The Fender Forum
NEW! LPF Facebook Page
LilyPix
Merchandise & Donations
NEW! Burst Serial Log Home Page
LPF Homesite
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 49
  1. #1

    Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Between aged True Historic and True Historic, does Gibson picked the best among true historic before make it aged?

    I wonder if someone who owns both type could tell me.
    Guitars:
    2017 Les Paul CC#46 (soon hopefully)
    2016 ES-335 1959 CS
    2016 ES-335 1963 CS
    2016 Les Paul Standard
    2015 Les Paul CC#24
    2014 Les Paul Standard Historic
    2014 Les Paul CC#17
    1989 ES-335 Studio Red
    1989 ES-335 Studio Black
    2006 Telecaster Standard
    1980 Guild D50


    Amps:
    Half of Twin Reverb : )

  2. #2

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    My suspect that they just pull one off of the rack. The aged guitars aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just aged. Rolling of the fretboard edges makes a small improvement in the feel of the neck, but otherwise its all just cosmetics.

  3. #3
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    284

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I have owned two True Historics: a regular 1958 and a Murphy Aged 1958. Have also played several other THs (a 57 and a few CCs with TH specs).

    The Murphy Aged is superior to the regular TH58 and TH57. I'd say it's on par with the TH-CCs I have played.

  4. #4
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    I have owned two True Historics: a regular 1958 and a Murphy Aged 1958. Have also played several other THs (a 57 and a few CCs with TH specs).

    The Murphy Aged is superior to the regular TH58 and TH57. I'd say it's on par with the TH-CCs I have played.
    That's quite a proclamation. You're the same guy that asserts the TH are better than regular Historics too if I'm not mistaken.

    Therefore I'm curious at your sample size and methodology you used to come to your conclusions that X or Y guitars are superior. You are aware that unlike tires or other synthetic objects Guitars all sound different. So with that in mind, how many Murphy THs and non Murphy THs do you own or did you thoroughly audition, what criteria did you use in your analysis. Any other facts you'd like to share that supports your assertion.

    See it is my understanding that the only difference between TH and Murphy Aged TH is that Murphy takes a razor to them to simulate aging. I'd hate to be an a-hole who posts erroneous infomation on the internet so if you can enlighten me how these guitars are superior I'd be much obliged.

  5. #5
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    284

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by JPP-1 View Post
    That's quite a proclamation. You're the same guy that asserts the TH are better than regular Historics too if I'm not mistaken.
    They are.

    And now, with the release of the 2017 Les Paul CS Standards, everyone who buys a new LP is essentially going to get a True Historic. Hide glue on the maple tops/fretboard/neck joint, plus other TH appointments.


    Quote Originally Posted by JPP-1 View Post
    Therefore I'm curious at your sample size and methodology you used to come to your conclusions that X or Y guitars are superior. You are aware that unlike tires or other synthetic objects Guitars all sound different. So with that in mind, how many Murphy THs and non Murphy THs do you own or did you thoroughly audition, what criteria did you use in your analysis. Any other facts you'd like to share that supports your assertion.

    See it is my understanding that the only difference between TH and Murphy Aged TH is that Murphy takes a razor to them to simulate aging. I'd hate to be an a-hole who posts erroneous infomation on the internet so if you can enlighten me how these guitars are superior I'd be much obliged.
    OP asked for opinions and I gave mine.

    My criteria is that I have been playing guitar for about 33 years (many of those years as a professional - I am neither a hack, nor a collector - I am a musician), have owned around 80 in that time (oldest was built in 1963 and the latest in 2016), have played hundreds upon hundreds more than that, and know what a good Les Paul feels and sounds like.

  6. #6
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I think we both read the same post. The OP appears to be asking whether Gibson evaluates all its True Historics then out of those selects the best ones? best sounding? best looking? again it's a little vague but that is what the OP asked

    Your reply was yes Murphy Aged TH is superior.
    I think it's reasonable to suggest that the OP or any reader could infer from your statement that the OP is correct in assumption that "Gibson picked the best" for the Murphy TH.

    Maybe this is the inference you in fact want people to have. Without fact to back it up I find it a little erroneous.

