• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Classic 1960 RI vs Historic R0

superlead73

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
310
Are both of these guitars reissues of the 1960 Les Paul? If yes, why a Historic and why a Classic RI. Are they both not reissues of the same guitar?
I know there's like a $1.5k difference between the two but not aware of the other factors and why both are being offered at the same time. Anybody?
 

PixelBurst

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
4,094
The Classic isn't a reissue. It has hot ceramic pickups, a short neck tenon, weight relief holes as well as cosmetic differences. The R0's neck isn't as slim as the Classic either. Plus the Classic has those nasty fake looking inlay.
 

Dave Carpenter

New member
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,582
These are really very different guitars. Which is better for you is dependent on who you are as a player and enthusiast.

I looked back through what I had available to me I don’t see where Gibson called the Classic a Classic 60 RI. But Gibson it is entirely possible. Do you have that? I find where they called the USA built Classic a 1960 Classic just a few years back, though it was not meant even then to be a Reissue but rather a hot rod Les Paul with a slim taper neck.

Here are the links to both current models that you are referring to. The spec. is different between the two.
http://www.gibsoncustom.com/flash/products/lespauls/60/1960Standard.html

http://www.gibson.com/Products/GibsonElectric/Gibson Electric Guitars/LesPaul/Classic/

Three performance issues that are different and can be very important to some;
• Number one is that the Historic 1960 Reissue from the Gibson Custom division has a solid back with no weight relief as apposed to the possibility of a two piece back and weight relieving on the USA built Classic.
• Two a long neck tenon on the Historic R0 and short neck tenon on the Classic.
• Three is the Bridge, an ABR1 on the historic R0 and a Nashville on the USA built Classic.

If these things are important to you they cannot be changed like pickups, inlays etc.

I hope this helps. :)
 

fjminor

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,623
Dave Carpenter said:
These are really very different guitars. Which is better for you is dependent on who you are as a player and enthusiast.

I looked back through what I had available to me I don’t see where Gibson called the Classic a Classic 60 RI. But Gibson it is entirely possible. Do you have that? I find where they called the USA built Classic a 1960 Classic just a few years back, though it was not meant even then to be a Reissue but rather a hot rod Les Paul with a slim taper neck.

Here are the links to both current models that you are referring to. The spec. is different between the two.
http://www.gibsoncustom.com/flash/products/lespauls/60/1960Standard.html

http://www.gibson.com/Products/GibsonElectric/Gibson Electric Guitars/LesPaul/Classic/

Three performance issues that are different and can be very important to some;
• Number one is that the Historic 1960 Reissue from the Gibson Custom division has a solid back with no weight relief as apposed to the possibility of a two piece back and weight relieving on the USA built Classic.
• Two a long neck tenon on the Historic R0 and short neck tenon on the Classic.
• Three is the Bridge, an ABR1 on the historic R0 and a Nashville on the USA built Classic.

If these things are important to you they cannot be changed like pickups, inlays etc.

I hope this helps. :)

Hi Dave

On point 3 - the Bridge - I have a 97 Classic that came stock with an ABR-1 Bridge - is there any reason for this, or just another Gibson fluke?

P.S. I dont think there are any weight relief holes on this guitar as it weighs 9.0 lbs.

- Sorry for the big picture but it was the only way with this picture to illustrate the ABR1 bridge.

97Classic16.jpg
 

PixelBurst

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
4,094
I've never seen a Classic with the Nashville either, only the ABR-1 like the pic above.
 

superlead73

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
310
Well, that spells it out for me. I thought that the Classic was a 1960 Reissue because of the "1960" text on the pick up cover. Some of the earlier late '90's had stunning tops and I seem to remember sales people at the now defunct Mars store stating it was a 1960 RI.
 

Dave Carpenter

New member
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,582
fjminor said:
Hi Dave

On point 3 - the Bridge - I have a 97 Classic that came stock with an ABR-1 Bridge - is there any reason for this, or just another Gibson fluke?

P.S. I dont think there are any weight relief holes on this guitar as it weighs 9.0 lbs.

- Sorry for the big picture but it was the only way with this picture to illustrate the ABR1 bridge.

97Classic16.jpg

Your guitar is right for the year. In that year it would have the ABR1 but the body is weight relieved and can they can weigh more than yours. I like the photo and your inlays do not look green. Cheers! :salude
 

fjminor

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,623
Dave Carpenter said:
Your guitar is right for the year. In that year it would have the ABR1 but the body is weight relieved and can they can weigh more than yours. I like the photo and your inlays do not look green. Cheers! :salude


Thanks Dave...I figured if it is weight relieved, it would be under 8.5 lbs - learned something new...thanks.. and yes the inlays are not green...
:dude
 

DonP

Active member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
3,020
The ABR-1 was recently dropped from Classics in 2003/4? (and SG Standards in 2000/1?).

