The Fender Forum
NEW! LPF Facebook Page
NEW! LPF Instagram Page
Merchandise & Donations
NEW! Burst Serial Log Home Page
LPF Homesite
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 107
  1. #1

    "...this thing is a destroyer of planets, a tonal doom-bringer, a wooden warrior from another dimension." Frutiger

  2. #2
    Les Paul Forum Member Soulweb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Wesley Chapel, FL
    Posts
    1,827

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Excellent reading! Thanks for the post!

    I can now say I officially feel the price hike for the True Historic is egregiously overpriced and unjustified. It's downright ridiculous.

    Though I like a lot of the upgrades, I do not see the massive price hike as justified. It's deplorable and shameful.

    Kudos to the Zoo for doing an outstanding job.

  3. #3
    Les Paul Forum Member herb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    846

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    I got the very same comparison in an e-mail from my friend Danny who works at Gibson. This is Gibson's literature, not Music Zoo. But I, too, thank MZ for showing it.

    To me, these little "upgrades" Gibson does each year are becoming to be more and more just a joke. Minimal if any difference to the most important aspects to any guitar; sound and playability. For sound and playability I'll put my stock '95 R8 out there in front of any of these new True Historics.

    I still prefer my 1999 ES 335 '59 Reissue as my very favorite to play, though.

  4. #4
    Les Paul Forum Member gtr475's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    24

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Wow! It is really not worth the money.
    I can get two brand spanking new 2014 R9´s for the prize of one TH 9 here in Sweden.

  5. #5
    Les Paul Forum Member emg32's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    461

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    The differences really are miniscule. Gibson should have just called these 2015 Historics and upped the price by $300-$400. The "True" Historic name and 30%-50% price increase is a joke IMO just like the CS models costing as much or more than 2014 Historics.

  6. #6
    Les Paul Forum Member shred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    That left turn at Albuquerque....
    Posts
    4,646

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    For me it still comes down to tops... Get the best and biggest top that speaks to you. If that top is on a TH and you have the money, great... If not, get another year... The legendary 90's flame monsters still command big $$$

    My 2 cents
    Last edited by shred; 06-07-15 at 03:56 AM.


    "I'm Yngwie J. Malmsteen... And I approve this message"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZxdjBXGHl8

    https://youtu.be/9az1INihI2Y

  7. #7

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    The Jones'ing must be exhausting for a lot of people!

    Shred, you're absolutely right... if you have a Historic from any one year, that 100% speaks to you, keep it.

    While I can see the appeal of having one of every CC or getting an upgrade from last years 'perfected' release, I would much rather save GAS money for something vintage, or a truly accurate in every detail replica.

    That said, a Nicky or a Donna would be something I would consider going for looking at some of them so far.


  8. #8
    Les Paul Forum Member shred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    That left turn at Albuquerque....
    Posts
    4,646

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    For me it's about objectivity vs subjectivity... Personally, I tend to go with the objective... Subjectively guitar player x might be "better" than guitar player y, but objectively one of them will have better technique.

    I feel the same way about tops... Tone is largely subjective, but flame is objective... Monster tops will always rule regardless of spec

    IMO anyway... YMMV
    Last edited by shred; 06-07-15 at 10:38 AM.


    "I'm Yngwie J. Malmsteen... And I approve this message"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZxdjBXGHl8

    https://youtu.be/9az1INihI2Y

  9. #9
    Les Paul Forum Member goldtop0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    At the end of the Long White Cloud
    Posts
    7,403

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    ... Monster tops will always rule regardless of spec

    IMO anyway... YMMV


    Sad but true

  10. #10
    Les Paul Forum Member Ace139's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    New Market, MD
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Does the hyde glue make any difference? Thats the only thing I really see as a change from '14 that might effect tone.
    Some people call me old fashion - but fire scares me

  11. #11
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin- Land of Green Bay Packers, beer and Cheese
    Posts
    742

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by emg32 View Post
    The differences really are miniscule. Gibson should have just called these 2015 Historics and upped the price by $300-$400. The "True" Historic name and 30%-50% price increase is a joke IMO just like the CS models costing as much or more than 2014 Historics.
    Yeah, when is Gibson going to get it "True(ly)" correct Historic? Possibly never in regards to sourcing the correct woods. If someday if Gibson gets it "entirely" correct construction-wise it will be still be a replica of the original run. I think it is too quick of a price jump now and I think the new changes are only marginal. if the market doesn't support the price changes now and sales lag that I suppose Gibson will correct themselves.

