what do you think is the best guitar (electric)

[jdlee23]

Yeah, my Gretsch (made by Fender) does have fatter frets than my Paul, and, indeed, a bit flatter, me thinks.

[a.miller]

Anyone own a recent model Les Paul?

One of my good friends has a 2003 Les Paul Studio and I agree with the frets being really high and narrow. Another friend has a 1973 The Paul and it is one of the best guitars I have ever played. I think if you look around on ebay you can get a 59 or 60 reissue LP for $1100 or so. One other friend got a honeyburst 60 reissue with upgraded DiMarzio pickups in that price range, and it's a screamer.

[FaintingGoat]

I own a recent Les Paul Standard (honeyburst) with a '60s neck profile. Gibson has issued so many versions of the Les Paul that it's easy to get confused. A true '58, '59, or '60 reissue is going to be over $3,000 even used on eBay. Custom Shop reissues from people like Tom Murphy will command closer to $5,000 or more. Don't be confused by standard models where sellers describe them as being built to "1959 specs!" Bollocks! The new Les Pauls sound great and the craftsmanship is the best it's been in decades, but no one will comfuse them for a true '59 model. Next time you're on eBay do a search for 'Gibson Les Paul 59.' You'll be surprised at the dollar amounts.

 

Les Paul Customs have always had wide, low frets. They were so low in the early days that they were nicknamed "the fretless wonder." They had frets of course, but they were that low.

 

Les Paul Standards generally had narrower frets with higher profiles. Over the years, many Standards have appeared on the secondary market (read: used) with replacement frets. Just like people changing tires, they rarely go smaller. Bigger tires! Bigger frets! During the Norlin days of Gibson, coming across a Deluxe, Standard, or Custom could mean finding unusual features. Low-profile, wide frets sometimes popped up on Deluxes and Standards. If you're interested in learning more about inconsistencies (or happy accidents in some folks' opinion) in Gibson's manufacturing, I'd encourage you to Google George Gruhn and read some of his articles on the subject.

 

The debate between "wide and flat" versus "high and narrow" is really part of the fun of being a guitar player. The right answer is that variety is good. For example, why debate single-coils versus humbuckers? So many folks are quick to say how much meatier their tone is with a humbucker, but who would be willing to put their tone head-to-head with the roar Hendrix got from his Stratocaster (single coils)?

 

If you're lucky enough to own more than one guitar, I'd encourage you to have a mix of fret profiles. It will add to your palate of tones.

 

Don

[jdlee23]

I own a recent Les Paul Standard (honeyburst) with a '60s neck profile. Gibson has issued so many versions of the Les Paul that it's easy to get confused. A true '58, '59, or '60 reissue is going to be over $3,000 even used on eBay. Custom Shop reissues from people like Tom Murphy will command closer to $5,000 or more. Don't be confused by standard models where sellers describe them as being built to "1959 specs!" Bollocks! The new Les Pauls sound great and the craftsmanship is the best it's been in decades, but no one will comfuse them for a true '59 model. Next time you're on eBay do a search for 'Gibson Les Paul 59.' You'll be surprised at the dollar amounts.

 

Les Paul Customs have always had wide, low frets. They were so low in the early days that they were nicknamed "the fretless wonder." They had frets of course, but they were that low.

 

Les Paul Standards generally had narrower frets with higher profiles. Over the years, many Standards have appeared on the secondary market (read: used) with replacement frets. Just like people changing tires, they rarely go smaller. Bigger tires! Bigger frets! During the Norlin days of Gibson, coming across a Deluxe, Standard, or Custom could mean finding unusual features. Low-profile, wide frets sometimes popped up on Deluxes and Standards. If you're interested in learning more about inconsistencies (or happy accidents in some folks' opinion) in Gibson's manufacturing, I'd encourage you to Google George Gruhn and read some of his articles on the subject.

 

The debate between "wide and flat" versus "high and narrow" is really part of the fun of being a guitar player. The right answer is that variety is good. For example, why debate single-coils versus humbuckers? So many folks are quick to say how much meatier their tone is with a humbucker, but who would be willing to put their tone head-to-head with the roar Hendrix got from his Stratocaster (single coils)?

 

If you're lucky enough to own more than one guitar, I'd encourage you to have a mix of fret profiles. It will add to your palate of tones.

 

Don

 

Great post, mate. I have to agree with you on all accounts. I was gonna comment on the prices for true '59, '60 Reissues myself, but I decided to let it be. You are absolutely right about Gibson releasing so many Les Paul model changes with 1960-yadda yadda or whatever stuck to them, it just confuses the market.

[groselicain]

Gibson has issued so many versions of the Les Paul that it's easy to get confused.

 

Amen.

