Les Paul Studio realities

[CowboyBillyBob1]

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents here. Not to cause a stir or any commotion but from my extensive research I have found the following:

 

 

2) Eddie Van Halen's guitars were assembled by himself for $150 and painted with Schwinn bicycle paint by hand with no lacquer whatsoever. His pickups were potted with surfer wax and his amplifier was a rental he borrowed. His pedal board was a piece of wood with his pedals taped on. Now people 30 years later are still attempting to copy his guitar tone, buying expensive $3000 5150 amplifiers and $3000 Kramer guitars. Even INCLUDING the cost of inflation, this is insane. This just goes to show that money doesn't always mean better sound/quality. I know we're just talking about wood here but this I feel this is strongly related to this question.

 

EVH could make a broomstick sound good. How come he does not use that same guitar or something similar any longer?

[crazytrain513]

He smashed it while drunk :/ they have a copy available -- only $25, 000 if you're interested. Smashed and everything!

 

Now he has a signature $2500 guitar model called the EVH Wolfgang and IMHO his tone has become too processed & modern.

[badbluesplayer]

I would say that since everybody's arguing about how their guitar is so great, Gibson's done a pretty good job with the studios. They must be a good value at a good price point.

 

Some of you guys just say stuff that you just wish was true. Stuff you have no clue about.

[crazytrain513]

 

Some of you guys just say stuff that you just wish was true. Stuff you have no clue about.

 

What kind of stuff? Now I'm curious haha.

[jmm555]

Great Video, thank you.

Just the edge binding time alone

must add cost, let alone the paint job.

That's how they cut the cost on studios.

Labor time is probably more cost than materials.

And three piece bodies, (if that matters?)

 

 

I just bought a Gibson Studio 60’s tribute - online.

I liked the looks of it, over the other ones.

I had to buy it. It’s on the heavy side.

Does that mean I have a bad Gibson Studio LP?

 

 

Studios seem like a great value.

Everybody should own one.

It can’t be a bad guitar.

[rdclmn7]

My '85 Studio was originally painted burgundy red, once the paint was removed from the front, you could see why it was painted that way as several pieces were used to create the top.

At that time, plastic binding and dot inlays were used, and the gibson logo was painted.

It was described as the economy model, one among several.

The studio is but one of many classic designs that have evolved over the years, and my old studio gets a few looks because of the binding.

As far as which variant is superior, its pretty moot as long as you have a guitar that sounds and plays good.

[Sgt.]

I understand the topic title is rather poorly-worded. What I'm asking is to know the actual "corner-cuts" that Gibson makes for the Studios, besides the apparent lack of binding and chambering (and now, depending on what your opinion is, the baked maple fretboard). For example, is the neck tenon much shorter than a Standard or Traditional? Is the maple cap actually a few centimeters thinner? More pieces of wood? Inferior wiring? I figured that forum members may have more inside knowledge than what can be found on generic descriptions on retail websites (and on Gibson's website). The tremendous price discrepancy between the Studio and the Standard (and other higher ups for that matter) is probably due to the lack of binding, but I can't help but think that there maybe more. I don't mean to rail on Studios, I have one and it's a fabulous guitar for the price, but I just want to know exactly what I'm playing with.

 

The studio is like the no frills standard. The maple cap is of lower grade wood and is thinner, I would expect the overall grade of the wood to be lower. The laminate on the headstock is thinner and the Gibson logo is screened rather than inlayed. Of course there's no binding, binding is an expensive touch that looks good but doesn't have anything to do with the playability of the guitar. Its asthetic only. The fretboard is baked maple. Also the chambering configuration would be different from the standard, probably using less actual wood, more space. Chambering is different from weight relieved. The input jack plate is plastic, but that's minor. I don't know whether new standards incorporate the pcb in the control cavity, but the studio definitely does. There's some cost differences. The studio is a nice piece of wood. You get a made in the USA guitar for under a bill and upgrades to electronics are definitely an option.

