Gibson les paul studio vs les paul classic

[marcbc]

I have a gibson les paul studio but after a little snooping on ebay i saw that i could get a classic for not much money more. SO i currently have my guitar on craigs list do you think

that a studio to a classic is a good up grade??

[FennRx]

it can be. on the classic, i hate the snot green inlays and the gross ceramic pickups. the neck is also thinner than i prefer. if the classic is from the early 90s, then it is definitely a deal.

 

if you get the classic, change the PUs 1st thing.

[bullet22]

In reality, all you'll get over your Studio is the binding of the Classic.

 

The PUPs are horrible on the Classic, so you'll probably end up changing them for something like what's on your Studio now.

 

Yeah - there's the slim neck, which a lot of people prefer.

 

Try playing one.

[crossroadsnyc]

Hi Marc,

 

before you do anything, go play the classic to make sure you like it. speaking for myself, I don't think it's a worthwhile upgrade - and you'll wind up having to sink additional money into it to change the pups (the ceramics are just awful). there are a lot of people who love the classic, but I'm not one of them.

 

not trying to rain on your parade, but when making a decision like this I think it's best to be sure you know you are doing the right thing.

[SRV-Zeppelin]

Just to specify... is this a LP Classic or a Classic Custom? the custom has 57s pups and nice inlays and is definitely a huge upgrade from a studio, and a great deal if you can get it for just a little more. the regular classic though... in your case i'd stick with the studio.

[T50]

The Classic models come with 500T/486R pickups that are the

hottest pickups Gibson makes. These pickups also go on Vs and Explorers.

I have a LP Classic from late 90s and loved the sizzling crunch of the 500T.

These pickups do what they are supposed to do. I'd go with a Classic if the

prices are the same.

[mr.chEn]

i think its a great upgrade.. the binding.. pearl headstock logo, and 60's neck.

 

i would wait before i switch the pickups.. so many people say they suck or theyre aweful, but i know all kinds of people who use those pickups for very soulful un distorted blues.

 

my friend has a strat with duncan noise canceling pickups and there are people who come up to him and say they envy his tone.

food for thought!

[MI_Canuck]

Another vote for the Classic (assuming you like 60's neck). The pickups are a personal preference thing. For instance, I happen to like the 490R/498T in my SG Standard - but many don't. Depends what sound you are looking for.

 

The Studio look more utilitarian, while the Classic looks more, well, classic (in the sense of a LP - binding on body and neck, pearloid headstock inlay, color).

[mr.chEn]

I noticed you also posted a thread in the epiphone forums.. i know exactly what your going through.. you want a better guitar but your not sure if its really better better, and you just want some confirmation that your doing a smart purchase.. i know exactly how it feels and i can tell you right now.. that if your wondering about it.. you will not be satisfied until you get it..

 

also keep in mind, if you play out alot and want to have a very standard looking les paul, go for the classic..

the les paul studio is exactly what it the name intends it to be, a studio guitar which was meant to sound and play great, but doesnt need the bells and whistles because its only a studio guitar. hope that helps.

[NeoConMan]

My vote is for the Classic, I've had one since 2000 (see avatar) and I love EVERYTHING about it now that I got rid of the ceramics. You've gotten alot of good advice so far.

 

To me, the Studio looks like an old cop car with the dinky dog-dish hubcaps, no chrome, and a vinyl bench seat.

Even new, they have zero visual flair unless you spring for the $$$$ top.

That's just me, and I'll be the first to tell you they play great despite the fatter neck.

 

The 60 slim taper neck is my preference, many Epiphones are pretty slim if that's what you've played before.

The neck is the whole reason I bought my Classic to start with - I sold two earlier Les Paul Standards (86 & 93) because I could never adjust to the fatter neck profile after playing Fenders so long.

 

After I bought mine, Gibson made the slim neck optional on the Standard - so there was a choice finally.

 

The Classic is basically a 1960 reissue without the price tag, and WAY undervalued in the used market.

