Les Paul Historic

There's more to life than just amps?

Moderators: VelvetGeorge, BUG

User avatar
fillmore nyc
Senior Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 8:59 am
Just the numbers in order: 7

Post by fillmore nyc » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:37 am

Flames1950 wrote:Well, I'll brand myself a heretic right here and now and say that I don't see jack of difference between the Standard and the Historic to justify more than twice the price for a cherry sunburst Les Paul.
I have no complaints about the quality of wood in my Standard, but even if the Historic is a "higher" quality of wood, go down to the fine woods dealer and see how much difference that comes out to. It ain't thousands, not even hundreds for the amount you need to make a guitar. Maybe $50?
All the spec differences don't add up to the price difference either. Does it really take that much labor to make the neck tenon longer, the headstock and neck angle different? Hey, they carve less wood out of the Historic's top, so it should be cheaper on labor........and for all the PR they put into it I don't doubt for one second that either guitar's parts are loaded onto a CNC machine and carved, with just a different program loaded........
It all adds up to a big spin for those who can't get over that Les Pauls aren't made exactly the same as they used to be to my ears....and hands. If that makes the difference in the way you percieve the guitar, cool. I've played a real Gibson from the golden ages quite a bit growing up, my '06 Les Paul Standard plays and feels no worse to me. My only complaint is still the pickups......lo and behold, the Historic uses the same pickups as my Standard without the wax and with an A2 instead of an A5......... :roll:
I'd give them $3K tops for the '59 Historic compared to my $2K Standard, anything else is highway robbery.

Rip away on me.........
No ripping, bro, cause you're right. The thing is, if somebody wants a LP as close to a '58/'59/'60, dealing with Gibson is like dealing with the water company... who else are you gonna get it from?? And just to tell you how eff'd up Gibsons practices are, the thing about carving less wood, using less labor for less cost... about 8 years ago I had a local dealer that I was pretty good friends with, and who "knew somebody" ( :roll: ) in the Gibson Custom Shop get a price quote on a Historic Firebird III that I wanted without the trem, just with the stock wrap tailpiece. So all they had to do was NOT drill the 3 holes that hold the trem on, and NOT give me the trem, cause it already came with the wraptail. Everything else would be the way it woulda come out of Gibson in the first place. For leaving the trem out of the picture, Gibson wanted $900.00 MORE than a stock FB III. I almost puked when I heard that. Ya know, I love my Gibsons, but that kinda shit is just outa hand, and really makes players look for alternatives, just so they dont have to stomach giving those scumbags their money. :? :? / :evil: :evil:

User avatar
45auto
Senior Member
Posts: 2532
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: cowtown tx

Post by 45auto » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:22 am

if i wouldn't have bought my '90 lp classic years ago for a grand, i wouldn't have one at all.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default ... dID=559714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://s62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/ ... t=1980.flv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Myopic Void
Senior Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:47 am
Just the numbers in order: 7

Post by Myopic Void » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:40 pm

Andy,

I will agree on most points. But, my reason for purchasing the VOS was that all the standards that GC had; 1. were weight releaved, 2. fit and finish were not as nice, 3. they did not sound as good as the VOS I picked out. And OOO I looked for many months at all the standards and classics that came in and out of the store. It mostly boiled down to how the guitar felt and sounded. I would have loved to have picked up a less expensive standard or classic but could not find one that was "right".
Andy---you mention something VERY important that I left off my post. Standard LP's are weight relieved which means in plane english they actually have appx 9 large holes routed out in the main body to lower the weight. That was never part of LP's original design and is no small change. When I retired my "classic" 1960 Gold top LP for the Historic I took it too a guy I know who has a super high-end weight scale at his store and weighed both guitars. In spite of the "weight relief" holes in the Classic LP it came to 10.5 LB's the non-weight releived Historic RO comes to 8.10 lb's. My LP Custom 1979 came to 12.5LBS :shock: The difference between 10.5lb and 8.10lb is quickly noticable when you strap it on. Especially after a 2hr show or rehearsal.

I alos forgot Historics use Nitro-cellulous spelling? Laquer opposed to poly on standards. These are two very different animals I can tell you. I have some Nitro-cell in my shop room and it's not at all like poly.

