when did gibson start weight releveing lp standards?

[jbzoso2002]

i going to start my hunt for a gibson les paul
standard. does anyone know when they started
weight releveing them??

thanks

jimmy

[lcampz]

i going to start my hunt for a gibson les paul
standard. does anyone know when they started
weight releveing them??

thanks

jimmy

...sorry, I know guys who worked at the factory, ahem. Good luck in your search. I do truly hope you actually get what you pay for, seriously. Supposedly, they are starting to make them again with "long tenons". (The Japanese have been doing that for years.) I've said too much, already.

[jbzoso2002]

i know what your saying, but i have owned
7 gibson les pauls in the past. i dont want a
newer one, i just was wondering when they started
drillin holes in em.

jimmy

[nikki-k]

Hit "The Les Paul Forum." There are several threads about this (at least), and several more (at least) with x-rays. IIRC, even back in the Norlin days they did that, although how much/many....

[lcampz]

This is just one quote from many posts on the matter:

"The bigger issue about weight relief holes is maybe; Why are they necessary. Perhaps it is because high quality, lightweight, resonant mahogany is no longer avaliable at a reasonable price, so by taking weight out mechanically, it's possible to give the impression that higher quality, light wood has been used??"

Let's suppose that sustain is not affected and sound quality is passable, as is claimed by Gbsn. I first would imagine that kind of determination is best left to a player who has an early model LP (or spent lots of time playing or listening to one). If Gbsn is knowingly using lesser quality, lessor resonant mahogany, requiring structural modification in the form of weight relief (or perhaps, has to)... ...what is the rational for charging so much for said guitar??? It would seem to me that there are business practices in play here that have nothing to do with the quality of the guitars being produced, quite akin to selling PC board reissue amps as if they were holy grails straight from the attic.

In other words, if you want to sell me an orange, that's fine. But it's when someone injects it with apple flavoring and paints it red, swearing it's just like an apple that I have a problem. It's that pesky "truth" issue rearing it's ugly head... just be honest with your customers. Of course, that goes against "Marketing 101".

[908ssp]

Gibson has never said that a new LP is a clone of an old LP. They say the historic are as close as they can make them and they don't have weight relief holes. And PCB amps are sold as reissues all the time. It is just semantics you're arguing. If you pay attention to advertising baloney then you have no one to blame but yourself. And if you believe that butting weight relief holes in ruins the guitar you're naive. Just go to the store and try some out, find a good one and it is a good one whether it has holes or not.

[yngwie308]

The Cloud Nine reissues had a good reputation. Lots of the LPF guys, a finicky bunch to put it mildly, like the weight relieved LP's, hell I wish my almost 11 lb. Heritage Gary Moore's were lighter, with active pickups and Grovers..hell they are as heavy as a Cadillac..
yngwie308

[lcampz]

Gibson has never said that a new LP is a clone of an old LP. They say the historic are as close as they can make them and they don't have weight relief holes. And PCB amps are sold as reissues all the time. It is just semantics you're arguing. If you pay attention to advertising baloney then you have no one to blame but yourself. And if you believe that butting weight relief holes in ruins the guitar you're naive. Just go to the store and try some out, find a good one and it is a good one whether it has holes or not.

I see I've rumpled someone's feathers. Don't take it personally. The posted response is simply about ethical business practices. Cost to quality is and will always be a legitimate question for a consumer; it's certainly a valid question for the manufacturer. What I didn't say is "you're an idiot if you buy a Gbsn". I own a Gbsn, albeit a 1964 B25 acoustic and have owned more than a couple LPs. What I said was there should be a qualitative reason why one would purchase an instrument as expensive as a Studio Les Paul on up through a Historic. In an ideal world, expense should equate to very fine build quality, exceptional detail and the lack of cut corners based on production turn around time. If those are semantics, maybe I am naive. "Advertising baloney" is a polite way of saying "they knowingly lie". I don't happen to like being lied to. It's just a personal preference. A reissue that isn't built the same, doesn't sound the same and is in very important ways different is only a reissue in terms of general asthetics... which honestly isn't really a reissue, but a variation on a theme (nothing wrong with that, if it's stated as such). I've played lots of LPs new and used, loved the sound of some, could easily pass on others, but usually can't justify the price anymore than I can justify the price of a real deal vintage JTM45... unless it's purely for the brand name and the mojo factor. I'd like less filling/great taste. Scratch that... great build/great tone whether or not it comes with a name and mojo, so many options out there these days. Each to his own. None of that was meant to be a shout down of anyone's preferred instrument.