My dealer has new ones for under $2k.

 

Two things to consider:

I have seen a couple that had the most disgusting snot-green inlays, many are a little off-color. Mine are fine.

 

The ceramic pickup is a matter of taste, but almost universally hated among players I know.

I have Burstbucker Pro's in mine now, in retrosect I would have put the 57 Classic/57 Plus in it.

Can't go wrong getting a Classic, just don't lose your *** selling your Studio to do it.

 

Good luck!

[nolongermike@gibson]

Classic, Studio..... exact same guitar until the body is rabbited for binding and the neck is set with the slim-taper neck. I've had mine for 14 years now, and I love it. I tricked my out a little back then when I was working for the company and it was OK back then to get a little help from the guys in the plant after hours to make your guitar all you wanted. Mine was originally a Dark Wineburst Les Paul Classic. Wine red back and neck, and then the purple-ish wine burst on the Plus top. But I wanted a cherry sunburst. Only problem, none were in stock. So, after work was done, a factory pal who worked in repairs, who later went out to make the original "tye dye" limited runs, traded me a Gibson denim jacket for helping me re-do the top. We "zipped it" which basically made the finish on the top peel right off of it using a heater he had to do this. It basically took it right down to the wood. We rubbed some kind of oil into it to make the flame pop a little more, and then, a guitarist's dream come true, I got to stand there with him while he re-painted just the top and tell him exactly how much burst to give it. So my "Classic" now has the wine-red back and neck, but the best cherry sunburst ever.... just barely lightly sprayed around the outside edges.

 

I love the cream colored pick guard and binding, and the woman who made them cut a set out for me from some scrap cream material. Even though I actually liked the stock pickups, I really wanted double-cream to match the rest of it. I got them. I can't tell you who made them, it wasn't Gibson, and they are not Dimarzio Super Distortions, they were put together for me special, and they sound like a set of Antiquity pickups from SD. They HOWL! Borderline microphonic, in a very good way. :)

 

I played this guitar almost exclusively the first few years I had it, but when I started buying others with different neck profiles, especially when I bought the '59 Reissue, I started getting really fond of the fat neck profile, too. All in all, I'd say its a toss up between my '59 reissue, and the 1994 Classic for me. They sound different (the reissue I put a pair of Burstbuckers into), they feel different... but they are both wonderful.

 

So, choice between Studio and Classic? Honestly, its all about neck profiles in my opinion. The rest is purely cosmetic. The difference is strictly neck profile and cosmetics, and pickups depending on the year I suppose. Personally, I think the white Les Paul Studios look really cool, too. I've been impressed with the variety of Studio models they've done over the years, too.

[FennRx]

 

The Classic is basically a 1960 reissue without the price tag' date=' and WAY undervalued in the used market.

 

[/quote']

 

read my lips: A Classic is NOT AT ALL like a 1960 Reissue without the price tag.

 

lol

[NeoConMan]

I beg to differ Fenn.

 

I was reading the book on Les Pauls by Tony Bacon again, he goes thru the reissue thing with some detail.

Many of the reissues Gibson did since the seventies were that in name only - not even CLOSE to the real thing.

They simply marketed something and it was never faithful to the original.

 

The Classic took the elements of the 1960 Les Paul with the small headstock and slim neck that were available on no other Les Paul in the line up back then, added a pickguard with "1960" stamped on it and there it was.

 

Is it the microscopically correct R-0 we see now?

No, but it was closer than anything they had built before after years of NOTHING like a '60 LP in the line.

 

Only in the past few years has the Custom Shop really made the effort to faithfully reproduce the full line of Les Pauls from 52 to 68, this is a recent thing....

 

So, is a Classic basically a 1960 reissue without the price tag?

I'll say yes, considering 15 years ago there was no other option and the guitar is largely unchanged since then.

 

Tell you what, do you still want to call a Studio a Les Paul?

I don't.

:-)

[FennRx]

I beg to differ Fenn.

