buying a gibson les paul need advice

[axmann]

A guy at work's dad has a near un-played Studio . He says he bought it new in 1990 and never played it. Its black and it sure looked like an ebony board to me. I put new strings on it and a slight set up. They were the original strings he told me. He is getting rid of it and I have thought about it, he isn't asking much for it. It did not sound at all like my friends 2005 sunburst Studio .For some reason it didn't sound as deep toned. I found that interesting.

[kramer]

A guy at work's dad has a near un-played Studio . He says he bought it new in 1990 and never played it. Its black and it sure looked like an ebony board to me. I put new strings on it and a slight set up. They were the original strings he told me. He is getting rid of it and I have thought about it, he isn't asking much for it. It did not sound at all like my friends 2005 sunburst Studio .For some reason it didn't sound as deep toned. I found that interesting.

Play it!
The Les Pauls I have played, have all differed. The old ones ..I have played..played sweet. And the vintage "Pauls age beautifully. I have had good luck with '80's models also. 95% approval.
Play it first. They have 'Pauls with ebony boards, I have seen two with maple boards. The Gibson custom shop has put out ALOT of options, because of the sheer number of Guitars produced.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Sigh, where to begin...
Then there's the infamous neck breakage. To be fair, I've never dropped a guitar. However, if your les paul falls off of your stand, gets knocked into something, etc., that headstock is coming off. Mahogany isn't very strong to begin with, and on top of that there is no volute to reinforce the neck. That unnecessary headstock angle doesn't help matters, either.

Funny you mention this. I was just at a music store last week speaking with the owner and he was talking about a customer of his who brought in an LP that had fallen off a stand and sheered the neck off. His exact words were, "Fenders bounce, Gibsons don't. I've dropped nearly all my Fenders, and they've all lived to tell about it. In over 35 years of being around guitars, I've never met a dropped Les Paul that hadn't sustained severe damage."

That's nice.

There's a few flaws in your story.

If these are such crappy guitars, why do most people want them?
If they are such crappy guitars, why do people keep buying them?
How can Gibson charge so much for a crappy product?
Surely all of these famous guitarist who play Les Pauls could find some other axe to get the job done? I see a few who switched to Stratocasters (Clapton), yet most who played Les Pauls had there hayday with the Les Paul, and got...boring...after the switch.

Surely if these guitars are this bad, no one should want them and they should be going for chump change. So I'd say your two cents don't hold a lot of water.

Brand identification, bro. That's all it is. Gibson quality has taken a total dive. It wouldn't surprise me if Agile's $200 version of a LP was build better than an actual LP these days.

Gibson's new reputation is "hit or miss." While I realize Epiphone isn't exactly Gibson, I can vouch for this "hit or miss" claim.

Prior to purchasing my Warrior, I'd found an Epi LP (Standard) that I really liked. It played well, sounded decent, and seemed like a good guitar. Had the store taken trades, I would've left with this guitar. I wound up at another store and played a used Epi LP (Standard), and it too, played nicely. I told the store employee to "Hold the thought, I'm gonna look around a little more." That's when I found my Warrior, and bought it.

I returned to the original store who had the Epi I was interested in (I take lessons there...), and played a different one. This thing was the biggest pile of trash I'd ever had the misfortune of playing. In fact, the $129 Squier Strat was not only higher quality than this LP, but it played better, too. :think:

These days, Gibson is more interested in rehashing models from its past, and posting "Limited Edition" on nearly everything they manufacture. Gibsons are pretty much the equivalent of Aerosmith these days; not worth a shit, and riding on nothing more than a name.

[DonP]

Funny you mention this. I was just at a music store last week speaking with the owner and he was talking about a customer of his who brought in an LP that had fallen off a stand and sheered the neck off. His exact words were, "Fenders bounce, Gibsons don't. I've dropped nearly all my Fenders, and they've all lived to tell about it. In over 35 years of being around guitars, I've never met a dropped Les Paul that hadn't sustained severe damage."



Brand identification, bro. That's all it is. Gibson quality has taken a total dive. It wouldn't surprise me if Agile's $200 version of a LP was build better than an actual LP these days.