    While I haven't been playing guitar as long as you I've played my fair share of Historics, True Historics, Murphy Aged, Collectors Choice, a Goldtop, Several conversions and what I consider best in a Les Paul without setting forth my criteria for what is best may be the same or different than yours or any one on this forum. Therefore, in the interest of providing factual unhyperbolic insights to fellow forum members I might be hesitant to say something is superior which indicates a clear and measurable differential exists.

    I also know as fact that every guitar is slightly different sonically. So one or two TH, Murphy, standard Historic, and Burst does not accurately represent every other TH, Murphy, standard Historic and Burst.


    I feel fortunate to own a great TH 59 that's feels and sounds as good as any Les Paul I remember playing. With that said, I don't feel the need to disparage anyone else's guitar by saying they are inferior. It doesn't make my guitar sound any better, there's no factual basis to make such a statement and without playing a sample size of each that would make my opinion relevant to even myself, most likely erroneous. YMMV




    Quote Originally Posted by jimeh77 View Post
    Between aged True Historic and True Historic, does Gibson picked the best among true historic before make it aged?

    I wonder if someone who owns both type could tell me.




    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    They are.

    And now, with the release of the 2017 Les Paul CS Standards, everyone who buys a new LP is essentially going to get a True Historic. Hide glue on the maple tops/fretboard/neck joint, plus other TH appointments.




    OP asked for opinions and I gave mine.

    My criteria is that I have been playing guitar for about 33 years (many of those years as a professional - I am neither a hack, nor a collector - I am a musician), have owned around 80 in that time (oldest was built in 1963 and the latest in 2016), have played hundreds upon hundreds more than that, and know what a good Les Paul feels and sounds like.

  7. #7
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    They are.

    And now, with the release of the 2017 Les Paul CS Standards, everyone who buys a new LP is essentially going to get a True Historic. Hide glue on the maple tops/fretboard/neck joint, plus other TH appointments. .
    Not according to you. You've stated that TH are better than standard historics evidently because Gibson selects the best for the TH line. The 2017 LP Standards while sharing TH specs will get no such benefit. The crap ones and the good ones will all get the TH specs. Lol. How are you going to reconcile that one.

  8. #8
    Les Paul Forum Member clearmudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    375

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I don't have any facts on this, it's just a wild guess. I believe they use what may have some finish flaws or imperfections to use for "aged" models, it would be be kind of silly to use a "perfect" and superior finished LP to hack up to make it aged. I know how picky some are when it comes to finishes for that kind of money, so it would seem logical to use the ones that are not finished perfect. That is my best guess.

    Other than that, i don't think there is any difference in the two models.
    Aged costs more because of the additional labor involved, not because it's "better".

  9. #9
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    284

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by JPP-1 View Post
    Not according to you. You've stated that TH are better than standard historics evidently because Gibson selects the best for the TH line. The 2017 LP Standards while sharing TH specs will get no such benefit. The crap ones and the good ones will all get the TH specs. Lol. How are you going to reconcile that one.
    I know what I have said (and stand by it) - don't need some dork with a chip on his shoulder to throw it back at me in some ridiculous accusatory manner. What are you, one those Blooze lawyers?

  10. #10

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by DANELECTRO View Post
    My suspect that they just pull one off of the rack. The aged guitars aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just aged. Rolling of the fretboard edges makes a small improvement in the feel of the neck, but otherwise its all just cosmetics.
    I agree with this. It's probably not just one off the rack but maybe several, or they just decide the next 10 / 25 / whatever are aged.

  11. #11
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    I know what I have said (and stand by it) - don't need some dork with a chip on his shoulder to throw it back at me in some ridiculous accusatory manner. What are you, one those Blooze lawyers?
    Great, you've made rather large grandiose proclamations regarding guitars repeatedly without a scintilla of fact to back it up. Someone could walk into a guitar store and think a banjo with pig ears sowed on sounds better than a burst. Saying it doesn't make it so. And unless you believe all True Historics are identical and all standard historics are identical you're proclamations are not only factless they are baseless too.