  12. #12
    Les Paul Forum Member goldtop0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    At the end of the Long White Cloud
    Posts
    7,403

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace139 View Post
    Does the hyde glue make any difference? Thats the only thing I really see as a change from '14 that might effect tone.

    No........ just possibly more historically correct.........but then again there's so much more that could be done however HM has the solution

  13. #13
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,491

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by emg32 View Post
    The differences really are miniscule. Gibson should have just called these 2015 Historics and upped the price by $300-$400. The "True" Historic name and 30%-50% price increase is a joke IMO just like the CS models costing as much or more than 2014 Historics.
    While I agree completely with you about the price being ridiculous the differences are not miniscule. You are not judging by playing one, but by "internet wisdom". And quite frankly sounding a bit bitter because of it. Get out to play one and look it over for some time. If you can't see the difference then you don't really need a Gibson.

    The first thing that you will either notice or miss is a finish that is much much better and obviously hand done as opposed to your "good enough late model GM" finish that was prevalent on the prior models in places. I'll bet most of the price increase is right there because doing it by hand is a time intensive issue. Sure, the plastic is a little nicer, but let's be realistic. I doubt it costs any more to make than it used to, other than the expense of trying to match it better and the sunk costs of getting there. Take maybe a couple of peeps yearly wages and double it for the materials/time spent to try it. Flipping a shop to handle things differently ain't free or cheap. I'm sure there were labor negotiations involved in some fashion. Shit ain't free. These are MUCH more expensive to produce. Maybe not as much as they are charging, but costs MUST be recovered. Can't afford one or don't want to pay that much? That's entirely cool and understandable. No reason to make false statements about them though. I was lucky enough to buy one. It is worth the price I paid to me. If they come out with a 54 I will be reserving one as fast as I can.


    And while now you will be pissed at me, understand that I STILL think they should continue the Historic Line as it was before. I complained loudly about the finish being crap last year and this year, but I managed to buy a boat load of them. I loved the old line and think it still has it's place. I would never have bought a TH if they were still around and would probably been agreeing with you instead of this. Which is why I think they will be back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace139 View Post
    Does the hyde glue make any difference? Thats the only thing I really see as a change from '14 that might effect tone.

    While HIDE glue may make a difference I doubt the glue can change to Jekyll at any point. (However I see someone has cashed in on this often misspelled substance)!
    Last edited by renderit; 06-07-15 at 08:05 AM.

  14. #14
    Les Paul Forum Member Zinc Alloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    600

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Not sure if it's a spelling mistake or if they're using formaldehyde glue for the tops now..

  15. #15
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,491

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinc Alloy View Post
    Not sure if it's a spelling mistake or if they're using formaldehyde glue for the tops now..
    You may have a point there!

  16. #16
    Les Paul Forum Member sidekick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Within my home
    Posts
    3,055

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinc Alloy View Post
    Not sure if it's a spelling mistake or if they're using formaldehyde glue for the tops now..


    '"In 2015, Gibson Custom extends the use of hide glue to join the back and top of every True Historic guitar, just as it was done in the 1950’s'.

    One wonders ...

    Not according to this ... ☛ .... http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/sh...ht=Max+Baranet




  17. #17
    Les Paul Forum Member jimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    1,822

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    While I agree completely with you about the price being ridiculous the differences are not miniscule. You are not judging by playing one, but by "internet wisdom". And quite frankly sounding a bit bitter because of it. Get out to play one and look it over for some time. If you can't see the difference then you don't really need a Gibson.

