Weigh in on weight and tone

JPP-1 · 11-30-06, 08:47 PM

I was having this discussion with a friend of mine.

I've played and owned light historic LPs (under 9 lbs) to medium and heavier historic LPs (9+ pounds) and thought most of them sounded great. If anything it seems to me that the heavier guitars had a somewhat brighter tone with maybe a touch more sustain and not quite as much midrange bloom as the lighter historicLPs.

Not this particularly matters but from what I have read it appears that the vintage bursts typically trended on the lighter side. That maybe why there seems a preference by many for lighter LPs.

Thoughts, and comments?

simon · 12-01-06, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPP-1

I was having this discussion with a friend of mine.

I've played and owned light historic LPs (under 9 lbs) to medium and heavier historic LPs (9+ pounds) and thought most of them sounded great. If anything it seems to me that the heavier guitars had a somewhat brighter tone with maybe a touch more sustain and not quite as much midrange bloom as the lighter historicLPs.

Not this particularly matters but from what I have read it appears that the vintage bursts typically trended on the lighter side. That maybe why there seems a preference by many for lighter LPs.

Thoughts, and comments?

In the 80s and early 90s many people thought LPs have to be heavy to have sustain and tone. there still many of those people out there - cool because there also many heavy guitars out there

Weight doesn't have that huge effect on tone - when it is between 8 and 10 lbs (yes there are good sounding 10lbs customs!).

gmann · 12-01-06, 02:48 AM

The never ending argument! No less an authority on tone G.E. Smith favors heavy guitars. He plays all kinds of music on a variety of vintage guitars. While he's certainly not the final authority, he knows a thing or two 'bout tone! I like the light ones but what do I know? I guess I know what I like.

roadrunner · 12-01-06, 05:50 AM

Keef like's 'em heavy too. I just look for a good sounding guitar, if it's light... bonus! I've found most of good ones, tone wise, are around 9 lbs.

Todd Louis · 12-01-06, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I just look for a good sounding guitar, if it's light... bonus! I've found most of good ones, tone wise, are around 9 lbs.

I say +1 to that But I don't like my Burst Historic's to be over
9 1/4 . But my Custom's are 10 and sound Great..

JonnyMangia · 12-01-06, 07:29 AM

Having jammed with JPP-1 on numerous occasions, I can tell you that it doesn't matter if the LP is a feather or a boat anchor...he can make any piece of wood sound like Jerry Garcia's playing it!!

WordMan · 12-01-06, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Keef like's 'em heavy too.

Do you have a cite for that? I am not challenging your assertion - I would be really curious to hear about his preferences in choosing guitars...

RiverRatt · 12-01-06, 07:46 AM

My R8 weighs around 9.5 lbs. Acoustically it's almost as loud as one of those Martin travel guitars. I don't think the weight has as much to do with the tone as that big ol' rock-solid R8 neck.

gottabetweed · 12-01-06, 08:26 AM

I know this discussion is about weight and tone. I have found good sounding guitars that are heavy and light. I have found neither light nor heavy, to yield a higher percentage of good guitars. But, I don't get the playing comfort discussion? I have had back surgery, play a 10.5 lb. pound custom for 3 hours straight, and it never gets heavy to me. I got it used from a shop for a great price, because it had been sitting there for a while. Several interested buyers had passed on it because of the weight. 10.5 lbs???? I see all these people talk about playing these "heavy" guitars and complaining about the weight. I just don't get it.

Jerry Garcia played those 13 lb. beast for a lot of years, when he was about as unhealthy as you can get. Hell, he had to have someone carry the case up the steps of the stage, because he would get winded carrying it. I guess if I picked up a 20 lb. guitar, it might feel heavy, but 10, 11, 12 lbs, or so, feel just fine to me.

Really light guitars feel like toys to me. Guess it's what you are used to?
I just see a lot of folks on here, who place a high degree of importance on the weight of a particular guitar. I would imagine any historic Les Paul would be just fine with me, weight wise. The other variables would be much more important to me.

skip62 · 12-01-06, 09:07 AM

At the Gibson Summer Jam, the head of production, can't remember his name, said that basically the tone starts with a good neck, and typically a heavier guitar is brighter. Todd you know who I'm talking about, do you remember his name or exact title?

CR9 · 12-01-06, 09:21 AM

Skip, that was Edwin Wilson at Summer Jamm that said that when he was talking about wood.

skip62 · 12-01-06, 09:26 AM

Yeah, that's the guy, why can't I ever remember his name

Thanks for that, drives me crazy when I can't remember things like that.

Nice shot of him too, looks the alcohol was already being served...