    I don't need to return the personal attack. Facts, logic and reason should speak for themselves. If hyping your TH 59 Murphy by calling other Historics inferior makes you feel better have at it.

    But at least have the integrity to own up to the logic that follows from your grand proclamations. That since there will be no selection process between true and standard historics, the new standard historics will not have the benefit of being selected over other historics as you seem to infer repeatedly. Unless the color of the plastic and shape of the pickup significantly affects tone. Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"

  12. #12
    Les Paul Forum Member surfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,032

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I cannot answer the OP's question.

    All I can say is that my 2016 TH Murphy aged R9 is a better sounding, better playing guitar than the other TH R9s I have played so far. I bought it not because it was an aged example or even a TH one: I bought it because I wanted the best guitar my money can buy.

    If I am allowed a more generalized statement, these Historics are all excellent guitars. This said, the thrill is in the chase: play as many as you can, even of exactly the same model, and choose the right one for you.

  13. #13
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,854

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by JPP-1 View Post
    Great, you've made rather large grandiose proclamations regarding guitars repeatedly without a scintilla of fact to back it up. Someone could walk into a guitar store and think a banjo with pig ears sowed on sounds better than a burst. Saying it doesn't make it so. And unless you believe all True Historics are identical and all standard historics are identical you're proclamations are not only factless they are baseless too.


    I don't need to return the personal attack. Facts, logic and reason should speak for themselves. If hyping your TH 59 Murphy by calling other Historics inferior makes you feel better have at it.

    But at least have the integrity to own up to the logic that follows from your grand proclamations. That since there will be no selection process between true and standard historics, the new standard historics will not have the benefit of being selected over other historics as you seem to infer repeatedly. Unless the color of the plastic and shape of the pickup significantly affects tone. Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"
    Not to start it again, but you do realize you are claiming the opposite "without a scintilla of fact to back it up" don't you? Just playing the devil's advocate here. "Saying it doesn't make it so." applies to you as well. It is an unwinnable argument so "Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"".

    IMO they grab an already nicked one off the rack and nick it more. Maybe spending extra time making it playable though.
    Renderit, You have an interesting perspective and your posts aren't boring...
    Ren, all in all, I'm giving you a C- today's posts...
    Most of what you write with regards to my posts is cryptic nonsensical gibberish like this. I would prefer if you actually added something to the conversation but hey, I haven't walked in your shoes. So being as nice as possible: I look at your posts as if I was dealing with an eccentric cousin who comes to visit unannounced.

  14. #14
    Les Paul Forum Member clearmudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    375

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I think the real question is, do you like the FEEL of a "new" finished guitar or a "worn" finished guitar?

    Personally, i kinda like both, but "worn" feels a little more comfy.

    The other question is purely cosmetic, " what LOOK do you prefer? "

    Some believe that ageing adds to the Tone, that i believe is subjective. What i may like, you may not, kind of thing. It's all about what you can do with that TONE.

    Tone is instrument to instrument regardless of finish type, that's just my opinion.

  15. #15

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Gibson sends Murphy a husk which has been through the finishing stage (lacquered), however the guitar has never seen pickups, tuners, nor strings. He ages the finish and then sends them back to Gibson where they are assembled and shipped out the door.

    Murphy-aged Lesters look very cool, however the guitars are not selected based on having the best tone, and contrary to popular belief, Tom Murphy does not have a can of magic fairy dust that makes them sound better. Its the same wood, same lacquer, and same electronics that goes into a regular Historic.

    I've owned a couple of Murphys as well as 20 or so other Historic Les Pauls. The aged finish of the Murphys looks very cool, and the neck does feels a little better in the hands due to the rolled binding edge (which is a mod I'll usually do anyway when a neck has sharp edges). I can't say that my Murphys sound any better or any worse than my other Historics, they're all in the same ballpark.

    I will say that I'm more comfortable and get more enjoyment out of playing a Murphy (or my aged HMs) because I can relax and just play without treating them with kid gloves like I would a pristine Les Paul. If I'm rocking out and the headstock makes contact with a cymbal, big deal. Additional scratches and dings just add to the overall effect.

