on that day. The 0 means batch number and the batch number. Here, I got this from their website.

 

NOTE - Gibson USA goes to a 9 digit serial number in early July 2005..

The sixth number is now a batch number- batch 0 starts at the beginning of the day, and once we stamp 699, the batch number will change to 1. The first 5 numbers remain the same, the last 3 numbers will remain the same. The only difference is the addition of this batch indicator.

[JkGriffin]

Thanks...

 

When you quoted it and I read it one more time, I got the message...

 

I get a little smarter each day... :-/

[ant7629]

Mine is a 2007, think the finish was called Tobacco Sunburst, but its now called Vintage Sunburst. I guess they thought it would stop people from smoking....

 

[Corrosion of conformity]

In my opinion, the older the Les Paul you have, the better quality of the guitar, but that's just my opinion. I don't have much experience with the 2007 models though, so that might be an exception.

[JkGriffin]

Well... the wood in the guitar will age with time and do something with the sound which obviously you prefer...

It's not like guitarmakers are in their prime while they are appretices and get worse by the years...

 

I was told there were some LP's in early 80's or late 70's or something like that when the Gibson LP's were a sad chapter in Gibsons history...

[LPguitarman]

I believe you finish is called Vintage Sunburst.

[pippy]

In my opinion' date=' the older the Les Paul you have, the better quality of the guitar, but that's just my opinion. I don't have much experience with the 2007 models though, so that might be an exception.[/quote']

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the older the LP is the better it will be?

[deepblue]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the older the LP is the better it will be?

 

Im curious as well.

I believe the Gibsons made today are the best ever. Sure, there will be horror stories every once in a while.

Thats to be expected with hand made instruments ( for the most part)

[Thundergod]

Well... the wood in the guitar will age with time and do something with the sound which obviously you prefer...

It's not like guitarmakers are in their prime while they are appretices and get worse by the years...

 

 

It was about time someone said that...

 

[Corrosion of conformity]

 

Just out of curiosity' date=' why do you think the older the LP is the better it will be?[/quote']

 

I think that gibson's quality in their new Les Paul models has been declining. From what I've played, I always prefer the older model. As JKGriffin said earlier, the wood will age with time and change the sound slightly, but it won't be a big difference. I just prefer the overall quality of the older models, and some of them I think have better features, such as the grover tuners gibson doesn't put on the standards anymore. JkGriffin also said the late 70's and early 80's Les Pauls were also of low quality, but I haven't played enough on models that old to judge those properly.

[JkGriffin]

HiFi people claim to hear a huge difference if they have put 300$/meter for their speaker audio cables than if they use a 100$/meter audio cable. They do however fail miserably if put to a test... This even goes with various mp3 quality files vs. cd.

I believe that what they hear is more a psychological thing than the actual sound difference itself... as a dog won't even hear the difference.

I believe that the reason they "feel" (not actually hear) it's better is because they have put more into their audio system... both with regards of money and maybe work. Could be that they have designed the room to be perfectly adjusted to their speaker setup...

 

What I'm trying to say is that if it's not the "agening" sound in older Les Pauls you like, it is probably a more psychological thing for you as well. Understandable though. I have tried a late 60's Les Paul AND almost just as old Fender Stratocaster (hope I don't get banned for mentioning a Fender on this forum )... don't remember the exact years as this was many years ago. I too thought they were much better to play, and this was just when I started playing guitar, so I didn't really get the sound difference as my ear wasn't as trained as now. But I have to be honest with myself... I thought they were better because they are such and old high quality artifact.

 

The agening of the wood does make quite a difference... easier to hear acousticly though. Just check out Paul from Guitarworld here:

 

Bear in mind before you start defending your point of view, that I do not attack your opinion of the matter and respect the fact that you appriciate older guitars... they are after all...kinda special