EVOL! Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-USA/Les-Paul-Tribute-1952.aspx My dream guitar for as long as I can remember was a gold top Les Paul with cream P90s. If only I had the cash, this would be mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 Sorry. Here is the photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 My dream guitar for as long as I can remember was a gold top Les Paul with cream P90s. If only I had the cash' date=' this would be mine.[/quote'] I'd love to have one too, but would prefer an R6 with a stop tailpiece. The only other LP I've ever played that I liked as much as mine was one that belonged to an old friend. The last time I played it was probably around 15 years ago but I haven't forgotten it; it was a Custom Shop like an R6 (or maybe it was an R6) and it just boogied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The weight of the Les Paul Tribute is listed as 5.7 lbs which is very light for a Les Paul.... Does anyone know if it is chambered or weight relieved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myspace.com/jessenoah Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 it does look pretty snazzy, but I am sure that If i really wanted a wrap around and no ABR-1, I would get a R4 or a JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPguitarman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Don't like the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I was looking for a nun. JK I'm really not excited about it at all. I mean, the guitar has evolved way past the original introduction of the Les Paul. There are reasons Gibson's innovations were crafted into later Les Pauls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Looks great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I like it too.... Do I want one? Maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moguitar Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I've thought about getting a Goldtop LP with p-90s. However, I would get a modern one because of better construction and price! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverside Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Wasn't their a problem with the original Les Paul bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsol Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 would be a true "tribute" if it's price matched those of 1952 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS44 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 awesome stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Never been a fan of Gold Tops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod B Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Never been a fan of Gold Tops. Same here, although I might make an exception for that guitar. I love the hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Wasn't their a problem with the original Les Paul bridge? Yes. If I recall, the strings had to go under the tail, making the muting of strings almost impossible. The neck angle was incorrect for the tailpiece, or vise-versa, so they weren't the best players. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong. That tail is great for historical accuracy, but the '54 was a vast improvement... My dealer tells me every original and reissue '52-53 they ever sold went to collectors. They weren't purchased with playing in mind anyhow, just to complete a set or something. I understand the desire for the guitar, but give me a '56 anyday. TOM with P-90's - heavenly! I suppose a trapeze tail that could be strung over the top would be cool, that's what the pic shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I think the original tailpiece was not even studded to the body. I do not think this particular guitar is exactly like a '52, I do think it is tweaked to make it more functional, it is not being marketed as a '52 reissue. There was one at the Gibson Showcase but it was behind glass, I could not grab it and try it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 The weight of the Les Paul Tribute is listed as 5.7 lbs which is very light for a Les Paul.... Does anyone know if it is chambered or weight relieved? Under 6lbs?!?!?! Yeah, what's the deal? o.O Goldtops...don't think I have the "cool" to pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kluskie Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 It's just the body of the guitar that Gibson say is under 6 lbs not the entire guitar. Mine weighs in at 9.2 lbs and feels great - they are not weight-relieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak show Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Wasn't their a problem with the original Les Paul bridge? Yup. If any of you have "The Gibson Les Paul Book" by Bacon and Day' date=' you can read about it on p.17-20. Here's a sample of what Les said: "They made the first guitar wrong. [...'] When they sent me mine, I stopped them, said this won't even play." (p.20) Considering this, it's sort of ironic that Gibson would issue this guitar as a "Les Paul Tribute"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kluskie Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Yes, the original '52 was made different to Les' original design with the incorrect neck angle so they had to string the bridge incorrectly. The Tribute model addresses this by having the correct angle and using Les' original bridge design for the first time with the strings going over the bridge rather than under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Yes.If I recall' date=' the strings had to go under the tail, making the muting of strings almost impossible. The neck angle was incorrect for the tailpiece, or vise-versa, so they weren't the best players. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong. That tail is great for historical accuracy, but the '54 was a vast improvement... ...I suppose a trapeze tail that could be strung over the top would be cool, that's what the pic shows.[/quote'] You are correct. The 'Trapeze' on the guitar in question is different to the 1952 production instruments; it is made according to Les Paul's own original drawing - the one put out on the first thousand or so GT's was of a slightly different, Gibson, design. I'm assuming the 'new' design works perfectly. Someone on the forum has posted a clip of him playing his '52 Tribute. As kluskie says, the problem wasn't the design of the bridge. The problem was Gibson didn't angle the neck back from the body enough so that when the strings were wrapped over even a fully lowered bridge the action was still way, way too high to enable the instrument to be played. According to Les Paul he himself called Gibson after he received his own instrument from them and told them they needed to increase the neck-break angle. By this time the production/delivery had already commenced and it was too late to bring them back. The only way the first batch of instruments could be played was to raise the height of the bridge and under-wrap the strings. This, unfortunately, made them very uncomfortable to play and it was practically impossible, as Neo says, to palm-mute the strings. There are photo's of two such examples in the Tony Bacon LP book. Both are understrung and both are owned by Mike Slubowski (of LPF fame!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak show Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Yes' date=' the original '52 was made different to Les' original design with the incorrect neck angle so they had to string the bridge incorrectly. [b']The Tribute model addresses this by having the correct angle and using Les' original bridge design for the first time[/b] with the strings going over the bridge rather than under. If that's the case, then I take back what I said about it being ironic. The way it looks, Gibson finally admitted Les was right and did it "his way". That's certainly a Tribute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.