  16. #16
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    You either skim through posts too casually or have a tenuous understanding of the context of this discussion and the facts as they exist.

    The facts of this argument reside in the specs as disclosed by Gibson. These specs provide the following: That Murphy aged THs and non Murphy aged THs are manufactured using identical wood types, glues, pickups, building methods etc, with the one exception: the Murphy Aged True Historics are aged by Tom Murphy. Thats it. No special selection, no exotic woods or glues, no specially hand wound pickups, non of that. Those are the facts, not my opinion.

    So what I am stating is based on the facts as they are available to us from Gibson. My opinion as you call it concurs with and is supported by these facts. Why you choose to be obtuse to this reality and continue this argument is beyond me.

    You and others on this forum can continue ignore the facts and offer an a contrary opinion that is factless. That is your right. It is however my right to point that out.

    I might also add that due to the fact that no two guitars sound identical means that the opinions you are deriving are on their face flawed when used to make sweeping generalizations about all Murphy Non Murphy. CC cs Non CC etc.

    So like I said, you may disagree but unless you show me facts or a produce the results of a tone study that had sufficient quantities of all the guitars discussed, a consistent testing methodology and multiple testers it's just BS on BS. or as I previously posted just another opinion without a scintilla of fact to back it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    Not to start it again, but you do realize you are claiming the opposite "without a scintilla of fact to back it up" don't you? Just playing the devil's advocate here. "Saying it doesn't make it so." applies to you as well. It is an unwinnable argument so "Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"".

    IMO they grab an already nicked one off the rack and nick it more. Maybe spending extra time making it playable though.

  17. #17
    Les Paul Forum Member clearmudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    375

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Poor, poor Renderit, you crank these guys up like an old tin lizzy, they puff and backfire and spew out a 20 page essay on facts, figures and proof.............man, it makes my eyes hurt.

  18. #18
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,854

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I fully stand by my reading ability and my ability to judge character based on past performances. I withdraw nothing.
    Renderit, You have an interesting perspective and your posts aren't boring...
    Ren, all in all, I'm giving you a C- today's posts...
    Most of what you write with regards to my posts is cryptic nonsensical gibberish like this. I would prefer if you actually added something to the conversation but hey, I haven't walked in your shoes. So being as nice as possible: I look at your posts as if I was dealing with an eccentric cousin who comes to visit unannounced.

  19. #19
    Les Paul Forum Member ourmaninthenorth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Blighty.
    Posts
    4,709

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Here's some interesting facts; that don't seem to have bugger all to do with the subject matter.

    I've played hundreds of Gibson guitars, over what seems like *hundreds of years. Some I've liked, some I haven't. I've bought some, and passed on others.

    I've never, ever, bought a guitar that I didn't like. I've never bought a guitar based on someone else's opinion....ever.

    I've compared, unscientifically, for many years...and always arrived at a personal preference. That preference, by definition, is better than those foregone.

    The 2001 Murphy I played for years - never found any Historic able to live with it...despite trying over a number of years...which either means I'm an idiot, or that my preference theory stands up.

    This stuff is really simple to me, largely because it doesn't involve the opinion of others.

    When the amp's on and you hit that first note..this stuff counts for nothing...zero, you're on your own. That's a fact. That's what I do with these things, I play 'em.


    * That's not a fact... I made that bit up....I'm only 12.
    Shakespeare walks into a pub, the Landlord says "get out, you're Bard"

  20. #20
    Les Paul Forum Member clearmudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    375

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    My reading skills may use some improving. Though i read the OPs question again, and it seems kinda straight forward " does gibson pick among the best of the THs to be aged?''. He did not mention Murphy or in house, nothing of the sort.

    Could it be they just seem better after they have been aged?
    It just seems to be a subjective question, what kind of facts and proof can one get?

    Other than trying it for yourself.

