Why are faded Les Pauls cheaper?

[GuitarJunkie]

Hand rubbed...

 

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

 

Since were talking about flame on faded LPs, heres my (former) honeyburst and my tobaccoburst...

 

[dark]

I believe they are less expensive as they use less materials, labor. Judging from the fact that all the stores closeby me are filled with the same faded LPs, they are not in as popular as the other finishes. Things go on sale when they don't sell. Basic law of supply versus demand. Less demand, they go for less.

 

Understand this is my opinion, and to each his own; no offense to those that own and love their faded LPs, but I don't think they look like faded paint/finishes, their flat finishes make the guitar bodies not feel or resemble a solid piece of wood, and resemble veneer, linoleum, or formica. They look like less expensive models.

[dark]

Hi All' date=' and happy Thankgiving,

 

I'm in the market for my first Les Paul Standard, being that I like my SG Classic so much. In shopping online, I've noticed that that so-called "faded" models - at least online - look just as good, and seem to have the same hardware. So, my question is, why are they cheaper than the "non-faded" Standards?

Many Thanks![/quote']

 

I would buy one used. Much more reasonable price, nice and broken in, and I prefer the quality control on older LPs. I have seen and played too many new Gibson LPS lately, and have been disapointed with the cracks, paint blemishes, dirty pots, horrible setups, etc. on these expensive new LPs. You have to play a few to find a decent one.

 

I got my 1993 Gibson Les Paul Standard from a Mom and Pop store for a little over a grand. The finish on the back of the neck is getting dull, it's like the neck is getting more and more comfortable.