Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Which new Les Paul model has a solid body (and is not chambered or weight relieved)?


brokenman

Recommended Posts

Can somebody please tell me a model that is not weight-relieved in any way?

I'm an old timer and I want my solid mahogany poundage back without having to take out a second mortgage on the house. Am I just gonna have to find an old one?

I realize a lot of folks complain about the weight, but that problem is easily solved with a good strap (and at 58, I have a bad back).

I've tried a lot of the new Les Paul's, and the missing weight, well, I just can't overcome.

Anybody know?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any new models that aren't weight relieved in some way. The one that comes closest is the Traditional, but I think that still has the swiss cheese holes. You may have to look for a R9, R8 or R7.

 

+1

 

As LPG says, the historic reissues are solid. As far as I know everything else is chambered or weight relieved (swiss cheese), unless it's a special run of some kind spec'ed as solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man. I've played a LP studio that weighed a good ten LBS. I've heard that the custom shop LP's get the lighter wood cuts and the grades below get the heavier cuts. I own a 08' Trad. and mine weighs in at 9.6 LBS.and it's weigh relieved. It also has a one piece back. The customs also get the one piece back. I played a 58' RI that weighed in at 8.2 LBS. It sounded great but like you I want it as dense and heavy as they can make em'.Rock on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you, I am in the same boat, I love heavier LPs. sorry no suggestions.

Can somebody please tell me a model that is not weight-relieved in any way?

I'm an old timer and I want my solid mahogany poundage back without having to take out a second mortgage on the house. Am I just gonna have to find an old one?

I realize a lot of folks complain about the weight, but that problem is easily solved with a good strap (and at 58, I have a bad back).

I've tried a lot of the new Les Paul's, and the missing weight, well, I just can't overcome.

Anybody know?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks folks for the replies... helps a lot, actually, as far as future decision-making goes.

And great informational post by you, R9. Thanks for the link.

 

Thought I'd heard something recently about some epiphone LPs might be 'non weight-relieved'

And who'd of thought we would be using such a term as "non-weight-relieved"? It's ridiculous when you think about it. And these chambered LP's are not true solid body guitars, I dare say. Someone had it right when they said, just go ahead and cut an F-hole into it and be done with it!

 

Those x-rays are enough to make a purist sick! They've cut out so much wood, they may as well just go ahead and cut out my heart and stomp that sucker flat! (to borrow a phrase from the late humorist Lewis Grizzard - yeah, I'm from the South - busted...) Looking at the xray of the chambered one, how much more wood could they possibly scrape out of these guitars? When wood is cut out, tone is lost! Sure you can still get the thick loud and raunchy that many players today like, but without the wood, it's much harder to launch into that nice warm & round, sweet & mellow tone that Les himself enjoyed.

 

Seriously guys, there's got to be more of us out there who want our wood back! I realize it's not for everybody, but if Gibson could AT LEAST make a factory special run of weighted LP's, that would help me and my heart.

 

Wood is Good! (a new battle-cry)

WOOD IS GOOD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those x-rays are enough to make a purist sick! They've cut out so much wood, they may as well just go ahead and cut out my heart and stomp that sucker flat! (to borrow a phrase from the late humorist Lewis Grizzard - yeah, I'm from the South - busted...) Looking at the xray of the chambered one, how much more wood could they possibly scrape out of these guitars? When wood is cut out, tone is lost! Sure you can still get the thick loud and raunchy that many players today like, but without the wood, it's much harder to launch into that nice warm & round, sweet & mellow tone that Les himself enjoyed.

 

Seriously guys, there's got to be more of us out there who want our wood back! I realize it's not for everybody, but if Gibson could AT LEAST make a factory special run of weighted LP's, that would help me and my heart.

 

Wood is Good! (a new battle-cry)

WOOD IS GOOD!

You are a little late, bud. This is a four year old debate. There are "wood back" Les Pauls, as stated in this thread. You already own chambered guitars, so if you cant get any tone out of them, why did you buy them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody please tell me a model that is not weight-relieved in any way?

I'm an old timer and I want my solid mahogany poundage back without having to take out a second mortgage on the house. Am I just gonna have to find an old one?

I realize a lot of folks complain about the weight, but that problem is easily solved with a good strap (and at 58, I have a bad back).

I've tried a lot of the new Les Paul's, and the missing weight, well, I just can't overcome.

Anybody know?

 

Thanks

 

Only options are:

- Buy a new Reissue

- Buy second hand

- Glue on some extra wood, that should make it heaver

- Try and find a guitar from another manufacturer, if none of the above work for you

 

The current range are all weight relived in some way.

 

For me its all about tone and the feel of the neck. I personally struggle to understand why someone would wont a 13 lb guitar over a 9lb, unless the tone coming from the 13 lb was significantly better / different. But as you have not talked about tone, it sounds like you just want a heavy guitar.

