Historic vs. True Historic

montesada · Jun 5, 2015

http://www.themusiczoo.com/blog/2015/the-gibson-59-true-historic-les-paul-comparison/

Soulweb · Jun 6, 2015

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.

herb · Jun 6, 2015

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.

gtr475 · Jun 6, 2015

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.

emg32 · Jun 6, 2015

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.

shred · Jun 6, 2015

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 $$$

le

My 2 cents :2cool

flameburst · Jun 6, 2015

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

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.

shred · Jun 6, 2015

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 :headbange

IMO anyway... YMMV :2cool

goldtop0 · Jun 7, 2015

shred said:
... Monster tops will always rule regardless of spec :headbange

IMO anyway... YMMV :2cool

Sad but true:lol

Ace139 · Jun 7, 2015

Does the hyde glue make any difference? Thats the only thing I really see as a change from '14 that might effect tone.

KennyY · Jun 7, 2015

emg32 said:
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.

goldtop0 · Jun 7, 2015

Ace139 said:
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:dang however HM has the solution:2cool

renderit · Jun 7, 2015

emg32 said:
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.

Ace139 said:
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)!

Zinc Alloy · Jun 7, 2015

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

renderit · Jun 7, 2015

Zinc Alloy said:
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!

sidekick · Jun 7, 2015

Zinc Alloy said:
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 ... :hmm

Not according to this ... ☛ .... http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/s...Create-Burst-tone/page3&highlight=Max+Baranet

jimmi · Jun 7, 2015

renderit said:
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.

Ace139 · Jun 7, 2015

So two points

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

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

:hee

emg32 · Jun 7, 2015

renderit said:
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.

Cliff Gress · Jun 7, 2015

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

Historic vs. True Historic

Member

Active member

Active member

New member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Well-known member