jmaster67 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 How does it differ from the figured top tonewise? Do the different woods make a difference? Some sites have the necks listed as the same type and some don't. How does the neck compare with the figured 335 and the 335 satin? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JO'C Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 How does it differ from the figured top tonewise? Do the different woods make a difference? Some sites have the necks listed as the same type and some don't. How does the neck compare with the figured 335 and the 335 satin? Thanks. I have one and it's a great guitar. Here's a pic: It's a 2008 but was brand-new when I bought it last year. The tone is great. I don't have a figured or satin 335 so I can't give you a comparison. But I do have 5 Les Pauls, a CS-336 and a Johnny A. and it fits right in with that great Gibson tone. My documentation indicates that the neck is a direct copy of Larry's original which he says is different than most other 335's. All I know is that it's my fastest playing guitar out of over 30 that I have. I highly recommend it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaster67 Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 That's really sweet! I talked to someone at MF private reserve today and he said that the regular figured top has more sustain and a bit slimmer neck than the Carlton. I think I many go that way even though I much prefer the block inlays to the dot. I'm a sucker for sustain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincentw Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 That's really sweet! I talked to someone at MF private reserve today and he said that the regular figured top has more sustain and a bit slimmer neck than the Carlton. I think I many go that way even though I much prefer the block inlays to the dot. I'm a sucker for sustain. More sustain? Hmm..not sure how the guy could have come to that conclusion. Sure, the tailpiece is a set a little bit further back (based on LC's) but I'm not sure the claim about "more sustain/less sustain" can be made. The nut width is slimmer, and THAT is something to consider. Some people don't like the thinner string spacing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaster67 Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 More sustain? Hmm..not sure how the guy could have come to that conclusion. Sure, the tailpiece is a set a little bit further back (based on LC's) but I'm not sure the claim about "more sustain/less sustain" can be made. The nut width is slimmer, and THAT is something to consider. Some people don't like the thinner string spacing. He told me that since it was a maple/poplar/maple laminate body that it didn't have as much sustain as the solid maple on the figured top. Does that not have an effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JO'C Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 More sustain? Hmm..not sure how the guy could have come to that conclusion. Sure, the tailpiece is a set a little bit further back (based on LC's) but I'm not sure the claim about "more sustain/less sustain" can be made. The nut width is slimmer, and THAT is something to consider. Some people don't like the thinner string spacing. I agree about the sustain. I was curious about this since my LC has the amongst the best sustain of any of my Gibsons, especially holding a bent note in the high registers. It's one of the things I really like about this guitar. Out of curiosity I compared it against a couple of my Les Pauls and my CS-336 which has a figured top. At the same amp settings on my Mesa 50 Caliber, The LC 335 had just as much sustain as any of my LP's and 336 with '57 Classics. My Les Paul Classic with ceramic pickups was the only one with appreciably more sustain. And even though the neck is a little thicker, it still plays extremely fast, and I usually prefer a thinner neck. I also don't have any issues with string spacing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaster67 Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 I saw a diagram in another thread comparing the 50s neck with the 60s slim neck. Where does the LC neck sit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JO'C Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I saw a diagram in another thread comparing the 50s neck with the 60s slim neck. Where does the LC neck sit? Tough one for me to answer. I have 11 Gibson's and there are way more than 2 neck types within my group. My Les Paul Classic definitely has a 60's slim profile. The neck on my CS-336 is about the same. I have an R8 Les Paul that definitely has a 50's profile and another LP with an even wider neck. The LC is much closer to the 60's profile, maybe just a little bit beefier but nowhere near baseball bat territory of the 50's necks. I have small hands and it plays very comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaster67 Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Tough one for me to answer. I have 11 Gibson's and there are way more than 2 neck types within my group. My Les Paul Classic definitely has a 60's slim profile. The neck on my CS-336 is about the same. I have an R8 Les Paul that definitely has a 50's profile and another LP with an even wider neck. The LC is much closer to the 60's profile, maybe just a little bit beefier but nowhere near baseball bat territory of the 50's necks. I have small hands and it plays very comfortably. First of all, thanks for all your help so far. Forgive me if I sound like I'm asking the same question over and over, I'm trying to hammer out a few details as I don't have any way to play the LC beforehand. I have a mid '70s SG (small pickguard), a '99 LP standard, and a 2011 Nighthawk. Of the three I like the neck on the LP the best. The Nighthawk feels OK, but I think I would like it much more if it were a 24 3/4" scale. The neck on the satin 335 that I played was effortless, so if the LC is somewhere between that and my LP (or even the size of my LP neck) we may have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JO'C Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 First of all, thanks for all your help so far. Forgive me if I sound like I'm asking the same question over and over, I'm trying to hammer out a few details as I don't have any way to play the LC beforehand. I have a mid '70s SG (small pickguard), a '99 LP standard, and a 2011 Nighthawk. Of the three I like the neck on the LP the best. The Nighthawk feels OK, but I think I would like it much more if it were a 24 3/4" scale. The neck on the satin 335 that I played was effortless, so if the LC is somewhere between that and my LP (or even the size of my LP neck) we may have a winner. Do you know what neck profile your std has? Of my 5 Les Paul's, only the Classic has a thinner neck than the LC. My 1997 Les Paul Elegant has a neck that is very similar to the LC. It's also my favorite Les Paul. The other 3 have much thicker necks than the LC. My son has a 2005 SG and to me the neck feels like a 60's profile. So if your std has a neck that's just a bit thicker than your SG, it's probably close to the LC. I find the LC to be effortless to play. My son played it and said "Hey Dad, I can shred with this guitar and I've never been able to shred with any other guitar". And he showed me and he could. He's 22 and mostly a Bass player but definitely another vote that it's a fast playing neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaster67 Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 My LP neck is maybe a hair slimmer than my SG neck. According to the serial #, my SG was made between 70 and 75. I like both. Where do I go to find out the profile of my LP neck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.