1999. R9

[prvv]

How was this year R9 ?

 

[Cody]

Kind of a classic, desirable year for R9's. The first year for a number of improvements in historical accuracy. The cherry sunburst color is top notch.

There were some not so spectacular tops, of course, like any year. Better top = more desirable.

 

[Doc Sausage]

Not to mention all those 9's. Coulda been a John Lennon model if he was so inclined to play one.:2cool

 

[access]

The 40th anniversary year!

99s are pretty awesome, there is some confusion still about "top ratings" and microchips, but overall, any lp you get from this year will be a great guitar.

 

[boyscout]

99s are pretty awesome, there is some confusion still about "top ratings" and microchips, but overall, any lp you get from this year will be a great guitar.

Really?!

The buzz is that '99 was a pretty good year, with extra attention to detail for the anniversary editions and reputably some fine guitars. But were they really all "great"?

By nearly all accounts 2013 has started out as a good year too. I recently listened to two brand new 2013 Collector's Choice guitars, made close to each other in the serial number lineup, top dollar and theoretically the best that Gibson can do. One was "great", truly outstanding sound, the other fairly ordinary and not worth the money.

There is no year, ever, not even the fabled 1959, from which all guitars are "great". Only by playing your prospective '99 can you be sure it's great.

P.S. There is a "Historic District" forum here in which you might find more opinions about historics.

 

[Black58]

The 'burst color(s) were really nice that year! :yah .. and NO, not all of 'em sounded great. Of the 3 that I had (two darkbursts an' a cherryburst), the cherryburst was a certifiable TURD! :wah I felt sorry for the tree that died to make that fuckin' thing.

 

[Big Al]

Mine suits me perfectly. I looked long and hard, was not concerned about top or color, so it was easier to find the one for me. In general I favor the 1999-2000 run, for my own reasons.

Find the one that speaks to you, the one that tells you, insists to you, melds... you get what I mean. Get that one.

 

[Big Al]

:bigal :fc :bigal

 

[blauserk]

The 99s were also noteworthy, if memory serves, for tall frets.

Some great color on these ones. The inlays were not known for being especially vintage-accurate!

 

[latestarter]

The inlays suck but my '99 delivers all the tone I could ever want.

 

[Big Al]

The inlays suck but my '99 delivers all the tone I could ever want.

WTF!! :bigal WTF!!
Whadda you mean they suck? SUCK? What is it that sucks? The fact that they are genuine celluloid? The same since mid 60's? Is it the HUE? Is there some objectionable tint or shade that makes the inlays on my favorite Les Pauls SUCK??

Does the lack of AVH pointy corners mean they suck, even though beautifully installed with no glue seams or filler? Is it the Classic "Mother of Toilet Seat" pattern that I like so much on my favorite Les Pauls as well as many other of my Gibsons, that sucks.
Do they feel funny or hurt your widdle fingers?

Once again the Barbie Brigade makes it's presence felt by the proclamation of inferiority and SUCKiness of an appointment or spec they somehow feel are not "VINTAGE" correct, even those that actually are, are not acceptable if they don't measure up to some idealized picture of the perfect 1959 Les Paul that is not a 59, but could be 59, but not new 1959 but rather Fake old real 1959 that is not real 59, but could be IF it was made in 59 and survived til now, and had aged even though it didn't

I am so freakin' tired of all of you and your fucked up obsessions over having the perfect, counterfeit fake ass 59 Les Pauls. That is what sucks.

 

[latestarter]

WTF!! :bigal WTF!!
Whadda you mean they suck? SUCK? What is it that sucks? The fact that they are genuine celluloid? The same since mid 60's? Is it the HUE? Is there some objectionable tint or shade that makes the inlays on my favorite Les Pauls SUCK??

Does the lack of AVH pointy corners mean they suck, even though beautifully installed with no glue seams or filler? Is it the Classic "Mother of Toilet Seat" pattern that I like so much on my favorite Les Pauls as well as many other of my Gibsons, that sucks.
Do they feel funny or hurt your widdle fingers?

Once again the Barbie Brigade makes it's presence felt by the proclamation of inferiority and SUCKiness of an appointment or spec they somehow feel are not "VINTAGE" correct, even those that actually are, are not acceptable if they don't measure up to some idealized picture of the perfect 1959 Les Paul that is not a 59, but could be 59, but not new 1959 but rather Fake old real 1959 that is not real 59, but could be IF it was made in 59 and survived til now, and had aged even though it didn't

I am so freakin' tired of all of you and your fucked up obsessions over having the perfect, counterfeit fake ass 59 Les Pauls. That is what sucks.

He he he - that's pretty funny Al.

Don't raise your BP!

I was responding to blauserk in part.

To me the inlays actually look stupid - a Fender Strat pearloid pickguard look. This is a great looking guitar but it's full of historical inaccuracies, plus I've added some of my own like modern day caps n pots to deliver better sounds. So I don't give a shit about that. I play music, in front of people, a lot...I care about tone and playability above all else.

However, in a great sounding, great looking expensive Gibson yes, these MOTS inlays by comparison seem shitty. The originals looked cool - as in classier from an aesthetics perspective. Your taste is different...so what? I'm not gonna bust a nut over it.

And if I could be bothered arguing the point, why wouldn't I want an accurate '59 re-issue? Isn't that what I was buying?