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'll brand myself a heretic right here and now and say that I don't see jack of difference between the Standard and the Historic to justify more than twice the price for a cherry sunburst Les Paul.
I have no complaints about the quality of wood in my Standard, but even if the Historic is a "higher" quality of wood, go down to the fine woods dealer and see how much difference that comes out to. It ain't thousands, not even hundreds for the amount you need to make a guitar. Maybe $50?
All the spec differences don't add up to the price difference either. Does it really take that much labor to make the neck tenon longer, the headstock and neck angle different? Hey, they carve less wood out of the Historic's top, so it should be cheaper on labor........and for all the PR they put into it I don't doubt for one second that either guitar's parts are loaded onto a CNC machine and carved, with just a different program loaded........
It all adds up to a big spin for those who can't get over that Les Pauls aren't made exactly the same as they used to be to my ears....and hands. If that makes the difference in the way you percieve the guitar, cool. I've played a real Gibson from the golden ages quite a bit growing up, my '06 Les Paul Standard plays and feels no worse to me. My only complaint is still the pickups......lo and behold, the Historic uses the same pickups as my Standard without the wax and with an A2 instead of an A5.........
I'd give them $3K tops for the '59 Historic compared to my $2K Standard, anything else is highway robbery.

Rip away on me.........
Hey Flames no ripping will come from me as I really appreciate your post. I would like to just note a few things in the spirit of healthy discussion :D .

We all have valid gripes with Marshall, Gibson etc. My main gripe with Gibson is this: Why sell a guitar and call it something it has little in common with???

Like Andy noted "weight relief" is another serious departure from the original design and illuminates a clear difference in wood they use if they have to drill alot of holes to reduce weight, which still does not approach a historic weight with no relief holes. Sure the wood may only cost 50.00 more per block to aquire but it is different grade of wood no less.

Dropping the Long Neck Tenon in lieu of a glued neck in heel is another serious design departure. A neck going through a body instead being glued into the heel is not something to dismiss.

Locating the TP and ABR, controls and cavity, Headstock pitch in the right place are important and necessary if you a going to sell a true Les Paul design. I do think those apps are going to also have a cumilitive effect in conjunction with more serious structural apps like non-weight relief, correct wood grade and Long neck Tenon.

I will draw a parallel: there are people who think the Marshall HW series is Marshall just trying to add some old looking guts to garner more money etc and the net result is nill compared to a standard SLP reissue. But I think we all now here on Metro that Marshall took a step in right direction using PTP boards, better components etc...sure no doubt due to demand and potential $$$. We also know that the HW's can be tweaked for futher goodness i.e replace OT, better glass and NOS Mustard coupling caps which does make a clear difference.

I look at the Historic line the same way as I do the HW series amps. A more accurate production design needing some tweaking to taste.

New A LP Standard is appx 2k, a historic at appx 4-5k. You can find a used Historic around 3 if you really shop. Considering what they offer in a considerably more accurate design I don't see the price being excessive or shocking. After working in studios for years and now having built one myself I encounter engineers young and old that often say, to get that last extra 5%-10% of quality in gear thats where the rub ($$$) comes in, you pay alot more money for that final extra gain that sets it apart from the rest. It's often true IME. I really feel the same applies here, except you get more like 15-20% more gain in a Historic especially after tweaking.

For me I found the best tool I could find thus far in this Historic RO and it was worth the extra $$. I am not a guitar collector and only have two intruments. The RO and a Fender/Parsons Tele B-bender as a back up. My Marshalls, guitars, studio equip the whole lot are just a means to and end. The band, music and the idea's are the most important.

Cheers,

Eric

Myopic Void
Senior Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:47 am
Just the numbers in order: 7

Post by Myopic Void » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:47 pm

Myopic Void wrote:
Andy,

I will agree on most points. But, my reason for purchasing the VOS was that all the standards that GC had; 1. were weight releaved, 2. fit and finish were not as nice, 3. they did not sound as good as the VOS I picked out. And OOO I looked for many months at all the standards and classics that came in and out of the store. It mostly boiled down to how the guitar felt and sounded. I would have loved to have picked up a less expensive standard or classic but could not find one that was "right".
Andy---you mention something VERY important that I left off my post. Standard LP's are weight relieved which means in plane english they actually have appx 9 large holes routed out in the main body to lower the weight. That was never part of LP's original design and is no small change. When I retired my "classic" 1960 Gold top LP for the Historic I took it too a guy I know who has a super high-end weight scale at his store and weighed both guitars. In spite of the "weight relief" holes in the Classic LP it came to 10.5 LB's the non-weight releived Historic RO comes to 8.10 lb's. My LP Custom 1979 came to 12.5LBS :shock: The difference between 10.5lb and 8.10lb is quickly noticable when you strap it on. Especially after a 2hr show or rehearsal.

