Which year & model Les Paul to be avoided?

chris101 · #1 10-05-2007, 06:29 AM

Hi,

Never been much of a fan of Gibson guitars but my brother is tempted to buy a Gibson Les Paul, a 'new' one. I cant offer him any advice as all my guitars are either PRS or Ibanez Jems. So I need some help from the experts. Now, every forum that I visit has people slagging off current production LP's, some claiming that the recent models have hollow cavities filled with balsa wood and are just plain junk, and the fit and finish is not worthy of a £1000+ guitar. If this really is the case are there any years production that are worth looking out for, or any serial numbers/years to be totally avoided? I think its a toss up between a classic or a custom, although I'm sure he'd consider the studio!
Thanks in advance!

**elcid** · #2 10-05-2007, 07:28 AM

Lots of forums have uninformed idiots that post on them. LIke anything else there is no magic year that was better or worse than any other. This year they started chambering anything not from the Custom Shop instead of just weight relieving them like they've been doing since the mid-80s. As for hollowed cavities filled with balsa wood, I'd be curious to know how they took the top off of the guitar to find this out. There's alot of dumb asses out there that like to take internet rumor as gospel just so they can slag a compant.

chris101 · #3 10-05-2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

Lots of forums have uninformed idiots that post on them. LIke anything else there is no magic year that was better or worse than any other. This year they started chambering anything not from the Custom Shop instead of just weight relieving them like they've been doing since the mid-80s. As for hollowed cavities filled with balsa wood, I'd be curious to know how they took the top off of the guitar to find this out. There's alot of dumb asses out there that like to take internet rumor as gospel just so they can slag a compant.

Further investigation confirms that all 2007 Standards now have chambered bodies, (and sound crap!), and it was the Studio 'lite' that had chamberes filled with either balsa or some lightweight composite material. The Customs sound like they might still be 'real thing', pity they cant be had for much less than £2000, so a pre-2007 Standard might be in order.

spider murphy · #4 10-05-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

Lots of forums have uninformed idiots that post on them. LIke anything else there is no magic year that was better or worse than any other. This year they started chambering anything not from the Custom Shop instead of just weight relieving them like they've been doing since the mid-80s. As for hollowed cavities filled with balsa wood, I'd be curious to know how they took the top off of the guitar to find this out. There's alot of dumb asses out there that like to take internet rumor as gospel just so they can slag a compant.

actually there are certain years to avoid if you are looking for the traditional lp sound. for a few years(in the late 70s-early 80s i believe)gibson were using heavier hardware resulting in a much darker sound, and weight relieving(holes drilled in the mahogany) began in the 80s due to heavier cuts of mahogany. also, tho i'm not sure the exact years, there were a few random yrs that they recieved better mahogany supplies. as far as the chambers there have been xray images circulating online, tho the balsawood theory prob comes from certain semi-hollowbody gibsons that have something gibson calls chromite(balsa) as the center block(not as bad as it sounds as balsa is actually a hardwood).

**jim777** · #5 10-05-2007, 10:31 AM

When you buy a "new" anything, you lose out on buying power and availability. The second you walk out the door with a new guitar its value drops, and it may take years (if ever) for it to be worth the new price again. So, don't buy new.

If I was getting a Gibson Les Paul now, I'd want a used Heritage Elite from 1980 because thery're my personal favorites. If I was just getting any Les Paul, I'd look for a Heritage H150 (basically a Standard) or H157 (basically a Custom) first. But as people have already mentioned, play a bunch and find a nice one regardless. And the Edwards Les Pauls, while nice looking, aren't in the same league as a nice Gibson. They just aren't.

**elcid** · #6 10-05-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spider murphy

actually there are certain years to avoid if you are looking for the traditional lp sound.

