• 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!

Best year for LP Standards?

les strat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
5,194
The last USA Standard I owned was a 2001 tobacco sunburst with the 498T/490R pickups. About 11 lb with weight relief holes. It was a decent hard rock guitar, but after about a set I was done. It always sounded smothered due to the dense wood and inferior 300K pots.

les3.jpg

I sold it to fund an R8 and never looked back.

I did play a good many 2002-2003 Standards, and I personally think they are the best USA's made since the late 60's. This was pre-chambering, pre-2 piece backs, etc, etc. Nice wood, great tops, a little more in the vintage build and lighter than most prior to that era. I lost interest when they started chambering a legendary solid body guitar. They sounded good, but not like the punch I was used to with LP's. Several I played had a maracca thing going on inside the chambers. Hope they've taken care of that problem by now.

If I were to look for a production LP, it would be 2002-2004 Standard. Or a very early Classic (which were above Standards and more expensive at the time).
 

papersoul

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
3,066
Mine is an '03 and it is incredible. I trhought about buying a new Chambered 2008 for the weight and other upgrades but '03 is only like 8.5 lbs if that.

The last USA Standard I owned was a 2001 tobacco sunburst with the 498T/490R pickups. About 11 lb with weight relief holes. It was a decent hard rock guitar, but after about a set I was done. It always sounded smothered due to the dense wood and inferior 300K pots.

les3.jpg

I sold it to fund an R8 and never looked back.

I did play a good many 2002-2003 Standards, and I personally think they are the best USA's made since the late 60's. This was pre-chambering, pre-2 piece backs, etc, etc. Nice wood, great tops, a little more in the vintage build and lighter than most prior to that era. I lost interest when they started chambering a legendary solid body guitar. They sounded good, but not like the punch I was used to with LP's. Several I played had a maracca thing going on inside the chambers. Hope they've taken care of that problem by now.

If I were to look for a production LP, it would be 2002-2004 Standard. Or a very early Classic (which were above Standards and more expensive at the time).
 

Twiz

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
2
I have an early 2003 50's neck Goldtop. Absolutely fantastic sounding. The only minor beef was the top carve/bridge combo. With the original bridge I had to keep the tailpiece up so the strings would clear the edge. Replaced it, cranked down the tailpiece and there is resonance for days.
 

zoltan

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
72
Many seems to like the 2002, do they only comes in burst ? I guess they come in other variations. never mind...
 
Last edited:

LPSluv4life

New member
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
3
I LOVE my 03 lightburst LP std, IMHO it is the best production guitar ever made.. PERIOD!!(relax:pisd, its just an opinion) I've owned/played quite a few LP's(no bursts.. I wish) but i have owned an orig. 1954 LP Custom with pup/hardware mods and my pops has a 100% orig. 52 goldtop prototype(no neck binding or serial # and offset mounting screws on bridge pup) and has had it since since '72. Now, if im not mistaken both are collectively considered excellent players and highly respected guitars.. Out of all, i'd take my 03 LP std. any day of the week & twice on sunday:moon


throughout life i've played my dads '52 several times, however could probably count on hands & feet how many times I picked up the '54 Custom over my '03 std.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
All 52 LP's lack serial numbers and all of the first batch lacked fingerboard binding an had an offset screw pickup mount. None are prototypes.
Everyone seems to think the vintage they own is the best. There is no bad years. I've played so many, from all eras, and they all were excellent. Some had specs I prefer, some maybe not so much, still or regardless of my preference, every original well set up Standard I've tried played fine, sounded fine.
Really it is hard to find bad playing or sounding years or eras, easier to find bad players who sound bad.
Just sayin' ...
 

PierceLP

New member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
81
I played a late 80s standard at a GC once. Man it felt amazing. Weighed over 10 pounds but had an incredible feeling and sound to it. If i came across one again i would certainly consider buying!
 

Progrocker111

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
4,013
Late 80/early 90s was very good period for production Les Pauls. Craftmanship comparable to current Custom Shop guitars.

And i like very much 1974-early 75 Standards still with mahogany neck.
 