I alos forgot Historics use Nitro-cellulous spelling? Laquer opposed to poly on standards. These are two very different animals I can tell you. I have some Nitro-cell in my shop room and it's not at all like poly.

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:


Well, I'll brand myself a heretic right here and now and say that I don't see jack of difference between the Standard and the Historic to justify more than twice the price for a cherry sunburst Les Paul.
I have no complaints about the quality of wood in my Standard, but even if the Historic is a "higher" quality of wood, go down to the fine woods dealer and see how much difference that comes out to. It ain't thousands, not even hundreds for the amount you need to make a guitar. Maybe $50?
All the spec differences don't add up to the price difference either. Does it really take that much labor to make the neck tenon longer, the headstock and neck angle different? Hey, they carve less wood out of the Historic's top, so it should be cheaper on labor........and for all the PR they put into it I don't doubt for one second that either guitar's parts are loaded onto a CNC machine and carved, with just a different program loaded........
It all adds up to a big spin for those who can't get over that Les Pauls aren't made exactly the same as they used to be to my ears....and hands. If that makes the difference in the way you percieve the guitar, cool. I've played a real Gibson from the golden ages quite a bit growing up, my '06 Les Paul Standard plays and feels no worse to me. My only complaint is still the pickups......lo and behold, the Historic uses the same pickups as my Standard without the wax and with an A2 instead of an A5.........
I'd give them $3K tops for the '59 Historic compared to my $2K Standard, anything else is highway robbery.

Rip away on me.........
Hey Flames no ripping will come from me as I really appreciate your post. I would like to just note a few things in the spirit of healthy discussion :D .

We all have valid gripes with Marshall, Gibson etc. My main gripe with Gibson is this: Why sell a guitar and call it something it has little in common with???

Like Andy noted "weight relief" is another serious departure from the original design and illuminates a clear difference in wood they use if they have to drill alot of holes to reduce weight, which still does not approach a historic weight with no relief holes. Sure the wood may only cost 50.00 more per block to aquire but it is different grade of wood no less.

Dropping the Long Neck Tenon in lieu of a glued neck in heel is another serious design departure. A neck going through a body instead being glued into the heel is not something to dismiss.

Locating the TP and ABR, controls and cavity, Headstock pitch in the right place are important and necessary if you a going to sell a true Les Paul design. I do think those apps are going to also have a cumilitive effect in conjunction with more serious structural apps like non-weight relief, correct wood grade and Long neck Tenon.

I will draw a parallel: there are people who think the Marshall HW series is Marshall just trying to add some old looking guts to garner more money etc and the net result is nill compared to a standard SLP reissue. But I think we all now here on Metro that Marshall took a step in right direction using PTP boards, better components etc...sure no doubt due to demand and potential $$$. We also know that the HW's can be tweaked for futher goodness i.e replace OT, better glass and NOS Mustard coupling caps which does make a clear difference.

I look at the Historic line the same way as I do the HW series amps. A more accurate production design needing some tweaking to taste.

New A LP Standard is appx 2k, a historic at appx 4-5k. You can find a used Historic around 3 if you really shop. Considering what they offer in a considerably more accurate design I don't see the price being excessive or shocking. After working in studios for years and now having built one myself I encounter engineers young and old that often say, to get that last extra 5%-10% of quality in gear thats where the rub ($$$) comes in, you pay alot more money for that final extra gain that sets it apart from the rest. It's often true IME. I really feel the same applies here, except you get more like 15-20% more gain in tone and physical comfort (weight) with a Historic especially after tweaking.

For me I found the best tool I could find thus far in this Historic RO and it was worth the extra $$. I am not a guitar collector and only have two intruments. The RO and a Fender/Parsons Tele B-bender as a back up. My Marshalls, guitars, studio equip the whole lot are just a means to and end. The band, music and the idea's are the most important.

Cheers,

Eric

56goldtop
Senior Member
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:46 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by 56goldtop » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:16 pm

Just for the record, a plaintop R8 or goldtop R7 cost about as much as a standard.