    The first thing that you will either notice or miss is a finish that is much much better and obviously hand done as opposed to your "good enough late model GM" finish that was prevalent on the prior models in places. I'll bet most of the price increase is right there because doing it by hand is a time intensive issue. Sure, the plastic is a little nicer, but let's be realistic. I doubt it costs any more to make than it used to, other than the expense of trying to match it better and the sunk costs of getting there. Take maybe a couple of peeps yearly wages and double it for the materials/time spent to try it. Flipping a shop to handle things differently ain't free or cheap. I'm sure there were labor negotiations involved in some fashion. Shit ain't free. These are MUCH more expensive to produce. Maybe not as much as they are charging, but costs MUST be recovered. Can't afford one or don't want to pay that much? That's entirely cool and understandable. No reason to make false statements about them though. I was lucky enough to buy one. It is worth the price I paid to me. If they come out with a 54 I will be reserving one as fast as I can.


    And while now you will be pissed at me, understand that I STILL think they should continue the Historic Line as it was before. I complained loudly about the finish being crap last year and this year, but I managed to buy a boat load of them. I loved the old line and think it still has it's place. I would never have bought a TH if they were still around and would probably been agreeing with you instead of this. Which is why I think they will be back.




    While HIDE glue may make a difference I doubt the glue can change to Jekyll at any point. (However I see someone has cashed in on this often misspelled substance)!
    I own vintage LPs and go into shops tha frequently carry historics and vintage guitars. i played one of the TH R8s and would not have really known the difference between it and a 2014 R9 sitting next to it without the tag from playing it. The necks are a little closer to most of the vintage bursts/goldtops I have played (but still too thick in the middle) and the cutaway is better now. Pickups and electronics are the same. Plastic looks better and the binding is a bit better (ie more accurate) but not a hands down better guitar. I agree for the price point of $9k I would look for a good conversion candidate (see them frequently for 12-15k...sometimes much less). Nice they are trying to get closer but the price point is a little to high. Just my two cents.

  18. #18
    Les Paul Forum Member Ace139's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    New Market, MD
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    So two points

    1. Is there such a thing as "Hyde Glue"

    2. If there is "Hyde Glue" would it make a difference


    Some people call me old fashion - but fire scares me

  19. #19
    Les Paul Forum Member emg32's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    461

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    [COLOR=#ffffe0][SIZE=3][FONT=comic sans ms]While I agree completely with you about the price being ridiculous the differences are not miniscule. You are not judging by playing one, but by "internet wisdom". And quite frankly sounding a bit bitter because of it. Get out to play one and look it over for some time. If you can't see the difference then you don't really need a Gibson.


    Actually I have played a few TH's in a shop and that is why I truly think the changes are miniscule. The finish does feel slightly different but I don't see it being something that is much more labor intensive. I have 90's LP's that the finish feels more hard and glassy than the TH's. I also don't really have any issues with the 2013/2014 finishes. My 2013's finish already feels much smoother and harder than when I first bought it new. I think in time it will only get better.

    For 2015 Gibson just sprays the finish slightly thinner, then instead of buffing they wet sand by hand. It's not a hugely difficult or long process over the buffing process. It saves time in the spray process with the thinner coat and IMO the hand sanding doesn't take much longer than the buffing process on the previous Historics. IMO the nitro formula didn't change for 2015, Gibson just sprayed it slightly thinner. Then the wet sanding makes it feel slightly smoother and gives it that kind of VOS look. Another step in the process they cut out for 2015.

    Saying if people can't really see the difference they don't need a Gibson sounds a bit bitter and ridiculous on your part. Like I said, I've played a few TH's and my opinion on them is still the same. They are nice guitars (like all years Historics) but IMO no better than previous years unless you are just stuck on a few miniscule cosmetic changes. They definitely are not worth the 30%-50% price increase Gibson is asking IMO.

    For that much of a price jump in one year I need more than some minor plastics changes, rolled edges and thinner finish.

