Epi Rocks Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Hi folks, I have a problem with these new Chambered Gibson Les Paul's and I'm gonna have my say. Does anybody else think we're getting short changed? Fair enough, they're weight relieved, but routed out to the point of almost being a semi-hollow, COME ON!! Gibson guitars are specially built using traditional methods, machinery, laquer and so forth, with expensive, top grade mahogany, maple , ebony, rosewood, etc...and ask mega $$$$$$$ for it. Now, I don't mind paying out my hard earned money on something of high quality, such as these high grade woods. But to then be told that all that beautiful timber has been routed away to nothing is ludicrous! What the hell am I paying all that money for? Why use such high grade wood and then whittle it away to nothing, and then charge a fortune for it? Use cheaper wood and re-adjust your price accordingly. If I wanted a lighter guitar I would get an SG or ES 339 instead. They're beautiful instruments. It's becoming increasingly obvious that if you want a solid Les Paul without all that routing(chambering), you're better off getting an Epiphone version. At least then you get exactly what you've payed for and it's still technically made by Gibson. Your only other, more expensive option, is a Gibson LP Traditional. (What a Lp standard used to be). I hope I'm not the only bloke who feels this way but, if you want a lighter guitar and find that LP's are too bloody heavy for you, get something else dammit! :angry: Les Paul guitars are Built Heavy and Sound Heavy. That's how they are and should be left, not routed to bloody death! I don't know where Gibson are headed with all this crap however, I'm soooo.. pleased that Epiphone aren't screwin' around with a wonderful design that works. I love and have always loved the Gibson Les Paul guitar but, unless Gibson get their act together I will stick with the Epiphone version instead. There now, I've said my piece. ( probably too much) (I hate having to rave and rant on 'bout it, especially on a Sunday morning, but I'm very passionate about my favourate things, like this particular guitar). Epiphones Rock!!! Cheers Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigneil Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I always feel disappointed when I pick up a les paul and its really light. It doesn't feel Manly enough if it's not a heavy weight, it's a bit like ordering an espresso and getting a decaffeinated coffee. .. When I feel like a decaff', I'll go buy an f hole guitar. Having said that, It's nice to know that If I ever suffer from back problems, I at least have the option to buy a lighter lester if i want too. I guess my personal beef with it, is the way they are named....I think an LP standard should be an LP standard the way it has always been, and the weight relieved and chambered ones should be called other things instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Um, well, hmmm......... :unsure: .........I could explain the reasoning for Gibson, but I'm not Gibson......:blink: .......... I own solid, weight relieved, and chambered Les Pauls.....I prefer the solid and weight relieved....But, when I do studio work for others, and myself, I will use all three types....There are enough Les Paul types to choose what type you want...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vomer Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 When I feel like a decaff', I'll go buy an f hole guitar. LOL, that's rock 'n' roll in a nutshell right there . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 You really should post this ^^ in the Gibson-section.... They will 'love' you Oh, it's posted there as well........... :unsure: ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungrycat Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Gibson guitars are specially built using traditional methods, machinery, lacquer and so forth, with expensive, top grade mahogany, maple , ebony, rosewood, etc. Yeah. Sure thing. Just keep telling yourself that. I agree with just about everything else you said though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epi Rocks Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Yeah. Sure thing. Just keep telling yourself that. I agree with just about everything else you said though. The point is, Gibson tell us that they are expensive because they use such top quality wood etc. They charge more for an LP standard than a LP Traditional and the Trad. is solid,(more wood. The LP Standard is dearer, (less wood. Go figure?? Why the price hike for a hollow LP. I don't get it. I had my eye on a Gibson LP Studio Red Wine with gold hardware but, now they're chambered too. I'm now limited to LP Traditionals. (Maybe a Gibson SG Std. with Maestro is the way to go). My old "67 Std. was bloody brilliant! I'll just keep dreamin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjael Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Just a couple of (friendly) comments, not arguing or anything; Now, I don't mind paying out my hard earned money on something of high quality, such as these high grade woods. But to then be told that all that beautiful timber has been routed away to nothing is ludicrous! What the hell am I paying all that money for? Why use such high