Tuco · 12-01-06, 10:29 AM

Jeeeeesus, will this never end?!?

JonnyMangia · 12-01-06, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skip62

At the Gibson Summer Jam, the head of production, can't remember his name, said that basically the tone starts with a good neck, and typically a heavier guitar is brighter. Todd you know who I'm talking about, do you remember his name or exact title?

So what connotes a "good neck"? The wood it's made of? The thickness?
I 've been mulling getting an SG and though I love the 61RI I'm scared of the thin neck on it...thinking you might get more sustain from the SG standard which has the baseball bat neck.

skip62 · 12-01-06, 11:19 AM

hmmm, I don't think he elaborated much on what to look for in the neck. Would have been a GREAT question, had been smart enough to think of it...

Maybe someone else, eh'em Todd, Cloud9??? will remember better.

Pretty much what I remember was him saying that good tone starts with a good neck and that the bodies effect the tone, but are not the biggest part of the equation. He went into a very good explaination of how Gibson buys the trees and how they try to get the best wood possible. I.E. they don't buy them if they are near rivers because the mineral content will be higher, they like to get them off the sides of mountains if possible. Apparently they get wood from 1000's of vendors. They have vendors that look for potential good wood for them, even if it's just part of a tree they buy to get it. I believe they do try, and they certainly do listen to this forum, that's why we got the invite.

I was in town at the Gibson store one of the nights we there, and over heard the sales guy talking to a customer about how Gibson does the best they can because if they don't the guys at the LPF will rip them to shreds..

Wish I could have recorded it all.

el84ster · 12-01-06, 01:24 PM

I'm not sure what the weight means to the tone, I just like ones that resonate well. But I do look for lighter ones just so I don't get so sore playing them!!

JPP-1 · 12-01-06, 02:08 PM

Yeah speaking of weight and now necks. My R7 was a resonating king and weighed in at about 9.2 lbs. While this might sound strange, when I picked it up it always seemed like the neck was light with less dense wood while the body was a a bit denser. Mind you this is just the perception I had as I could not measure it.

I did notice that my R7 really opened up and vibrated thouroughly throughout the body when l I put a set of 11s on it.

Anyway to get back on topic I agree that good sounding LPs come in a variety of weights. There just seems to be a very strong bias for lighterweight LPs. Ebay listing of lightweight historics feature weight as a selling point where those LPs weighing over 9lbs seemed to have this info hidden in the listing. Maybe I am imagining it but there seems to be a real preference for lightweight historics,. Maybe it's just a playabilty thing, Maybe perceptions of what constitutes ideal tone wood since gibson uses the lightest weight mahogany for their flagship R9 model. (Someone posted a picture of this on this forum)

Again thoughts perceptions on this topic are appreciated

BTW Skip that's what I noticed as well heavier tends to equal brighter though I have played enough samples to conclude this is any sort of statistical relevant way.

Todd Louis · 12-02-06, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skip62

hmmm, I don't think he elaborated much on what to look for in the neck. Would have been a GREAT question, had been smart enough to think of it...

Maybe someone else, eh'em Todd, Cloud9??? will remember better.

Pretty much what I remember was him saying that good tone starts with a good neck and that the bodies effect the tone, but are not the biggest part of the equation. He went into a very good explaination of how Gibson buys the trees and how they try to get the best wood possible. I.E. they don't buy them if they are near rivers because the mineral content will be higher, they like to get them off the sides of mountains if possible. Apparently they get wood from 1000's of vendors. They have vendors that look for potential good wood for them, even if it's just part of a tree they buy to get it. I believe they do try, and they certainly do listen to this forum, that's why we got the invite.

I was in town at the Gibson store one of the nights we there, and over heard the sales guy talking to a customer about how Gibson does the best they can because if they don't the guys at the LPF will rip them to shreds..

Wish I could have recorded it all.

You got it Man. Ed is a Great Guy!!! Every time I talk him I smile. I would say a really good Explanation is in the Tex part of BOTB...

Black58 · 12-02-06, 01:28 PM

IMHO and personal experience, the lighter LPs I've owned like a higher and or stiffer action. The heavier ones seemed to "open up" with just the reverse, just a touch more slack to shake that wood. Everything's got it's "magic" point. ALMOST everything!

skip62 · 12-02-06, 07:01 PM

Todd, what's BOTB? I've seen that a couple of times here, but don't know what it is. Thanks.

Sean French · 12-02-06, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skip62

Todd, what's BOTB? I've seen that a couple of times here, but don't know what it is. Thanks.

