Gibson LP Classic vs Standard - Page 2

stax · 07-12-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonSarc

When did they start doing the classics? 1400 bucks good deal for a traditional?has few Bucklel rash and a scratch by the cable input the top is good. I got an offers for a mint classic for 1200 bucks and a traditional with buckle rash and few scratch at the bottom for 1400 bucks which 1 should I pick?

The Classic started in 1990. We can't tell you which one to pick. Guitars are like girls, you have to "do" all of them to figure out which one to marry!

DragonSarc · 07-13-2009, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stax

The Classic started in 1990. We can't tell you which one to pick. Guitars are like girls, you have to "do" all of them to figure out which one to marry!

lolz do all of them hahaha wish I could

Metallon · 07-15-2009, 06:50 AM

Is there a difference between an LP Standard and an LP Standard Faded? Because my local guitar shops are all selling the Faded models for MUCH cheaper than the normal Standard ones. In fact, The Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Honeyburst costs pretty much exactly 50% of what a Gibson Les Paul Standard 2008 costs (not the plain top models). I personally couldn't care less for the swiss cheese holes but I am definitely wary of chambered Les Pauls. A change of tone and sustain length doesn't compare much to loss of that fat les paul sound. Not IMO anyway.

stax · 07-15-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metallon

Is there a difference between an LP Standard and an LP Standard Faded? Because my local guitar shops are all selling the Faded models for MUCH cheaper than the normal Standard ones. In fact, The Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded Honeyburst costs pretty much exactly 50% of what a Gibson Les Paul Standard 2008 costs (not the plain top models). I personally couldn't care less for the swiss cheese holes but I am definitely wary of chambered Les Pauls. A change of tone and sustain length doesn't compare much to loss of that fat les paul sound. Not IMO anyway.

No, not much. But, what is missing on the Faded is several layers of nitro. What does this mean? Lots of cost cutting, in materials and labor. Each layer of nitro is handsanded and buffed, nitro is in of it's self an expensive material that also requires permits and of course fee's for those permits to use, as it is regulated.

I believe that a Standard has about eleven layers of nitro, (a VOS historic has about seven, so no, VOS is not cool! And it is a $300 upgrade charge to get the high gloss historic). Each layer is handsanded and buffed, so you can kind of get the idea of the price difference between the Standard and the Faded. Also, the Faded uses a different stain on the top, it is to make the "flame" stand out. If you ever tried to apply nitro to this type of stain the flame would not then become three dimentional, like on higher grade Gibsons.

Imo, I wouldn't waste my money on the Faded, it looks cheap and it feels cheap. I own several Custom Shop Gibsons and that is the way to go, I would not own any of their production guitars anymore (ie. Standard, Traditional, SG, etc.) But, if I bought a Gibson production guitar, it would be a Studio or a Classic from 90-93, or an old Standard (even Norlins).

Metallon · 07-15-2009, 04:05 PM

Well...

I own an ESP Ltd EC-400VF Eclipse. It's a Made In Korea guitar, Les Paul-style, full thickness body, with Seymour Duncans. I think this guitar feels great and sounds great. I suppose it could stay in tune better but I usually only need to retune it a few times a week. I don't really have all that much to compare to (I really should try out some more high-end guitars) but sometimes I wonder if I'll ever notice these small detail differences. I mean, if I go from this Eclipse that I have to a Gibson production Les Paul, wouldn't I still feel that the Gibby is better? I can't see myself become a Gibson collector anyway since I think their guitars are overpriced but I've always wanted to own a Gibson Les Paul. I wouldn't buy one if the quality was... you know... shit.

I may as well add that I'm not going to be buying a new Gibson Les Paul anytime soon since I DO think they're overpriced. Though I am considering picking up a new guitar, since I need to refreshen myself sort of, and I really can't seem to find a guitar that sounds better to me than a Les Paul, which is why I'm considering a cheaper alternative. It would still be nice to own a Gibson, and it does have to look nice. I know, picky eh? :P

Another question: Difference between 50's necks and 60's necks. I've googled day and night. I can't find a sasitfying answer.

steelhorse · 07-15-2009, 04:54 PM

50's necks are fatter and less tapered than the 60's which are slimmer with more taper. That's not the literal or 'scientific' translation, but since I own LP's with both types of neck, that's my interpretation and take on them.

I like ESP's, especially the LTD's which are the Korean made. Better value and still assembled in the US. Schecter's are also great guitars.

Another guitar that can be pricey (I buy them from a custom dealer though so they have better appointments and value) are the USA Washburn's.

Better higher fret access and monster sweet tone. For much less than a custom shop LP you could get a fantastic custom shop washburn IF you buy them at the right place.

I just ordered a Paul Stanley Preacher. It's a limited series called a PS5, in racing red:

Maple Neck
Mahogany body (solid)
Ebony fretboard
MOP blocks
Art Deco inlay headstock
Seymour Duncan JB Bridge,
Seymour Duncan 59 Neck
Buzz Feiten System
Tone Pro Bridge and tailpiece
Grover 18:1 Keystone Tuners
Custom Truss Cover
Custom OHSC
Paul Stanley Banner
COA signed by the dealer and Paul Stanley

I'm not a KISS fan or Paul Stanley fan but I love this guitar. I have a couple of other USA's with the same shape and they play great and sound incredible.