Now, if recognising something looks daft on a really great axe makes me a Barbie Brigade (whatever the fuck that is) then cool. As long as Ken's hair is dyed the right colour and Barbis shape is historically correct then I'll be happy. :hee


One last thing...a lot of people clearly respect you on this forum. You can do better than this.

 

[Tim]

I don't like the look of them on my 99 as well. I don't really care if they are exact repo's, I just think they're ugly and would prefer something else, though I've never changed them.

 

[Ryan Givhan]

:hee


One last thing...a lot of people clearly respect you on this forum. You can do better than this.

a lot of people do, and from what he says he has been in the game with some big time guitar dudes for a while. he has also gone through some shit that i would wish on no fellow guitarist. but most of his post come off as hateful and attacking. i hope/think he is trying to be funny and it doesnt translate through text. but i agree that he can do better A LOT of the time on this forum.

 

[Big Al]

Don't tell me my inlays suck. And here is a clue.. you will never, ever, ever get a 59 Les Paul, unless you buy a 59. So much hatefulness has been generated by these wanna be vintage guitar posers that they don't see it.

I'm hateful for calling this shit out, yet the constant negative bombs tossed by cosmetically fascinated dressup wannabees is OK. DON'T TELL ME MY INLAYS SUCK. Takes a certain callousness after reading how some love these guitars, to post and say that some stock appointment sucks. Thank you so much.
I'm hateful, but can you show one thread where I posted negative comments about others guitars? I slam some attitudes, but even if I don't like something, in part or the whole, I don't slam someones axe, even if I have one myself.

You guys don't even know when you do it. And when you do, you cheer each other on.
"Here is my new Cherry Burst, I love it"
TOO BAD IT'S A FUGLY CLOWNBURST!

"Check out my first Historic R9, I am pretty excited!"
WELL THAT'S NOT REALLY AN AUTHENTIC TOP.

My inlays suck. Yup I'm hateful.
What I am not is anyone who has been in any game with any big time dudes. I'm more of a has been who never was, than any kind of somebody. My playing is old school and personal and not as good as most here. I am me. Nothing more, and if I have respect on this forum, it is because of 45 years of experience with this stuff. Knowledge. The real stuff.My personal battles with whatever anyone may not wish on any guitarst have no bearing on this, Oh, and hatefulness. I am a hateful sage, but not apparently those who post these negative, jabs.
MY INLAYS SUCK.

This obsession with having the perfect counterfeit 59 Les Paul has become an infectious malady of wannabe posers to somehow raise their status and image.

How many of the shrill Gibson bashers have owned real 50's Les Paul guitars? I have owned and used over 20, including the two Bursts.I know what and why they are great. Like others I shared my vintage guitars and dreamed of the day we'd get new versions from Gibson. Funny I don't remember a lot of attention placed on inlays or plastics as important to a modern vintage style reissue.

I can tell from other vintage owners postings that they are not the ones posting this vitrol. But all these Knights of the Holy 59 Burst ride forth to do battle with the infidel imposters who dare weild mighty axes with Inlay's that sucketh, and plastic of incorrect hue in a crusade to ridicule with their disdain. As they gaze with contempt at us barbarians, with baleful looks and spiteful jabs.

OH, WOE IS ME FOR YON INLAY'S DOTH SUCKETH!!
AND YE BE A WEE BIT SNOOTY. Yet I am hateful.

Little girls playing drees up with their Barbie dolls,
obsessing over just the right shoes for the right dress and the correct pearls and handbag. That is what I see all over this forum. A Barbie Burst Brigade. If the shoe fits, wear it Ken.

Latestarter, you seem like a smart fella. Playing is the thing and it is a thing worth doing, though my post was a bit tongue in cheek and a bit "over the top" it is also how I see it. You could have just as easily said, "But I prefer the newer inlays".... You'd have to spec the year though, as there have been so many changes to inlays since. Instead you declare them to SUCK.

 

[Big Al]

:fc double post

 

[SFK]

...I can tell from other vintage owners postings that they are not the ones posting this vitrol. But all these Knights of the Holy 59 Burst ride forth to do battle with the infidel imposters who dare weild mighty axes with Inlay's that sucketh, and plastic of incorrect hue in a crusade to ridicule with their disdain. As they gaze with contempt at us barbarians, with baleful looks and spiteful jabs.

OH, WOE IS ME FOR YON INLAY'S DOTH SUCKETH!!
AND YE BE A WEE BIT SNOOTY....

HAHAHAHA! :rofl

 

[Ryan Givhan]

dude, no one is being hateful about their guitars. they buy them because they love the tone and playability. who are you to say they cant complain that on a 5-6 thousand dollar guitar that is advertised as a 59 les paul reissue that they arent thrilled with the way the inlays look or are shaped.

 

[Big Al]

dude, no one is being hateful about their guitars. they buy them because they love the tone and playability. who are you to say they cant complain that on a 5-6 thousand dollar guitar that is advertised as a 59 les paul reissue that they arent thrilled with the way the inlays look or are shaped.

I'm the dude who doth understandeth the difference between yon REISSUE and yon REPLICA. Or as we hateful naves yet declare thee Modern day Reissue vs thy Counterfeited Grail.

That's who the fucketh I be.

 

[Cody]

:rofl :rofl :rofl