I'll chime in.It is the Beauty Of The Burst book.A must have for any Les Paul fanatic.Here is one on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Beauty-of-the-Bu...QQcmdZViewItem

FlyingNotes · 12-02-06, 08:20 PM

A well-cut neck of even wood density that is mated to a well-aligned and very well mounted truss rod / fingerboard assembly is 50 % of the entire ballgame. The other 40% is the neck joint. Neck resonance is vital.

From the neck joint to the bridge/tail piece it's all about rigidity and contact (maximizing both). The weight of the components that accomplish this is immaterial IMO.

Yes, the tone path comprising the bridge and tail piece assemblies are very important, as is the signal path through the pups and pots.. But, without the first 90% above they will not make much difference.

skip62 · 12-03-06, 03:23 AM

Sean, AWESOME, thanks for the link.

keef · 12-03-06, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WordMan

Do you have a cite for that? I am not challenging your assertion - I would be really curious to hear about his preferences in choosing guitars...

Um..I think it was GE Smith who said in a GP interview about his favorite vintage axes that he once picked up one of Richards' Juniors and found that it weighed a ton...

bluesjuke · 12-03-06, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingNotes

A well-cut neck of even wood density that is mated to a well-aligned and very well mounted truss rod / fingerboard assembly is 50 % of the entire ballgame. The other 40% is the neck joint. Neck resonance is vital.

From the neck joint to the bridge/tail piece it's all about rigidity and contact (maximizing both). The weight of the components that accomplish this is immaterial IMO.

Yes, the tone path comprising the bridge and tail piece assemblies are very important, as is the signal path through the pups and pots.. But, without the first 90% above they will not make much difference.

I agree.
Good cut. density, & stiffness come before weight as far as tone is concerned.
Besides that I have been most pleased with guitars in the 9 lb. range in my experience although my R8 weighs in at around 8.3 or so.

plaintop60 · 12-03-06, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiverRatt

My R8 weighs around 9.5 lbs. Acoustically it's almost as loud as one of those Martin travel guitars. I don't think the weight has as much to do with the tone as that big ol' rock-solid R8 neck.

I agree, the neck certainly has a huge effect. I had a Lester that weighed about 10 lbs, but the weight was all in the body. It has a huge very light neck. When you played the guitar unplugged the volume spewing forth from the neck was incredible. That said, I prefer a guitar with a neck that is less resonant and a body that sings. One of my R8's had a western maple top on it. The guitar weighed about 8.3 lbs but much of the weight was in the neck. It screamed acoustically. As with all things in life there's a trade off, volume for tone, or tone for volume. Often, lighter guitars are more lively acoustically for pretty obvious reasons, because lighter wood tends to be more resonant, but again as in all things in life it's not that simple. I think it has to do with how the weight is distributed throughout the guitar, ie. the sum of all of the guitar's properties.

slikwili · 12-03-06, 02:22 PM

I read an article in today's paper that claimed that the tone of the Stradivarius was linked to the use of pesticides in the wood to prevent wormholes.

...just saying!
8))

skip62 · 12-03-06, 03:23 PM

haha, I just read on the gearpage that it was because the wood was boiled in something to remove the minerals...Paper or Internet, who do you believe...LOL

steve(UK) · 12-04-06, 09:54 AM

There's sustain, and there's tone. You can make a guitar out of granite that will sustain for ever (well nearly) but its tone would not be very exciting. But saying that, a light guitar can be very rigid due to it's cellular structure and have a nice tone and lots of sustain. I guess it's like the swamp ash thing where the part of the tree that grows underwater is more open celled, lighter, and particularly stiff and resonant when used for a guitar.

I tend to agree with the posts suggesting that heavy guitars tend to emphasize highs. Whereas lighter guitar can have a more complex and interesting mid range.

That's the beauty of guitars; no two pieces of wood are the same, each one will have its own 'tone signature'. It's a question of finding one you like!

skip62 · 12-04-06, 12:12 PM

Something is wrong with this picture, or I'm not reading the posts correctly. It sounds like everyone is agreeing? How can this be????

changeling · 12-04-06, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skip62

Something is wrong with this picture, or I'm not reading the posts correctly. It sounds like everyone is agreeing? How can this be????

heh....
it's a new day.

bluesjuke · 12-04-06, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skip62

haha, I just read on the gearpage that it was because the wood was boiled in something to remove the minerals...Paper or Internet, who do you believe...LOL

If it doesn't begin with Genesis & end with Revelation be skeptical.

skip62 · 12-05-06, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesjuke

If it doesn't begin with Genesis & end with Revelation be skeptical.

That woke up my morning...

Todd Louis · 12-05-06, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesjuke

If it doesn't begin with Genesis & end with Revelation be skeptical.

It would be the other way around for me....

