A better Historic that's easy for Gibson to do

Hi
I've had many Les Pauls vintage and Historics. Some were dogs and some were stellar. My last Historic was from 95, awesome top, but heavy and sounded like a dog comparared to my Classic Goldtop. Both had Peter Florence Pafs, exactly the same.
So my question is if Gibson wanted to build a fantastic guitar, and because 100 year old wood is hard to come across these days why not roast the body and neck to remove as much moisture as possible to get close to the same effect?
It would not be that hard to do, or cost much on their part, and it would sound a lot better, much closer to the real bursts, because that's exactly what happens with age. Some people,are paying between $8-11k for these, it seems like a small thing to make it so much better. Thoughts anyone?

https://www.themusiczoo.com/blogs/news/the-music-zoo-exclusive-gibson-custom-shop-roasted-les-pauls


There's precedent there.

It could be done ,, But like any Business ....Making $$$ for extras, is part of the equation . The rest could be subjective .

I recently bought a TH59 and it has that beautiful hollow woody honk and flute tones that I love. It is incredibly articulate , where not only pick attack but pick position can effect the tone. I cam't imagine roasting the wood or whatever they are doing now would improve things. I thing there's a point where you go beyond diminishing returns into what just becomes marketing the emperor's new clothes to those that very much to wear them.

JPP-1 said:

I recently bought a TH59 and it has that beautiful hollow woody honk and flute tones that I love. It is incredibly articulate , where not only pick attack but pick position can effect the tone. I cam't imagine roasting the wood or whatever they are doing now would improve things. I thing there's a point where you go beyond diminishing returns into what just becomes marketing the emperor's new clothes to those that very much to wear them.

Click to expand...

True! But roasting will eliminate any excess moisture from the wood. The guitar is lighter, more resonant, a less prone to weather or humidity issues. My biggest reason for looking at a TH is the hide glue attached top. When it cures 5-10 years down the line, it has a magical quality, lol, that separates them from the pack. That was like the missing last piece of the puzzle Gibson through into the equation.

treatmanc said:

True! But roasting will eliminate any excess moisture from the wood. The guitar is lighter, more resonant, a less prone to weather or humidity issues. My biggest reason for looking at a TH is the hide glue attached top. When it cures 5-10 years down the line, it has a magical quality, lol, that separates them from the pack. That was like the missing last piece of the puzzle Gibson through into the equation.

Click to expand...

Honestly Treatmanc, I don't know enough about roasting to say anything definitive about its effectiveness. It sounds gimmicky to me but who knows. Martin roasts some of their guitars too. Some people also think acoustic guitars change after being played over time because of the constant vibrations. There is actually a device you can by that will "resonate" your acoustic.

I guess my problem with all this is as follows: I'd like to see it proven. If something works it should be able to pass a rigorous efficacy study:

Get a sizable sampling of guitars, include a control group as well. Meticulously, record a variety of playing styles, pickup positions, clean vs overdrive tones, etc. Then roast those same guitars and do the recording again. It should be easy to use a spectrum analyzer and see if there were any notable sonic changes. (the control group of unrosted guitars that went through both recording processes can be used to ensure that it was the roasting process and not variations in recording or playing technique that caused any sonic difference) If the spectrum analyzer shows sonic differences than a listening test by a sizable group of guitarists should be used in order to determine if their is any preferences and if those preferences are due to roasting. If the guitarists selects the roasted samples with a 70% or better preference rate than you can honestly say that roasting guitars is a breakthrough process in enhancing tone. Without a thorough objective efficacy study it's just marketing BS.

MZ has a few listed now .. None are what I would consider Light weight. Of the 1st 4 listed , Top weight is 9 lbs. and lowest is 8.5lbs.

My TH60 is 7 lbs. 10 Oz. ,,, I'm very happy (less them small frets) with it . I'm not so sure it's just the moisture still in the wood that makes it sound "good" or just average.. I think the wood needs to be a "good" piece to start with ,, Can't get something out from what's not already there , imo.
Then those other small things like the Player, Pickups, Amp , and so on....all make the final Tone heard .