  21. #21
    Les Paul Forum Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Lake Ontario shore
    Posts
    11,715

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    No. That is simply not true at all. Being so close to the H.O.G I get to spend considerable time with their Gibsons stock. I have played hundreds over the years and have a pretty good understanding of the range and differences through the years. ALL of the Historics, True Historics, Custom Shop whatevers are made the same, in general for the same years. That is all True histories share spec's and build quality. Cosmetic aging is an option for those that desire such treatment for a variety of reasons. Reasons that in truth are cosmetic only. They look old, they appear to have wear. Claims of sonic superiority and magic wood and super duper selection of the mostest magicalicious tonalating bestest Les Pauls is pure fabrication, sometimes used to justify purchasing an aged guitar, rather than simply admitting you like the way it appears, it must now possess magical tonal properties and be better than non aged guitars, which are the same damn thing unaged.

    Murphy aged guitars have more fabrication associated with how great and exceptional they are because Murphy was the originator of aged guitars at Gibson and attach great worth to instruments he personally does. If you like that kind of thing it is cool, and he makes them look a certain way. What he doesn't do is make them sound better or somehow get a special build better than the rest to age.

    Playing one or two and making a general proclamation about the inherent quality of the same guitar aged or unpaged is foolish. Every True Historic, every single one, and there have been many, aged and unaged, that i have played was a wonderful playing and sounding musical instrument showing the same range of sounds you find with other models. R9's for instance show the same thing for guitars made in the same years. What I mean 1999's are all built the same and share the same quality of build, gloss or aged. Same for 2010 R6's for example. Wood varies and there is always a range of tonal spread from one to another. But you cannot predict a specific tonal effect, or know exactly how a guitar may sound until it has been built.
    Last edited by Big Al; 05-18-17 at 05:18 PM.
    Just another grumpy, gimpy, grizzled geezer, gettin' on the goodfoot!

  22. #22
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    I fully stand by my reading ability and my ability to judge character based on past performances. I withdraw nothing.
    What does judging character have to do with determining whether a statement is factual and accurate or not. Regardless, it's not your place or your right to judge my or any forum members character. You do have the right however to comment on my posts. Apperently when the truth and facts are no longer friendly to your assertions you go low and make an underhanded negative inference about my character.

    Go ahead, double down on statements that are contrary to the facts and even join the ranks of Indravayu and get personal with your attacks. It doesn't matter to me.

    What I stated is factual, no more no less. Disagree in multicolor fonts, rant and rave, take a stand. It changes nothing. Regrettably, some people have either a tenuous grasp or little regard for what is true and factual.

  23. #23
    Les Paul Forum Member ourmaninthenorth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Blighty.
    Posts
    4,709

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    It could simply mean that the Murphy/CS aged guitars, are great guitars in and of themselves, in spite of being aged, rather than because.

    Apologies - this is in reply to clearmudd - I meant to quote your post, but ballsed it up.


    Here's one of the last comparisons that I did..My Murphy and a CC Nicky...both great guitars, I preferred my Murphy, in every department. What does that scientifically prove? Nothing really, other than I have a preference between these two guitars ( and about another 50 that I've done similar A/B's with )



    Last edited by ourmaninthenorth; 05-18-17 at 01:37 PM.
    Shakespeare walks into a pub, the Landlord says "get out, you're Bard"

  24. #24
    Les Paul Forum Member clearmudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    375

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by ourmaninthenorth View Post
    It could simply mean that the Murphy/CS aged guitars, are great guitars in and of themselves, in spite of being aged, rather than because.

    Apologies - this is in reply to clearmudd - I meant to quote your post, but ballsed it up.


    Here's one of the last comparisons that I did..My Murphy and a CC Nicky...both great guitars, I preferred my Murphy, in every department. What does that scientifically prove? Nothing really, other than I have a preference between these two guitars ( and about another 50 that I've done similar A/B's with )



    I kind of like your Nicky my self, and if I could a/b your guitars I might have different opinion. My CC 28 is the favorite of my lot.

  25. #25
    Les Paul Forum Member ourmaninthenorth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Blighty.
    Posts
    4,709

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by clearmudd View Post
    I kind of like your Nicky my self, and if I could a/b your guitars I might have different opinion. My CC 28 is the favorite of my lot.
    And there's the rub I think. The guy who owned the Nicky pictured preferred his guitar over mine.