  20. #20
    Les Paul Forum Member Cliff Gress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Pure Michigan
    Posts
    2,900

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Rock music is for folks. Most folks can't afford a new Gibson anymore. What are they thinking? Is rock elitist now?

  21. #21
    Les Paul Forum Member shred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    That left turn at Albuquerque....
    Posts
    4,646

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Fortunately there are lots of great used R7-R0's out there, so there are good options for those that can't afford a TH.


    "I'm Yngwie J. Malmsteen... And I approve this message"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZxdjBXGHl8

    https://youtu.be/9az1INihI2Y

  22. #22
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,491

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Gress View Post
    Rock music is for folks. Most folks can't afford a new Gibson anymore. What are they thinking? Is rock elitist now?
    I agree with this statement.

  23. #23
    Les Paul Forum Member renderit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,491

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by emg32 View Post
    Saying if people can't really see the difference they don't need a Gibson sounds a bit bitter and ridiculous on your part. Like I said, I've played a few TH's and my opinion on them is still the same. They are nice guitars (like all years Historics) but IMO no better than previous years unless you are just stuck on a few miniscule cosmetic changes. They definitely are not worth the 30%-50% price increase Gibson is asking IMO.

    For that much of a price jump in one year I need more than some minor plastics changes, rolled edges and thinner finish.
    Bad wording on my part. The difference in finish is huge IMO. Gibson's prior finishes were worse in a lot of cases than much cheaper guitars. I bemoaned the very thing in previous posts. You found orange peel in many places and incomplete "buffing" or sanding or whatever on most of the guitar if you look close. They say the new ones are hand sanded. I find no orange peel on mine. I can on every 13 and 14 I have ever seen and own.

    This takes a LOT of time. You can do it in this country and pay out the wazoo for it, or run it through a country with cheap labor and have a perfectly smooth finish. You call it miniscule. After building a number of guitars and refinishing more than a few I can say it is not. We can agree to disagree.

    As to your saying you can see allowing them 300-400 more for the guitar, how decent of you. You have every right to vote with your wallet, and I encourage you to do it. I will as well. And I will not be buying any more most likely (or will buy the 13's and 14's till gone). But I can see where they are getting the price.

  24. #24
    Les Paul Forum Member emg32's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    461

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by renderit View Post
    Bad wording on my part. The difference in finish is huge IMO. Gibson's prior finishes were worse in a lot of cases than much cheaper guitars. I bemoaned the very thing in previous posts. You found orange peel in many places and incomplete "buffing" or sanding or whatever on most of the guitar if you look close. They say the new ones are hand sanded. I find no orange peel on mine. I can on every 13 and 14 I have ever seen and own.

    This takes a LOT of time. You can do it in this country and pay out the wazoo for it, or run it through a country with cheap labor and have a perfectly smooth finish. You call it miniscule. After building a number of guitars and refinishing more than a few I can say it is not. We can agree to disagree.

    As to your saying you can see allowing them 300-400 more for the guitar, how decent of you. You have every right to vote with your wallet, and I encourage you to do it. I will as well. And I will not be buying any more most likely (or will buy the 13's and 14's till gone). But I can see where they are getting the price.
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. IMO what Gibson changed for 2015 is no way worth those huge price increases. A 53% jump in R8 prices and a 37% jump in R9 prices is HUGE for one year of slight cosmetic changes.

    They may be taking slightly more time to do the hand sanding but at the same time they are cutting out the buffing and VOS application stages. Of course Gibson wants consumers to think differently. They obviously aren't going to say otherwise. The TH's I have seen are not a perfectly smooth finish like a HM or DJ. The nitro seems to be the same as previous years, just slightly thinner. Less product applied saves money also.

    Also the way they are doing the hand wet sanding leaves the spider web effect in the finish since after the hand sanding they are not buffing those scratches out.