Gibson's new reputation is "hit or miss." While I realize Epiphone isn't exactly Gibson, I can vouch for this "hit or miss" claim.

Prior to purchasing my Warrior, I'd found an Epi LP (Standard) that I really liked. It played well, sounded decent, and seemed like a good guitar. Had the store taken trades, I would've left with this guitar. I wound up at another store and played a used Epi LP (Standard), and it too, played nicely. I told the store employee to "Hold the thought, I'm gonna look around a little more." That's when I found my Warrior, and bought it.

I returned to the original store who had the Epi I was interested in (I take lessons there...), and played a different one. This thing was the biggest pile of trash I'd ever had the misfortune of playing. In fact, the $129 Squier Strat was not only higher quality than this LP, but it played better, too. :think:

These days, Gibson is more interested in rehashing models from its past, and posting "Limited Edition" on nearly everything they manufacture. Gibsons are pretty much the equivalent of Aerosmith these days; not worth a shit, and riding on nothing more than a name.

Buddy,

We've already put this thing to rest.

1) Neck snaps are the user's fault, not the manufacturer's. Gibson went to a 3 piece Mahogany neck with volute from 1969 to 1975, then to a 3 piece maple neck from 1976 to 1982. They TOOK STEPS to strengthen the neck. Guess what? The people BUYING the guitars demanded to go back to the original 1 piece design. Give the people what they want.

2) An EPI is not a Gibson. Brand Identification only goes so far newbie. And all this crap about "Gibson Quality" is made up B.S. from people who what Gibsons but can score the change for them and hope by shitting on them in threads like this they can bring the price down. It ain't happening. And rehashing the past? Lets see, what do you call the Ford Mustang, the Chevy Camero, and the Dodge Challenger? I'm guessing these companies wouldn't be "rehashing the past" if it was a waste of money. Fact is, give the people what they want and it will sell at sometimes stupid high prices.

Fact is, all my EIGHT of my Gibson's sound badass and I have no quality issues. I love might Jacksons and Charvels but the tone is better with the Gibsons.

You get what you pay for.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Sigh, where to begin...
If you're going to be profane, do it right. Fukkin? You mean Fucking? Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Anywho, here's the problems with Les Pauls. First of all, as far as the Les Pauls I've played, I have played a Studio Faded, a Traditional Pro, a Traditional Plus, 1958 Standard VOS, 1959 Standard VOS, 1960 VOS, 1954 custom VOS, a double cutaway with Seymour Duncan pickups, SG '61 Reissue (technically a Les Paul), plus other Gibsons, namely the ES-335 Satin, ES-339, SG Standard, SG Standard with Coil tap, Flying V faded, Les Paul Junior, Explorer, and the EDS-1275, so I've played quite a few. Here's the problems. Weight. They're pretty damn heavy, the higher quality ones, usually weigh in at about 9 pounds, other than that I've heard of Les Pauls weighing in at up to 15 pounds. That may not seem like a big increase, but your shoulders and your back will feel the difference. Then, there's the ergonomics. Most Les Pauls dig into your side, plus it sorta digs into your forearm, like an archtop guitar. Then there's the infamous neck breakage. To be fair, I've never dropped a guitar. However, if your les paul falls off of your stand, gets knocked into something, etc., that headstock is coming off. Mahogany isn't very strong to begin with, and on top of that there is no volute to reinforce the neck. That unnecessary headstock angle doesn't help matters, either. Then there's that cheesy phenolic overlay on the headstock. That "holly headstock veneer"? Plastic. Speaking of Plastic, on the average Les Paul Standard, yes even up to the 1959 VOS, there are "figured acrylic" inlays. A fancy term for plastic. Maybe on a les paul custom, you could get some MOP. Then there's the Corian nut. Those things ALWAYS bind. Not the best for tuning stability or string breakage at the nut. Then there's all these angles. Angled headstock, angled neck, plus I've never liked tune-o-matics, but that's more of an opinion. What's not opinion is the fact that all Les Pauls are the same. Mahogany neck, mahogany body, maple top, rosewood fretboard. What if I want a Walnut top? What if I want a maple neck? Too bad. Lastly, there's the outrageous prices. What's the difference between a Les Paul Standard Plus and a 1959 VOS? Neck profile, frets, pickups, top, shade of sunburst. Why should I have to pay twice as much? For 6000 dollars, I could get a lot. I could get a custom shop Charvel exactly the way I want it for about 4 grand. With the money left over I could get a high end Marshall tube head. The part I really don't like is the neck joint. First of all, it's so abrupt. it's like, body...body...body..body..bodNECK! No contours whatsoever. Then, there's the fact that it is a set neck joint. Set necks are the cheapest and easiest way to mount a neck. stick the neck in, throw some glue on there, you're done. it takes more skill and money to properly mount a bolt-on neck. Then there's all that glue. The neck joint is what I like to call a tone junction. Body meets neck, wood meets wood, tone meets tone. That glue is a weak link. What if your pickups were coated with glue? Everyone knows that unpotted pickups sound much more open and dynamic, am I right? Another thing, upper fret access. You really have to reach up to get to the high frets on a Les Paul. It's like playing a jazz box, you're hosed if you want to play up high. There are other problems, like scale length, intonation, tuning stability, finish quality/durability, but those things are subjective, so I'll leave those matters to others. That's my two cents.