[yngwie308]

It's all good guys, please. If one cares to see 'rumpled feathers' , please venture over to the aforementioned LPF.. !
It is like a board meeting of old men arguing over the etiquette of describing what they are saying to each other:
http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showt ... p?t=151716" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See what I mean.
I only post over there when absolutely necessary, ect.
As far as Gibson's these days, the Historics, or Hystericals as I call them. Certain years are known as the primo years for various models. That the 'specs' are close but never 100%, guarantees that they will have to keep building them year after year. That aficionados will take a brand new Historic completely apart and replace hardware, inlays, remove truss rod condoms, change pickups, rings, tuners, have them refinished. Replace the pots and capacitors. Have the guitars 'relic'd', ect., shows how close (not) Gibson has come. Except a Tom Murphy painted or 'aged' guitar, they are too valuable to modify.
Fortunately for me, I have no interest in having a 1959 Les Paul Standard Historic, so that saves me a lot of money and frustration. The closest I came to having one, was a prototype 1957 Goldtop Historic in 1993 that Tom Murphy and Edwin Wilson brought to the Chicago Vintage Guitar Show that year. For $2K I could have bought that guitar, but of course was broke and had used a lot of my money to rent a truck and drive to Chicago to meet Music Ground and pick up all their show equipment and drive it to the show. The Goldtop's neck I loved and I couldn't put it down the whole weekend. It had a large ding on the bottom of the guitar, but played and sounded fantastic. Tom played it at the jam session for the show. That was the last Historic I was interested in. I do hope to have the JB Oxblood one day, as that configuration I do enjoy. Then I would have to change the pickups, and I would change the tuners, ect and probably the tone and volume pots, and caps!!
The new Les Paul with it's PCB mounted tone controls and ribbon connectors for pickups, certainly is up to date, technology wise. It is the guitar for a new generation, who have no interest in 'vintage' and all its peccadillo's !!
Gibson started weight relieving in the past few years and in the past, maybe a guitar like the SG 6/12 doubleneck would be weight relieved for practicality.
The weight relieved Les Pauls are being used by Larry Corsa at CV Guitars for a highly touted tonal representation of the famous Peter Green 1959 Burst.
Expensive artist models like the Rossington's and the Jimmy Page models, seem to have the something 'extra' , besides a higher price tag. Yet on the LPF some claim that not all of those models production live up to that reputation. Even back in the day, not every guitar was a good as the next one.
There are 1959's and 1958 Bursts that may look the part, but do not sound as good as a non flamed, more beat up guitar.
The 'real' 1959 Burst Stripe currently owned by Gary Moore and stolen from Ronnie Montrose, would be the Artist guitar that I would like to see.
But that will never happen due to the controversial nature of the guitars history, the same for Gary's once owned other famous 1959 Burst, Greeny.
The controversy surrounding that guitar, post it's sale from Gary and that Peter Green and Gary would never give permission for it to be replicated, is sad but true..
After Phil Winfield of Maverick Guitars 'obtained' Greeny, I e-mailed him suggesting that he approach the Gibson Custom Shop with the idea of replicating that famous guitar. He suggested, why don't I contact Gibson myself.
After that rather cryptic reply, I learned of many other details surrounding the sale of this guitar and where it is now, that I am still sworn to secrecy about.
And I can keep confidentiality, I do it every day with my patient population.
The point of this rambling post somewhat is that I do enjoy learning about Gibson's old and new at LPF, but the politics are not for me "No Country For Old Men" is a theme that is appropriate I feel!
But the Historics are not as close as they can get them and they have never been 100% authentic. That's ok, but many a guitarist would pay real vintage prces for a skilled luthiers "Gibson" , witness the Max guitars, ect.I think Glen , Geetar Picker's '59 Burst bought by him back in the day, is a beautiful sounding guitar and he does that instrument proud.
This "1958 Flying V" was built for Robbin Crosby of Ratt, it would be hard to detect it from the real thing at a glance..

yngwie308

[jbzoso2002]

this is a very good info butt, WHEN DID
GIBSON START DRILLING HOLES IN LES PAULS???
i have a friend that has a standard but it has a
flaw- someone had some band sign there names
in black marker all over the front. not anyone
real famous either.
does anyone know how to get the marker off??
i can get it for my jtm45 clone.

jimmy

[Mars Hall]

this is a very good info butt, WHEN DID
GIBSON START DRILLING HOLES IN LES PAULS???

Hey Jimmy, did you know when you use all "caps" it means your yelling.

[JimiJames]

this is a very good info butt, WHEN DID
GIBSON START DRILLING HOLES IN LES PAULS???

Hey Jimmy, did you know when you use all "caps" it means your yelling.

haha...
That reminds me of this... here

But, anywayz JimmyBoy, here's the article from Gibson. Hope this helps.

[lcampz]

“Back in the early 1980s, when Gibson started weight relieving the Les Paul models, there was not a specific rhyme or reason to the weight-relief holes,” says Frank Johns of Gibson USA. Lately, however, Gibson has refined the process considerably. [Dave Hunter - 10/25/07; gbsn dot com]

2000s - 1980s = 20 yrs (approx.) of LPs built as described above.

[jbzoso2002]

thanks very much gents
i guess there's no getting around the holes.
cant afford a historic.

jimmy

[Flames1950]

I guess I don't see the big deal on the holes.....I play the guitar and if it feels right and sounds great acoustically, and I've got the money, it goes home. Doesn't matter if it's got holes inside if it's the right guitar for me.