I call bullsht on that. I have a 1976 LP Custom that is an all around awesome LP and I have owned alot. Many people cry that all Norlins were garbage, but like anything else not every guitar from a certain year is crap. Deciding you arent interested in a guitar because of the year it was made is stupid.
By your logic, the only guitar that will sound like a traditional Les Paul would be a pre-Norlin, even then they werent made all the same. Check out The Beauty of The Burst and you can see even things like the neck heel would be different between different LP Standards from the same year.

Racerx2k · #7 10-05-2007, 10:02 PM

Sounds like a good question to ask a friend of mine. He's quite an authority on Les Pauls, and has written one or two books on them. May have to pay him a visit over the weekend, and ask. Curious to see what he has to say.

motaboy · #8 10-06-2007, 11:41 AM

I feel that the pickups have much more of an effect on the overall sound.

For example, I tried one of those "vintage mahogany" LPs, you know, the price cut versions (no-finish, LOL).
The body is light weight, probably chambered.
It has a pair of Burstbucker pickups, and man - that thing sounded amazing.

spider murphy · #9 10-06-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

I call bullsht on that. I have a 1976 LP Custom that is an all around awesome LP and I have owned alot. Many people cry that all Norlins were garbage, but like anything else not every guitar from a certain year is crap. Deciding you arent interested in a guitar because of the year it was made is stupid.
By your logic, the only guitar that will sound like a traditional Les Paul would be a pre-Norlin, even then they werent made all the same. Check out The Beauty of The Burst and you can see even things like the neck heel would be different between different LP Standards from the same year.

the fact that your 76 sounds great doesn't really

prove either of our points(and not just because

sound is relative to the observer), as even if any

given guitar company had a particularly bad year

some good examples(not saying yours is a bad

year)can be had. i think you missed the point of my

post which was all factories go thru prob that can

taint a years production, again it doesn't mean all

made in that year are bad, just a higher probability of

finding a bad one. example-when gibson moved the plant and

had to hire, and train alot of new ppl there were alot

of quality problems(to be expected) including neck

angles which varied alot in the following years. also

quality in the fit and finish wasn't up to par as far as

gibson goes. that would cause me to be atleast wary

of those few yrs. maybe "years to avoid" wasn't the

right way to describe the situation, but my point is

still there...companies that have been around as

long as gibson has will unavoidably have a few bad

runs, and imo to deny that is just silly.

**elcid** · #10 10-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Right, every year they can have their share of bad one, but to suggest one or two particular years are much wosre than the rest is stupid. Its not like one guy makes all the guitars and when he retires, they bring in a retarded monkey to make them and the guitars suck until the monkey learns.

So it looks like your point IS my point, there are no years to avoid, just play whatever you can and get what works.

modulo · #11 10-06-2007, 12:43 PM

1986 is the year to avoid...
bad wood is the main thing....

heard from vp of gibson...

GuitarGuru · #12 10-06-2007, 12:45 PM

Look at the book "50 Years of the Gibson Les Paul" by Tony Bacon.

spider murphy · #13 10-06-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

So it looks like your point IS my point, there are no years to avoid, just play whatever you can and get what works.

pretty much. thats how i feel abt. all products, and companies. what i would add to that is... if you are not buying a guitar you can try out personally or you don't know much abt the particular company in general you should at least do your homework on the particular year of prod. to see if there were any odd changes in stock, hardware, and changes in personnel. some years are better than others in all matters.

spider murphy · #14 10-06-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

Its not like one guy makes all the guitars and when he retires, they bring in a retarded monkey to make them and the guitars suck until the monkey learns.

.

maybe not, but if you replace "one guy" with alot of guys, and replace "retarded monkey" with completely new staff, it would be closer to what i was saying. that said i believe we are indeed for the most part on the same page. ps. i have an 81 custom that sounds great.

Smitty · #15 10-06-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motaboy

For example, I tried one of those "vintage mahogany" LPs, you know, the price cut versions (no-finish, LOL).
The body is light weight, probably chambered.
It has a pair of Burstbucker pickups, and man - that thing sounded amazing.

I know what ya mean. Those guitars are sweet.
smitty