How about a 'Les Paul' Les Paul?

[jnastynebr]

I'm surprised you didn't rattle Slash's cage over the sig based on a LP that didn't come out of a Gibson factory. . B)

Oh, I rattled away. In his defense, at least he plays Gibsons nowadays. Clapton and Back have their sig LPs despite being clearly in the Fender camp for decades.

[This_Dying_Soul]

I would say if they made a Recording model they could do what they've done with many other sig Les Paul's where they make an exact replica in limited numbers and sell for whatever they consider appropriate (likely around 10 to 20 grand), another that is not reliced for around the cost of a Les Paul Standard or Custom but with obvious added costs for the added features, and then an epi model.

 

As someone pointed out, modern guitarists may not be interested in a lot of the added features used by Les, so they could all be a limited run model first to test the waters. If there is enough demand they could produce more and to keep collectors who got the first "limited run" guitars make sure to do something that distinguishes those first guitars from the ones produced after the demand for more was determined.

 

As for the SG - The official story is that Les HATED the SG and had not been consulted on the radical overhaul of the Les Paul guitars and asked for his name to be removed. It very well could have been due to the divorce between him and Mary Ford also... either way, Les has expressed regret for being foolish and stated that if he had known then what he knew now about the SG, he would have been far more wealthy than he was.

 

To add to the SG vs Les Paul debate - SG's are considered to be Gibson's best selling model ever. Had they launched it as a second model along side the Les Paul back in the 60's, I wonder which model would be their best selling? I mean, most people think Les Paul when you mention Gibson; but had there not been nearly a decade at the height of Rock n Roll's early evolution, how well would the SG have sold compared to the Les Paul?

[stein]

Credit where credit is due:

 

It is obvious that Mr. Paul did not actually "design" the Les Paul-EVERY feature about it (except the bridge of corse) was what Gibson was building at the time except for the fact it was solid, and out of necessity, smaller.

 

What IS obvious, is that Mr. Paul had the idea for a SOLID guitar for a long time and had suggested it be built. His guitar building skills aside, the idea for a solid guitar was something he had been using and trying to convince others it was the way to go is well documented, well before others had thought it was the future.

 

While Gibson did not take him seriously at first, and finally decided they needed to make it (not because of Mr. Paul, but because others had started to make a solid) it just so happened Mr. Paul was a big name, worthy of an endorsement, and he also had the idea first.

 

The way I see it, while the Les Paul might was designed by Gibson and would have happened anyway regardless of the endorsement of Mr. Paul, the fact that it is HIS signature model is an example of an idea finally getting it's due credit, and his name belongs on it.

[stein]

This is an interesting thread, and I agree with nearly everyone, including the Fuzzbeater.

 

But we all need to remember the obvious: ANY guitar the Les got in any form only lasted so long before he hacked into it and changed something.

 

So a REAL signature guitar that was what he actually played would have to come with a router, hacksaws and various tools to make pickgaurds and holes in the thing if we are going to do like Les.