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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 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"
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.