• 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!

R7, R8, R9 & R0????? difference?

Classic

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
1,624
Re: R7, R8, R9 & R0????? difference?

I'm not overly worried about having a flame top but I do like a slim neck.

How do the Class 5's compare to an R0?
________
LovelyWendie99
 
Last edited:

Rumbling_Groover

Les Paul Forum Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
1,089
My Class 5 is slightly bigger in the neck than my R0, but I have played Class 5s with very simelar necks to my R0.
 

440gtx6pak

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
319
Lennon24 said:
the neck on my '56 is HUGE, as is the one on the '57 Custom ...

The neck on my 2003 '57 Custom Black Beauty RI is one of the slimmer I own,
and is in R9 territory........ go figure.
 

bluesbishop

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
392
Classic said:
I'm not overly worried about having a flame top but I do like a slim neck.

How do the Class 5's compare to an R0?

If you don't care about flames, GC has a plaintop CA R0. The guitar center by me has a $2699.00 price on it, but the saleman quoted me $2400 "out the door" price. If I would have liked the neck, I would have jumped on it instead of my R7, nice washed cherry, two piece matched top with a nice fade.

A nice inexpensive way to get into a Historic with a thinner neck. :)
 

digitrack

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
191
The variations in the model line of R7 through R0 also vary with the year of manufacture. Older R8's featured many figure top models and this has only been discontinued in the last two years, to justify the price hike on the 59 models Gibson stopped putting figure tops on the 58's. The necks on all models are finish shaped by hand and the most notible differences I have seen are in the 58 models. Traditionally, 57's should have the fattest almost "U" shaped neck, the 58's feature a more rounded neck compared to the 57 but nearly as thick in feel, the 59 has a consistent thinner and rounded profile, resembling a "C" shape and the R0 has the thinnest profile of the line, but not as slim as the super slim Les Paul classic which is called a "1960 reissue" but was never part of the Historic line and is manufactured in the Gibson USA production line along with the Les Paul Standard and other production models. From 1993 through 2003 many changes also occured including finishes, top carving of the "bowl" of the top becoming more accurate to the real 50's models, pickup placement (somewhat off, too close to the bridge by 1/8" leaving a gap between the pickup ring and the pickguard on the treble pickup during I believe 1998), the use of brazilian rosewood during a small run during 2003 and lastly the use of eastern and western maple for the tops.
 

phil47uk

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
6,534
This should give you some idea.
Phil.

VintageLesPaulnecks12thfret.jpg
 

bobbovisme

Les Paul Froum Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
239
Ive played R7 R8 & R9's as well as SG and the SG reissue's and I think the regular sg has a flatter fretboard than the reissue Burst's or Sg .. I found the 57 goldtop neck to be a bit rounder around the back thn my 05 R8 and most of the r9's only a bit slimmer than my R8
 

Doc Martin

Les Paul Froum Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
132
At least as far as the current reissues, the R7s with the big necks have a sound all their own -- very fat and creamy with lots of spank on the top. I love mine...
 

phil47uk

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
6,534
Classic said:
that's what I wanted to know!!

The neck dimensions are more a comfort factor than having anything to do with the overall tone of the instrument. Yes, off course they will vary slightly.
From what I have deduced so far, the fatter neck seems to maybe bring out slightly more bottom end acousticaly, whereas the slimer 60's neck seems to beef up the mid tones a bit more.. But then again, that's only going by others here that have tried all the neck sizes. You will find that the acoustical tone produced is more subject to the individual guitar rather than lumping them into catagories of neck sizes.
I have an R0 ( Slim neck) that acousticaly out rings a huge necked 57 by a good 10 seconds. But as I said. That's only one example, and had I compared it to another R7, things may have been entirely different.
Les Paul's are funny creatures, as are all guitars. Each one will play and sound different and one must really try out quite a few before coming to the conclusion of what's right for you as an individual.

Phil.
 

thin sissy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,691
Yes, lets not have the fat neck=tone discussion again ;) .
We all agreed that the other factors play a bigger role in a comparsion between two guitars.
 

bluesjuke

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
7,007
From what I have seen personally & what all of the poster's here relate all that can be determined is that the '59's are generally smaller than the '54,'56,7, & 8's and the R0 is slimmer yet. They are all different in models, in year to year & within model.

My R7 has a fat neck smaller than my R8 but is identical to my '59 335 Historic- go figure.
 

Mikester

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
868
I got this info from the Gibson Forum when I was shopping for my R9:

"R8 and R9 are .900 at the 1st fret, 1.00 at the 12th. but they are shaped differently so that the R8 neck feels fatter. the R0 is .800 at the 1st and .875 at the 12th."
 

thin sissy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,691
Mikester said:
I got this info from the Gibson Forum when I was shopping for my R9:

"R8 and R9 are .900 at the 1st fret, 1.00 at the 12th. but they are shaped differently so that the R8 neck feels fatter. the R0 is .800 at the 1st and .875 at the 12th."
interesting
 

bluesjuke

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
7,007
The shoulders being different make all of the difference in the world.
A larger shoulder gives a greater girth therefore is fatter.
The above dimensions are only thickness.
 

thin sissy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,691
But it doesn't look like that in the pic above. I take it that the early 50's neck has "wider" shoulders than the 59 and 60 then.
 

phil47uk

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
6,534
thin sissy said:
But it doesn't look like that in the pic above. I take it that the early 50's neck has "wider" shoulders than the 59 and 60 then.

That pic above is taken from 50's originals and tweaked in Adobe from BOTB to represent approx life size at around the 7th - 9th fret.
That 60 in the pic is about spot on for my 2003 R0 Humph. Obviously each individual guitar will vary, but it gives one an approx idea, which to me is a better visual alternative than trying to describe things as. This is fatter than that, or this measures bla bla of an inch at the nut, which people ( Well at least me ) have more difficulty in comprehending.

Phil. :)
 
Last edited:

thin sissy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,691
Yes, it is a better reference than describing with words. As always, you have to try them out though.
 
Top