Gibson Les Paul Classic Coming...

[lespaulguy32]

I've been playing a Robot Studio, and I've had to get a couple of the tuners replaced already. To get out of this potential future burden, I plan to buy another guitar to add on and use my current one as a backup. I want to go a step up to a nice Grade-AA maple top, in Manhattan Midnight Blue. What do you guys think of the Classic VS. Standard VS. Studio models?

 

[RR]

I too like Les Pauls, having two -- but by no means I'm some kind of expert. Probably other members could confirm the following:

I was on the Weber board and there was a big discussion on Gibson Les Pauls and the evolution of their weights. There was weight relived "Swiss cheese", and some were hollowed out. Some of these Swiss cheese were filled with balsa wood. One member who owned various vintage Les Pauls said some of these balsa plugged Les Pauls are by no mean economical short cut in design. He claimed one of his "Swiss Cheese" balsa plugged was one of best sounding Les Paul he ever owned.

Then others complained they prefer their heavy Norlins over these newer weight relieved Les Pauls. -- so matter of preference.

But I'm not sure but someone said the Les Paul "Classic" I think are the solid wood type Les Pauls (mahogany body, carved top maple), not the weight relieved Les Pauls. But NO "pancake" mahogany like many Norlin Les Pauls.

Just bumping up this post to confirm or rebuttal what I've just posted. :wink:

 

[screamingdaisy]

I don't have a lot of experience with current production Les Pauls so I'll just post what I have experience with....

I've tried a few Traditional (non-weight relieved) and a few Standard (weight relieved) Les Pauls. The Standards were clearer sounding than the Traditionals but they lacked a certain low end "lug" that I associate with the Les Paul sound.

The Traditionals were heavier and had more bottom end (including the "lug" I expect out of a Les Paul), but they were kind of muddy and lacked the clarity of the Standards.

My two main guitars are custom shop 1956 and 1959 re-issues. These guitars have both the lug of the Traditional and the clarity of the Standard.

If my guitars were stolen tomorrow and I had to buy replacements I'd go with the clarity of the Standard over the meatier sound of the Traditional. A number of years back I probably would've chosen the other way thinking that thicker was better, but after becoming used to the clearer midrange I've grown to prefer that to a thicker but muddier sound.

I'm not sure how any of this will translate to the series you're looking at, but my recommendation is that if you hear a Les Paul with a nice midrange you should take it over one that thumps more.

 

[lesterpaul]

fwiw, I dig the classics...I am a lefty, so I do not have the experience with all of the different models(hell,I never get the chance to pull one off of the wall and split hairs like you righties... )-I like the weight of the Classic(feels solid to me..)..I MUCH prefer the abr bridge over the nashvegas(...sustaaaain!)...change those ceramic pups and pots(they come with 496R/500T with 300 k pots USUALLY...you never know these days with Gibby-I would put a meter on those pots to make sure..)-hopefully, the inlays are not TOO snot green...(you can replace or possibly dye them)
-a lot of cats like them stock,but a pup change and you can dial in a classic LP Standard tone and maybe save a few $$-(my last LPC got some Mule pups by Bare Knuckle...changed the pots to 500 k...warren haynes city)
-the Classics have some of the best tops for the buck,too
-classic vs studio? me...I must have binding on a Paul-ymmv

 

[lespaulguy32]

fwiw, I dig the classics...I am a lefty, so I do not have the experience with all of the different models(hell,I never get the chance to pull one off of the wall and split hairs like you righties... )-I like the weight of the Classic(feels solid to me..)..I MUCH prefer the abr bridge over the nashvegas(...sustaaaain!)...change those ceramic pups and pots(they come with 496R/500T with 300 k pots USUALLY...you never know these days with Gibby-I would put a meter on those pots to make sure..)-hopefully, the inlays are not TOO snot green...(you can replace or possibly dye them)
-a lot of cats like them stock,but a pup change and you can dial in a classic LP Standard tone and maybe save a few $$-(my last LPC got some Mule pups by Bare Knuckle...changed the pots to 500 k...warren haynes city)
-the Classics have some of the best tops for the buck,too
-classic vs studio? me...I must have binding on a Paul-ymmv

Well, with my current Les Paul, which is a Studio, it doesn't have the binding. I personally really like the binding, but it's not a necessity for me. I was thinking of putting a pair of Duncans in it, but I'm still not sure if I still want to, as I'm not going to use it as my main anymore. And yes, those tops on the Classics are great for their price. As for the inlays on my Studio, mine are pretty green. I'll post some photos soon.

 

[lespaulguy32]

I don't have a lot of experience with current production Les Pauls so I'll just post what I have experience with....

I've tried a few Traditional (non-weight relieved) and a few Standard (weight relieved) Les Pauls. The Standards were clearer sounding than the Traditionals but they lacked a certain low end "lug" that I associate with the Les Paul sound.

The Traditionals were heavier and had more bottom end (including the "lug" I expect out of a Les Paul), but they were kind of muddy and lacked the clarity of the Standards.

My two main guitars are custom shop 1956 and 1959 re-issues. These guitars have both the lug of the Traditional and the clarity of the Standard.

If my guitars were stolen tomorrow and I had to buy replacements I'd go with the clarity of the Standard over the meatier sound of the Traditional. A number of years back I probably would've chosen the other way thinking that thicker was better, but after becoming used to the clearer midrange I've grown to prefer that to a thicker but muddier sound.

