R7, R8, R9 & R0????? difference?

[Classic]

What's the difference between the four? The R0 I assume has a 60's neck as opposed to the R9 et al.

Prey Tell.
________
SHIP SALE

[jb_abides]

Usually applied to Les Pauls R7 = 1957, etc. Historically "Accurate" Reissue from Gibson Custom, Art & Historic - by year of original manufacture, 1954-1960, and although I haven't seen 'R1' for 1961 in common usage there are Historic SGs from '61.

[Classic]

I'll rephrase the question. What's the difference between a 1957, 58, 59 and 1960's Les Paul?
________
Vaporizer review

[LookerBob]

As I understand it, the 56, 57, 58 and 59 are practically the same guitar - but the 56 has P90s and a goldtop, the 57 has a goldtop, the 58 a plaintop, and the 59 a hideously ugly flamed top. The 60 would have the different neck.

[Classic]

And that's it? Blimey!!
________
The Easy Vape Digital Vaporizer

[usc2k1]

The 57 has a fatter neck than the 58. I think the 59 neck is even slimmer.

[OscrDGrch]

LookerBob is correct. In addition to the differences mentioned, the R9 has a neck that has been shaped to be the same depth but less clubby than the R8. Also, the R0 has reflector style knobs.

[LookerBob]

Is the 58 neck in fact thinner than the 57? Did not know that... was wondering on some of these models, e.g. the blacktops, how they decided what was a 57 and what was a 58...

Score one more point for the 58, maybe... I want a fat neck, but maybe not *that* fat.

[only3for5]

Neck sizes can vary widely within RX models.

The neck on my new R6 is almost the exact same size as the neck on my R8.

[LookerBob]

Here's the part where I admit that while I'm planning on buying one, I've not yet *played* a Historic...

How does the neck size (generally) compare to say, a current production SG standard?

[Lennon24]

Originally Posted by only3for5

Neck sizes can vary widely within RX models.

The neck on my new R6 is almost the exact same size as the neck on my R8.

I have an R6, R7 BB 3 Pick-up, R8 R9 and an R0...the neck on the '56 is HUGE, as is the one on the '57 Custom (I cannot get used to the middle pick-up being there on the custom, I suppose that it makes me pick more lightly and therefore more quickly and more cleanly, but I just can't really dig into and grab ahold of a note, hit it had with the pick and then bend it a step and a half ( ala SRV)...the Neck on the '58 is much smaller than the R6 but stil noticably bigger than the R9...the R0 is very similar to my '96 Page Signature (VERY thin), for me the '59 is the most comfortable (Very similar to my '71 Goldtop Deluxe, which was my number 1 playing out guitar for over 20 years), but I believe that I can play faster on the R0 (the neck is very similar to my '60 Junior)...my '58 is an '02 and has a great Flame top, equal to both the '59 and the '60...the only difference to me is the neck, except that the '03 R9 has a brazillian Board, which IMO makes little difference in playability, but looks cool as shit...both the R8 & R9 are "washed Cherry Sunburst" but on the R9 the red is much darker and authentic looking...the R0 is faded tobacco, and is the best looking of the lot. In terms of neck sizes, it is all about personal preference...as for the look, to me there is something very cool about a goldtop with P-90s...I love the sound especially playing the blues in the middle position with the bridge volume rolled back just a tiny bit, but the pickups are a little noisy...

[bluesbishop]

Originally Posted by LookerBob

Here's the part where I admit that while I'm planning on buying one, I've not yet *played* a Historic...

How does the neck size (generally) compare to say, a current production SG standard?

IMHO the Historic necks (except for the R0) are much larger than a production neck. I had a Les Paul Standard with a 50's neck, and I think the SG has a smaller taper 60's neck profile....my R7's neck is way larger!! Now don't let that scare you...they are not uncomfortable to play, just large chunky necks.