Wickdawg

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
12
I have a 2005 and a 2013, both Standards with super flamed out tops. I like the features of the 2013 better, such as the locking tuners and the ability to split the coils.

However, when it comes down to which one has the better overall tone and that classic Les Paul sound, the 2005 wins easily. It is just everything you expect from a Les Paul.
 

thunderkyss

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
743
My very first Les Paul was a '98 Standdard. It's the heaviest guitar I've ever owned. Still have it. My '06 Classic was the best sounding Les Paul in the place, the day I bought it. Well, best sounding for under $4K. However, it pails in comparison to my '98 Standard. A fine guitar, don't get me wrong. I still own it too. But, if one of them ever had to go...
 

PulpLP

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2016
Messages
3
All of the years are good. The secret is this: Find one that you think looks good. Then make sure you like the way it plays. Then listen to it unplugged (primay tone). If that is vibrant and resonant, you are there. You can change the electronics on everything else. Cheapest path to your dream guitar.


very wise advice.
I did notice that I like unplugged dark sound les pauls. And I notice that many less resonant les pauls form 90´s and pre 2006 (year where chambering started) sounds the way I like.
But this days I found that there are also les pauls that can vibrant and resonant while beeing dark.
I like those ones, and the less resonant dark sounding ones.
On chambering era les pauls (post 2006) the tone is too much open to my taste, and unplugged sometimes could sound a bit harsh instead of smooth and sweet like the dark tone ones.
I think Gibson added UV protection to the formula of the lacquer on 2005 too.
Some people also says they changed the nitro formula and added more flexible plasticiers on it.
I just think they added the UV protection on the 05 models and since 06 also the clear coat its thicker. So its less prone to check and worn, but it will if its forced to, once its hard enough.
Fading its a different story, the paint down the lacquer will fade but the clearcoat will remain transparent for a long time after 2005.
Anyway I got a 05 Studio on AW that has a "traditional" thin clearcoat that worns easy very fast.
The original owner made a worn arm spot on first months playing back on 2005 when lacquer was still soft. He can even remember when the cheking thing began so I think this is more recent and happened while stored some years on its case.
The lacquer feels and looks like the late 80´s Alpine white gibsons that I played, all the alpine whites almost cracks on same spots (pots area, joint area and beside the fretboard sides) and peels the same way as 80´s.
Note that there are difference from batch to batch on the amount of components, and then a human hand that has to spray so it can be slight differences froma guitar to other.
another thing I find on many 2005 models its that the silkscreen fades a lot more than normal so on 2016, under many angles you can barely see the "les paul model".
Sorry for my english~
 

Artjr

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
5
1990/1993 les Paul classics where priced above the standards, they where the original historics. Plus I own a 90 Classic and it's the last Les Paul I will ever need.I had 2004 and 2012 standards , they didn't play all that great ,and I thought I was done with les Paul's.
 

Mats A

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
799
Wasn't 2002 the year Gibson started using 2-piece Mahogany backs on the Les Pauls.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
1990/1993 les Paul classics where priced above the standards, they where the original historics. Plus I own a 90 Classic and it's the last Les Paul I will ever need.I had 2004 and 2012 standards , they didn't play all that great ,and I thought I was done with les Paul's.

Not by any definition is ANY Classic an original Historic. The build is identical with the same vintage Standard with mostly cosmetic and hardware differences like thin bining in cutaway, abr1 bridge and push in bushings on the tuners. Biggest change was Ceramic high output pickups and Ibenez like Wizard neck profile.

Glad you like your guitar, but it is what it is.
 

Pellman73

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,762
I love my 2003 Honeyburst Standard. My first Les Paul. It was a gift from my wife! She done good - It's my favorite guitar!

yep i Had a 2003 honeyburst w a 50's neck

loved it. it was heavy for sure but it NEVER went out of tune and looked great. I only sold it because I got a couple other really killer les pauls and I wasn't playing it.
 

Mats A

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
799
I've had some Reissues. They may seem better looking at specs but none of mine sounded much better or worse than any other Les Paul i've had. They had fatter necks and were a bit less heavy than many Les Pauls.
 
Top