[AlanH]

The studio is like the no frills standard. The maple cap is of lower grade wood and is thinner, I would expect the overall grade of the wood to be lower. The laminate on the headstock is thinner and the Gibson logo is screened rather than inlayed. Of course there's no binding, binding is an expensive touch that looks good but doesn't have anything to do with the playability of the guitar. Its asthetic only. The fretboard is baked maple. Also the chambering configuration would be different from the standard, probalby using less actual wood, more space. The input jack plate is plastic, but that's minor. I don't know whether new standards incorporate the pcb in the control cavity, but the studio definitely does. There's some cost differences. The studio is a nice piece of wood. You get a made in the USA guitar for under a bill and upgrades to electronics are definitely an option.

 

Remember that the grade of the wood used for the cap relates to prettiness rather than sound. Which cap you find attractive is subjective. You are right about the cap being thinner, in its middle, because the top on a studio is less curved. There's no evidence that the 'grade' of mahogany used in the bodies of production Gibsons is any different, or that those bodies are made up of more or less pieces. Various fretboard materials have been tried in different Gibson models since the rosewood seizure so, again, I'm not sure whether we can say any one is better than the other...they're just different. Likewise, some LP standards have been chambered, others weight relieved, depending upon the year. I also think PCBs have been applied to most Gibson production models since the last couple of years.

 

The price differences across the LP range are mostly related to number of coats of nitro, the presence of binding, inlayed headstock logos and the grade of maple cap. Fortunately, none of these differences make one production LP any better than another to play which means, as you say, that you can get a very nice USA guitar for a great price. Compare the price of a LP Studio to the price of a urethane finished, bolt-necked USA Strat and I know which I think is the better deal.

[Sgt.]

Remember that the grade of the wood used for the cap relates to prettiness rather than sound. Which cap you find attractive is subjective. You are right about the cap being thinner, in its middle, because the top on a studio is less curved. There's no evidence that the 'grade' of mahogany used in the bodies of production Gibsons is any different, or that those bodies are made up of more or less pieces. Various fretboard materials have been tried in different Gibson models since the rosewood seizure so, again, I'm not sure whether we can say any one is better than the other...they're just different. Likewise, some LP standards have been chambered, others weight relieved, depending upon the year. I also think PCBs have been applied to most Gibson production models since the last couple of years.

 

The price differences across the LP range are mostly related to number of coats of nitro, the presence of binding, inlayed headstock logos and the grade of maple cap. Fortunately, none of these differences make one production LP any better than another to play which means, as you say, that you can get a very nice USA guitar for a great price. Compare the price of a LP Studio to the price of a urethane finished, bolt-necked USA Strat and I know which I think is the better deal.

 

Disclaimer: I am not a certified tech but I do know my guitar!

 

I would entertain thoughts on the correct setup of the studio model. I think because the maple cap is thinner that the tailpiece is set what appears to be higher than normal. I think the tailpiece with a bit of height is within the normal setup range compared to the low placed tails on the standards and such. Like I see the Jimmy Page Standard and see the tail set to the body and the action seems low, low and wonder how I can do my studio like that. They are different guitars, similar in looks but different spec wise. If everyone could just buy a studio and set it up like the standard Gibson wouldn't sell many standards, eh? Every once in a while I check the setup on my studio, correct the intonation if it needs it and the tailpiece always seems to have to be set higher than I'd expect to compensate a) for fret buzz on the bass side and intonation, where I have the bridge pieces on the low e and g string pretty tight to get it in tune. The lower the tail is set to the bridge is increasing sustain (down to the point that the strings touch the back of the bridge, which you don't want), the bridge may not intonate correctly with the tail that low. The feel on the strings becomes stiff but there's more sustain. Decreasing the angle at bridge/tail makes strings easier but sound duller. You must increase the action by height of the bridge enough so there's no fret buzz, then lower the tailpiece as low as you can without the strings touching the back of the bridge. If the action has to be too high to avoid buzz a slight truss rod adjustment to the neck may correct that.