[LookerBob]

Gibson's site says the SG neck is 'rounded'. I know the 61 RI one has a 60s slim taper, but... the SG neck never seemed too big... and lately my special's neck seems far too thin.

[Classic]

I like the neck on my 1999 Gibson Les Paul Classic - is the R0 neck the same as or similar to the Classics?
________
NICE TITS LIVE

[xjustice09x]

Originally Posted by Classic

I like the neck on my 1999 Gibson Les Paul Classic - is the R0 neck the same as or similar to the Classics?

The same no. Similar maybe.

The reissue necks are shaped by hand so they all vary a little. If you want a thinner neck and you want a Historic Les Paul your best bet is to look for an R0.

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by usc2k1

The 57 has a fatter neck than the 58. I think the 59 neck is even slimmer.

Only sometimes.
Most R8's I have played are larger than the 'R7's
My R8 in particular is bigger than my R7 but it is also larger than most R8's.

[Bluedawg]

Supposedly,

R9s and R0s get the best wood that Gibson has on hand at the time, with the other historics getting the next best wood. The good wood is allegedly the more toneful and lighter wood.

The wood that doesn't make the historic cut goes to the production section to make weight relieved LPs and other guitars.

I can't say if this is actually true, but it has come up in many posts on this subject.

[Rumbling_Groover]

The neck on my R0 is pencil thin compared to the other custom shop '60s tapers I have, however it has slightly more shoulder to it than my old '95 Classic.

[Crunchyriff]

gee, I've found every R7 to be as large, or slightly larger than the R8's I've played.

The bottom line is they all vary.

[KOTR]

I like the neck on my 1999 Gibson Les Paul Classic - is the R0 neck the same as or similar to the Classics?

I have a Historic Special DC which is supposed to have the same neck profile as an R0. The Special's neck feels slightly wider and thicker than the '96 Classic I had but much thinner than my R9. If you want a flamed top Historic with a similar neck to your Classic, the R0 is probably as close as you'll get.

Isn't there supposed to be some difference in fret wire size between the R7, R8, R9, and R0? My R9 definately has wider frets than my Special.

[Classic]

I'm not overly worried about having a flame top but I do like a slim neck.

How do the Class 5's compare to an R0?
________
LovelyWendie99

[Rumbling_Groover]

My Class 5 is slightly bigger in the neck than my R0, but I have played Class 5s with very simelar necks to my R0.

[440gtx6pak]

Originally Posted by Lennon24

the neck on my '56 is HUGE, as is the one on the '57 Custom ...

The neck on my 2003 '57 Custom Black Beauty RI is one of the slimmer I own,
and is in R9 territory........ go figure.

[bluesbishop]

Originally Posted by Classic

I'm not overly worried about having a flame top but I do like a slim neck.

How do the Class 5's compare to an R0?

If you don't care about flames, GC has a plaintop CA R0. The guitar center by me has a $2699.00 price on it, but the saleman quoted me $2400 "out the door" price. If I would have liked the neck, I would have jumped on it instead of my R7, nice washed cherry, two piece matched top with a nice fade.

A nice inexpensive way to get into a Historic with a thinner neck.

[digitrack]

The variations in the model line of R7 through R0 also vary with the year of manufacture. Older R8's featured many figure top models and this has only been discontinued in the last two years, to justify the price hike on the 59 models Gibson stopped putting figure tops on the 58's. The necks on all models are finish shaped by hand and the most notible differences I have seen are in the 58 models. Traditionally, 57's should have the fattest almost "U" shaped neck, the 58's feature a more rounded neck compared to the 57 but nearly as thick in feel, the 59 has a consistent thinner and rounded profile, resembling a "C" shape and the R0 has the thinnest profile of the line, but not as slim as the super slim Les Paul classic which is called a "1960 reissue" but was never part of the Historic line and is manufactured in the Gibson USA production line along with the Les Paul Standard and other production models. From 1993 through 2003 many changes also occured including finishes, top carving of the "bowl" of the top becoming more accurate to the real 50's models, pickup placement (somewhat off, too close to the bridge by 1/8" leaving a gap between the pickup ring and the pickguard on the treble pickup during I believe 1998), the use of brazilian rosewood during a small run during 2003 and lastly the use of eastern and western maple for the tops.

