So,,,umm,,,Gibson question?

[lynchfan6]

Wow. After reading all of this GIbson stuff,,,,do you think they made them better 11 years ago? My 1996 Gibson Les Paul Classic doesn't appear to have a two piece mahogany body, the inlays aren't nearly as "green" as the newer ones, it's definitely heavy, it has the heritage cherry sunburst (which classics don't come with anymore), and I can't seem to find any flaws whatsoever (straight neck, nice action, frets are all in tight, resonates and sustains amazingly) And my parents bought it straight from Musician's Friend..... And get this,,,back then, Gibson even mailed me a personal letter congratulating me on my purchase, and it was signed in real ink! While my Gibson is not my most played guitar (I like my little racecars, like my Jackson DK-1, Ibanez Jem, Hamer centaura, ESP m-ii, etc... best)....I think I'll be keeping mine around. Maybe I just got lucky and got a good one????? It is fun to play on occasion, gets the most attention from friends (yup, just cuz it's a Gibson),and really sounds unique and ballsy through my SLO.

[Jeff Albertson]

Ah...the good ole days. Classics from the early to mid 90's were strong guitars.

[lynchfan6]

Upon closer inspection, my inlays are not green at all, maybe just a tiny bit more aged yellow looking than a standard(nothing like the new classics I've seen....which are really green) , and the body is definitely 100% one piece mahogony (the maple top is two piece , though.) And the neck binding and frets appear to be literally connected to each other (fused) as one....really tight and seamless. And the Gibson logo is mother of pearl........do newer models still have that???? I'm not sure. I've never been really into Gibson (my Jackson USA DK-1 is really my favorite guitar out of the 10 exclusively USA or JAPANESE guitars I own ).....so I wasn't aware of all of the negative changes that may be occurring with them.

[toddstaples]

My 94 Standard is my main player for 13 years. Most Ive played from this era are strong guitars....

[Super_shredder]

my old classic was a mid 90s model and it was perfect compared to some current customs ive played

[LexLuthier]

I think the mahogany was of better quality at that time.

[Firebird V]

My 89 Custom is a rockin guitar. The 90 and 91 Explorers I have owned were also great. Those are my favorite years of that decade. The lp studio lites from that era that I have owned were all winners too.

[Mr.Lizardman]

And then there are the different factories- I have a '79 custom (tobacco sunburst) made in Nashville, and a '77 custom (maple fretboard and natural finish throughout) made in Kalamazoo- it seems the Kalamazoo is better built IMO, but the Nashville is also stamped 'second' on the back of the headstock (I think it's because of slightly mismatched wood on the top but I really can't determine what it is that made it a second- still extremely nice)
I agree that there's something strange with the new ones- they seem almost fake or something- they just don't feel quite right in your hand- not like mine do to me anyway. Maybe a wood issue? Or build quality? Hmmmm....

[daisp]

My early 90's customs are really smooth players, but I did just get a new Murphy aged brock burst '59 that really smokes...some of the new stuff seems to be good.

[danastas]

Funny thing is that the market for 2005 and 2006 Les Pauls has completely hit bottom on EBAY. Even Musician's Friend has dropped the prices of Historics to $2800 from $3300. R7 Goldtops a year or two old are now selling for $1600. R8 Plaintops for under $2k. These are low prices compared to a year or two ago.

I think the word has gotten out on the quality of LPs the last 2 years.

But, I still swear by the first four years of this decade. I have played a lot of good 2002, 2003 and 2004 Historics, and i'm currently the owner of one black beauty. After cycling through Les Pauls, I have finally learned that the maple tops softened the sound too much for me, and I'm digging the all mahogany black beauty.

As for two piece mahogany LPs, isn't this normal? Are you talking two piece bodies or mahogany tops on a mahgany back?

[Mr.Lizardman]

Depends on the model and the year- Lots of great info on a bunch of brands of old guitars here:

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/

My '77 looks to be a solid mahogany body with 3 piece maple top and 3 piece maple neck- 5 pieces on the headstock. (since it's natural finished, it's easy to see)

[skorb]

I know it's not a LP, but my 2002 white V is pretty much perfect.

[DonP]

2 piece backs on LPs are a recent trend, like in the last 2 years. Mainly on Classics, but I've heard rumours of Stds getting them as well. Reason? Gibson is out of good wood. All they have left is heavy ass mahogany, or smaller chucks of light mahogany. Solution? Start carving out huge amounts of wood to lighten the load. It's not a Les Paul to me at that point, it's more like a 335.

Another downgrade of the Classic is the Nashville bridge instead of the ABR-1, also done in the last couple of years.

I have a 2002 Std and a 2004 R0, so I agree those are great years. Still good wood being used, ad better paint jobs (can't stand the peach burst). My Classic is also a 1996, but it is a Premium Plus model.

Inlays got worse thru the years. I think a big step down was after 1996, much more pea yellow/green.

[DonP]

My '77 looks to be a solid mahogany body with 3 piece maple top and 3 piece maple neck- 5 pieces on the headstock. (since it's natural finished, it's easy to see)

Yes, that is correct for that year. You neck is also three piece maple, only done from 75/76 until 82.

I have a 1977 Black Custom. Great guitar, but I think I'd puke if I had to look at a three piece top:ROTF: