Les Paul question

[metalchurch79]

Didn't wanna hijack Sully's thread with this, so I figured I'd make a new thread about this.

Can anyone tell me what year Gibson starting using the chambered body for the LesPaul's?
I heard they did this to reduce the overall weight, but that's all I know, and I don't have any other info on this.

Now was this also done to the Epiphone line?

Are they really doing this? If so, what type of wood does the body consist of then? Is it a Mahogany rear/chambered Mahogany center/Flamed Maple top?

Was this done to solid tops and flamed maple tops? Or just one or the other?

Thanks in advance! Hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree in search of answers!

[DonP]

Didn't wanna hijack Sully's thread with this, so I figured I'd make a new thread about this.

Can anyone tell me what year Gibson starting using the chambered body for the LesPaul's?

For LP Standards, 2006. Some say late 2006.

I heard they did this to reduce the overall weight, but that's all I know, and I don't have any other info on this.

Now was this also done to the Epiphone line?

I don't watch (care for) the Epi line. Someone else will need to answer.

Are they really doing this?

Yes.

If so, what type of wood does the body consist of then?

IMO Really crappy mahogany

Is it a Mahogany rear/chambered Mahogany center/Flamed Maple top?

No, the mahogany is chambered like a cup.

Was this done to solid tops and flamed maple tops?

Yes

Or just one or the other?

No.

Thanks in advance! Hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree in search of answers!

Chambering started with The Elegant and Class 5 models in 1997 I believe. Then it moved to the "Cloud 9", a chambered R9. Now it's done to all standards.

IMO they are using crappy mahogany. This wood is heavy and toneless. They are trying to make up for the lack of tonewood by chambering the body. IMO this won't give you a "true" Les Paul sound. It might be a good sound, but that's another discussion.

I'd rather have a solid guitar made with good tonewood if I'm trying to get an LP tone. I might or might not want a chambered LP just for an interesting twist on the LP tone.

Go to the LePaulForum for more info.

[Bengal65]

Off the top of my head, they started doing production LP's in 2007. Prior to that it was certain Custom Shop's like the Frampton model. They rout out chambers in the mahogany, from the top of the back, then glue the maple cap on to the chambered mahogany. Most of the Custom Shop guitars are non-chambered except for the new Axcess model.

I was going to say DonP would be here any minute, but he beat me to it

[metalchurch79]

Thanks guys! Sounds like they pretty much ruined the LesPaul from what i gather. What was their reasoning for this?

[Cuthbert]

I have a book about Les Paul's story...from 1993.

They said they already chambered bodies in the 80s, for some models, for instance the Studio and Custom lite, it has bee rumoured that most of the Standards and Classic were chambered in the 90s but officially Gibson denied, the only wasy to be sure is to open one, and I don't want to do it with my '97 Classic.

[Predator1]

The Axcess is weight relieved =Swiss cheese holes (9) to be exact. I got this from Sal at CenterCity Music.

[DonP]

First, let's make sure we differentiate "weight relief" from "chambering" - two different things.

I have a book about Les Paul's story...from 1993.

They said they already chambered bodies in the 80s, for some models, for instance the Studio and Custom lite, it has bee rumoured that most of the Standards and Classic were chambered in the 90s but officially Gibson denied, the only wasy to be sure is to open one, and I don't want to do it with my '97 Classic.

I'll agree on the Custom Lite and maybe some Studios were the first (forgot about those), but they weren't "empty" chambered, Gibson filled the holes from routing with balsa wood.

Standards have been "weight" relieved since 1986 when Henry J bought Gibson. Classics since they were introduced in 1990. Weight relief is drilling a series of holes to lighten the body. Not the same as chambering, where they remove a shitload (technical term) of wood from the mahogany.

I can live with weight relief still sounding like an LP. Most likely Slash's Gibson LP (a 1986) was weight relieved.

[DonP]

Thanks guys! Sounds like they pretty much ruined the LesPaul from what i gather.

Why? There are many great used LP's out there, and the Historic line if you can afford it.

What was their reasoning for this?

IMO, $$$. You'll need to ask Gibson to know for sure. All we can do is speculate.

Also (maybe / speculating) the fact that quality wood has dissappeared (I don't know for sure). I've seen crappy examples of Ebony on some SL2H's, Rosewood on LP's seems like shit for the most part. There might be a lot of good mahogany out there, but when you are trying to belt out as many guitars as Gibson does per day, using lower quality wood can have a huge impact on the bottom line.

Manufacturers that aren't making as many guitars (PRS?, Jackson, Charvel) can be pickier with their wood selection.

[El Chiguete]

I would like to see a pic of a body with all the holes in it.

[Cuthbert]

First, let's make sure we differentiate "weight relief" from "chambering" - two different things.



I'll agree on the Custom Lite and maybe some Studios were the first (forgot about those), but they weren't "empty" chambered, Gibson filled the holes from routing with balsa wood.

Standards have been "weight" relieved since 1986 when Henry J bought Gibson. Classics since they were introduced in 1990. Weight relief is drilling a series of holes to lighten the body. Not the same as chambering, where they remove a shitload (technical term) of wood from the mahogany.

I can live with weight relief still sounding like an LP. Most likely Slash's Gibson LP (a 1986) was weight relieved.

It depends by how much the "weight relieve" the guitars, aka how many holes they place in the mahogany.

My '97 Les Paul Classic weights 4 kg...sharp, the lites were around 3.6.

For the record, my Jackson Soloist also weights 4 kg, and my RR1 3.6, my Strat is around 3.4 if I recall correctly.

For the chambering, I know that the Supremes are chambered, but this is done in order to counterbalance the other "top" on the back, made of maple, without chambers I think that guitar would weight over 5 kg, but the only one I played gave me the impression to weight as much as my Classic.

[toejam]

Some chambering and weight relief holes on Les Pauls. Search for this on the Les Paul Forum... the topic has been covered quite a bit.

http://www.lespaulforum.com/finalframes/frameset.htm

[Cuthbert]

More interesting is the 9 holes body, "weight relief"...

The guy who passed me the information about the 9 hole is a luthier, but he also told me that it would be surprised to find out that a 4 kg Les Paul is drilled.

[toejam]

I remember a few threads on the LP Forum where people have X-rayed their guitars and saw the holes.

[SEEGERMANY]

My tech is an avid Les Paul disciple and owns several LP's from the 50's and early 70's. When I bought my first LP, a 2000 Raw Power, Eddie did the initial setup and commented that the guitar actually had some "meat" to it. At the time, I didn't know what he meant. He went to a back room and reappeared with a 1970 (pretty sure that was the year) and handed it to me. I was shocked at the weight. Then he brought out a 1957 Custom and it felt like a ship anchor. He then told me that when he shoped for LPs, he looked for instruments in the 14-16 pound range.

I want to say my LP weighed just over 9 lbs. He told me that it was getting damned hard to find one over the 8.5 lb range. My 1968 Historic Reissue was just under 10 lbs.

[metalchurch79]

Joe, thanks for the pic's that was cool of you to share those. I'm kind of torn on how I feel about this really. My first impression when seeing the chambering, was a feeling of sickness, but I guess if it does indeed sound good, then I see no harm in it really.
It does give off the impression that it's a laminate and crappy quality, because of all the wood removed around the bridge/pickup area.

It makes it hard to buy from an online source unless you know what it is gonna sound like first hand.

Is there anyone on here that owns an example of each one that is similarily equipped except for the chambering or weight relief?
I'm ok with the weight relieving, but that one photo looked like all the 'guts' were removed around crucial areas of the guitar.