grade wood and then whittle it away to nothing, and then charge a fortune for it? Use cheaper wood and re-adjust your price accordingly. Because the only real benefit of expensive wood is that it looks better.. If I wanted a lighter guitar I would get an SG or ES 339 instead. They're beautiful instruments. I prefer lightweight guitars but I also think the SG and 335-style bodies are ugly. It's becoming increasingly obvious that if you want a solid Les Paul without all that routing(chambering), you're better off getting an Epiphone version. At least then you get exactly what you've payed for and it's still technically made by Gibson. Your only other, more expensive option, is a Gibson LP Traditional. (What a Lp standard used to be). Well you could look at it this way: You still paid for all the wood in the Gibson guitar, but there is also additional expense in them routing it out too, so technically they are worth more than they used to be! I don't know where Gibson are headed with all this crap however, I'm soooo.. pleased that Epiphone aren't screwin' around with a wonderful design that works. I love and have always loved the Gibson Les Paul guitar but, unless Gibson get their act together I will stick with the Epiphone version instead. Well Gibson has to keep changing or else they will stop selling, but at the same time they can't make a big change to a classic model or they lose all the recognition/adoration of that model. I would think that many of Gibson's big-buyers are probably older gents who don't want a heavy guitar but still want to relive their youth (real or imagined,) in that case it only makes sense to weight-relieve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midiman56 Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 The point is, Gibson tell us that they are expensive because they use such top quality wood etc. They charge more for an LP standard than a LP Traditional and the Trad. is solid,(more wood. The LP Standard is dearer, (less wood. Go figure?? Why the price hike for a hollow LP. I don't get it. Okay ... just take a deep breath and think about what you are saying here ... Once the basic slab for a guitar is cut ... it's cut. Weight relieving or chambering that body is actually an EXTRA step in the process! The market for these chambered guitars is for players that want the look or (approximate) sound of a Les Paul without having to sling 10+ pounds around their necks. Like Damien, I own at least one example of all three (solid, weight relieved and chambered) and each one has it's own personality and tone ... but the same could be said for any three examples of the very same guitar. Stop thinking of it in terms of "buying guitars by the pound" and maybe you'll feel less "cheated" when some of the wood is removed to lighten the instrument. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungrycat Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Once the basic slab for a guitar is cut ... it's cut. Weight relieving or chambering that body is actually an EXTRA step in the process! No, it's not. It's all done on a CNC machine at the same time. You MIGHT (MAYBE) be able to justify a small increase in cost of the cambered one becasue it has a more complex program for the computer to read, but writing that program is a one-time expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjael Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 No, it's not. It's all done on a CNC machine at the same time. You MIGHT (MAYBE) be able to justify a small increase in cost of the cambered one becasue it has a more complex program for the computer to read, but writing that program is a one-time expense. I'm fairly sure both Jim and my comments were made purely in jest, but if you want to get serious... You will also incur a higher tool wear per body, not to mention the old business phrase "time is money" - It will take substantially longer to cut a chambered body than a solid one. It's hardly a one-time cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LHW Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Personally, I'm glad they started doing this. Epi's Ultra Series wouldn't exist as it is today if they hadn't. I mostly play sitting down, and now that I'm "older," I'm really glad my U3 doesn't have the "normal" weight...my body couldn't take it. LOL Besides, it's not like Gibson is forcing you to buy their lighter guitars: just buy the ones that aren't. You can always change out the hardware to something else later, if you want a particular sound. On the flip side, if people weren't buying them, Gibson wouldn't keep making them. So, apparently, there's a big enough demand for Gibson to keep moving forward with the lighter LPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhead Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Epi rocks, Man I know what you're saying! If I buy ANY Les Paul, but ESPECIALLY a Gibson, I want it to weigh in at 8 lbs. MINIMUM! I, and this is just my opinion, but I firmly believe that the solid, heavy-*** wood is a whole lot of what gives a Les Paul it's signature tone and sustain! My old bass player told me one day that the wood on an electric guitar didn't have any effect on the sound, and about fell out of my chair! WHAT? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. At least it's good to know you can still buy an Epiphone Les Paul that's a REAL solidbody.........at least for now............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epi Rocks Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Well boys, I expressed what I feel on the matter. I'm sure Gibson have their reasons for making LP's lighter and chambered. Everybody has their preferences and that's that. I won't argue with them on that score. I prefer my Les Paul to be 9-10 lb and up. (Feels right to me). I do however,admire how passionate everyone is about their guitars. Whether Gibson or Epiphone, Les Pauls or ES models. It feels good to be part of that world. Please don't misunderstand me, I have always loved and admired Gibson guitars. I've been playing guitars since I was 11 years old and as far back as I can remember, a Gibson Les Paul was always on my wish list. That hasn't changed and I'm nearing my 49th year. I also, seem to have aquired a love for Epiphone guitars recently. Not a bad thing I reckon, as both Gibson and Epiphone have a long and distiguished history in guitars. (Love guitars with archtops) For now though, I will stay with the Epi's. I'm sure there's a Gibson that's right for me out there. Maybe a vintage model from yesteryear, who knows. I'll find it eventually. Merry Christmas and a Sensational New Year to all. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungrycat Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I'm fairly sure both Jim and my comments were made purely in jest, but if you want to get serious... You will also incur a higher tool wear per body, not to mention the old business phrase "time is money" - It will take substantially longer to cut a chambered body than a solid one. It's hardly a one-time cost. It's hard to see a joke after the daily grind puts you home at 1:30AM. Besides, I need my daily recommended dosage of Internet Argument. However, I don't think a diamond-tipped router bit is going to have much wear when it's being used to mill mahogany. Obviously it won't last forever, but I'd say that they'd last a fairly long time. I got nothing in response to time, though. You're totally right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjael Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Besides, I need my daily recommended dosage of Internet Argument. I'm stealin' that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 In the exotic car world lighter means more expensive, surely heavier is cheaper in the guitar world too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungrycat Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 In the exotic car world lighter means more expensive, surely heavier is cheaper in the guitar world too Anybody want to buy a "relic'd" Oldsmobile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barcham Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 It's hard to see a joke after the daily grind puts you home at 1:30AM. Besides, I need my daily recommended dosage of Internet Argument. ... OK, here ya go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muse Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 my husband owns all styles of les pauls. he does not complain about any of them. nor do i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Bill Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 The time involved in machining a part isn't entirely about the overhead (electrical power, tool life, machine maintenance etc) costs of making that part, for example.. it also has to do with how many more parts aren't being produced in that time. The more material removed from one part, in this case, spans the time that several/numerous other parts weren't being produced with that same amount of machine running time.. mostly related to production numbers and number of hours in a day. What it all comes down to in the end is, the guitar will sell for whatever price the market will bear (and generally not less). Regards, Bill It's hard to see a joke after the daily grind puts you home at 1:30AM. Besides, I need my daily recommended dosage of Internet Argument. However, I don't think a diamond-tipped router bit is going to have much wear when it's being used to mill mahogany. Obviously it won't last forever, but I'd say that they'd last a fairly long time. I got nothing in response to time, though. You're totally right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It's becoming increasingly obvious that if you want a solid Les Paul without all that routing(chambering), you're better off getting an Epiphone version. I don't know where Gibson are headed with all this crap however, I'm soooo.. pleased that Epiphone aren't screwin' around with a wonderful design that works. I love and have always loved the Gibson Les Paul guitar but, unless Gibson get their act together I will stick with the Epiphone version instead. Quote : "Now, Epiphone brings a new twist to this rock guitar legend and icon with the new LP ULTRA. While maintaining the key elements and integrity of a Les Paul, the ULTRA features a unique Mahogany body with strategically placed hollow cavities, providing not only a lighter weight (5.5 - 7.0 lbs) but also a more resonant sound." Just thought you should know..... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.