The New Les Paul Standard

[elcid]

Looks like Gibson re thought the Standard and gave it some of the more popular features it probably should've had for a few years, without much or a price bump

Body Wood: Chambered mahogany
Top wood: Plain maple
Neck Joint: Set-in
Neck Wood: Mahogany
Fretboard: Rosewood
Plek'd on Gibson Plek Machine
Neck Shape: Asymetrical
Bridge: TonePros locking Nashville Tune-O-Matic
Tailpiece: Locking TonePros
Pickup Bridge: Burstbucker Pro with Alnico V
Pickup Neck: Burstbucker Pro with Alnico V
Controls: 2 volume 2 tone with gold-plated Bourns-designed pots 3-way pickup selector
Tuners: Locking Grover
Strap locks: Dunlop
Jack: Neutrik locking
Binding: top and neck


Im a big fan of the 80s asymetrical neck, not a fan of the chambered bodies but I understand a lot of people have to be girls and cry about the weight of the guitar so if they want to sell more they have to kiss their vags.

It looks like the new Traditional will be weight relieved, not chambered, but it doesnt have the asymetrical neck.

[funkdubious]

I really like Les Pauls but chambering the body to reduce weight? What kind of dweeb to you have to be to struggle lifting one of those. I found the weight a plus point

[Scali]

Don't they have these Vixen and Goddess girlie models already, for wimps that can't handle a real Les Paul?

I wonder how they sound... in general more wood/mass gives you a fatter tone aswell.
I am not really a 7-string player, but I specifically bought the S7320 because the bigger neck gave the thing an incredibly huge tone.
My own Les Paul is also a pretty heavy variation.

[elcid]

Originally Posted by funkdubious

I really like Les Pauls but chambering the body to reduce weight? What kind of dweeb to you have to be to struggle lifting one of those. I found the weight a plus point

There's alot of people that the 3-5 pounds makes a big difference with. I dont understand it either but its one of the first things people whine about.

[Matheau]

Actually the SG design was primarily to address those issues. If Les Paul didn't ask Gibson to take his name off that design, it would have been called the Les Paul as well.

I have a Goddess, they really aren't substantially lighter, the necks are nice though. Actually, the Les Paul version might be a little heavier, I'm pretty sure they didn't chamber those.

[sofo]

Gibson have included some great features on this one for sure but overall... meh. Modern Gibsons still cost too much for what they are no matter how the marketing pawns spin it.

Yes, I have an axe to grind with Gibson.

[CosmicDebris]

I have never ever played a Les Paul or even held one. Are they good for Vai, Satch, Gilbert, Petruchi, Dragonforce, jazz, fusion, and/or polka tones?

[elcid]

I forgot it's impossible to start a Gibson thread without someone cooplaining about the cost.

[elcid]

Originally Posted by CosmicDebris

I have never ever played a Les Paul or even held one. Are they good for Vai, Satch, Gilbert, Petruchi, Dragonforce, jazz, fusion, and/or polka tones?

Yngwie loves them.

and the only good year for them was 1959. I never even saw a real 1959 but the internets said so.

[CosmicDebris]

I hear they make good boat anchors.

[sofo]

Originally Posted by elcid

I forgot it's impossible to start a Gibson thread without someone cooplaining about the cost.

Sorry man, I guess I don't have the mileage here to know what's redundant and what's not. Gimme time, I'll get as jaded and grouchy as everyone else.

That aside, it's a nice guitar but I think one thing Gibson could have done like they did with the BFG model is cut the price to put it in more players' hands. Maybe I long for my younger days when I bought Les Pauls and SGs for less than $1500 USD.

[elcid]

They did the next best thing, they added features without raising the price. The BFG was cheap because it was plain and practically unfinished. They used beat up parts for the hardware and called it a feature, didnt finish the paint job or put the nicer inlays in, they didnt even finish sanding the body. Taking all that labor out of making it had to lower the price considerably. Gibson doesnt make their guitars in sweatshops where they pay employees $1 and change an hour. They cost alot to make.

[sofo]

It just doesn't add up these days man and a guitar doesn't have to be made in a sweatshop to cost less than three grand USD. I am sure these are well-made with regards to both the human labor and the automated, computer controlled processes but there is a distinct price premium for the words "Gibson Les Paul".

That said, if I had nearly $4k to spend on a LP, I would absolutely look at this one.

[elcid]

Of course part of the price is the name, anything that has a name with some history behind it has an up charge, whether the name is Corvette, Les Paul, or Jem. Gibson has many guitars under $3,000. The Les Paul Standard just doesnt happen to be one of them.

[sofo]

If anything it keeps the mystique alive and the dream of paying one's dues on the bar circuit with a P.O.S. guitar before earning enough scratch for a Les Paul or a Stratocaster a goal for the coming generations of guitar heroes. So it ain't all bad.