slavestate Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 When did Gibson starting weight relieving their Les Paul bodies and/or chambering them? I found THIS link about the difference. I'm looking for an older Les Paul that is solid wood, is that possible? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kennis Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I think they started weight relieving in the early '70s, possibly later. I stand corrected, ty Farns If I read the description correctly the new 2013 Les Paul Traditionals should be non-weight relieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 1983. Before that the norlins were often many pieces glued together. Sometimes one on top of the other (pancake). You'd be looking for a 52-60 or a 68-71 but be prepared to pay. The other option is a traditional or a reissue, used or new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slavestate Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 1983. Before that the norlins were often many pieces glued together. Sometimes one on top of the other (pancake). You'd be looking for a 52-60 or a 68-71 but be prepared to pay. The other option is a traditional or a reissue, used or new. So any Gibson Les Paul Traditional should do me justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kennis Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So any Gibson Les Paul Traditional should do me justice? I don't think "any". I know I read somewhere people complaining that the Traditionals where in fact weight relieved and they really wished Gibson would make them full solid. Because of this I was delighted when I read this description. So a 2013 LP Traditional in Chicago Blue is at the top of my GAS list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So any Gibson Les Paul Traditional should do me justice? A new (2013) one should be solid as are all reissues (excepting the chambered reissues/cloud 9s). Do you mind if I ask what you have against weight relief? It's not like you can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slavestate Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 A new (2013) one should be solid as are all reissues (excepting the chambered reissues/cloud 9s). Do you mind if I ask what you have against weight relief? It's not like you can tell. I'm just looking for a heavier Les Paul. I've played several that were just too light. I'm really eager to play something that is as original as possible, that kind of thing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenKen Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 You want heavy, get a Norlin. I have 2 and they're both beasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I'm just looking for a heavier Les Paul. I've played several that were just too light. I'm really eager to play something that is as original as possible, that kind of thing too. As long as you play and hold them you'll be fine but do bear in mind some weight relieved Lesters are heavier than solid ones, and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cú Chulainn Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 some weight relieved Lesters are heavier than solid ones that doesn't make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 that doesn't make sense What can I say. Mahogany varies hugely in weight. Make a solid guitar out of a light piece and a weight relieved one from a heavy piece (pretty much what Gibson aims for) and the solid one can be lighter. Just ask Pippy who owns two such guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm just looking for a heavier Les Paul. I've played several that were just too light. I'm really eager to play something that is as original as possible, that kind of thing too. Original doesn't mean "good" you know. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I knew something had been done but it is nice to be able to picture it now. Thanks! My uncle would always say, "In MY day they were even heavier." Having held his 70s version of my '94...yeah, they relieved us alright! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 As Farns has already said, mahogany varies in weight greatly from tree to tree. I seem to remember reading that it's all to do with the individual tree's absorbtion of silicates. More silicates = heavier timber. The lighter chunks/trees are far less common nowadays and Gibson uses these, more expensive, blanks for the re-issues. The more commonly available regular, heavier, slabs are either weight-relieved or chambered. A weight-relieved LP can still weigh a fair bit over 10 lbs whereas re-issues tend to be just the light side of 9 lbs. In fact I've seen some recent (solid-bodied) R-I's which have been listed as weighing 8 lbs 5 oz. There is a picture somewhere which has been posted before with a table showing which weight of blank should be used for which LP but I'm at work at the mo. and can't do a search. If I get some time later I'll try to track it down. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Just check out Wildwood's site. They tell the weight of each and every guitar they offer. Reissues are lighter than current weight-relieved ones, more closer to chambered regular-run guitars. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twang Gang Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Have to agree with Farnsbarns on this one - they vary a lot. I recently bought a '11 classic custom that is supposed to have weight relief - but it is almost 10 pounds. On another thread there was a fellow that found a Guitar Center sight that showed inventory around the country and showed the weight. He was looking for a Cherry sunburst Standard I think it was and there was as much as 2 pound difference in the exact same model. So get out there and play them - you'll find plenty heavy enough for your taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you are looking for a solid Les Paul get a Historic (there are a few chambered models in this line but they are clearly marked), they usually choose the lighter mahogany for Historics so the guitar will not be a boat anchor but it is solid and you can find one that is not too light. I have a Gretsch Double Jet that has weight relief holes (mahogany back/maple top)and the thing is freaking heavy much heavier than my solid LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I prefer either solid or weight relieved (used from 83 until the early 2000s) over chambering. But the chambered guitars are nice. I was completely against it at first, but after finding a lot of players that I admire that can't handle the weight of a regular LP anymore (like Scott Gorham), I became open. And a friend of mine has a chambered 2007 Standard (LTD! Natural finish with 3-pc flame maple neck!), and it's a dream to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.