 

Each to their own and all the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weight relieved can be quite heavy. I recently invested in a traditional pro and it's a fuggin boat anchor! I don't have a scale at my house (besides the little digital - *wink* *wink*) but I'd guess that it hovers around ten pounds. Probably nine and a half or more.

 

But yeah, when it comes to whining about the chambering you're more than a little late to the party. When they first started doing the chambering our collective vaginas got very sore but we've since applied the ointment (called playing a new guitar that sounds good) and the raw spot and chafing has gone away. We've learned to live with it or otherwise rub our nickels and dimes together and get old Gibsons.

 

You can still pick up some Sonex's for about $300 in some parts of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's surprising to see the extent of the chambering on that X-ray on the link.

 

I have four very different 'mahogany' bodied guitars which make for an interesting comparison.....

 

My Epiphone Wildkat has a mahogany back which appears to be made very much like the chambered Les Paul (see photo below.) The difference, however, is that it has a ply laminate top with two F-holes and a slightly larger body. Unplugged, this guitar sounds very much like a typical semi-acoustic with a centre block and, while the construction of the top gives it the twang you'd expect, it also seems to have very 'Les Paul like' sustain.

 

qd11.jpg

 

Now, my new Gibson LP Studio '50s tribute with humbuckers was ordered with a little apprehension because of its chambered construction (reproduced below courtesy of R9's link.) However, I have actually been very pleasantly surprised. It certainly sounds nothing like an archtop. I guess the lack of F-holes and its carved maple top ensure that that isn't going to happen. However, I would describe its unplugged sound as a brighter Les Paul sound. In that I mean that it has a bit more top end bite to it, with more 'attack', similar in nature to my faded Gibby SG. Perhaps its relative similarity to my SG is not due to the open chambers themselves but the fact that, as well as having a maple cap, the overall amount of mahogany in the body has been reduced towards the levels of an SG. SGs still have plenty of sustain remember. However, I suspect that much of the sustain going on with Gibson style guitars is more related to their construction with T-O-M bridges and due to the strings being angled over the fulcrum points (in complete contrast to a strat style guitar.)

 

 

Chamber_BFG_2007.jpg

 

Finally, my Epi LP Standard plus is, for me, comes closest to having what I would consider to be an authentic unplugged Les Paul sound. It has the sustain and resonance you would expect but there is a fatness/darkness to that tone which I put down to its 'unchambered' construction. Yes I know it's made with cheaper 'mahogany' and is probably a butcher block underneath the veneers but it definitely has that fatness and resonance. Plugged in however, I'm not sure whether the differences in unplugged tones between my SG and my Gibson and Epi Les Pauls makes that much of a difference to the final, overall result.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a little late, bud. This is a four year old debate. There are "wood back" Les Pauls, as stated in this thread. You already own chambered guitars, so if you cant get any tone out of them, why did you buy them?

 

jnasty- A couple of things:

I'm more than a little late, I'm almost always late to something.

This debate is most likely older than 4 years. But debate is good, otherwise we may never have a chance to learn something new.

I did NOT say I could not get tone out of my chambered guitars. I just miss the extra warm and sweet tone I can get out of my 35 yr old Les Paul.

Weighted or weight-relieved, you can get good tone out of any guitar if you set it up right. Today's chambered LP's can put out a sweet tone, for sure. I just miss the extra that comes with more wood. Other players don't... matter of personal choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only options are:

- Buy a new Reissue

- Buy second hand

- Glue on some extra wood, that should make it heaver

- Try and find a guitar from another manufacturer, if none of the above work for you

 

The current range are all weight relived in some way.

 

For me its all about tone and the feel of the neck. I personally struggle to understand why someone would wont a 13 lb guitar over a 9lb, unless the tone coming from the 13 lb was significantly better / different. But as you have not talked about tone, it sounds like you just want a heavy guitar.

 

Each to their own and all the best.

 

Yaff - actually you make a good point (9 lbs versus 13 lbs?) Where would the line be drawn if it's all about wood?

To be honest, I'd be quite happy with 9 or 10 lbs of decent wood (instead of a 13 pound guitar, unless, as you say, it was spectacularly better!)

BTW, I agree with you about tone. It was kinda implied in my first post, but I did mention it specifically in my second post. Tone is everything.

And,LOL, I actually thought about all four of your suggestions, even the one about adding wood [biggrin]

So I do agree with you. Rich tone comes from good wood, and a good touch: hands and fingers carefully and thoughtfully placed up and down a really well-made neck allows that tone out.

I'm zoning out now, so I'll stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weight relieved can be quite heavy. I recently invested in a traditional pro and it's a fuggin boat anchor! I don't have a scale at my house (besides the little digital - *wink* *wink*) but I'd guess that it hovers around ten pounds. Probably nine and a half or more.