Billy Batz
Senior Member
Posts: 8566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by Billy Batz » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:23 pm

Yeah thats my thing. I dont need a fiugured top. A Plain top is fine with me.

User avatar
Flames1950
Senior Member
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Waukee, Iowa

Post by Flames1950 » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:47 pm

I'm puzzled on the nitrocell vs. poly claim....Gibson claims all guitars are done in nitrocellulose, and even the guys that refinished my lowly Studio after fixing the neck crack said that the finish on that guitar was nitrocellulose lacquer......not to mention I'd think poly would hold up better, I've already got a pretty good dull wear spot started on my year-old LP. My poly finished Fenders show no signs of giving in to wear and sweat yet after over ten years while my Studio of the same age has a very dull spot where my arm goes; neither gets any more or less care than the other........

Still, I never claimed that the two guitars were made to the same spec, only that the differences between those specs don't amount to $3000. As already stated above, Gibson just knows they've got the average guy (that wants something as close to a '59 LP as they can commercially get) bent over a barrel.
Image

User avatar
JimiJames
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:32 pm
Just the numbers in order: 13492
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by JimiJames » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:58 pm

Billy Batz wrote:Its a tough decision because they are expensive but Id like to have a really nice LP standard. I have a 80 LPC and an EPI LPC. Slimer necks dont attract me more. As long as the tone is there on either guitar Ill take a fatter neck and a non-figured top.
Apples & Oranges LPC - LPS. Huge difference.
Eric has mention a lot of key points in the comparison.

Gibson boast their VOS line to be this way. Here are a couple of links:

Tenon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NvtLWW1bU0

VOS
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/894362/gi ... _of_a_vos/


I am fortunate to have played dozens of these VOS's and I tend to agree with them. The craftsmanship is very good. I just don't get how Peter didn't know what Paul was doing with those faux Bumble Bee's though.
I would definitely change them out for cap of choice.

The Tokai's are a good second choice (didn't get sued for nothing)
The Burny's & Greco's are good as well.
I would suggest Orville's in place of Epihone's.
They have long neck tenon's and at an affordable price.

Yeah the Gibson's pricey but do they depreciate?
Billy Batz wrote:Shit, if your basically paying half a car payment each month you might as well physically have the thing your paying for. 18 months is plenty for me with a decent DP.

I really have to get out and play some.

Aha ! I knew there was a reason for a new LP ... Tryin' to impress the ladies are ya? poser :P
RIP Mark Abrahamian-rockstah -classmate/roommate
RIP Ben Wise -StuntDouble- comrade-in-arms

__________________________________________
Build'sClip'sVid's

Myopic Void
Senior Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:47 am
Just the numbers in order: 7

Post by Myopic Void » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:31 pm

Flames1950 wrote:I'm puzzled on the nitrocell vs. poly claim....Gibson claims all guitars are done in nitrocellulose, and even the guys that refinished my lowly Studio after fixing the neck crack said that the finish on that guitar was nitrocellulose lacquer......not to mention I'd think poly would hold up better, I've already got a pretty good dull wear spot started on my year-old LP. My poly finished Fenders show no signs of giving in to wear and sweat yet after over ten years while my Studio of the same age has a very dull spot where my arm goes; neither gets any more or less care than the other........

Still, I never claimed that the two guitars were made to the same spec, only that the differences between those specs don't amount to $3000. As already stated above, Gibson just knows they've got the average guy (that wants something as close to a '59 LP as they can commercially get) bent over a barrel.
Hey Flames...I have not heard about nitro in standards it may very well be in them, perhaps in a lesser ratio and with more plasticizers "spelling". I agree poly is WAY more sturdy. The finish on my last few LP's has been hard and thick poly. On all of the Historic's I have played it is very soft, porrus and thin. Clearly different & even smells different. Like I said I have a bottle of nitro-cell and it's a different animal altogether from poly.


Note: pic of my Historic R0 in the avatar, you can see I have to keep cotton cloth on the guitar hangers as pure nitro reacts terribly with another plastic. It's now common knowledge Historic's have to kept away from rubber tubing plastic etc on guitar stands. My other LP's had no issues with rubber stands whatsoever. Once again another indicator of a clear difference in finish type. A visit to Les Paul Forum and you will find dozens of post regarding Historic's/nitro nasty interaction with guitar stands and rubber in general.