    Opinions are opinions. Everyone's may be different but Gibsons constant huge price increases are not just because they are USA made versus a country with cheaper labor. It's more about cutting labor cost while increasing prices and profits. That is how businesses work. Of course if they take it to far then the consumers will get to a enough is enough point and go elsewhere. Look at the aged guitars. A very lightly aged TH9 is $11,099. $2,500 more than a regular TH9 for a few razor checks and dings.

  25. #25
    Les Paul Forum Member tdarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yorba Linda, CA
    Posts
    3,490

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    I wonder if the True Historics sound any better than the CS series.
    If I Told You All That Went Down It Would Burn Off Both Of Your Ears

  26. #26
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,132

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    I once had a guitar that cost 12k a 54 Les Paul conversion, I sounded the same as when I played my 500 dollar Les Paul faded.

    You will too.

    Certainly nobody but the rich and famous can spring 11k for a new guitar. But it is the Gibson way, and we all can thank ourselves for the price increase. We drink the kool aid, and they pour another glass for you, second glass is mo money.

    The idiot who came up with "true historic'' as the name of this line of LP's ought to be ashamed of themselves. It promotes the language controversy, of true, vs, historic, which obviously causes the loyal customer of past years to feel they were not buying a historically accurate guitar, which we know they weren't. It creates a feel of deception, and animosity towards Gibson, and they deserve it.
    Last edited by L.A.Man; 06-08-15 at 08:39 AM.

  27. #27
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    45

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Good morning everyone.


    I would like to ask two questions to you :

    1.) you think next year the historic line will be produced as before (before the true historic)?
    2.) True Historic prices will be kept in line in 2016 (even producing Historics not true)?


    Thank you.

  28. #28

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic



    for me it comes down to choosing between better wood or tighter specs.

    a 2015 historic with 2007 wood would be murder.

  29. #29
    Les Paul Forum Member tdarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yorba Linda, CA
    Posts
    3,490

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by ppgf View Post


    for me it comes down to choosing between better wood or tighter specs.

    a 2015 historic with 2007 wood would be murder.
    Agreed, but I think the 2007 wood would be the essential ingredient for me.
    If I Told You All That Went Down It Would Burn Off Both Of Your Ears

  30. #30
    Les Paul Forum Member GastonG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    1,281

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    and with "2007" brass thumbwheels

    The ABR-1 bridge sitting on brass thumbwheels = primary effect on the tone ! ("historically true" & "burstly" accurate!)

    Gaston
    Marshall & Les Paul or Bluesbreaker & Beano burst
    "sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble
    très bien ensemble" (as in "Michelle" by The Beatles)

  31. #31

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Funny, my 2014 R7 smokes my old 2007 R7. Not even close!!! Better neck finish work, better neck shape, better finish overall, tighter hardware, and WAY better tone!

  32. #32

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    you lost me with better.

    let's not get too far fetched here. the original issue bursts were one step above student level guitars and part of their charm resides in their imperfections, which the finest replica cats honour in their builds.
    Quote Originally Posted by rockabilly69 View Post
    Funny, my 2014 R7 smokes my old 2007 R7. Not even close!!! Better neck finish work, better neck shape, better finish overall, tighter hardware, and WAY better tone!

  33. #33

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by ppgf View Post
    you lost me with better.

    let's not get too far fetched here. the original issue bursts were one step above student level guitars and part of their charm resides in their imperfections, which the finest replica cats honour in their builds.
    Well then let me elaborate. No matter what neck pickup I put into the old R7 the tone was mud, and before you ask I tried numerous pot and caps in it. Also their were dead spots on the neck of the guitar that no amount of fret dressing, nut cuttings and bridge adjustments could fix. When I say one guitar sounded way better I meant it, with NO exaggeration. The first time I played my 2014 I felt something good going on, and with a few turns of a screwdriver I had it setup and sounding GREAT! I have no need to swap any parts, and I love the shape of the neck, whereas the neck on my other R7 was a baseball bat!!! When I hear people rave about 2007 wood I just think they just happened to get a nice plank with the roll of the dice like any year. I have a 2006 R0 which I happen to love too, but the R7, a dud. I traded it into Guitar Center and laughed all the way home! Oh wait, I forgot to mention that there were file marks all over the binding of that R7, man was that guitar a doozy!