 

But yeah, when it comes to whining about the chambering you're more than a little late to the party. When they first started doing the chambering our collective vaginas got very sore but we've since applied the ointment (called playing a new guitar that sounds good) and the raw spot and chafing has gone away. We've learned to live with it or otherwise rub our nickels and dimes together and get old Gibsons.

 

You can still pick up some Sonex's for about $300 in some parts of the world.

 

Yeah, on investigating, I'm finding some folks reporting on some really heavy weight-relieved LP's. I'd be interested to try one. But in the long run, I guess all that matters is are you happy with the tone you are getting out of your guitar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's surprising to see the extent of the chambering on that X-ray on the link.

 

I have four very different 'mahogany' bodied guitars which make for an interesting comparison.....

 

My Epiphone Wildkat has a mahogany back which appears to be made very much like the chambered Les Paul (see photo below.) The difference, however, is that it has a ply laminate top with two F-holes and a slightly larger body. Unplugged, this guitar sounds very much like a typical semi-acoustic with a centre block and, while the construction of the top gives it the twang you'd expect, it also seems to have very 'Les Paul like' sustain.

 

qd11.jpg

 

Now, my new Gibson LP Studio '50s tribute with humbuckers was ordered with a little apprehension because of its chambered construction (reproduced below courtesy of R9's link.) However, I have actually been very pleasantly surprised. It certainly sounds nothing like an archtop. I guess the lack of F-holes and its carved maple top ensure that that isn't going to happen. However, I would describe its unplugged sound as a brighter Les Paul sound. In that I mean that it has a bit more top end bite to it, with more 'attack', similar in nature to my faded Gibby SG. Perhaps its relative similarity to my SG is not due to the open chambers themselves but the fact that, as well as having a maple cap, the overall amount of mahogany in the body has been reduced towards the levels of an SG. SGs still have plenty of sustain remember. However, I suspect that much of the sustain going on with Gibson style guitars is more related to their construction with T-O-M bridges and due to the strings being angled over the fulcrum points (in complete contrast to a strat style guitar.)

 

 

Chamber_BFG_2007.jpg

 

Finally, my Epi LP Standard plus is, for me, comes closest to having what I would consider to be an authentic unplugged Les Paul sound. It has the sustain and resonance you would expect but there is a fatness/darkness to that tone which I put down to its 'unchambered' construction. Yes I know it's made with cheaper 'mahogany' and is probably a butcher block underneath the veneers but it definitely has that fatness and resonance. Plugged in however, I'm not sure whether the differences in unplugged tones between my SG and my Gibson and Epi Les Pauls makes that much of a difference to the final, overall result.

 

Alan

 

 

Alan,

I also like to compare my guitars and think about what makes them different.

I recently got one of the new Gibson LP Studio 60's Tribute models, with p-90 pkups. Now this guitar is less than a pound lighter than my 2007 studio (which has a lacquered finish).

For some reason it just 'feels' toy-ish, I hate to say, because of it being so light. And when I strum unplugged, it sounds very close to my Epi Sheraton semi-hollow body. But when the lights are turned on, look out, because it can sing pretty good.

 

But I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the tone being fat and dark, coming from your heavier Epi LP. I feel there is something in the tone that I can't define, but just know that it's good.

Just my opinion, folks. There is no right or wrong on this, just individuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, on investigating, I'm finding some folks reporting on some really heavy weight-relieved LP's. I'd be interested to try one. But in the long run, I guess all that matters is are you happy with the tone you are getting out of your guitar?

 

Yeah I sold a 50's Tribute Goldtop to get it, and for a minute or two there I was more than a little ambivalent, but I since I've taken her home and played the hell out of her I'm 100% certain that this is the guitar for me. I was also looking at a couple of 70's LP Deluxes, as I wanted a heavy Lester (with P-90s), but again, this '11 Traditional Pro is all I want or need from a guitar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

This whole load goes up in smoke under a double blind test with amped LPs - very, very few are able to identify solid, chambered or weight-relieved with any consistency. B)

 

Check this - http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132495

I agree- (almost) all of this tone stuff goes right out the window once you plug a guitar into a stack with a Tubescreamer and some compression. I've heard a great guitarist with an Epi and solid-state amp totally smoke a very good guitarist with a Historic and Triple Rec. Really the biggest variation you can throw into the equation is what YOU DO with a guitar.

 

But it's also true that there's a lot to be said for having the best jump-off point to build your tone off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, on investigating, I'm finding some folks reporting on some really heavy weight-relieved LP's. I'd be interested to try one. But in the long run, I guess all that matters is are you happy with the tone you are getting out of your guitar?

 

My 08 Standard comes in at 9LB and feels about write to me.

 

Its all so subjective and personal, what is right for one person is not going work for another.I think like many, I spend too much time reading about guitars and convincing myself that I need something, opposed to just picking some up and playing.

 

When you do find YOUR guitar, please let us know what made it right for you. Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the journey [biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...