I thought Gibson quality problems with overexagerrated, but...

[rjohnstone]

Thats illegal in both cases. Its false advertising.

They get around that by stating in the catalog, in fine print mind you, that specs are subject to change without notice.

[emperor_black]

I've always wondered, how can you tell if its poplar or alder or any wood from the other? Now with Jackson's slsmg which is mahogany but light weight, I am wondering if there are holes in the guitar too.

I once found a mahogany dinky body for sale on ebay and asked the guy how he can tell that is mahogany and his answer was by looking at the wood grain structure.

[rjohnstone]

Wood grain, color, texture... there are many different ways to identify what wood a body is made from.
Moisture content can affect the weight. So one Mahogany body of the same size and shape can have a +/- 2 - 3 lbs. weight difference of another of the same size.

[emperor_black]

hmm, so are the high-end custom mahogany bodies made my soaking the wood in water for years and drying them out or something? I know that in the industry this procedure of soaking wood in water does exist. but I dont remember what that wood is used for.

Does that also mean the slsmg's light mahogany is a lower quality wood?

[rjohnstone]

Does that also mean the slsmg's light mahogany is a lower quality wood?

Dryer perhaps. Was the wood grain filled or not, what method did they use, what type of finish was applied and how thick... there are many variables.

Typical Les Paul's have a pretty thick finish on them. That adds to the overall weight.

[toejam]

Now with Jackson's slsmg which is mahogany but light weight, I am wondering if there are holes in the guitar too.

I highly doubt it. The bodies are pretty thin to begin with. They most likely use a lighter piece of lower grade mahogany. I had a 7-string Schecter (007 Elite) that was all mahogany (set neck), and it was pretty light as well.
My Jackson Mark Morton model I just got is also all mahogany (neck thru), and it's pretty light as well, but the body is chambered, which means a lot more wood is taken out of the body compared to the weight relief holes in some Gibsons.

Here's what a chambered Les Paul looks like compared to one with weight relief holes.
Chambered: http://www.cloud9guitars.org/cloud9chamber.jpg

http://www.cloud9guitars.org/elegantroute.JPG

Here's the X-ray of the weight relieved: http://www.gratisweb.com/harrycallaham/CHLP1.JPGhttp://www.gratisweb.com/harrycallaham/CHLP1.JPG

[Bengal]

I've always felt that the weight from Les Pauls comes mainly from the maple top. Maple is pretty heavy. Mahogany is not as heavy as maple. But that's not a hard rule...

Since Fender was pretty "smart" to put an alder veneer over the poplar, you couldn't tell by the woodgrain. The way to tell is in the stomach cutout on the back of the body. If it's dark all the way through that cutout, it's a veneer. If just the top of the cutout is dark, keeping the lines of the burst, it's not...

[clifffclaven]

Well, glad you wouldn't have a problem with it. I sure do. They don't advertise this point. Someone had to take that pic of their LP to find out, THEN Gibson admitted to it. If I'm buying a guitar that's been "swiss cheezed", I want to know about it before, not after...

It's alot like the Fender snafu in the 90's. They were selling American Standard Strats and Teles advertising that they were alder, they were not. They were poplar with a very thin alder veneer over the top. They did that all through the 90's, didn't stop until 2000, when they revamped the Strat and Tele line. Is that fine too? I know I was pissed to hell when I found that out...

Actually, only the sunburst model had the alder veneer, the solid colors were just poplar, but the catalogue said alder. Not right either...

Ive been on the lp forum since 2002. Its common knowledge the new les pauls are weight relieved.

[Bengal]

Cliff,
Problem was, in 2000 when Gibson started doing this it wasn't common knowledge. Gibson had to be brought to the table kicking and screaming. It's been common knowledge since 2001, no thanks to Gibson. They wanted to keep that one under wraps...

There was a reason Gibson started doing this in 2000 and they also started offering flametops as standard. If you were too busy looking at the nice top, you didn't look at all the other problems...

[Jeff Albertson]

Yup I am onto PRS now too... they are mega pricey instruments, but I have never heard a bad thing about the absolutely ridiculous attention to detail they put into their guitars.

I have to say that I think it all balances out. I just ordered two SC-250's and a new Tremoniti. The ones with the brazillian boards were no more than a LP Custom or Supreme. I think right now it's the best money you can spend right now. Hands down.

For as long as I can remember I've been partial to C/J and Gibson...but things are changing. When you buck up $3K for a hunk of wood it's needs to be done right, every part, every time. I don't know what Gibson is thinking...maybe "cash-in ASAP" before the market turns? C/J has been cranking prices untill they break the market...I hear it cracking now.

I think all these companies see people spending big dollars on guitars and they think they can just keep jacking up prices on the same old crap and we'll buy......that ain't how it works. PRS is the only one earning the cash there asking for.

[danastas]

You are missing the whole point my friend. A gibson is not a "low end" guitar at all. The cheapest gibson is $500+. A low end guitar is BCRich's, squiers and such costing less than $200 - $300. The point that I was trying to make is that my Korean made $350 Ibanez had much better construction quality than a $1200 gibson.

Let's end this, you ar emissing the point, I am missing the point pointless argument.

There is a big difference between spending money on a new $2200 Custom VOS and a new $800 LP Studio, is there not?

One is high end, one is low end. Forgive me if I don't ascribe to your ranges for what constitutes high end and low end.

[Chrisb]

If you want a quality LP, get a Warmoth LP. You will save money and the resulting guitar will smoke the pants off of any Gibson. They are heavy bitches though just like old school LP's but you can get them chambered. Not saying a Warmoth isn't expensive cause it is if you get it top to bottom from them and have a luthier put it together, however its still gonna be alot cheaper than a Gibson custom. 1700-2200 probably for a Les Paul from Warmoth. The one thing that alot of Gibson devotee's turn their nose up at is the Bolt On thing. Which is a buncha crap. A well made bolt-on sounds every bit as good as a set neck. And Warmoth offers the contoured heel (love that).

[danastas]

Well, two things. 1700-2200 is what a 1957 Custom goes for. Also, I swear by the long neck tenon. It makes a huge difference. You can compare a LP Standard to a Custom, and the sound is very different because of the tenon.

[hippietim]

just the notion of a bolt on les paul sucks. there ain't a prayer some warmoth les paul is gonna smoke my R4 or R9.

[rjohnstone]

Even my knock-off LP has a set neck.
Bolt-on and LP should NEVER be used in the same sentence.