IMO I don't see the price difference between the 2 types of LP's as worth the difference ( but that's only my opinion and worth what you paid for it :hee ) .... I'll spend more time practicing (not much time the last few months ) and getting my chops and tone back, as a better investment . Plus i'll be very happy just playing un-interrupted ...:ganz

I do not agree with the op's premis that somehow Historics lack tone, unmatched by Classics. There have ben so many changes and upgrades since 95, not to mention thousands made, that I find any tone pronouncement based on one guitar as a basis for the range, misleading and uninformed.


The vast majority of post 99 R9's I have, (along with some notable tonesmiths), are equal to the vintage examples in direct comparison. This other stuff is looking for solutions to problems that don't exist.


Myths of 100 yr old wood and magic glue, (based on romantic speculation and zero data), aside, the poor tone of Historics, in general, is bullshit of the most pungent kind.

Roasted wood shows great promise with maple necks. I fail to se benefits on a maple top, and find little data for roasted mahogany. I see no issue with following this technology to see where it leads, but I assume nothing.

Big Al said:

Roasted wood shows great promise with maple necks. I fail to see benefits on a maple top, and find little data for roasted mahogany. I see no issue with following this technology to see where it leads, but I assume nothing.

Click to expand...

I gave it a chance by buying a USA Special Junior, those guitars came with the roasted maple fingerboard. I upgraded the pots and caps on the guitar and also added deeper tighter fitting inserts for the bridge along with swapping the Nashville for a Tone lock Faber ABR, I also added steel studs and an aluminum locking Faber stoptail. With the upgrades I got a nice ringing guitar. But after a few months I got tired of it as there was just nothing special about it tonewise, it was kind of bright with not a lot of vocal quality. The fingerboard felt nice, more like ebony than rosewood, it was very smooth. I sold the guitar a few months after I got it (after putting the stock parts back on). I wish I could have got to hear the same guitar with a rosewood fingerboard to hear what the roasted maple was bringing to the table so to say, but as it was, it was just too bright of an LP.

Probably heresy around here, but as I see it, Gibson are doing a great job with making better sounding Les Pauls at various price points.

IMNSHO, the neck joints make probably the biggest effect on the tone/feel and since the "rocker tenon" joint has been dropped there isn't so much a clear difference in the tone/feel of a standard model and the historic line.

I've owned a lot of Les Pauls and the one I kept after downsizing a lot is a 2012 traditional that sounds right up there with every Les Paul I've owned except maybe the 1956 conversion that I let go.
The wood isn't significantly different from historics and the neck joint is much improved.

Big Al said:

I do not agree with the op's premis that somehow Historics lack tone, unmatched by Classics. There have ben so many changes and upgrades since 95, not to mention thousands made, that I find any tone pronouncement based on one guitar as a basis for the range, misleading and uninformed.


The vast majority of post 99 R9's I have, (along with some notable tonesmiths), are equal to the vintage examples in direct comparison. This other stuff is looking for solutions to problems that don't exist.


Myths of 100 yr old wood and magic glue, (based on romantic speculation and zero data), aside, the poor tone of Historics, in general, is bullshit of the most pungent kind.

Roasted wood shows great promise with maple necks. I fail to se benefits on a maple top, and find little data for roasted mahogany. I see no issue with following this technology to see where it leads, but I assume nothing.

Click to expand...

Well Big Al,
I didn't mean to offend in any way. I've been doing a lot of research on woods and the drying process, why 100 year old wood may sound better, the type of wood etc!!! I did not say that Classics sound better than Historics, the one I had was really amazing compared to the 95 59 reissue I had. Like night and day, and I don't know why, since it's a budget model with the same pickups. And ... I invited opinions and thoughts from more knowledgeable members than myself. It's a personal tone quest .
Being a student of physics, there is some quality about the hide glue in addition to the long tenon and the quality of wood and finishing process. Why do Gil Yarron and Max use 100 year old wood? Having played a Max and a Yarron, there is a certain quality to my ears that rings true to the originals.The new custom buckers I've been hearing are Gibsons best example to date of a PAF to my ears. So if I triggered a harsh response I apologize but with the prices these are today, consumers deserve the best examples of the originals. I think a lot of the new quality we see here today in the TH line are the results of the efforts of Joe Bonamassa, who is now the main Gibson torch bearer. I can't say enough good things about that guy!!!