 

Not to cause more confusion, but, what's the main difference between a Les Paul and The Paul, aside from the latter being harder to describe in a sentence? (e.g. I've got this awesome The Paul!)

[sean Patrick]

what's the main difference between a Les Paul and The Paul, aside from the latter being harder to describe in a sentence? (e.g. I've got this awesome The Paul!)

 

 

 

its just a stripped down version of a les paul, naked humbuckers, 2 controls and a switch. almost always black too. i think that they were just the retarded bodies with severe blemishes under the wood, so they gave it a little contour and made it a new model. gibson did some screwy things in those years, but none the less, the one i have played sounded ace as well.

 

 

cheers.

www.afnpmusic.com

[BolivarBaLues]

I own a recent Les Paul Standard (honeyburst) with a '60s neck profile. Gibson has issued so many versions of the Les Paul that it's easy to get confused. A true '58, '59, or '60 reissue is going to be over $3,000 even used on eBay. Custom Shop reissues from people like Tom Murphy will command closer to $5,000 or more. Don't be confused by standard models where sellers describe them as being built to "1959 specs!" Bollocks! The new Les Pauls sound great and the craftsmanship is the best it's been in decades, but no one will comfuse them for a true '59 model. Next time you're on eBay do a search for 'Gibson Les Paul 59.' You'll be surprised at the dollar amounts.

 

Les Paul Customs have always had wide, low frets. They were so low in the early days that they were nicknamed "the fretless wonder." They had frets of course, but they were that low.

 

Les Paul Standards generally had narrower frets with higher profiles. Over the years, many Standards have appeared on the secondary market (read: used) with replacement frets. Just like people changing tires, they rarely go smaller. Bigger tires! Bigger frets! During the Norlin days of Gibson, coming across a Deluxe, Standard, or Custom could mean finding unusual features. Low-profile, wide frets sometimes popped up on Deluxes and Standards. If you're interested in learning more about inconsistencies (or happy accidents in some folks' opinion) in Gibson's manufacturing, I'd encourage you to Google George Gruhn and read some of his articles on the subject.

 

The debate between "wide and flat" versus "high and narrow" is really part of the fun of being a guitar player. The right answer is that variety is good. For example, why debate single-coils versus humbuckers? So many folks are quick to say how much meatier their tone is with a humbucker, but who would be willing to put their tone head-to-head with the roar Hendrix got from his Stratocaster (single coils)?

 

If you're lucky enough to own more than one guitar, I'd encourage you to have a mix of fret profiles. It will add to your palate of tones.

 

Don

 

 

Excellent information! Thank you!

[a.miller]

its just a stripped down version of a les paul, naked humbuckers, 2 controls and a switch. almost always black too. i think that they were just the retarded bodies with severe blemishes under the wood, so they gave it a little contour and made it a new model. gibson did some screwy things in those years, but none the less, the one i have played sounded ace as well.

The "The Paul" I have played was all brown, bare wood and it had four knobs and a switch. This one didn't have any bad wood blems either. Not sounding like I'm disagreeing, this was just my experience with the only The Paul I've played.

[sean Patrick]

The "The Paul" I have played was all brown, bare wood and it had four knobs and a switch. This one didn't have any bad wood blems either. Not sounding like I'm disagreeing, this was just my experience with the only The Paul I've played.

 

 

you are right.

i does have 4.

sorry for the miscommunication.

it was just from that period of gibson of, what were they thinking?

but overall they made some great stuff, when did they not?

[jff]

I've seen two "The Pauls". They were both brown with wood grain showing if I'm not mistaken. I'd probably rather have a "The Paul" than a Les Paul Studio.

 

I used to have a 1981 Les Paul Standard that had low flat/wide frets. Wish I still had it. Great guitar.

[groselicain]

So essentially what you're telling me is, if I see a The Paul (seriously, how should I phrase it?), it's like the predecessor to the Les Paul faded versions that Gibson puts out now, minus the uncovered Humbuckers? Because, I played a friend's Faded, and it wasn't much nicer than my Epiphone LP Custom. If anything, it didn't have as much bass in the Neck pickup, and the bridge pickup didn't have the clarity in the high-range that mine did. Plus, the wood wasn't too nice, the neck wasn't that great, and the overall playability was just not what I expected from Gibson. I tend to forget, this was a $799 guitar, not one of their pricier versions.

Edited July 29, 2006 by groselicain

[a.miller]

They tend to be much, much nicer than the faded lower end guitars that Gibson is putting out now. The one that I have played actually DID have uncovered humbuckers. They're pretty cool guitars. I just looked on ebay and there are a couple that make my wallet vibrate. Search for "Gibson the Paul." All of them look like the one I played, which was a 1973 my friend got for $100 (best. deal. ever.).