    And to underpin my previous contention, my Murphy, a 2001 R9 Plaintop, which I bought in 2008 ish was the last Historic that I bought..despite many A/B tests with many other Historics, TH Murphy's, CC's.... since that time, I never found a single one that I'd swap it for.

    My point in this discussion is that I concentrate on preference as a result of comparison, rather than a set of comparative criteria as ends in themselves.

    It's a fairly meaningless statement to make in isolation, but when pressure tested in the real world of playing multiple guitars against each other, for me, it brought real meaning and appreciation of my own tastes and preferences. Ultimately it brought me the guitar that gave me immense joy to play for so many years.

    I think when we get numerous people in the same room all doing likewise, friction can occur by the impossible task of trying to measure our individual preferences against each other.

    I really enjoy seeing guitar players who love the guitars they play.

    Cheers Lads.

    Shakespeare walks into a pub, the Landlord says "get out, you're Bard"

  26. #26
    Les Paul Forum Member clearmudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    375

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    I must be crazy 'cause I can't just have one favorite. I have TH59 unaged and I still keep an eye out for a aged TH. I own a R6,R7,R8 and a CC28(R8) a R9 and the TH9. My favorite depends on what mood I'm in. Every guitar I own was a result of testing many before finding the one. Therefore they're all are my favorites. Go figure.

  27. #27
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,854

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Hey JPP. Let's us bury the hatchet! You are taking me all wrong. I am not attacking you and your character. I can guess what you will say next because of your character though. I understand what you are saying. I THINK you lept on indravayu on the third post here. Go back and read it. Your NEED to pounce on anybody saying a TH or TH aged is worth a shit laughably readable. Tell me I got it wrong? You are walking around with these Everybody Knows These Facts To Be True©®℗℞ leaflets which are PART of the TH build process. God forbid anybody points to other build qualities they like. And those maybe Mr. Murphy adds which make sure something with his name on it ain't a POS. I love you man! I will buy you a beer if you are in town EVER. I think we would get along fine. Just RELAX. And as Mr. Biggimus Alusness says: If it don't float yer boat don't drop da dime!. But don't feel the need to piss on anybody who does. Please. Dude! I lubs you man!

    Peace out.
    I am going to get in touch with my um now. Whatever the fug that is. What's this thing call internet pron?
    Renderit, You have an interesting perspective and your posts aren't boring...
    Ren, all in all, I'm giving you a C- today's posts...
    Most of what you write with regards to my posts is cryptic nonsensical gibberish like this. I would prefer if you actually added something to the conversation but hey, I haven't walked in your shoes. So being as nice as possible: I look at your posts as if I was dealing with an eccentric cousin who comes to visit unannounced.

  28. #28
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Sure Renderit, I agree, let's bury the hatchet. I'm sure we would get along fine.

    I'll even concede one of your points, that these anecdotal extrapolations are a pet peeve of mine. With that said I've seen many of indravayu's posts and maybe he deserved getting lept on.

    I guess I just can't figure it, how someone can conclude after playing 3 LPs that since LP type A sounded best all LP type As must sound best. To me it's the same thing as saying gee, the Lemonburst LP sounded better than the darkburst and cherryburst therefore all lemonbursts sound best.

    Incidentally, I also took issue with the whole TH vs non TH debate despite the fact that the only LP I currently own is a TH and it's the best Les Paul I've owned, maybe best I've played. So I do apply the same "rules" to myself .

    At the end of the day, this banter over guitars may get a little heated from time to time but it is all in good heated fun. Look at it this way, it's far less toxic than say arguing over politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    Hey JPP. Let's us bury the hatchet! You are taking me all wrong. I am not attacking you and your character. I can guess what you will say next because of your character though. I understand what you are saying. I THINK you lept on indravayu on the third post here. Go back and read it. Your NEED to pounce on anybody saying a TH or TH aged is worth a shit laughably readable. Tell me I got it wrong? You are walking around with these Everybody Knows These Facts To Be True©®℗℞ leaflets which are PART of the TH build process. God forbid anybody points to other build qualities they like. And those maybe Mr. Murphy adds which make sure something with his name on it ain't a POS. I love you man! I will buy you a beer if you are in town EVER. I think we would get along fine. Just RELAX. And as Mr. Biggimus Alusness says: If it don't float yer boat don't drop da dime!. But don't feel the need to piss on anybody who does. Please. Dude! I lubs you man!