[phil47uk]

This should give you some idea.
Phil.

[Classic]

that's what I wanted to know!!
________
Mary Jane

[bobbovisme]

Ive played R7 R8 & R9's as well as SG and the SG reissue's and I think the regular sg has a flatter fretboard than the reissue Burst's or Sg .. I found the 57 goldtop neck to be a bit rounder around the back thn my 05 R8 and most of the r9's only a bit slimmer than my R8

[Doc Martin]

At least as far as the current reissues, the R7s with the big necks have a sound all their own -- very fat and creamy with lots of spank on the top. I love mine...

[phil47uk]

Originally Posted by Classic

that's what I wanted to know!!

The neck dimensions are more a comfort factor than having anything to do with the overall tone of the instrument. Yes, off course they will vary slightly.
From what I have deduced so far, the fatter neck seems to maybe bring out slightly more bottom end acousticaly, whereas the slimer 60's neck seems to beef up the mid tones a bit more.. But then again, that's only going by others here that have tried all the neck sizes. You will find that the acoustical tone produced is more subject to the individual guitar rather than lumping them into catagories of neck sizes.
I have an R0 ( Slim neck) that acousticaly out rings a huge necked 57 by a good 10 seconds. But as I said. That's only one example, and had I compared it to another R7, things may have been entirely different.
Les Paul's are funny creatures, as are all guitars. Each one will play and sound different and one must really try out quite a few before coming to the conclusion of what's right for you as an individual.

Phil.

[thin sissy]

Yes, lets not have the fat neck=tone discussion again ;) .
We all agreed that the other factors play a bigger role in a comparsion between two guitars.

[bluesjuke]

From what I have seen personally & what all of the poster's here relate all that can be determined is that the '59's are generally smaller than the '54,'56,7, & 8's and the R0 is slimmer yet. They are all different in models, in year to year & within model.

My R7 has a fat neck smaller than my R8 but is identical to my '59 335 Historic- go figure.

[Mikester]

I got this info from the Gibson Forum when I was shopping for my R9:

"R8 and R9 are .900 at the 1st fret, 1.00 at the 12th. but they are shaped differently so that the R8 neck feels fatter. the R0 is .800 at the 1st and .875 at the 12th."

[thin sissy]

Originally Posted by Mikester

I got this info from the Gibson Forum when I was shopping for my R9:

"R8 and R9 are .900 at the 1st fret, 1.00 at the 12th. but they are shaped differently so that the R8 neck feels fatter. the R0 is .800 at the 1st and .875 at the 12th."

interesting

[bluesjuke]

The shoulders being different make all of the difference in the world.
A larger shoulder gives a greater girth therefore is fatter.
The above dimensions are only thickness.

[thin sissy]

But it doesn't look like that in the pic above. I take it that the early 50's neck has "wider" shoulders than the 59 and 60 then.

[phil47uk]

Originally Posted by thin sissy

But it doesn't look like that in the pic above. I take it that the early 50's neck has "wider" shoulders than the 59 and 60 then.

That pic above is taken from 50's originals and tweaked in Adobe from BOTB to represent approx life size at around the 7th - 9th fret.
That 60 in the pic is about spot on for my 2003 R0 Humph. Obviously each individual guitar will vary, but it gives one an approx idea, which to me is a better visual alternative than trying to describe things as. This is fatter than that, or this measures bla bla of an inch at the nut, which people ( Well at least me ) have more difficulty in comprehending.

Phil.

[bluesjuke]

Earlier 50's Gibson's & Fender's had a U shaped profile.

[thin sissy]

Yes, it is a better reference than describing with words. As always, you have to try them out though.