 

I was reading the book on Les Pauls by Tony Bacon again' date=' he goes thru the reissue thing with some detail.

Many of the reissues Gibson did since the seventies were that in name only - not even CLOSE to the real thing.

They simply marketed something and it was never faithful to the original.

 

The Classic took the elements of the 1960 Les Paul with the small headstock and slim neck that were available on no other Les Paul in the line up back then, added a pickguard with "1960" stamped on it and there it was.

 

Is it the microscopically correct R-0 we see now?

No, but it was closer than anything they had built before after years of NOTHING like a '60 LP in the line.

 

Only in the past few years has the Custom Shop really made the effort to faithfully reproduce the full line of Les Pauls from 52 to 68, this is a recent thing....

 

So, is a Classic basically a 1960 reissue without the price tag?

I'll say yes, considering 15 years ago there was no other option and the guitar is largely unchanged since then.

 

Tell you what, do you still want to call a Studio a Les Paul?

I don't.

:-)[/quote']

 

when the classic came out, yes it was the closer to being a 1960 reissue but the specs on the classic changed my friend...ie gibson removed the abr-1 and the thin binding in the cutaway. what the classic became was essentially a USA Standard with a plaintop and ceramic pickups. which is why i said, if it an early 90s classic- grab it! if it was like the one i had, forget it.

 

My Studio is a 1995 model. It has identical specs as the 1995 Les Paul Standard except it has no binding. It is the same guitar. So yes, my Studio is a real Les Paul. I think that for the Studio to remain true to its intention, then it should be updated to the same specs as the Standard. However, as I said before....the Studio clearly sells well- its specs have remained the same for quite some time.

[nolongermike@gibson]

That is true, Fenn. The only difference between a Standard and a Studio in the 90's was the binding. I saw them go from wood to final assembly, and it was luck of the draw as to what was on the list to be made as to which direction that carved-top neckless body went if it was graded to be a painted Les Paul. It would have back then ended up an ebony Standard, or a Studio in Alpine White or Ebony back then. I recall a dark period where somebody decided to take the inlays from the studio and make them dots. I always cringed at that. When they took them back to the 90's look like a standard I was relieved. :)

 

Honestly, I am only back a couple of weeks and haven't had the chance to immerse myself in the differences between a 90's Standard and a current one. Feel free to catch me up to speed. From a glance they look now like they did then.

[FennRx]

That is true' date=' Fenn. The only difference between a Standard and a Studio in the 90's was the binding. I saw them go from wood to final assembly, and it was luck of the draw as to what was on the list to be made as to which direction that carved-top neckless body went if it was graded to be a painted Les Paul. It would have back then ended up an ebony Standard, or a Studio in Alpine White or Ebony back then. I recall a dark period where somebody decided to take the inlays from the studio and make them dots. I always cringed at that. When they took them back to the 90's look like a standard I was relieved. :)

 

Honestly, I am only back a couple of weeks and haven't had the chance to immerse myself in the differences between a 90's Standard and a current one. Feel free to catch me up to speed. From a glance they look now like they did then.[/quote']

 

well the std from 2002-current have the BB Pros instead of the 490/498 pus. the other specs remained the same until 2008. now the std has a locking cord jack, strap locks, completely different electronics, a new humongous neck tenon, plek setup, etc.

[nolongermike@gibson]

Awesome, thanks! I was a walking encyclopedia of models from the USA factory division in the 90's, but I'm not 100% up to speed now. Give me time. I appreciate you cluing me in, there.

 

 

well the std from 2002-current have the BB Pros instead of the 490/498 pus. the other specs remained the same until 2008. now the std has a locking cord jack' date=' strap locks, completely different electronics, a new humongous neck tenon, plek setup, etc.[/quote']

[FennRx]

minor things might have changed as well.....i think some stds had grovers on them. it all runs together.:)

[AS90]

I have owned both, and TBH other than the pickups they both play the same. I currently have a wine red Studio but Im gassing big time for an Alpine White one.