Note, to really know your guitar I believe you have to learn to do the setup yourself. I began by screwing the tail and bridge (and bridge pieces all right back) right down to the body and worked up from there to get it in the right spot for the guitar where its in tune and doesn't buzz on frets. I would say too that truss rod adjustment is part of getting the guitar to a playable state, but don't 'fool' with it, learn to do the adjustment ... wood can break (not idiot proof)!> And adjust and balance the pickup height and output, there's always a sweeter spot to be had it seems, where the magnetic pull on the strings feels better in some positions than others. Personally the Burstbucker Pros at the factory setting is way to hot for my liking, I back the pickups off substantially. I am not going to adjust individual pole pieces on the humbuckers at this point, it's possible to balance the output more by doing this, but I noticed with potted pickups the wax seal seems to break by turning those screws. I am saying that my studio doesn't work with the tailpiece all the way screwed down to the body. That's normal for my studio guitar.

I also compensate the tailpiece higher on the bass side and lower on the treble side and try to max sustain by having the strings as low as I can and still intonate correctly without touching the back of the bridge.

 

If all that sounds like crap take it to a professional and have it set to factory settings ... these adjustments aren't permanent and can be restored to the recommended stock setting by a qualified tech.

 

Gibson owner testimony: 2011 Les Paul Studio (worn or faded cherry) #116611530

 

BTW: When I have the volume(s) up full I cannot turn the tone(s) up past about three without getting a loud hum. I tried different outlets and different amps, through headphones and it still hums. The shop says there's nothing wrong but I need something more to go on, it just doesn't seem normal.

[jmm555]

I’m happy with the Factory setups. I’d like to think that all Studios are pleked, as well as all USAGibsons. My 60s Tribute came without a case. Got a gig bag. So that’s another cost savings.

 

Buying a Studio kind of grew on me. I use to think it was a more low end model, but really for the guitar, it’s a better deal. I don’t miss the edge binding at all. I wish more models had 60’s profile neck, and more 70’s volute style too, keep it new, mix up new variations of the Gibson Studio.

[Sgt.]

Im happy with the Factory setups. Id like to think that all Studios are pleked, as well as all USAGibsons. My 60s Tribute came without a case. Got a gig bag. So thats another cost savings.

 

Buying a Studio kind of grew on me. I use to think it was a more low end model, but really for the guitar, its a better deal. I dont miss the edge binding at all. I wish more models had 60s profile neck, and more 70s volute style too, keep it new, mix up new variations of the Gibson Studio.

 

yeah, the plek system of computerized fret leveling (very accurate) is a major bonus on the studio guitar line (or better still in buying a Gibson guitar).

I've only recently in the past few years even looked at the Gibson line from an owner's perspective, with the Canadian dollar being par, US made goods seem a better deal than ever to buy. I couldn't say that Gibson has or ever will make the 'perfect' guitar, all things considered; price, quality, features. If they ever did, nobody would ever need to buy another! Seriously in regard to the studio model, the price point is attractive, especially to us Canadian buyers, our dollar has rarely gone further. Expensive binding can be done without, so can inlayed logos. The pickups are the same as in more expensive models. The 300k volume and 500k tone pots with the pcb, now there's a point of argument. I'm considering replacing the caps to pio but have learned that bumblebees are too large to just fit in the cavity with the pcb, so it's got to come out and a wired harness replacing it. The wiring harnesses come with 500k vol. and 500k tone so I guess there's a wider vol. sweep to be had in replacing the stock 300k pot with a 500k pot. My studio is four pieces, you can see the line on the back of the body and the pieces don't match, same on the maple top. I also notice I seem to chip the nitro finish alot and I don't know where or how and lines on the neck and body seem to groove their way into the mahogany, like belt buckles I can understand.

 

I was interested to learn the outcome of the contraban rosewood debacle at Gibson, the fine, and that the wood can be used. Is that why they started using baked maple on the fretboards? Rosewood would have been a more desireable option on the studio with little cost increase in the price.

[Rabs]

I was interested to learn the outcome of the contraban rosewood debacle at Gibson, the fine, and that the wood can be used. Is that why they started using baked maple on the fretboards? Rosewood would have been a more desireable option on the studio with little cost increase in the price.

Yeah thats why they had to change to different fret boards cos of the raids.. Its all been settled now

[Sgt.]

Yeah thats why they had to change to different fret boards cos of the raids.. Its all been settled now

 

 

Seriously does anyone have setup issues with the Studio model? Are there quality issues that can't be resolved by a full setup? I wish I could get the action low and the tailpiece down low to the body on the studio, but that's not going to happen. There's some fret buzz on the sixth string at the lower fret positions. The trade off with higher action is not dragging a slide on the frets! Optimistic, but yeah with medium guage strings I can fatigue easier playing barre chords. I wish those Kluson tulip tuners did a better job of staying in tune, I hope the wood will settle with age and the tuning will stabilize. If all that's difficult to live with on the Studio, why did I buy one ... price. If you can afford to look at a Gibson you are looking at a luxury market, but the Studio makes owning a Gibson attainable. Hell if I'd saved the money I spent on pints at the pub every week I'da bought a standard!

[LeoPaul422]

 

Eddie Van Halen's guitars were assembled by himself for $150 and painted with Schwinn bicycle paint by hand with no lacquer whatsoever. His pickups were potted with surfer wax and his amplifier was a rental he borrowed. His pedal board was a piece of wood with his pedals taped on. Now people 30 years later are still attempting to copy his guitar tone, buying expensive $3000 5150 amplifiers and $3000 Kramer guitars. Even INCLUDING the cost of inflation, this is insane. This just goes to show that money doesn't always mean better sound/quality. I know we're just talking about wood here but this I feel this is strongly related to this question.

 

Please give me the names and addresses those fools who are paying $3000 for Kramers. I'll buy a Gibson/Kramer 84 and resell it to them for $1000 and I'll throw in the bicycle paint and electrical tape for free! Or they could buy an 80s Showster, Stagemaster or ProAxe for $400 or $500 and really have a great guitar with 2 more Duncans and the best necks ever put on a SuperStrat.

 

EVH admitted that FrankenStrat was an accident that resulted because he didn't know how to wire a guitar properly, but again if people want a guitar with one functional pup and one volume and no tone control, I'm selling them for $1000 with free bicyle paint.

[crazytrain513]

 

Please give me the names and addresses those fools who are paying $3000 for Kramers. I'll buy a Gibson/Kramer 84 and resell it to them for $1000 and I'll throw in the bicycle paint and electrical tape for free! Or they could buy an 80s Showster, Stagemaster or ProAxe for $400 or $500 and really have a great guitar with 2 more Duncans and the best necks ever put on a SuperStrat.

 

EVH admitted that FrankenStrat was an accident that resulted because he didn't know how to wire a guitar properly, but again if people want a guitar with one functional pup and one volume and no tone control, I'm selling them for $1000 with free bicyle paint.

 

 

I don't personally know their addresses but check those suckers out on YouTube -- they're everywhere!

 

You're too kind though. People need to learn that no matter how expensive their guitar is, it won't make a difference without skill lol. I'm sure Jimmy Paige would sound better on an Epi Studio than the majority of people would sound on their R8's (no offense to anyone)

[LeoPaul422]

 

1:18

 

Thanks for the video! That gives me a new appreciation for Gibson Guitars.

[Rabs]

Thanks for the video! That gives me a new appreciation for Gibson Guitars.

This is why Gibsons are so expensive.. Its not the materials, its the man hours...

 

And its why Studios are such great value.. Regardless of if the wood is grade B instead of A or whatever its the skill that goes into a Gibson that you pay for and the Studios are made in exactly the same way as the Standards and all of the Gibsons.

 

Ive heard arguments about the quality of wood used in Studios. And from everything I have heard and all the videos I have seen from what I can see the only difference is the grade of maple cap used. From what I can tell the mahogany backs are all made the same way, and thats the important part that gives you the fat Gibson sound. So really the only difference is cosmetic. I may be wrong, but the fact is no one really knows (it all adds to the mystique that is Gibson :))

 

The Custom shop however is different. :) Im not sure id ever buy a Custom Shop guitar cos I love my Standard and Classic and Studio.. BUT any one that ive ever played and seen has ALWAYS been top notch with regards to quality and sound which again probably attests to the skills of the people they have working there and the bits of wood they decide to use.