I'm not sure how any of this will translate to the series you're looking at, but my recommendation is that if you hear a Les Paul with a nice midrange you should take it over one that thumps more.

Yea, I think I agree. My Les Paul has a pretty nice midrange, which I do like about it. The only thing that I kind of wish out of it is for some better sustain. Like I said to lesterpaul, I wanted to put some higher output Duncans in it, but I was thinking that since I'm getting a sister for it, I'll see how that goes. If that new guitar doesn't have enough sustain, then I'll put some in there. Though, as the guitars age, and the laquer wears down, sustain should grow a little bit.

 

[YellowJacket]

Put Bare Knuckle pickups in it! DOOO IT!!!

They are really open, rich, singing pickups with a nice wide pick attack.

Oh, I don't mean to be a pedant but all modern production (Gibson USA) Les Pauls are weight relieved. The Traditionals are swiss cheese weight relieved and the standards are chambered. I emailed Gibson and found out that mine is Weight Relieved and that it is a 2002 Standard Plus, not 2002 Standard Premium Plus as I was told at the store where I got it. The top is very lively but it has a couple of dead spots and it is nowhere near as even as an AAA top. It's basically identical to a modern Traditional Plus.

 

[lespaulguy32]

***UPDATE: As of Nov 24th, 2012, I have decided that once I find a new job, I can actually better fund a Standard, as it's more of a guitar that I can buy and keep for the rest of my life. I compared the flame on the one I saw with a classic's quilt top, and it's no comparison. I was hypnotized by the Standard's top.

 

[swbo101]

FWIW, I'm not a big fan of the newer Les Pauls. I've played several the past year when the Gibson truck came to my local guitar store and was not impressed. I own 2 1981 Les Pauls, one Standard and one Custom. The Custom having Tim Shaw PUPs. The new ones just don't sound like the older ones, nor do they feel like them with these new weight relieved models. If I was to buy one now, I'd look for a old used one from between 1979 and 1983. They won't break the bank and they will have that classic sound.

This is just my .02 and based on my tastes. Good luck with your decision!

 

[taylor51]

Hi,new here.I recently traded a Nomad 45 for a Blue Angel 4-10 and fell un love with it.I joined so I can get some info on it.I've got two LP,s,a 68 black custom w/paf,s and a 68 Goldtop w/P-90,s.I'm a lefty so my choices are limited,like the guy above mentioned.I recently bought a 60,s tribute Goldtop and am extremely unhappy with it.The action is fine,so's the finish and the electronics work.I'm sure there are some good studio,s out there but this ain't one of them.The guitar has no ass.It sounds flat,like power tubes going bad or something.I even took the pickups and pots out of my 68.It helped a little,but not enough to keep it.I've been looking at a heritage plus with a triple a top.The thing is beautiful,a tobacco burst with a ton of figure in it,but I have'nt bought it cause this studio is so crappy.I bought the 68,s new and bought a stereo in 72 and have'nt bought anything new till this year.There's so many new models and I never paid any attention.R6,s,R0,s,RI,s,all that.Are all tke new ones crappy compared to the old stuff?hope not.











i

 

[RR]

FWIW, I'm not a big fan of the newer Les Pauls. I've played several the past year when the Gibson truck came to my local guitar store and was not impressed. I own 2 1981 Les Pauls, one Standard and one Custom. The Custom having Tim Shaw PUPs. The new ones just don't sound like the older ones, nor do they feel like them with these new weight relieved models. If I was to buy one now, I'd look for a old used one from between 1979 and 1983. They won't break the bank and they will have that classic sound.

This is just my .02 and based on my tastes. Good luck with your decision!

Aw you old fogeys like the old Norlin Gibson dome maple top cap - solid mahogany (non weight relieved Swiss cheese) Les Pauls ...

... that makes me an old fogey too. :lol:

 

[taylor51]

I'm an old enough fogey that my LP,s are pre-Norlin.Don't know if that's good or bad.

 

[RR]

I'm an old enough fogey that my LP,s are pre-Norlin.Don't know if that's good or bad.

That's even better! :wink:

 

[taylor51]

I'm an old enough fogey that my LP,s are pre-Norlin.Don't know if that's good or bad.

That's even better! :wink:

Ha,thanks.I'm kinda funny about gear.D'oh!,I think that's the first time I ever used that word.Or rig.I feel better now.I've got a few cork-sniffer buddies that come by every now and then.I'm a lefty and they convenienly left their Suhr,s and Carr Mercury,s or whatever,home.I hung an old righty strat and a P-bass on the studio wall.It's kinda garlic for a vampire.It keeps the BS level down.I bought a Schecter and I love it.It's kinda like Mesa.It walks a fine line between botique and mass produced.But they got the BEST customer service of any company I've dealt with.If you have a question,they tell you hold on,and you end up getting your answer from the guy who built the amp 20 years ago.I called THD with a question about a Uni-valve and they could'nt find their ass with both hands.C'est la vie.Happy New Years.If we fall off a fiscal cliff,I'll wave on the way down.No politics intended.

 

[user 36194]

The mom and pop guitar shop I work at had a robot sg in on consignment. Worst tuning machine set up. I hope they don't give you any more trouble. Was it expensive to get replaced?