Gibson says if you want the classic ABR-1 bridge, pony up for a Historic SG or LP.
 

Stumbler

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
2,947
You might want to read the article with the link on the LPF home page:

"Gibson Les Paul Classic Premium Plus: Flametop Wonder" By Mike Slubowski

Mike talks about the history of the Classic starting in 90, and trys to sort through the confusion when the Custom Shop Historic Reissue line started up in 93.

I think your (or that music store's) basic confusion is in the use of RI or Reissue associated with the Classic. I think of the LP Classic 1960 as a production or Gibson USA guitar, while the Reissue, like R0, R9, R8 etc, is from the Custom Shop. Note though, that Mike says for a few years in the mid 90s the Custom Shop did make limited numbers LP Classic Premium Plus.

My '90 Classic has an ABR-1 BTW, and I believe they have had them since that time until very recently.
 

Dave Carpenter

New member
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,582
I remember the first time I witnessed the change, not sure if it was 03 or 04, but anyway I called Gibson to see if there was a chance of getting more Classics with the ABR1 and no one was optimistic. As far as I know there was no press release to announce the change. I thought that the Classic with the ABR1 was a real good alternative or choice in relation to the LP Standard. Some people burn bright for one or the other bridge type, so to me it just made sense to have the ABR1 available on a USA division guitar for those players who want an ABR1. However the Classic continues to be a winner with consumers, so that shows you what I know. The new lower price on the 1958 Reissue helps for those who want an ABR1 on a guitar with a burst finish.
 

dgood

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
629
I had an 03 Classic with a one-piece body. It was good guitar. I sold it. I now have a 99 R0. It is a GREAT guitar. There is no comparison.
 

Stumbler

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
2,947
dgood said:
I had an 03 Classic with a one-piece body. It was good guitar. I sold it. I now have a 99 R0. It is a GREAT guitar. There is no comparison.

I bet the R0 feels and sounds much better to you. Please describe the differences that make the RO comparatively great.
 

dgood

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
629
The Classic had an uncomfortable neck compared to this instance of an R0. The R0 is lighter, louder, and more articulate unplugged. I put Timbuckers in the R0, but even the stock 57s sounded a lot better than the ceramic PUs in the Classic. The fingerboard on the RO is smoother and with a finer grain than the Classic. The frets are better. In my experience RIs are better made than production LPs, in general. In this case it's definitely true. In addition to all that, the R0 has a beautiful flame top and a much better paint job.
Of course, it's a lot more expensive than the Classic, but IMO you often get what you pay for.
 

Stumbler

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
2,947
Thanks. I had a similar experience at a LPF jam this past Saturday. I was playing my 90 Classic which for a Classic is a really good one, but then Jimmy Murray let me play his 95 R9 with Holmes pups. A whole different animal - much the same as you describe. Although my old Classic has a great neck, fretjob and dark, hard fretboard.
 

NHMorgan

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
3,069
As per weight relief holes, I think they mostly bring the guitars to sub 10lbs, but not many USAs below 8.5, probably more above 10 that below 8.5.
 

SteveB334

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
1,352
I love my classic. It has the best neck I have ever felt.
116552531.jpg
 

burstman59

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
1,753
I'm sure there are some good classics out there. I bought a 1992 Classic plus model brand new that had a very nice top but it also had a very bright almost clownburst color that I hated. I did notice the nashville bridges and some of them if not all the new ones do have a two piece back. But like alot of people after buying my 1st Historic R9 in 1996 theres no comparison.
 

DonP

Active member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
3,020
dgood said:
The Classic had an uncomfortable neck compared to this instance of an R0. The R0 is lighter, louder, and more articulate unplugged. I put Timbuckers in the R0, but even the stock 57s sounded a lot better than the ceramic PUs in the Classic.

Now that doesn't sound fair - you never swapped out the Classic's pickups to give it a fair chance.

dgood said:
The fingerboard on the RO is smoother and with a finer grain than the Classic.

I've seen and played historics where the fretboard was like a cheese grater (or ugly milk chocolate brown) - it can happen to any Les Paul. I'm very surprised Gibson doesn't cherry pick rosewood slabs for fretboards, or if they do, they suck in picking them IMO.

dgood said:
The frets are better. In my experience RIs are better made than production LPs, in general. In this case it's definitely true.

For the price, they should be.

dgood said:
In addition to all that, the R0 has a beautiful flame top and a much better paint job.

I'll argue my 1996 Classic Premium Plus top against any historic any day, and it's fretboard looks/texture will outdo 75% of the historics as well.

dgood said:
Of course, it's a lot more expensive than the Classic, but IMO you often get what you pay for.

Agreed. My 1996 Classic Premium Plus cost $1250 in Dec '02. The only Historic R0 Flametops in this price range come in pieces.
 
Top