The dealer has a promo going on for quite a few USA and import Washburn's for a few days.

Metallon · 07-15-2009, 05:43 PM

steelhorse, you think you could maybe put up a couple pics to demonstrate the difference? I think I've got the hang by now just what the difference is, but I'm still unsure and I'm still unsure if the 60's neck is more closer to a standard neck (making the 50's thicker than normal) or if it's the 60's neck that's slimmer than normal. Scalloped neck and slim taper isn't the same thing, I'm assuming? Would the neck of my Eclipse be closer to a 60's neck profile or 50's neck profile?

I'm going down my local guitar shops tomorrow just to try out some of these high-end guitars. The more I think about it, the more I reckon my Eclipse is a solid, good guitar. Eventually I'm going fix the hardware (change bridge and tuners, fix the nut, swap strings, get it intonated, set the action properly). 4.4 kilos isn't all that bad IMO. I doubt I can find a Gibson Les Paul would sound that much better. Like I said, it's the fact that the Gibson Les Paul is an icon that tips the scales. I'm not (yet) a professional player. At the moment it's just playing in my room and with mates, so naturally I'm not hunting for the perfect guitar, and my economic state won't let me anyway. But, getting a guitar that I feel truly comfortable with and really inspires me to play is what matters most, really. I'm confident a Gibson Les Paul will do that to me. I suppose that's why I'm hunting for a normal, standard Gibson Les Paul. Nothing overly fancy, just a slick guitar that will sound really good.

As a final note on this post, when the time is right and when I can afford it... Bernie Rico Jr. Probably a Jekyll as I'm getting increasingly annoyed by neck dive. Those guitars have these headstocks that look like you could lob off someone's head with it!

steelhorse · 07-15-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metallon

steelhorse, you think you could maybe put up a couple pics to demonstrate the difference? I think I've got the hang by now just what the difference is, but I'm still unsure and I'm still unsure if the 60's neck is more closer to a standard neck (making the 50's thicker than normal) or if it's the 60's neck that's slimmer than normal. Scalloped neck and slim taper isn't the same thing, I'm assuming? Would the neck of my Eclipse be closer to a 60's neck profile or 50's neck profile?

I'm going down my local guitar shops tomorrow just to try out some of these high-end guitars. The more I think about it, the more I reckon my Eclipse is a solid, good guitar. Eventually I'm going fix the hardware (change bridge and tuners, fix the nut, swap strings, get it intonated, set the action properly). 4.4 kilos isn't all that bad IMO. I doubt I can find a Gibson Les Paul would sound that much better. Like I said, it's the fact that the Gibson Les Paul is an icon that tips the scales. I'm not (yet) a professional player. At the moment it's just playing in my room and with mates, so naturally I'm not hunting for the perfect guitar, and my economic state won't let me anyway. But, getting a guitar that I feel truly comfortable with and really inspires me to play is what matters most, really. I'm confident a Gibson Les Paul will do that to me. I suppose that's why I'm hunting for a normal, standard Gibson Les Paul. Nothing overly fancy, just a slick guitar that will sound really good.

As a final note on this post, when the time is right and when I can afford it... Bernie Rico Jr. Probably a Jekyll as I'm getting increasingly annoyed by neck dive. Those guitars have these headstocks that look like you could lob off someone's head with it!

I like the ESP Eclipses fwiw. You can get a few of the new ones for what it would cost to get an LP and no one really cares what you're playing so long as you sound good imo besides they look pretty slick too.

Check the Les Paul forums, there's bound to be threads in there that cover the neck differences and shapes in far greater detail, mine was just a generalization and my ESP's are definitely closer in neck feel to the 60's than the 50's neck.

stax · 07-15-2009, 11:20 PM

Once again I'll say, if you can't afford a new LP, I would look at the used market. If you feel that a LP will inspire (and it will) than don't settle for anything less than an LP.

If you do, you will end up being in the same spot your in now, wanting a real LP, but out the money you spent on something else. You already know what you want, don't let anyone else convince you that you want something else.

steelhorse · 07-16-2009, 12:38 AM

Also don't let anyone convince you that LP's are the end all or be all. There are lots of great guitars out there, LP's will be around when you can afford one.

Metallon · 07-16-2009, 03:01 AM

Ah I kno what I want, I just wanted to check some things. Like the difference between certain things. I never did got an explanation as to why the Standard Faded would feel cheap. I'm usually just curious as to what goes on inside a guitar since all I can see is how it looks and hear how it sounds. Hard to assess the general quality of electronics, wood quality and hardware when you don't own the guitar.

@steelhorse: obviously I'm not going to stop at Gibson, showing me Bernie Rico Jr. guitars kind of opened my eyes to the difference between expensive guitars and overpriced guitars.