 

At the end of the day. It doesnt really matter.. Buy a guitar that you like the sound of and the way it plays.. Everything else is almost irrelevant (but sometimes fun to argue about :).

[LeoPaul422]

I don't personally know their addresses but check those suckers out on YouTube -- they're everywhere!

 

You're too kind though. People need to learn that no matter how expensive their guitar is, it won't make a difference without skill lol. I'm sure Jimmy Paige would sound better on an Epi Studio than the majority of people would sound on their R8's (no offense to anyone)

 

Amen! I watched a video of Page playing a Danelectro & it is just amazing how good he made that cheap guitar sound. Back in the day Danelectros were called Silvertones and they were the cheapest guitars that you could buy, even cheaper than those Fender Telecasters.

[LeoPaul422]

This is why Gibsons are so expensive.. Its not the materials, its the man hours...

 

And its why Studios are such great value.. Regardless of if the wood is grade B instead of A or whatever its the skill that goes into a Gibson that you pay for and the Studios are made in exactly the same way as the Standards and all of the Gibsons.

 

Ive heard arguments about the quality of wood used in Studios. And from everything I have heard and all the videos I have seen from what I can see the only difference is the grade of maple cap used. From what I can tell the mahogany backs are all made the same way, and thats the important part that gives you the fat Gibson sound. So really the only difference is cosmetic. I may be wrong, but the fact is no one really knows (it all adds to the mystique that is Gibson :))

 

The Custom shop however is different. :) Im not sure id ever buy a Custom Shop guitar cos I love my Standard and Classic and Studio.. BUT any one that ive ever played and seen has ALWAYS been top notch with regards to quality and sound which again probably attests to the skills of the people they have working there and the bits of wood they decide to use.

 

At the end of the day. It doesnt really matter.. Buy a guitar that you like the sound of and the way it plays.. Everything else is almost irrelevant (but sometimes fun to argue about :).

 

It is clear from the videos that the bodies and tops of the Standards and the Studios are exactly the same. None of the production workers were selecting which bodies would be Standards or Studios. The only differences are the Binding and Neck Inlays on the Fretboards. No doubt the Custom Shop and Signature models get special attention but the bodies of the Production Line Standards and Studios are exactly the same except that the Standards get the binding.

[crazytrain513]

Amen! I watched a video of Page playing a Danelectro & it is just amazing how good he made that cheap guitar sound. Back in the day Danelectros were called Silvertones and they were the cheapest guitars that you could buy, even cheaper than those Fender Telecasters.

 

Right and if I'm not mistaken, he started using that as his main guitar on "Kashmir" for live performances?

 

And when Slash demos the Epi versions of his sigs, or Zakk Wylde for his (though not a fan), they sound identical to how they sound on their own axe's. It's all in the fingers! Though quality materials and components do help...

 

 

It is clear from the videos that the bodies and tops of the Standards and the Studios are exactly the same. None of the production workers were selecting which bodies would be Standards or Studios. The only differences are the Binding and Neck Inlays on the Fretboards. No doubt the Custom Shop and Signature models get special attention but the bodies of the Production Line Standards and Studios are exactly the same except that the Standards get the binding.

 

I second this. The comparisons which people show where their studios have a slightly thinner maple cap -- just coincidence IMO. Wood comes from trees. Trees are plants. Wood is better quality depending on the time of year. Go figure?

[Rabs]

 

I second this. The comparisons which people show where their studios have a slightly thinner maple cap -- just coincidence IMO. Wood comes from trees. Trees are plants. Wood is better quality depending on the time of year. Go figure?

I read this a short while ago.. About how what time the tree that made your guitar was cut down could effect tone :)

 

 

All guitarists like to believe their favorite instrument is a heady mix of great wood, wire, pickups, design, craftsmanship and that indefinable thing we call “mojo.” But what if that “mojo” is being controlled by the moon? No kidding. Thanks to a blog in Premier Guitar, it is time to talk about “werewood.” What’s “werewood”? It’s wood made better, apparently, by the moon.

 

Premier Guitar correspondent Ervin Somogyi wrote a fascinating blog recently about this fabled subject. As a luthier who has been building for 40-plus years, Somogyi knows his timber. And he believes that some woods seem different – not because of their different species, but because of when the trees were harvested.

 

“I’ve handled planks so heavy that they seemed fresh-felled and still full of water,” he says. “And they’d be next to planks that were so light, you could sneeze and they’d practically blow off the pile. But these are woods of comparable size that had been kiln-dried together, so the moisture content would have been the same.

 

“I assumed this disparity was all normal and natural, until I learned about a European tradition of forestry based on the practice of cutting down woods at specific phases of the moon. This practice of wood felling is built on many centuries of empirical experience and observation, and it yields woods of consistently different density, durability, and working properties.”

 

Bark… at the Moon

 

Is this crazy? Perhaps not. Somogyi says, “wood that is felled in accordance with lunar cycles is referred to as ‘full-moon wood,’ though somehow, I’m always tempted to think of it as ‘werewood’.” Yep, as in werewolf.

 

Somogyi researched the subject and concluded that tree-fellers have noted this since the first millennium. “Woods of any one species cut during the new moon, the full moon, or the waning moon, have consistently and predictably produced different results,” he writes. “Therefore, a number of especially advantageous uses for timber – including guitar tops – have been correlated with specific felling dates. These woods for soundboards are available to luthiers and can be found through a simple search by using the keywords “full moon wood.”

 

Does that sound even more crazy? But there are other believers. Swiss company www.tonewood.ch in the heart of Europe, love their “full moon wood.” “We specialize in a type of European spruce known as picea abies,” they say. “Experience has shown us that the internal resonances of spruce greatly influence the tone of an instrument.”

 

Ancient “Science”

 

Interested? You can read the academic study Lunar Rhythms in Forestry Traditions – Lunar-Correlated Phenomena in Tree Biology and Wood Properties, by Swiss forestry expert Ernst Zürcher. There are some reports that legendary violin maker Antonio Stradivari used only “moon wood” for Stradivarius instruments, those violins being the most collectible in the world.

 

It’s not just instruments, either. South African company ecodesignarchitects.co.za believe harvesting wood “the closer you are to the solstice [is] the better … so while the time just after the Autumn equinox is still suitable, it is better still to fell as close to the solstice as possible.” Furniture builders Unique-rustic-creations.com insist, “By cutting wood on the growing moon, you are ensuring that the moisture content is high since the sap is being drawn up into the trunk of the tree, which makes it easier to steam and bend.” But it’s different for guitar manufacturers, of course.

 

This all sounds rather unbelievable, right? Until you remember our oceans’ tides are controlled by the interaction of the moon and Earth. And some people’s sleep is disturbed by the phazes of the moon. So why not timber? It’s probably all something we will never understand. After all, we are merely guitarists.

 

But remember, when you have to sell your beloved 1959 Gibson Les Paul Sunburst, someone somewhere may be haggling, asking: “but at what exact point of the lunar cycle was that maple top harvested?” You may not have an answer for that.

[crazytrain513]

I read this a short while ago.. About how what time the tree that made your guitar was cut down could effect tone :)

 

 

All guitarists like to believe their favorite instrument is a heady mix of great wood, wire, pickups, design, craftsmanship and that indefinable thing we call “mojo.” But what if that “mojo” is being controlled by the moon? No kidding. Thanks to a blog in Premier Guitar, it is time to talk about “werewood.” What’s “werewood”? It’s wood made better, apparently, by the moon.

 

Premier Guitar correspondent Ervin Somogyi wrote a fascinating blog recently about this fabled subject. As a luthier who has been building for 40-plus years, Somogyi knows his timber. And he believes that some woods seem different – not because of their different species, but because of when the trees were harvested.

 

“I’ve handled planks so heavy that they seemed fresh-felled and still full of water,” he says. “And they’d be next to planks that were so light, you could sneeze and they’d practically blow off the pile. But these are woods of comparable size that had been kiln-dried together, so the moisture content would have been the same.