If it begins with Genesis and end with Revelation.........

Be Afraid

The Fender Forum	The Cafe Wah	LilyPix
Merchandise	Vintage Guitar Registry	LPF Homesite

11-30-06, 08:47 PM	#1
JPP-1 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 657	Weigh in on weight and tone I was having this discussion with a friend of mine. I've played and owned light historic LPs (under 9 lbs) to medium and heavier historic LPs (9+ pounds) and thought most of them sounded great. If anything it seems to me that the heavier guitars had a somewhat brighter tone with maybe a touch more sustain and not quite as much midrange bloom as the lighter historicLPs. Not this particularly matters but from what I have read it appears that the vintage bursts typically trended on the lighter side. That maybe why there seems a preference by many for lighter LPs. Thoughts, and comments? Last edited by JPP-1 : 11-30-06 at 10:12 PM.

12-01-06, 02:48 AM	#3
gmann Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Out here on the perimeter, stoned/immaculate Posts: 5,215	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone The never ending argument! No less an authority on tone G.E. Smith favors heavy guitars. He plays all kinds of music on a variety of vintage guitars. While he's certainly not the final authority, he knows a thing or two 'bout tone! I like the light ones but what do I know? I guess I know what I like. __________________ A smile relieves a heart that grieves.

12-01-06, 05:50 AM	#4
roadrunner In the Zone/Backstage Pass Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: NashVegas Posts: 5,403	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Keef like's 'em heavy too. I just look for a good sounding guitar, if it's light... bonus! I've found most of good ones, tone wise, are around 9 lbs. __________________ Achieve the Possible!

12-01-06, 07:29 AM	#6
JonnyMangia Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 218	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Having jammed with JPP-1 on numerous occasions, I can tell you that it doesn't matter if the LP is a feather or a boat anchor...he can make any piece of wood sound like Jerry Garcia's playing it!!

12-01-06, 07:46 AM	#8
RiverRatt Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Stumblin' through the parking lot of an invisible 7-11. Posts: 1,326	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone My R8 weighs around 9.5 lbs. Acoustically it's almost as loud as one of those Martin travel guitars. I don't think the weight has as much to do with the tone as that big ol' rock-solid R8 neck. __________________ Get on your feet and do the Funky Alphonso

12-01-06, 08:26 AM	#9
gottabetweed Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Tejas! Posts: 272	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone I know this discussion is about weight and tone. I have found good sounding guitars that are heavy and light. I have found neither light nor heavy, to yield a higher percentage of good guitars. But, I don't get the playing comfort discussion? I have had back surgery, play a 10.5 lb. pound custom for 3 hours straight, and it never gets heavy to me. I got it used from a shop for a great price, because it had been sitting there for a while. Several interested buyers had passed on it because of the weight. 10.5 lbs???? I see all these people talk about playing these "heavy" guitars and complaining about the weight. I just don't get it. Jerry Garcia played those 13 lb. beast for a lot of years, when he was about as unhealthy as you can get. Hell, he had to have someone carry the case up the steps of the stage, because he would get winded carrying it. I guess if I picked up a 20 lb. guitar, it might feel heavy, but 10, 11, 12 lbs, or so, feel just fine to me. Really light guitars feel like toys to me. Guess it's what you are used to? I just see a lot of folks on here, who place a high degree of importance on the weight of a particular guitar. I would imagine any historic Les Paul would be just fine with me, weight wise. The other variables would be much more important to me.

12-01-06, 09:07 AM	#10
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone At the Gibson Summer Jam, the head of production, can't remember his name, said that basically the tone starts with a good neck, and typically a heavier guitar is brighter. Todd you know who I'm talking about, do you remember his name or exact title?

12-01-06, 09:21 AM	#11
CR9 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Near St. Louis, MO Posts: 1,114	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Skip, that was Edwin Wilson at Summer Jamm that said that when he was talking about wood.

12-01-06, 09:26 AM	#12
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Yeah, that's the guy, why can't I ever remember his name Thanks for that, drives me crazy when I can't remember things like that. Nice shot of him too, looks the alcohol was already being served...

12-01-06, 10:29 AM	#13
Tuco Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pacific NW, USA Posts: 987	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Jeeeeesus, will this never end?!?