Cheers,

Eric

Billy Batz
Senior Member
Posts: 8566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by Billy Batz » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:43 am

What does R0 signify?

User avatar
Flames1950
Senior Member
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Waukee, Iowa

Post by Flames1950 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:40 am

JimiJames wrote:Yeah the Gibson's pricey but do they depreciate?
Ummm......yes, they do -- for years -- before they become old enough to be considered "vintage" and start to appreciate........
Image

User avatar
novosibir
Senior Member
Posts: 4654
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:32 pm
Just the numbers in order: 7
Location: Nuernberg, Germany
Contact:

Post by novosibir » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:01 am

Billy Batz wrote:What does R0 signify?
R8 = 1958
R9 = 1959
R0 = 1960

for the Historic Collection series

Larry
The fault almost always is sitting in front of the amp :wink:

Larry's Website now with included Pix's Gallery

User avatar
JimiJames
Senior Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:32 pm
Just the numbers in order: 13492
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by JimiJames » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:26 am

I was addressing Top Shelf LP's. (not like a 1960 Classic which are not that bad) ...and if your a lucky guy to get on the "Murphy List" you stand to make a good return. That ole saying Money makes Money comes to mind.
I'm with Dan on Tops. Plain Jane is peachy with me but I do notice a (PRS type) trend in tops. The more Flame the more $$$. If I had to decide on a Flame I prefer the what is called "fiddle back" - tight flaming.
The exotic quilted stuff doesn't float my boat and is not vintage correct although, to some, appealing to the eye.

____________________________________________________________

Allow me to extend a helping hand...

I will help anyone on this forum find a good investment piece if they are looking.
There are a
RIP Mark Abrahamian-rockstah -classmate/roommate
RIP Ben Wise -StuntDouble- comrade-in-arms

__________________________________________
Build'sClip'sVid's

Myopic Void
Senior Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:47 am
Just the numbers in order: 7

Post by Myopic Void » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:35 am

I am fortunate to have played dozens of these VOS's and I tend to agree with them. The craftsmanship is very good. I just don't get how Peter didn't know what Paul was doing with those faux Bumble Bee's though.
I would definitely change them out for cap of choice.
JimiJames thanks for the post :D --Your right about the faux Bumble B's. I just found some original Sprague B-Bee's and installed them along with the RS super pots which are smoother and better grade CTS product. The combo made for a slightly more open tone and better tapered pots. I am actually trying get some OEM 50's Central labs from my buddy. The are $400.00 for a set which I think is off the beam but he and I may be able to work a deal.

I forgot to mention when I installed OEM style studs and bushings for the Historic and removed the new OEM stud I noted it was heavier. When I rapped it on a hard surface I got this THUD sound...when I did the same with the correct case hardened steel stud it went DING!! Same went for the Bushings too. Clearly a different material and in theory one would react different with the wood than the other. As too the tonal effect some notice more than others. It seems to chime more acoustically. As I said the pots, BB's and PU made all the difference to me. The rest is just minor ingreds that likely have cumulative effect the more you change.

As for depreciation they drop some but retain their value better than most. I don't see the drop as much as you do with other brands or LP, SG, standards etc.

Cheers,

Eric

A pic of the cotton hangers up close...

click pic for larger detailed image...
Image

Billy Batz
Senior Member
Posts: 8566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by Billy Batz » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:08 pm

Upgrading electronics is automatic.

Having to replace more 'structural' things like studs is something that would annoy me for the money but I guess thats something I can do one at a time in time and see how it goes. If the metal in tranys is so hard to nail down I would think the metal in bridges and studs would have the same weakness. Why that should necessarily mean it sounds worse or less resonant or musical, I dont know, but the fact that it always comes out that way tells me there is something inherent to even the metallurgy today that is just cheap all around and always less musical qualities.

My main thing is I want to get the cheapest one I can. Im not worried about the top and I hope the top is the only reason for such steep price hikes for the 59. I would expect that to be the case because there are 58s and 60s that cost the same and they all have figured tops. As long as they all sound the same (well not the same but to the same standards) I dont care about aesthetics- Ill take the cheaper of the guitars.
novosibir wrote:
Billy Batz wrote:What does R0 signify?
R8 = 1958
R9 = 1959
R0 = 1960

for the Historic Collection series

Larry
I see. Thank you sir.

Post Reply