    The 2014 Goldtop just plays and sounds the way I personally want a Les Paul to sound, I could never get comfortable with the old R7...

    Here is the 2014 Goldtop a few days after I got it... https://soundcloud.com/daniel-weldon-1/angel
    Last edited by rockabilly69; 06-08-15 at 05:45 PM.

  34. #34

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    as I said, you lost me with better.
    Quote Originally Posted by rockabilly69 View Post
    Well then let me elaborate. No matter what neck pickup I put into the old R7 the tone was mud, and before you ask I tried numerous pot and caps in it. Also their were dead spots on the neck of the guitar that no amount of fret dressing, nut cuttings and bridge adjustments could fix. And I don't need a lesson in burst history, I'm 57 years old, I've been playing guitar for pretty much my whole life, have made my fulltime living at it for the last 15 years, and have played many great vintage examples of Gibson guitars. When I say one guitar sounded way better I meant it, with NO exaggeration. The first time I played my 2014 I felt something good going on, and with a few turns of a screwdriver I had it setup and sounding GREAT! I have no need to swap any parts, and I love the shape of the neck, whereas the neck on my other R7 was a baseball bat!!! When I hear people rave about 2007 wood I just think they just happened to get a nice plank with the roll of the dice like any year. I have a 2006 R0 which I happen to love too, but the R7, a dud. I traded it into Guitar Center and laughed all the way home! Oh wait, I forgot to mention that there were file marks all over the binding of that R7, man was that guitar a doozy!

  35. #35

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by ppgf View Post
    as I said, you lost me with better.
    Sorry my explantion did nothing to clear that up

  36. #36

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    better is way too subjective for me. i am certain that we have entirely different aesthetics and approaches to the instrument. my default setting might be cumbersome and awkward for you.

    also? re read my initial post. i was touting 2007 lumber and/with 2014 specs.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockabilly69 View Post
    Sorry my explantion did nothing to clear that up

  37. #37

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by ppgf View Post
    better is way too subjective for me. i am certain that we have entirely different aesthetics and approaches to the instrument. my default setting might be cumbersome and awkward for you.

    also? re read my initial post. i was touting 2007 lumber and/with 2014 specs.
    I realize that, and I feel that the wood on my newer R7 is lighter (8.1lbs) yet more resonant, whereas the other one at just under 9lbs was heavier and didn't vibrate like the newer one. And I got a nice straight grained stiff neck on the 2014.

    But the word "better" for me refers to what sounds better to my ears, and what works better in getting the tone that I want.

    As for our default settings, there's no question about that we probably each have a starting point, or better reference point, that we shoot for in evaluating an instrument. I've listened to some of your stuff, and respect your musicality, so it's obvious that you know what you like and how to get the best from it.

    I've said this many times before, there's many way's to skin a cat!

  38. #38

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    👍
    Quote Originally Posted by rockabilly69 View Post

    I've said this many times before, there's many way's to skin a cat!

  39. #39
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    171

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    So which CC's are being built as True Historics now? Since I bought my Goldie thinking it was a true historic replica of a true historic original, I am left to wonder what I didnt get for my many thousands? Will the CS be offering us CC owners upgraded parts etc to bring our faux True Collectors Choice Historics up to True historic status? Truly Hystorical..

  40. #40
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,132

    Re: Historic vs. True Historic

    Quote Originally Posted by Melodyman View Post
    So which CC's are being built as True Historics now? Since I bought my Goldie thinking it was a true historic replica of a true historic original, I am left to wonder what I didnt get for my many thousands? Will the CS be offering us CC owners upgraded parts etc to bring our faux True Collectors Choice Historics up to True historic status? Truly Hystorical..
    SEIZE HIM!!!!! he is a non believer.

    What you got for your thousands was a nice poke in the bum, and a wait till next time. Still Goldies are pretty cool so I digress.

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!






i