 

“I assumed this disparity was all normal and natural, until I learned about a European tradition of forestry based on the practice of cutting down woods at specific phases of the moon. This practice of wood felling is built on many centuries of empirical experience and observation, and it yields woods of consistently different density, durability, and working properties.”

 

Bark… at the Moon

 

Is this crazy? Perhaps not. Somogyi says, “wood that is felled in accordance with lunar cycles is referred to as ‘full-moon wood,’ though somehow, I’m always tempted to think of it as ‘werewood’.” Yep, as in werewolf.

 

Somogyi researched the subject and concluded that tree-fellers have noted this since the first millennium. “Woods of any one species cut during the new moon, the full moon, or the waning moon, have consistently and predictably produced different results,” he writes. “Therefore, a number of especially advantageous uses for timber – including guitar tops – have been correlated with specific felling dates. These woods for soundboards are available to luthiers and can be found through a simple search by using the keywords “full moon wood.”

 

Does that sound even more crazy? But there are other believers. Swiss company www.tonewood.ch in the heart of Europe, love their “full moon wood.” “We specialize in a type of European spruce known as picea abies,” they say. “Experience has shown us that the internal resonances of spruce greatly influence the tone of an instrument.”

 

Ancient “Science”

 

Interested? You can read the academic study Lunar Rhythms in Forestry Traditions – Lunar-Correlated Phenomena in Tree Biology and Wood Properties, by Swiss forestry expert Ernst Zürcher. There are some reports that legendary violin maker Antonio Stradivari used only “moon wood” for Stradivarius instruments, those violins being the most collectible in the world.

 

It’s not just instruments, either. South African company ecodesignarchitects.co.za believe harvesting wood “the closer you are to the solstice [is] the better … so while the time just after the Autumn equinox is still suitable, it is better still to fell as close to the solstice as possible.” Furniture builders Unique-rustic-creations.com insist, “By cutting wood on the growing moon, you are ensuring that the moisture content is high since the sap is being drawn up into the trunk of the tree, which makes it easier to steam and bend.” But it’s different for guitar manufacturers, of course.

 

This all sounds rather unbelievable, right? Until you remember our oceans’ tides are controlled by the interaction of the moon and Earth. And some people’s sleep is disturbed by the phazes of the moon. So why not timber? It’s probably all something we will never understand. After all, we are merely guitarists.

 

But remember, when you have to sell your beloved 1959 Gibson Les Paul Sunburst, someone somewhere may be haggling, asking: “but at what exact point of the lunar cycle was that maple top harvested?” You may not have an answer for that.

 

I've never had someone actually take me this seriously when I said "Go Figure". Props Rabs! Very interesting, further proving my point? Haha.

[LeoPaul422]

Right and if I'm not mistaken, he started using that as his main guitar on "Kashmir" for live performances?

 

And when Slash demos the Epi versions of his sigs, or Zakk Wylde for his (though not a fan), they sound identical to how they sound on their own axe's. It's all in the fingers! Though quality materials and components do help...

 

 

 

 

I second this. The comparisons which people show where their studios have a slightly thinner maple cap -- just coincidence IMO. Wood comes from trees. Trees are plants. Wood is better quality depending on the time of year. Go figure?

 

Yes. At no point in the video of the production process did it show them sorting out Standard & Studio bodies until it came to binding. Sorting cap sizes for Standards & Studios is too labor intensive and subjective for a production line guitar, in other words it is more trouble than it is worth.

[LeoPaul422]

But remember, when you have to sell your beloved 1959 Gibson Les Paul Sunburst, someone somewhere may be haggling, asking: “but at what exact point of the lunar cycle was that maple top harvested?” You may not have an answer for that.

 

No doubt some LP buyers howl at the moon, but I doubt that Henry alters his production line according to lunar cycles.

[DuaLeaD]

While we're on the topic of figuring....Why is it on even the mid to high-end Les Pauls (Standard and above) with AAA and better tops, they still use TWO pieces of wood and try to line up the "stripes"?? Wouldn't it look better with one solid top? Or is there a reason for this (whether it be functional, practical, or cost-cutting)?