Metallon · 07-16-2009, 12:33 PM

Just came back from about an hour of testing some Gibson Les Pauls. I tried both the Standard and Traditional models, got to feel the difference between 50's and 60's neck profiles, tried 2002 models and 2008 models.

My verdict is that I believe - on the contrary of what the guitar guy said - the chambered body makes for a LOSS of sustain. He claimed it added sustain. Though the chambered body gave it a slightly different tune, it enhanced the richness, which I liked. Overall I preferred the Standard looks over the Traditional, and I felt that the 2002's played a bit better than the 2008's. Some guitars of the same model (like 2 different 2002 LP Standards) had a significant weight difference.

Ultimately I've settled on a Light Burst Gibson Les Paul Standard 2002. I'm not sure what pups are on it, but it sounds great. It was considerably heavier than the Honey Burst LP Standard 2002 that was next to it. So I'm guessing one is chambered and one isn't. Or maybe one has much lighter mahogany. Anyway, though the neck is a weeee bit too thick for me, I still find it very easy to play. It was a very comfortable guitar that looked great and sounded great. Moreover, this 2002 is on a special sale so they're selling it for just about $2,500 which I think is a pretty nice deal for an LP Standard. What surprised me was the tonal difference between the Les Paul and my Eclipse. It might've been the amp as I was playing through a Fender Deluxe combo but the Les Paul's tone was much richer and much more ballsy when compared to my Eclipse. I don't think this guitar is going to get sold soon, so I'm hoping to be buying this some time... relatively soon. We'll see. If it gets sold I'll jsut go around and try more LP's until I find one that I want for the right price

I also asked someone at the store about the difference between an LP Standard and an LP Standard Faded. He said the only difference was the finish and the paint job (something about much more labor used on the Standard than the Standard faded). Some people claim this makes for a tonal difference, some say it doesn't. They were all sold out so I couldn't try one myself.

steelhorse · 07-16-2009, 04:26 PM

fwiw, all newer (I consider anything less than 10 years old 'newer') LP's are weight relieved to some degree with the newer ones being chambered. Most have those cheese holes cut into them.

The nitro cellulose paint jobs are usually a significant upcharge because you have to paint in layers and sand in between which adds to the labor. I like my guitars painted although I have considered oiled mahogany and padauk body guitars, I just don't know how well they withstand bumps and bruises.

Metallon · 07-16-2009, 06:54 PM

I'm pretty sure each and every Les Paul I tried had swiss cheese holes in 'em. But the chambered bodies feel TOO light for a Les Paul. My Eclipse weighs 4.4 kilos, I'm kind of trying to aim at no lower than 4 kilos. Or something that feels like that. When a Les Paul weighs no more than my Jackson, there's something amiss.

I hear oil paint doesn't withstand damage well at all. Quite understandable. And you are bound to get a few bumps on the guitar. Now I just have to find out what pick-ups the 2002 LP Standard has.

stax · 07-16-2009, 09:56 PM

2002 LP Standard should have Burstbucker Pro's.

All Les Paul's from around 1981 up until the present have the swiss cheese weight relief, with exception to the Traditional (which has a chambered body) and the only solid body LP being the Custom Shop Historic (although, some are marketed as special run chambered Historic's).

07-15-2009, 11:20 PM	#39 (permalink)
stax Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SoCal Posts: 153	Re: Gibson LP Classic vs Standard Once again I'll say, if you can't afford a new LP, I would look at the used market. If you feel that a LP will inspire (and it will) than don't settle for anything less than an LP. If you do, you will end up being in the same spot your in now, wanting a real LP, but out the money you spent on something else. You already know what you want, don't let anyone else convince you that you want something else.

07-16-2009, 12:38 AM	#40 (permalink)
steelhorse Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,886	Re: Gibson LP Classic vs Standard Also don't let anyone convince you that LP's are the end all or be all. There are lots of great guitars out there, LP's will be around when you can afford one. __________________ www.ricojronline.com 760-956-6619 Garmopat Pedal Mods "I wouldn't mind hearing your head smash through a glass door. That would be cool..." luekmeyer

07-16-2009, 04:26 PM	#43 (permalink)
steelhorse Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,886	Re: Gibson LP Classic vs Standard fwiw, all newer (I consider anything less than 10 years old 'newer') LP's are weight relieved to some degree with the newer ones being chambered. Most have those cheese holes cut into them. The nitro cellulose paint jobs are usually a significant upcharge because you have to paint in layers and sand in between which adds to the labor. I like my guitars painted although I have considered oiled mahogany and padauk body guitars, I just don't know how well they withstand bumps and bruises. __________________ www.ricojronline.com 760-956-6619 Garmopat Pedal Mods "I wouldn't mind hearing your head smash through a glass door. That would be cool..." luekmeyer

07-16-2009, 09:56 PM	#45 (permalink)
stax Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SoCal Posts: 153	Re: Gibson LP Classic vs Standard 2002 LP Standard should have Burstbucker Pro's. All Les Paul's from around 1981 up until the present have the swiss cheese weight relief, with exception to the Traditional (which has a chambered body) and the only solid body LP being the Custom Shop Historic (although, some are marketed as special run chambered Historic's).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode