Chambered reissue or Custon Shop Les Paul Florentine

[Bandit2003]

What are the similarites or differences between the Custom Shop Florentine and the Chambered Reissue's.

[CR9]

They are similar because they both have chambers. In the past version of the Florentine the chambers were not as large, or not in the same areas, as the Chambered reissues. With present production it would not surprise me if the only difference would be the F hole. I have not seen a new Florentine in years.

 

The older Florentine's had these basic chambers (circled in black):

 

The Chambered reissues (and possibly the new Florentine) has chambers like this:

 

 

 

[brundaddy]

What a waste of wood. So much routing!

[CR9]

Its actually a wonderful waste of wood. A lot of the bodies would be too heavy for a normal guitar but once routed, they can be used. Most really sound fantastic. The chambers give them a great mid tone that makes them sound closer to a vintage Les Paul than those with the weight reduction holes drilled in them.

 

Take the word of Ed King:

Ed King reports on his chambered Les Paul

[brundaddy]

So the idea is that chambering compensates for poor tonality of the mahogany they currently use, paraphrasing what King says. I say it is absurd to 'reissue' anything after radically changing the original design.

[57classic]

Old growth wood can't be replicated. Look at chambering as another way of getting from point A to point B.

Could it be also that the newer Gibson pickups are more like the vintage ones than we thought?

As to calling it a reissue, I agree if you aren't going to make it like the original, how can it be a reissue?

[CR9]

The mahogany is not really poor tonal quality. It is too heavy. Weight and tone quality are not interchangeable terms. They started by using a wood that may have been too heavy for a solid Historic guitars. Many have said that a heavy Les Paul, like a Custom, has better tone than a light one. Others say that a super light one sounds best. That is based on the cellular structure of the heavy wood compared to the structure of the light mahogany. Another option is to make the back thinner or not use some of the wood. I had one made as a custom order from the heaviest block of mahogany the Custom shop had. It had been sitting on a shelf for year. They estimated that it would have made a 14 or 15 pound Les Paul. It came in at 8.3 pounds. The block it started with was 12 pounds were they are usually around 8 or 9 pounds.

 

Les Paul said that he and Mary Ford had several "hollow" Les Paul guitars that they used during the 50's. I guess that could be called radical, but the chambered guitar can also be called historically correct too. As we know, Les preferred to play a Les Paul Personal and Les Paul Recording with low impedance pickups and that could also be called a radical change to the original design. Over the years many of the changes could be called a radical change.

[57classic]

True that there have been many changes and variations through the years but the issue is the reissue (sorry for that).

A "reissue" implies that you are recreating a replica of a specific item. While I like chambered LP's, shouldn't reissues be accurate?

[CR9]

So everybody wants the original? How many of you would buy a 52?

Everything after that is a "change". The 52 reissues just don't sell. We aren't driving Model T Fords either. We are not forced to by a chambered Les Paul. There are some great solid body ones still being made. The chambered Les Paul is just as close to the originals that Les had as are the other solid reissues. Maybe they will reissue the late 70's Les Pauls with maple necks.

 

The reissue is to honor a model from earlier years, not duplicate the original.

 

I agree that the newer pickups are getting better all the time.

[57classic]

My question was really if a 59 reissue should be just like a 59 or a 58 should be just like a 58 and so on.

[CR9]

My question was really if a 59 reissue should be just like a 59 or a 58 should be just like a 58 and so on.

 

I say "yes" and the reissues are darned close based on the few original ones I have seen.

Other than using hot glue and the cover on the truss rod, how are they not like a 58, 59 or etc.? What do you mean by "just like"? Does it have to be everything exactly the same? What changes can be allowed? Is it just looks and maybe neck profile? These are the things they talk about before doing a reissue. You will never have the old lacquer from the 50's thanks to governemtn regulations, unless you want the guitar finished in another country.

Gibson has gone to lengths to get many originals in and measure, photograph and even x-ray them to get as close as possible.

You hear lots say that this or that isn't right but these were all hand build and there was varitaion even between adjacent serial numbered guitars. The people that say things are wrong usually can not provide physical proof, or they are basing it off one or 2 guitars they have seen. Yes they have had to make some averages.

Is a 58 reissue supposed to be a burst? I have a friend that has a 58 goldtop that he bought new. I don't think I have ever seen a 58 goldtop reissue, but I haven't been looking.

 

Are you saying the a chambered or hollow Les Paul is not accurate?

Because we have not seen everything they made, we can not say the chambered Les Paul is not accurate, but I think I will take Les Paul's word when he said he had them in the 50's.

This is a guy that could play a string on a railroad track. He had all kinds of different stuff that most of us have never seen or hear of. Gibson has had many chances to see his stuff.

 

 

I guess the short answer is "yes".

[brundaddy]

My only point is that it is absurd to fundamentally redesign something and call it a reissue. I bet LP did have chambered guitars, hell-- Gretsch had beaucoup chambered models in their regular production line... decades before Gibson. We're not talking about Les Paul's one-off custom-built guitars.

 

And who's talking about '52s? We're talking about the R9 compared to an original 1959, and the fact that there is a giant difference in the build technique, computerized automation aside. That's a whooooole other issue people have with calling today's Gibsons "handmade in the USA."

[CR9]

My only point is that it is absurd to fundamentally redesign something and call it a reissue. I bet LP did have chambered guitars, hell-- Gretsch had beaucoup chambered models in their regular production line... decades before Gibson. We're not talking about Les Paul's one-off custom-built guitars.

 

And who's talking about '52s? We're talking about the R9 compared to an original 1959, and the fact that there is a giant difference in the build technique, computerized automation aside. That's a whooooole other issue people have with calling today's Gibsons "handmade in the USA."

 

We were originally talking about Florentine and chambered reissues chambers. The reissue vs solid body debate should be moved to another thread so this one can get back on topic.

 

I agree with you that it should be some other term, but the reissue term is also not what it used to be.

 

Your complaint is with the reissue word being used. By most definitions, reissue is correct. A reissue of a music album today is usually in CD format, not on vinyl. The original pressing machines are not used today, they s are computer generated. The media is changed, the artwork is not printed in the same manner, the packing material is different. The only thing that remains the same is the music and even some of those are digitally remastered and yet they call them reissues.