[Gobias Industries]

Are "The Paul"s as heavy as the other ones notoriously are?

[danelectro]

Not usually as heavy because the body didn't feature the carved maple cap or any cap for that matter, with it's slightly contoured body it was more like an SG. The Paul was a budget model Gibson akin to the Sonex and Spirit. Not a bad thing just not a Les Paul, replacing Les with The was definitely some creative marketing. They made a The Paul II that featured an arched top that was a little more like a LP and similar to todays Vintage Mahogany models. The Paul is really a single cut Les Paul Special by a different name.

 

Back to the weight thing. LP's can be pretty light depending on the construction method, chambered, pancaked etc. My 2005 LP isn't any heavier than either of my two vintage reissue Strat's. Most people have gone away from that weight equals tone mentality, even Billy Gibbon's personal custom LP's from Gibson are chambered these days.

 

Personally I don't have a preference. My current electric collection includes 4 Fender's and 3 Gibson's. I like all my stuff equally and depending on what I need, tone etc. determines what I grab for.

[a.miller]

I agree that the The Paul body is thinner than an normal Les Paul, more like an SG (as was stated above). I forgot to mention that in my description.

[anodyne]

Most people have gone away from that weight equals tone mentality, even Billy Gibbon's personal custom LP's from Gibson are chambered these days.

hetfield's explorers in the 80s were hollowed out from the back and covered with duct tape (or so the legend goes).

[a.miller]

Would the hollow chambers/back improve or reduce tone? Or is it simply a weight issue?

[danelectro]

Personally I don't think it makes a huge tone difference, not enough to have back problems. IMO it's a weight issue. Les Paul geeks will argue that unless a LP is '59 Standard specs, long tenon, maple cap, PAFs etc. it isn't a REAL LP. I say bah to that. IMO the largest single tone factor with electric guitars are the pickups.

[jff]

Les Paul geeks will argue that unless a LP is '59 Standard specs, long tenon, maple cap, PAFs etc. it isn't a REAL LP. I say bah to that.

 

Les Paul doesn't even play a guitar that fits that descripton.

[anodyne]

hetfield's chiseled models used emg active pickups, so there's merit to the pickups having more of an effect than the mass of the guitar in that case. emgs are good at what they do -- sterile and consistent high gain tone.

 

the tonal qualities of the wood seem to have a lot more to do with the resonance than the total mass, although it must factor in to some extent. i'm a sucker for mahogany guitars (even my acoustic is all mahogany). i just love that low rumble without the bright snap.

[danelectro]

I agree that certain woods exhibit different tonal qualities, but like you I'm not sure that more wood equates to more or better tone. The purists tend to swear to it but I'm not convinced. Only because the guitar's I've personally owned have proved otherwise. For example my '61 SG reissue resonates and sustains every bit as much as my Les Paul. The SG has significantly less wood. However the tone is definitely different.

 

IMO with guitars and gear I think finding what you like is the most important thing. I'm done listening to people tell me what gear they think is thebest other than for the purpose of discussing it for fun. I hang out a quite a few guitar boards and it's amazing how many people think that anything less than a $5500 '59 Les Paul VOS reissue is less than adequate. They practically spit in my face when I bought my 2005 Vintage Mahogany model. Personally I think I made out okay considering I only paid $650 for a USA Gibby with Burstbuckers.

[anodyne]

i sold my carvin dc-127 to finance a decent les paul. i regret it. i'm probably going to sell the gibson and get another carvin. my old dc-127 was just a better guitar. i'm sure everyone here has a similar story.

 

the biggest thing i miss about that old guitar was the sustain. it was a neck thru with strings through the body. that thing sustained for days.

[danelectro]

I know what you mean about wanting previously owned guitars back. Sadly I've sold and traded off some pretty nice stuff. Back in the 80's I had several vintage pieces that I really miss now. Including a 1964 Strat that me and a friend ruined by scalloping during the Ynqwie craze.

[a.miller]

a 1964 Strat that me and a friend ruined by scalloping during the Ynqwie craze

[danelectro]

What was a 15 year old metal kid to do . We did a lot of stupid stuff with nice guitars back then and beyond. During the Nirvana craze I traded a 1984 Gibson Explorer for one of those Univox Mosrite copies Kurt was fond of.

 

I'm pretty happy with my current collection. Affordable guitars are much better now than before. All of my Fender's are vintage reissue imports, though some have been modded with USA CS parts. My Gibby's are as good as any I've previously owned except were much more affordable. I doubt I'll part with the guitar I have now unless something really gets to me. If I get anything else it will be a P-90 equipped Gibson, maybe one of these.