That's nice.

There's a few flaws in your story.

If these are such crappy guitars, why do most people want them?
If they are such crappy guitars, why do people keep buying them?
How can Gibson charge so much for a crappy product?
Surely all of these famous guitarist who play Les Pauls could find some other axe to get the job done? I see a few who switched to Stratocasters (Clapton), yet most who played Les Pauls had there hayday with the Les Paul, and got...boring...after the switch.

Surely if these guitars are this bad, no one should want them and they should be going for chump change. So I'd say your two cents don't hold a lot of water.

Buddy,

We've already put this thing to rest.

1) Neck snaps are the user's fault, not the manufacturer's. Gibson went to a 3 piece Mahogany neck with volute from 1969 to 1975, then to a 3 piece maple neck from 1976 to 1982. They TOOK STEPS to strengthen the neck. Guess what? The people BUYING the guitars demanded to go back to the original 1 piece design. Give the people what they want.

2) An EPI is not a Gibson. Brand Identification only goes so far newbie. And all this crap about "Gibson Quality" is made up B.S. from people who what Gibsons but can score the change for them and hope by shitting on them in threads like this they can bring the price down. It ain't happening. And rehashing the past? Lets see, what do you call the Ford Mustang, the Chevy Camero, and the Dodge Challenger? I'm guessing these companies wouldn't be "rehashing the past" if it was a waste of money. Fact is, give the people what they want and it will sell at sometimes stupid high prices.

Fact is, all my EIGHT of my Gibson's sound badass and I have no quality issues. I love might Jacksons and Charvels but the tone is better with the Gibsons.

You get what you pay for.

1. Allow me address that I'm far from a "newbie" when it comes to guitars so I'm a bit insulted by your assumptions, especially considering the fact we've never spoken. I've been around long enough to have played pretty much every branded guitar out there, save for super-exclusive ones. I'm fully qualified to make judgements on guitars, but thanks for your concerns.

2. My apologies if you don't like the fact that I posted here, but this is an internet forum. That's what we do here...we post.

3. I never accused Gibson of being at fault for neck-snapping issues, because I don't recall EVER posting ANYTHING close to the sort. If I did, PLEASE so show me where I did.

4. I also NEVER claimed an Epiphone WAS the same as a Gibson. What I said WAS, "While I realize Epiphone isn't exactly Gibson, I can vouch for this "hit or miss" claim." BTW, that's a word for word quote.

5. Let me address you on my ability to afford a Gibson.

Dude, I have a freakin' custom guitar that cost me over $2000, or about the price of a "decent" Les Paul. Think I couldn't have purchased a Les Paul, had I wanted one? Think again.

When I mentioned that I had my eye set on an Epiphone Les Paul Standard, it was for no other reason than to replace a piece of shit with a better piece of shit. I wasn't looking for my next "lead-off batter in the lineup." I simply wanted something that was actually playable, not exactly great, but something that wouldn't just collect dust. Other than for that reason alone, I wouldn't even have considered a Gibson (or Epiphone) product. It simply fit the bill, and it was a guitar that was decent enough to replace a different one with.

6. The Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, and Dodge Challenger have NOTHING in common with their original counterparts, aside from a shared resemblance, some closer than others. These vehicles are not even built on the same platforms any longer.

While we're on the subject of "throwbacks," what's different about a reissued Les Paul, aside from MAYBE the electronics? They're the same exact shapes, and probably made up of the same woods as the originals. So, that would leave the only difference being the electronics, yes?

I'm glad you're happy with your Gibsons, but too many times have I come across $2000 GIBSONS which have excessive amounts of clearcoat applied to the finish in brazen attempts to mask the extra sawdust that wasn't cleaned from the woods during the prepping process. I've also seen numerous Gibsons with sloppy finishes around the pickup areas, and also some bubbling around the necks, and these didn't apply only to Les Pauls.

I saw a reproduction 1958 Gibson Explorer with a tag swinging from it that read $8500 that had this same issue! An $8500 guitar with very obvious flaws in the finish? Really? What's the excuse? I have a $250 Squier Affinity J-Bass out of one of those "gig packs" that doesn't even have such a poorly applied finish!

Good luck with your Gibson products.

[DonP]

1. Allow me address that I'm far from a "newbie" when it comes to guitars so I'm a bit insulted by your assumptions, especially considering the fact we've never spoken. I've been around long enough to have played pretty much every branded guitar out there, save for super-exclusive ones. I'm fully qualified to make judgements on guitars, but thanks for your concerns.

2. My apologies if you don't like the fact that I posted here, but this is an internet forum. That's what we do here...we post.

3. I never accused Gibson of being at fault for neck-snapping issues, because I don't recall EVER posting ANYTHING close to the sort. If I did, PLEASE so show me where I did.

4. I also NEVER claimed an Epiphone WAS the same as a Gibson. What I said WAS, "While I realize Epiphone isn't exactly Gibson, I can vouch for this "hit or miss" claim." BTW, that's a word for word quote.

5. Let me address you on my ability to afford a Gibson.

Dude, I have a freakin' custom guitar that cost me over $2000, or about the price of a "decent" Les Paul. Think I couldn't have purchased a Les Paul, had I wanted one? Think again.

When I mentioned that I had my eye set on an Epiphone Les Paul Standard, it was for no other reason than to replace a piece of shit with a better piece of shit. I wasn't looking for my next "lead-off batter in the lineup." I simply wanted something that was actually playable, not exactly great, but something that wouldn't just collect dust. Other than for that reason alone, I wouldn't even have considered a Gibson (or Epiphone) product. It simply fit the bill, and it was a guitar that was decent enough to replace a different one with.

6. The Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, and Dodge Challenger have NOTHING in common with their original counterparts, aside from a shared resemblance, some closer than others. These vehicles are not even built on the same platforms any longer.

While we're on the subject of "throwbacks," what's different about a reissued Les Paul, aside from MAYBE the electronics? They're the same exact shapes, and probably made up of the same woods as the originals. So, that would leave the only difference being the electronics, yes?

I'm glad you're happy with your Gibsons, but too many times have I come across $2000 GIBSONS which have excessive amounts of clearcoat applied to the finish in brazen attempts to mask the extra sawdust that wasn't cleaned from the woods during the prepping process. I've also seen numerous Gibsons with sloppy finishes around the pickup areas, and also some bubbling around the necks, and these didn't apply only to Les Pauls.

I saw a reproduction 1958 Gibson Explorer with a tag swinging from it that read $8500 that had this same issue! An $8500 guitar with very obvious flaws in the finish? Really? What's the excuse? I have a $250 Squier Affinity J-Bass out of one of those "gig packs" that doesn't even have such a poorly applied finish!

Good luck with your Gibson products.

Sorry, but you haven't said anything to convince me that your not one of those "me-too" Gibson bashers found in droves on the HC forums.

I've seen plenty of Gibsons and none of them had the paint flaws you describe. I'm always in GC's, Sam Asses, pawnshops looking for new guitars. Out of the hundreds of guitars I've gone over, I would have thought I'd seen something like this by now.

Do me a favor and take some pictures and post them.

Feel free to "Post Away". I'm not stopping you.

Here's a good topic for you. Explain to me just why if Gibson is such a bad product line with such bad quality control how they manage stay in business? Explain to me why so many professionals use their products still?

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Sorry, but you haven't said anything to convince me that your not one of those "me-too" Gibson bashers found in droves on the HC forums.

I've seen plenty of Gibsons and none of them had the paint flaws you describe. I'm always in GC's, Sam Asses, pawnshops looking for new guitars. Out of the hundreds of guitars I've gone over, I would have thought I'd seen something like this by now.

Do me a favor and take some pictures and post them.

Feel free to "Post Away". I'm not stopping you.

Here's a good topic for you. Explain to me just why if Gibson is such a bad product line with such bad quality control how they manage stay in business? Explain to me why so many professionals use their products still?

WOW, Dude, just...WOW. I guess you missed that part where I mentioned I was all ready to buy a Epiphone LP Standard, then stumbled upon my Warrior. So, why did I get the Warrior? I got the Warrior because the store I originally went to where I played an Epiphone LP I liked didn't take trades. Well, it didn't hurt that the Jackson had a tremolo, either. I wasn't looking to purchase another guitar, I was looking to unload one and REPLACE it with something of a better quality.

While we're on the subject of Gibson's "quality," let's discuss. I would absolutely love to take photos of all these messy Gibsons I've seen. In fact, I was at a music store this evening, and lo and behold, THEY SELL GIBSON. Yep, it's the same store where I got my Warrior. I even stumbled upon an Epiphone Les Paul that stickered at around $1400-$1500, and noticed sloppiness at the neck joint! But that wasn't the half of it. Right next to it sat yet ANOTHER Epiphone LP, and from the way the sun was hitting it, the glue around the outside of the body could be seen through the finish! No, not the glue itself, but you know how when you spackle a wall, then paint it, you can still see the "shadows" of the spackle underneath it? Yeah, that's right, it was clear around the ENTIRE body! I'm not making this stuff up.

So, anyway, if you want pics, I can go ahead and take pics the next time I'm in the store, but I'm not driving 25 miles out of my way to do it for you; doesn't matter, though, because I'm sure they'll still have some of those sloppy LPs hanging on the walls.

Now, in all fairness to YOU, I've NEVER seen Gibsons in Guitar Center with these types of flaws, and BELIEVE ME, I'm looking.

So, on that note, I don't wanna hear any of this goofy shit about how I'm a "Gibson hater." Had you bothered to read my signature, you'd clearly see I own a Gibson (Epiphone) product. My wife bought it for me 12 years ago for my 25th birthday. While it isn't the greatest acoustic I've ever played, it's the thought that counts (it was a surprise), and it's still in my lineup, so guess what that means; it means that I play it. If I'm playing it, I obviously like it.

On an ending note to these inane accusations, I'm 37 years old. Isn't that just a little bit old to be running around with the "brand hater" mentality? I did that when I was like 18 with the whole "Chevy Vs. Ford" thing. I own a 1994 B4C Camaro that I've had since i was 22 years old. I love Camaros to death, but guess what, it's the new Mustang I'm after, NOT the new Camaro. I learned a long time ago that by being close-minded to brands, you're limiting your options, and could be missing out on a good thing.

[DonP]

I think we have some confusion here.

Epiphones are not Gibsons. If you are saying there are issues with Epi's maybe so. I wouldn't know because I've never looked at an Epiphone. Because they are NOT Gibsons.