    Peace out.
    I am going to get in touch with my um now. Whatever the fug that is. What's this thing call internet pron?

  29. #29
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,854

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by JPP-1 View Post
    Sure Renderit, I agree, let's bury the hatchet. I'm sure we would get along fine.

    I'll even concede one of your points, that these anecdotal extrapolations are a pet peeve of mine. With that said I've seen many of indravayu's posts and maybe he deserved getting lept on.

    I guess I just can't figure it, how someone can conclude after playing 3 LPs that since LP type A sounded best all LP type As must sound best. To me it's the same thing as saying gee, the Lemonburst LP sounded better than the darkburst and cherryburst therefore all lemonbursts sound best.

    Incidentally, I also took issue with the whole TH vs non TH debate despite the fact that the only LP I currently own is a TH and it's the best Les Paul I've owned, maybe best I've played. So I do apply the same "rules" to myself .

    At the end of the day, this banter over guitars may get a little heated from time to time but it is all in good heated fun. Look at it this way, it's far less toxic than say arguing over politics.

    I agree with what you are saying, but parse what indravayu actually typed up there. The way I read it he is not claiming they are ALL better. He is saying HIS is better than his other ones and the one he tried. THAT is what I am driving at. I may be reading it wrong but I see nothing inherently wrong in what he typed. I would agree with you if he expanded that boundary to include all others. I don't feel he did. What is more he truthfully answered the OP's post.

    The beer offer is still on though, water over the dam and everything. And yes, this is awesome heated fun! I may not be at it a lot for the next few months though. I have a lot I have been avoiding that needs doing and this is taking too much of my time. But I will still be here, so rip away when you feel the need and I'll jump on your back from nowhere just like old times!
    Renderit, You have an interesting perspective and your posts aren't boring...
    Ren, all in all, I'm giving you a C- today's posts...
    Most of what you write with regards to my posts is cryptic nonsensical gibberish like this. I would prefer if you actually added something to the conversation but hey, I haven't walked in your shoes. So being as nice as possible: I look at your posts as if I was dealing with an eccentric cousin who comes to visit unannounced.

  30. #30
    Les Paul Forum Member 1jamman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    So.Florida
    Posts
    554

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by jimeh77 View Post
    Between aged True Historic and True Historic, does Gibson picked the best among true historic before make it aged?

    I wonder if someone who owns both type could tell me.
    IMO , it's pretty easy to answer . What is better for 1 doesn't meant it's better for another ...

  31. #31
    Les Paul Forum Member surfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,032

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    I have owned two True Historics: a regular 1958 and a Murphy Aged 1958. Have also played several other THs (a 57 and a few CCs with TH specs).

    The Murphy Aged is superior to the regular TH58 and TH57. I'd say it's on par with the TH-CCs I have played.


    JPP, see? it's "the" Murphy Aged, and "the" regular TH, as in, his own guitars. Not "All" Murphy Aged, not "all" TH.

    No need for a crusade.

  32. #32
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Point taken, and yes, on its face, after rereading Indravayu post myself, I would have to agree with your assessment of it. Keep in mind though, I was looking at this particular post through the lens of many of Indravayu's other posts which in the interest of keeping this on an up note I won't get into.

    I hope I did not personally insult anyone. I don't think I went there.

    Anyway, Renderit, Beer offer sounds good, though I'm more of a Scotch guy myself. I like to think a good Scotch is the LP among drinks. And yeah this Forum is a good diversion for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    I agree with what you are saying, but parse what indravayu actually typed up there. The way I read it he is not claiming they are ALL better. He is saying HIS is better than his other ones and the one he tried. THAT is what I am driving at. I may be reading it wrong but I see nothing inherently wrong in what he typed. I would agree with you if he expanded that boundary to include all others. I don't feel he did. What is more he truthfully answered the OP's post.

