2002 Standard or 2008 Classic Antique

Being somewhat of a traditionalist, I've always felt that Les Pauls should be solid & heavy in order to produce that famous tone.

My 2002 Standard weighs about a 'modern weight relieved' 9.8 lbs. The tone is incredible. It has everything you would expect from a good well built LP. It has the BEEF! That sound & feel that I call "meat & potatos" tone. It shakes me to my bones.

I recently traded a 2016 SG StandardT & 2013 FirebirdV (please forgive me Johnny!) for a 2008 Classic Antique. I was drawn to that awesome headstock. I thought that if I don't like the tone I could sell or trade it.

When I first picked it up I thought 'eeewww that's light'. Craigslist here we come.... then I played it. Wow, it's loud unplugged. I swear it is more resonant than the Midtown Custom I traded along with an USA Strat for the 2002 LP Standard.

Playing through my Orange OR15, the tone was sweet, breathier than my Std. But, it was still the LP tone! Just a different flavor. I love playing it as much as the Std.

I've read a lot from the dealers & selling agents talking about how the 'chambering' only makes it lighter but is still the same tone. No. It is not. I am amazed how different it sounds, to me, but it is still Les Paul tone. It is woodier, with an earthy airness to it. I'll have to come up with a name for the chambered tone... how about, Woodland LP tone?

Now I keep switching back & forth playing, one day the Std, next day the Classic and so on... once in awhile I'll play the step child, a MIM Tele.

Just curious, how others feel about the difference if any, to you. Can you tell the difference that much?

I wouldn't put too much stock in overthinking the tone/build/year/chamering thing. I've played so many guitars day in and day out and always try to stay objective while listening to guitars with similar strings/setups/build unplugged.


Tight seams, properly kilned/seasoned wood, solid fretwork, well cut saddles/nut, and electronics you prefer are what make a Les Paul great. All the BS about what's "needed" is just that....BS. If you're objective, you'll find a tribute or studio model very often, unplugged, can be louder, more resonant, with greater sustain even ON AVERAGE. If you're objective, but it's really hard to do that if you spend just a little time reading opinions online, lol. I see it right now when comparing my Historic to my old Studio model and it was one of the nicer Historic's I've played. That doesn't mean it isn't equally as cool in it's own way, having your FAVORITE guitar is important too.


Just close your eyes and go with your gut. A classic/traditional is a very nice guitar and won't hold anyone back.

Well true. A multitude of situations effect tonality. You could even say that using a pick or fingers also complicate matters. What my main observations relate to, are that chambering does indeed change the timber, resonance & pitch. In general the chambered LP is quite different from the traditional LP. Contrary to what 'they' were trying to sell us, about there being no difference. That's all.

Jenny said:

Well true. A multitude of situations effect tonality. You could even say that using a pick or fingers also complicate matters. What my main observations relate to, are that chambering does indeed change the timber, resonance & pitch. In general the chambered LP is quite different from the traditional LP. Contrary to what 'they' were trying to sell us, about there being no difference. That's all.

Click to expand...

On average it might be different, but in a blind test over a bunch Les Pauls I'd bet at least a couple of them would probably fool most of us. I'm not sure if the classic I had years back was chambered or not though, I think it varies, the guitar itself was just great either way.

You cannot make sweeping generalities based on one guitar. Chambering and weight relieved are not the same at all. I've never seen a credible source claim that chamberd Gibson Les Pauls sound the same as a non chambered one. They do not. Often claims are made of improved resonance, wrongly, as the large hollow chambers give the impression of louder fuller unplugged acoustic tone. Something that does not hold true when an amplifier is employed.

Les Pauls with weight relieved bodies do sound, more or less, like similar spec'd models without such relief.

Glad your new Les Paul is a keeper.

LPs are weight relieved not tone relieved or resonance relieved.

Zentar said:

LPs are weight relieved not tone relieved or resonance relieved.

Click to expand...

You are mostly correct, Brother Zentar. There have been Les Pauls that feature a chamber build with large "Tone Chambers" on either side of the center which has the hardware mounted. I have a Standard and a Studio built this way. A lot of the older Faded Standards also.

I'm not sure if any current models are however. There is a lot of misconceptions being tossed around by less informed or experienced about weight relief, and no doubt some of the confusion comes from chambered builds with noticable effects and weight relief with no noticable tone effect.

You know your'e right. I should not have made such an absolute statement. I suppose I should have just said that MY chambered LP is much different in tone, pitch & resonance than my 2002 Standard. More so than I was expecting. :##

Big Al said:

You cannot make sweeping generalities based on one guitar. Chambering and weight relieved are not the same at all. I've never seen a credible source claim that chamberd Gibson Les Pauls sound the same as a non chambered one. They do not. Often claims are made of improved resonance, wrongly, as the large hollow chambers give the impression of louder fuller unplugged acoustic tone. Something that does not hold true when an amplifier is employed.

Les Pauls with weight relieved bodies do sound, more or less, like similar spec'd models without such relief.

Glad your new Les Paul is a keeper.

Click to expand...

Jenny said:

You know your'e right. I should not have made such an absolute statement. I suppose I should have just said that MY chambered LP is much different in tone, pitch & resonance than my 2002 Standard. More so than I was expecting. :##

Click to expand...

But are you comparing two identically setup LPs? I've had several LPs, classics and Studios which all offered a different sound because of different pickups and other components.
I don't see the point of owning two sonically identical guitars. I'd sell one if I were in that boat.

Zentar said:

But are you comparing two identically setup LPs? I've had several LPs, classics and Studios which all offered a different sound because of different pickups and other components.
I don't see the point of owning two sonically identical guitars. I'd sell one if I were in that boat.

Click to expand...

Viva le differance!! Much better to have variety than clones, IMO. Much more useful and satisfying.