[kramer]

Sure I expect sloppiness from Epiphone...Gibson imports them.
And I say drive that 25 miles out of your way, and take pics.
you say your not A gibson hater, because you own A Gibson (Epiphone) product. Not the same, dumbass.
and noobe doesnt' always mean noobe to guitar ownership. NOOB to this forum mabee. you will get yer ass kicked. not just by DonP... but by racerX when he sees the spelling mistakes I have made telling you whats up!
A little respect goes A long way.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Sure I expect sloppiness from Epiphone...Gibson imports them.
And I say drive that 25 miles out of your way, and take pics.
you say your not A gibson hater, because you own A Gibson (Epiphone) product. Not the same, dumbass.
and noobe doesnt' always mean noobe to guitar ownership. NOOB to this forum mabee. you will get yer ass kicked. not just by DonP... but by racerX when he sees the spelling mistakes I have made telling you whats up!
A little respect goes A long way.

Congrats on showing your (lack of) intelligence by calling names. Then again, you do own a Kramer, so I can understand your anger. I mean, after all, they're pretty much Gibson's $200 competitor to the Squier Starcasters they sell at Toys R Us, aren't they?

Let me educate you, since nobody else has bothered to. Gibson owns Epiphone and Kramer. So, what's that make them? That makes them subsidiaries of who? GIBSON. Who owns Jackson? Ah, you're right, FENDER. Are Jacksons Fenders? NO, but in the end, who has the final say in all of the decisions? FENDER.

Gibson should be more than concerned with Epiphone quality, considering the Epiphone line is the most affordable of them, next to the outstanding $200 Kramer line! These are the guitars that most of the public who are just starting out are going to wind up with!

As for GIBSON'S quality, I'm pretty sure the $8500 Explorer with finish issues was a GIBSON, because to my "lack of knowledge (according to you...)," Epiphone doesn't have a $8500 guitar, do they? No, I didn't think they did.

As for "a little respect goes a long way," don't expect much. You can't even hold an intelligent debate without resorting to schoolyard name-calling. Gonna start with the "your mom" jokes next?

"And I say, drive the 25 miles out of your way and take pictures." Well, see, there's a slight problem. That'd be that nobody gives a fuck what you say. After you send $8.18 to my PayPal account for gas money, I'll be happy to. Yeah, that'd be 25 mpg, at $4.09 per gallon.

[Devotee]

[MetalHeadMat]

Sigh, where to begin...
If you're going to be profane, do it right. Fukkin? You mean Fucking? Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Anywho, here's the problems with Les Pauls. First of all, as far as the Les Pauls I've played, I have played a Studio Faded, a Traditional Pro, a Traditional Plus, 1958 Standard VOS, 1959 Standard VOS, 1960 VOS, 1954 custom VOS, a double cutaway with Seymour Duncan pickups, SG '61 Reissue (technically a Les Paul), plus other Gibsons, namely the ES-335 Satin, ES-339, SG Standard, SG Standard with Coil tap, Flying V faded, Les Paul Junior, Explorer, and the EDS-1275, so I've played quite a few. Here's the problems. Weight. They're pretty damn heavy, the higher quality ones, usually weigh in at about 9 pounds, other than that I've heard of Les Pauls weighing in at up to 15 pounds. That may not seem like a big increase, but your shoulders and your back will feel the difference. Then, there's the ergonomics. Most Les Pauls dig into your side, plus it sorta digs into your forearm, like an archtop guitar. Then there's the infamous neck breakage. To be fair, I've never dropped a guitar. However, if your les paul falls off of your stand, gets knocked into something, etc., that headstock is coming off. Mahogany isn't very strong to begin with, and on top of that there is no volute to reinforce the neck. That unnecessary headstock angle doesn't help matters, either. Then there's that cheesy phenolic overlay on the headstock. That "holly headstock veneer"? Plastic. Speaking of Plastic, on the average Les Paul Standard, yes even up to the 1959 VOS, there are "figured acrylic" inlays. A fancy term for plastic. Maybe on a les paul custom, you could get some MOP. Then there's the Corian nut. Those things ALWAYS bind. Not the best for tuning stability or string breakage at the nut. Then there's all these angles. Angled headstock, angled neck, plus I've never liked tune-o-matics, but that's more of an opinion. What's not opinion is the fact that all Les Pauls are the same. Mahogany neck, mahogany body, maple top, rosewood fretboard. What if I want a Walnut top? What if I want a maple neck? Too bad. Lastly, there's the outrageous prices. What's the difference between a Les Paul Standard Plus and a 1959 VOS? Neck profile, frets, pickups, top, shade of sunburst. Why should I have to pay twice as much? For 6000 dollars, I could get a lot. I could get a custom shop Charvel exactly the way I want it for about 4 grand. With the money left over I could get a high end Marshall tube head. The part I really don't like is the neck joint. First of all, it's so abrupt. it's like, body...body...body..body..bodNECK! No contours whatsoever. Then, there's the fact that it is a set neck joint. Set necks are the cheapest and easiest way to mount a neck. stick the neck in, throw some glue on there, you're done. it takes more skill and money to properly mount a bolt-on neck. Then there's all that glue. The neck joint is what I like to call a tone junction. Body meets neck, wood meets wood, tone meets tone. That glue is a weak link. What if your pickups were coated with glue? Everyone knows that unpotted pickups sound much more open and dynamic, am I right? Another thing, upper fret access. You really have to reach up to get to the high frets on a Les Paul. It's like playing a jazz box, you're hosed if you want to play up high. There are other problems, like scale length, intonation, tuning stability, finish quality/durability, but those things are subjective, so I'll leave those matters to others. That's my two cents.