    The beer offer is still on though, water over the dam and everything. And yes, this is awesome heated fun! I may not be at it a lot for the next few months though. I have a lot I have been avoiding that needs doing and this is taking too much of my time. But I will still be here, so rip away when you feel the need and I'll jump on your back from nowhere just like old times!

  33. #33
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    44

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Last year I decided to get a TH58. From about 10 the dealer had I ended with the Murphy aged one because it sounded best to me. Old and vocal sounding, yet still balanced and transparent (chords). The same happened two years ago when I checked out regular R9s, R8s and some CCs. Some of the aged CCs sounded better to me than the rest.
    Same with the Rick Nielsen. The aged version just sounded more lively and musically.

    Just a personal opinion though, I wouldn't generalize this. But I always would choose the aged version first.

  34. #34
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,126

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    I know what I have said (and stand by it) - don't need some dork with a chip on his shoulder to throw it back at me in some ridiculous accusatory manner. What are you, one those Blooze lawyers?
    Aren't you the same guy that got banned from the other forum for name calling?

    You owning a bunch of guitars and playing for a bunch of years, makes you just like a bunch of other guys on this forum.

    Your guitars sound as good to you, as mine do to me,which means nothing to anyone else.

    There is a"blooze lawyer" on this forum that can play circles around you.
    Last edited by L.A.Man; 05-19-17 at 10:00 AM.

  35. #35
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    284

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by L.A.Man View Post
    Aren't you the same guy that got banned from the other forum for name calling?

    You owning a bunch of guitars and playing for a bunch of years, makes you just like a bunch of other guys on this forum.

    Your guitars sound as good to you, as mine do to me,which means nothing to anyone else.

    There is a"blooze lawyer" on this forum that can play circles around you.
    No, I'm not banned from there, troll.

    You're obviously too slow to understand that by "blooze lawyer" I was making fun of losers attempting to prosecute me on this forum as if they're lawyers and this is a court of law.

  36. #36

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by DANELECTRO View Post
    My suspect that they just pull one off of the rack. The aged guitars aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just aged. Rolling of the fretboard edges makes a small improvement in the feel of the neck, but otherwise its all just cosmetics.
    With all respect, why would Tom Murphy NOT pick the better or best ones?

  37. #37
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,126

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by indravayu View Post
    No, I'm not banned from there, troll.

    You're obviously too slow to understand that by "blooze lawyer" I was making fun of losers attempting to prosecute me on this forum as if they're lawyers and this is a court of law.
    What I see in your posts are that you get defensive and angry when anyone disagrees with you, you resort to name calling,and insults to make your point.

    As far as being a troll, I am not anything more than a member of both forums , having observed your bad behavior, and personal attacks on people that opposed you.

    You like to call people dorks.trolls, and "faggots" which got you in trouble on the other forum, didn't it?

    This is not a court of law, stop with the drama.

    Let me slow it down for now, read this very slowly so you don't miss the point.

    You don't know jackshit about what other people like,just you.

  38. #38
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,126

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    [QUOTE=indravayu;2758863]No, I'm not banned from there, troll.


    You certainly are. And it's just a matter of time before it happens here.
    Last edited by L.A.Man; 05-20-17 at 03:49 AM.

  39. #39
    Les Paul Forum Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Lake Ontario shore
    Posts
    11,715

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparta View Post
    With all respect, why would Tom Murphy NOT pick the better or best ones?
    When I talked with him he told me he looks for a certain type top. Best is subjective and has no bearing on overall quality of the guitar. He picks ones he likes the look of, that is all.
    Just another grumpy, gimpy, grizzled geezer, gettin' on the goodfoot!

  40. #40
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    841

    Re: Aged True Historic VS True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparta View Post
    With all respect, why would Tom Murphy NOT pick the better or best ones?
    How could he. When would he find time to actually age them if he has to play and tone test the thousands of historics each year to select the best ones available. Even if he could say work 24 hours a day, how does this tone testing add to Gibson's bottom line.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Scroll Down And Click On All Of Our Sponsors' Logos For Their Websites!