It's time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[DonP]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't own a Gibson.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice. I'm not into Ibanez's either, but I think they are cool if that's what you are into.

[DonP]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Let me take a few guesses why you feel its time for a Les Paul.
1. Your tired of playing guitars that have excellent upper fret access.
2. Your tired of playing guitars that are comfortable to play for extended amounts of time.
3. Your looking for a guitar that will snap its headstock off with the slightest bump.
4. Comfort bevels just don't do anything for you. You prefer having a binding digging into your forearm.
5. Everybody knows that Gibson vintage tuners are excellent.

Did I get it??

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how these are so popular, huh? Not to mention all of the copy-cat brands out there too. You would think some of the copy cats would correct these issues, but when they do (like the Hamer's), they are bagged on for not being "Gibson Correct".

[SRD86]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

DonP with the Touche' (I probably spelled it wrong)

[DonP]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've been trying to avoid it for a long time now, but I think it's about time I bought myself a Gibby. I am going to sell some gear, and begin browsing around to see what's out there. I need some pointers though on what year I should be looking for. I want a slim to medium sized neck. I'm not too picky about the finish, and I'm also willing to look at guitars that are in less than perfect condition, as long as they don't have any major mods. Help me out here people.
By the way, I want a Standard. Definitely not a Studio, Special, or anything with 3 hums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you don't want to fork over Historic bucks, it sounds like you have similar taste to what I like. Either get a:

1. 2002 or newer LP Standard with a 60s neck and the top of your choice. The closer to 2002 IMO the better. In 2002, Gibson made huge changes to the LP Standard, and because of this, I think they were more concerned with quality back then.

2. A 1990-1992 Classic. Excellent axe and old wood. If it still has the stock 496R/500T pickups, these will kick heavy metal ass. The older the Classic, the better looking the inlays. In fact, a 1990-92 Classic might be my first choice over the Standard.

3. A 1994-1997 Classic Premium Plus. Still great axes with very beautiful tops, but it says "Les Paul CLASSIC" on the headstock, and the binding in the cutaway is thick. This is only an issue for people who have to have the LP as 1950's correct as possible. These will be a little more "greener" in the inlays, but still not to bad.

But, in all reality, you can find a good Les Paul in any year and in any model. Like they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure. [img]/images/graemlins/toast.gif[/img]

[SEEGERMANY]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

"That's nice."

http://photos.yahoo.com/officialnextforum

[adrenaline junkie]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!

IMHO, if you're going for a Standard, especially used, look in the 2002-present range. They've got a few things that are more historically accurate, but more importantly, they've got the BB Pro pickups, which are the best pickups Gibson has made since 1959.

BUT, like mentioned, earlier, if you're going to spend 1600-2200 on a Standard, you sould check out a historic. You can get a 58 Reissue new, for 2400.00, which is only a couple hundred higher than a Standard. Used, the gap stays about the same. There's a LOT of things about the historics that set them above the production models, and it's well worth the money IMHO. Long tenon (Debatable tone differnce, but it's better construction) Production models have nine, 1 inch weight relief holes in the mahogany underneath the maple cap. Historics are the same weight or lighter, but they hand pick lighter woods to get to that weight. I prefer the ABR over the Nashville bridge for body contact. Lightweight Tailpiece, if you're playing death metal, it may not be as good, but for anything else, the more open tone from the lightweight TP is noticably worth it IMHO.

Nothing wrong with Standards at all, I like 'em, Hell I like studios, but for the money, it's hard to beat the R7 or R8(Especially since you don't like Goldtops.

I like Les Pauls.

[DonP]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
"That's nice."

http://photos.yahoo.com/officialnextforum

[/ QUOTE ]

If those are yours, I'm afraid you might have a Gibson [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[DonP]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, if you're going for a Standard, especially used, look in the 2002-present range. They've got a few things that are more historically accurate, but more importantly, they've got the BB Pro pickups, which are the best pickups Gibson has made since 1959.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm on a fence on pickups - I know I really like the Burstbuckers 1&2 (that come on historics) a lot.
[ QUOTE ]
BUT, like mentioned, earlier, if you're going to spend 1600-2200 on a Standard, you sould check out a historic. You can get a 58 Reissue new, for 2400.00, which is only a couple hundred higher than a Standard. Used, the gap stays about the same. There's a LOT of things about the historics that set them above the production models, and it's well worth the money IMHO. Long tenon (Debatable tone differnce, but it's better construction) Production models have nine, 1 inch weight relief holes in the mahogany underneath the maple cap. Historics are the same weight or lighter, but they hand pick lighter woods to get to that weight. I prefer the ABR over the Nashville bridge for body contact. Lightweight Tailpiece, if you're playing death metal, it may not be as good, but for anything else, the more open tone from the lightweight TP is noticably worth it IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue with R7's and R8's (R9's as well) is the baseball bat neck. I can't stand the fat neck. R0 is much nicer, but I can't justify $4,000 when I'm a bedroom player, so I got the GC R0. Even with the lightweight tail, this is my heavy metal machine. I get a tight punch tone, perfect for Megadeth.

[skorb]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I HATE gold tops. Sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL - the only LP I would ever buy, if I were ever inclined to buy one, would be a goldtop. they are just the only ones that really grab me.

[zeegler]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

This is all very helpful.

So I think what I need is the 60s neck. Correct?

[DonP]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
This is all very helpful.

So I think what I need is the 60s neck. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

A 60s neck is thin, not Jackson thin, but no where near as fat a a 50s. Classics come with a 60s neck as well, and can be had for less money.

What type of stuff are you planning on playing? Metal? Blues? Rock?

[sambencuda]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Let me take a few guesses why you feel its time for a Les Paul.
1. Your tired of playing guitars that have excellent upper fret access.
2. Your tired of playing guitars that are comfortable to play for extended amounts of time.
3. Your looking for a guitar that will snap its headstock off with the slightest bump.
4. Comfort bevels just don't do anything for you. You prefer having a binding digging into your forearm.
5. Everybody knows that Gibson vintage tuners are excellent.

Did I get it??

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct on all accounts not to mention uncomfortable while sitting.

So why do I always go back to Les Pauls?

For me, most of the LP's I've owned played great. I like low wide frets. The tone is unmatched IMHO.

So why do I sell them? Why do I always go back?

I'm a gear whore. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[adrenaline junkie]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!

The 60's neck is bit thinner, so if you don't like thick necks, it would probably be the way to go. The 60's neck isn't all that much thicker, than the neck on an SL2H. I've got small hands, but the Larger neck suits me better because I'm used to it.

[toejam]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
You would think some of the copy cats would correct these issues, but when they do (like the Hamer's), they are bagged on for not being "Gibson Correct".

[/ QUOTE ]
I really dig Gibson, but Hamer kicks their ass!!

[toejam]

Re: It\'s time for a Les Paul. Experts help needed!!!!!

BTW, is Gibson even still using the low/wide frets? I thought all their guitars today used medium jumbos.