I was going to read all this, but in the sentence I realized that the rest of the wall of text is probably just as stupid. At least number or seperate?

[MetalHeadMat]

To the OP, I wouldn't buy a Les Paul unless I tried it out first, mainly because Gibson's are so extremely hit and miss for me, whether it's sound, feel, hell even the look.

I'd still get a Gibson LP... But a custom shop:

• Mahogany or Solid Ash body, with trans maple top. Maybe even alder,
• Maple neck, set through (with some better access to the higher frets)
• 24 ebony frets, (or maybe 22-24 slant from low E to high E like the Warrior Pro's)
• Trans red burst or trans blue burst. Or maybe a silver burst, or maybe a trans finish like the Model 88's (cancel the maple top for both then)
• 25.5" neck scale with a neck profile like my Ibanez RG1570 Prestige or Model 4
• OFR recessed bridge
• Single humbucker bridge, (probably an X2N or maybe an EMG 81 or 89)
• Black hardware if it's silverburst or Model 88 burst, gold or chrome hardware if it's trans red burst or trans blue burst
• Standard Gibson 3x3 headstock, or if I'm drunk an Explorer headstock
• Satin finish neck
• If it's a trans finish then body neck and headstock binding

[Torment Leaves Scars]

To the OP, I wouldn't buy a Les Paul unless I tried it out first, mainly because Gibson's are so extremely hit and miss for me, whether it's sound, feel, hell even the look.

I'd still get a Gibson LP... But a custom shop:

• Mahogany or Solid Ash body, with trans maple top. Maybe even alder,
• Maple neck, set through (with some better access to the higher frets)
• 24 ebony frets, (or maybe 22-24 slant from low E to high E like the Warrior Pro's)
• Trans red burst or trans blue burst. Or maybe a silver burst, or maybe a trans finish like the Model 88's (cancel the maple top for both then)
• 25.5" neck scale with a neck profile like my Ibanez RG1570 Prestige or Model 4
• OFR recessed bridge
• Single humbucker bridge, (probably an X2N or maybe an EMG 81 or 89)
• Black hardware if it's silverburst or Model 88 burst, gold or chrome hardware if it's trans red burst or trans blue burst
• Standard Gibson 3x3 headstock, or if I'm drunk an Explorer headstock
• Satin finish neck
• If it's a trans finish then body neck and headstock binding

Gibson's CS guitars are probably hit or miss, too!

What's really frightening is that I've read on two forums (who shall remain nameless for obvious purposes...) that Epiphone's quality is actually better than Gibson's nowadays! I seriously hope that information is misguided!

[DonP]

+1000.

I guess Torment doesn't get a smackdown when he's handed one? Maybe he's got scars from being tormented by not having a real Gibson?

Will s ever learn?