12-01-06, 11:19 AM	#15
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone hmmm, I don't think he elaborated much on what to look for in the neck. Would have been a GREAT question, had been smart enough to think of it... Maybe someone else, eh'em Todd, Cloud9??? will remember better. Pretty much what I remember was him saying that good tone starts with a good neck and that the bodies effect the tone, but are not the biggest part of the equation. He went into a very good explaination of how Gibson buys the trees and how they try to get the best wood possible. I.E. they don't buy them if they are near rivers because the mineral content will be higher, they like to get them off the sides of mountains if possible. Apparently they get wood from 1000's of vendors. They have vendors that look for potential good wood for them, even if it's just part of a tree they buy to get it. I believe they do try, and they certainly do listen to this forum, that's why we got the invite. I was in town at the Gibson store one of the nights we there, and over heard the sales guy talking to a customer about how Gibson does the best they can because if they don't the guys at the LPF will rip them to shreds.. Wish I could have recorded it all.

12-01-06, 01:24 PM	#16
el84ster All Access/Backstage Pass Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern Cali Posts: 1,265	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone I'm not sure what the weight means to the tone, I just like ones that resonate well. But I do look for lighter ones just so I don't get so sore playing them!!

12-01-06, 02:08 PM	#17
JPP-1 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 657	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Yeah speaking of weight and now necks. My R7 was a resonating king and weighed in at about 9.2 lbs. While this might sound strange, when I picked it up it always seemed like the neck was light with less dense wood while the body was a a bit denser. Mind you this is just the perception I had as I could not measure it. I did notice that my R7 really opened up and vibrated thouroughly throughout the body when l I put a set of 11s on it. Anyway to get back on topic I agree that good sounding LPs come in a variety of weights. There just seems to be a very strong bias for lighterweight LPs. Ebay listing of lightweight historics feature weight as a selling point where those LPs weighing over 9lbs seemed to have this info hidden in the listing. Maybe I am imagining it but there seems to be a real preference for lightweight historics,. Maybe it's just a playabilty thing, Maybe perceptions of what constitutes ideal tone wood since gibson uses the lightest weight mahogany for their flagship R9 model. (Someone posted a picture of this on this forum) Again thoughts perceptions on this topic are appreciated BTW Skip that's what I noticed as well heavier tends to equal brighter though I have played enough samples to conclude this is any sort of statistical relevant way.

12-02-06, 01:28 PM	#19
Black58 All Access/Backstage Pass Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the bathroom, fixing my guitar. Posts: 4,840	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone IMHO and personal experience, the lighter LPs I've owned like a higher and or stiffer action. The heavier ones seemed to "open up" with just the reverse, just a touch more slack to shake that wood. Everything's got it's "magic" point. ALMOST everything! __________________ People with lots of words are usually lying or stupid. www.myspace.com/turn4rocks

12-02-06, 07:01 PM	#20
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Todd, what's BOTB? I've seen that a couple of times here, but don't know what it is. Thanks.

12-02-06, 08:20 PM	#22
FlyingNotes Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Up where it's cold Posts: 710	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone A well-cut neck of even wood density that is mated to a well-aligned and very well mounted truss rod / fingerboard assembly is 50 % of the entire ballgame. The other 40% is the neck joint. Neck resonance is vital. From the neck joint to the bridge/tail piece it's all about rigidity and contact (maximizing both). The weight of the components that accomplish this is immaterial IMO. Yes, the tone path comprising the bridge and tail piece assemblies are very important, as is the signal path through the pups and pots.. But, without the first 90% above they will not make much difference. __________________ FN Last edited by FlyingNotes : 12-02-06 at 08:35 PM.

12-03-06, 03:23 AM	#23
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Sean, AWESOME, thanks for the link.

12-03-06, 02:22 PM	#27
slikwili Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Posts: 106	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone I read an article in today's paper that claimed that the tone of the Stradivarius was linked to the use of pesticides in the wood to prevent wormholes. ...just saying! 8))

12-03-06, 03:23 PM	#28
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone haha, I just read on the gearpage that it was because the wood was boiled in something to remove the minerals...Paper or Internet, who do you believe...LOL

12-04-06, 09:54 AM	#29
steve(UK) Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 665	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone There's sustain, and there's tone. You can make a guitar out of granite that will sustain for ever (well nearly) but its tone would not be very exciting. But saying that, a light guitar can be very rigid due to it's cellular structure and have a nice tone and lots of sustain. I guess it's like the swamp ash thing where the part of the tree that grows underwater is more open celled, lighter, and particularly stiff and resonant when used for a guitar. I tend to agree with the posts suggesting that heavy guitars tend to emphasize highs. Whereas lighter guitar can have a more complex and interesting mid range. That's the beauty of guitars; no two pieces of wood are the same, each one will have its own 'tone signature'. It's a question of finding one you like!

12-04-06, 12:12 PM	#30
skip62 Les Paul Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 824	Re: Weigh in on weight and tone Something is wrong with this picture, or I'm not reading the posts correctly. It sounds like everyone is agreeing? How can this be????